Elizabeth Brady Rd Extension

F I`/~
E~ Q 5
zovs
R
'~ H - W
~ - ~ _ _
~ ~,: -~
®~,.~,~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NOV ~ ~ ZG06
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Regional SOffice
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 31, 2006
Memorandum
To: Mr. Clrfis ilitscher, EPA
Ms. ar J rdan, US F&WS
Ms. rav' Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Sue omewood, DENR-DWQ
Mr. Fe x Davila, PE, FHWA
Mr T dd Tugwell, ACOE
Mr. elix Davila, FHWA
Fro incent J. Rhea, PE
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Subject Hillsborough, Elizabeth Brady Road Extension, from south of US 70 Business
to north US 70 Bypass at SR 1002 (Saint Mary's Road), Orange County, Federal-Aid
Project No. STP-0711 (1), State Project No. 8.2501901, TIP Project No. U-3808
A copy of the revised Executive Summary of the revised final Natural Resources
Technical Report for the subject project is attached for your files. The final NRTR and
summary reflects revisions and additions made in response to topics discussed on May
15, 2006 with the NCDOT Natural Environment Unit.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] ext. 261.
VJR/vjr
Attachment
Cc: Reggie Scales, Parsons Brinkerhoff
files
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

~ st
i
` .} x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
ELIZABETH BRADY ROAD EXTENSION (U-3808)
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
State Project No. 8.2501901
Federal Aid No. STP- 0711 (1)
Prepared f~ar_
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
May 2006

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to provide a bypass of Hillsborough
between NC Highway 86 (NC 86)/US 70 Business (US 70) and US 70 Bypass, in the vicinity of
Elizabeth Brady Road in Orange County, NC (Figure 1).
INTRODUCTION
The project region is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. Land
use within the project region is characterized by residential and urban development, forest land
(including Eno River State Park), and agriculture. The project study area is located in a
moderately developed area southeast of the City of Hillsborough and is dominated by
maintained right-of-ways, residential. and commercial development, and disturbed plant
communities. Elevations range-from a low of 500 feet above sea level along the Eno River to a
high of 767 feet at Occoneechee Mountain near the western boundary of the project study area.
No soils present within the project study area are classified as hydric in Orange County.
Three alternative corridors are under study (Alternates 3, 4, and 6). Each alternative is oriented
on an approximately north-south axis (Figure 2).
Alternate 3 extends from a southern terminus on NC 86, approximately 600 feet north of the
intersection with NC 85, in anorth-northeastward direction across a former automobile race
track, the Eno River, Highland Loop Road, and US 70 Bypass (Figure 1). The northern
terminus of Alternate 3 occurs on St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) at a point approximately 1440 feet
northeast of the intersection of St. Mary's Road and US 70 Bypass (Figure 1).
Alternate 4 utilizes a southern section shared with Alternate 6, a northern section shared with
Alternate 3, and an exclusive middle section. Alternate 4 breaks from the Alternate 6 corridor
along the Eno River floodplain slope at a point approximately midway between US 70 and US
70 Bypass (Figure 1). This alternate extends northwestward across the Eno River, through a
residential portion of Hillsborough to a junction with Alternate 3 approximately 600 feet south of
the Alternate 3 crossing of US 70 Bypass (Figure 1).
Alternate 6 extends from a southern terminus on NC 86, approximately 600 feet north of the
intersection with NC 85, and extends in a northeastward direction across US 70, along the
southern slope of the Eno River floodplain, and along US 70 Bypass (Figure 1). The northern
terminus of Alternate 6 occurs on US 70 Bypass approximately 1700 feet west of the
intersection with St. Mary's Road (Figure 1).
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The project study area is located within the sub basin 03-04-01 of the Neuse River Basin. This
area is part of the USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020201 or the South Atlantic/ Gulf Region. The Eno
River (DWQ Index No. 27-2-(7)) (NCDWQ 2004) is the largest named stream within the project

study area. The Eno River enters the project vicinity from the west, and meanders southward
and then northward before exiting the project vicinity to the east. Cates Creek (NCDWQ Index
No. 27-2-8) (NCDWQ 2004) is the only named tributary of the Eno River within the project study
area. Cates Creek flows north from its source and crosses the western portion of the project
study area before discharging into the Eno River.
The Eno River (from Lake Ben Johnston to SR 1561) and Cates Creek have a water quality
best usage classification of C, NSW. No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), Water Supply II (WS-II) waters, or watershed
Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Biotic Resources
The study corridor is located in a region of developing residential and industrial land use. Five
broad classifications of plant communities are recognized: 1) pine uplands, 2) Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest, 3) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype), 4) Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest, and 5) urban/disturbed land.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Within the project study area, 25 streams are considered to be jurisdictional surface waters.
The project study area also contains four jurisdictional wetland areas. The characteristics of
these streams and wetlands occurring within the project study area are summarized in Table 1.
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers for the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0232) provides a designation for
uses that- cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B
.0233). The Neuse River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers (measured
perpendicular to the stream) directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin.
Designated surface waters are indicated on USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps and county soil
surveys.. Within the project area, 2S2, 3S1, 4S1, 5S2, 6S1, 7S1, 9S1A/B, 10S1, 11S1, 11S2,
12S1, 13S1, 14S1, 14S2, 15S1, and 16S1 are subject to the Neuse River Basin Rules (Figure
2).
Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the jurisdictional area and riparian buffer impacts for each
alternative. Anticipated impacts resulting from this projec# are presented with respect to cut-fill
limits.
Permits
Due to the inclusion of multiple streams and wetlands within project alternatives, permits will be
required for encroachment into these jurisdictional areas. On linear highway projects, each
wetland/stream system crossing may be considered a "single and complete" project for
permitting purposes. Consideration should be given to the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14
(Linear Transportation Projects); which allows a filled area of no more than 0.5 acre of waters of

the United States. Since each crossing can be considered a "single and complete" project, it is
possible to have multiple NWP 14s along the proposed highway alignment, assuming that the
combined adverse effects are minimal. Another possibility is the use of USACE General Permit
(GP) 031 that authorizes jurisdictional area impacts associated with NCDOT bridge projects.
The USACE may also exert discretionary authority and require an Individual Permit if avoidance
and minimization have not been adequately addressed, if appropriate mitigation is inadequate,
or if the combined impacts of all crossings are not considered to be minimal. Section 401 of the
CWA requires each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be violated for
activities which 1) involve issuance of a federal permit or license, or 2) require discharges to
waters of the United States. The USACE cannot issue a Section 404 permit until 401 water
quality certification is issued by NCDWQ. Therefore, NCDOT must apply fora 401 water quality
certification as part of the permit process. Each "single and complete" project will require
notification to NCDWQ for general certification. NCDWQ has made available a General 401
Water Quality Certification for NWP 14 and GP 031 (GC 3404).
Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed
(P) 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).
Five federally protected species are listed as Endangered for Orange County as of May 22,
2006: Bald eagle, Red-cockaded woodpecker, dwarf wedgemussel, Michaux's sumac, and
smooth coneflower.
Bald eagle:
Suitable habitat for bald eagle does not exist within the project study area. NCNHP records
(reviewed June 3, 2005) document no occurrence of bald eagle within 2.0 miles of the project
study area. No bald eagles were observed during field investigations. Based on NCNHP
records and field observations, there will be No Effect on bald eagle as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Red-cockaded woodpecker:
Suitable breeding habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker is discounted in the project study area
due to the absence of mature pine forests. Pine forest within the project study area provides
only minimal foraging habitat. NCNHP records (reviewed June 3, 2005) document no
occurrence of red-cockaded woodpecker within 2.0 miles of the project study area. No red-
cockaded woodpeckers were observed during field investigations. Based on NCNHP records
and field observations, there will be No Effect on red-cockaded woodpecker as a result of this
project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

Dwarf wedgemussel:
NCDOT biologists conducted a habitat assessment on November. 9, 2005. Suitable habitat for
dwarf wedgemussel was found to exist within the Eno River and Cates Creek, with the
exception of 13S1 and 14S1. No mussels were found during the habitat assessment.
Additionally, NCNHP records (reviewed June, 3 2005) document no occurrence of dwarf wedge
mussel within 2.0 miles of the project study area. Therefore, this project is not likely to affect
this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION MAY EFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY EFFECT
Michaux's sumac:
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac does occur within the project study area in the form of
disturbed areas along roadsides and developed areas. NCNHP records (reviewed June 3,
2005) document no occurrence of Michaux's sumac within 2.0 miles of the project study area. A
systematic plant-by-plant survey was conducted within suitable habitat by EcoScience
Corporation biologists in early May 2005. This survey determined that no individuals of
Michaux's sumac occur within the project study area; subsequently, the proposed project will
have No Effect on Michaux's sumac. However, because this species is likely to migrate if new
habitat is created due to clearing, an additional survey will be needed prior to LET.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Smooth coneflower:
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower does exist within the project study area in the form of
disturbed areas along roadsides. NCNHP records (reviewed June 3, 2005) document no
occurrence of smooth coneflower within 2.0 miles of the project study area. A systematic plant-
by-plant survey was conducted within suitable habitat by EcoScience Corporation biologists in
early May 2005. This survey determined that no individuals of smooth coneflower occur within
the project study area; subsequently, the proposed project will have No Effect on smooth
coneflower. However, because this species is likely to migrate if new habitat is created due to
clearing, an additional survey will be needed prior to LET.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
CONCLUSIONS
No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water
Supply I (WS-1), Water Supply II (WS-II) waters, or watershed Critical Areas (CA) occur within
1.0 mile of the project study area.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 have impacts to surface waters. Alternatives 4 and 6 have impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands. Overall, Alternate 3 contains the least amount of jurisdictional area
impacts with the shortest linear distance of streams. Alternate 3 also contains the shortest
linear distance and area of riparian buffer impacts. Section 404 permits likely to be required for
this project study area include Section 404 NWP 14 or GP 031, in addition to the corresponding
Section 401 Water Quality Certifications.
No federally protected species are projected to be impacted by this project.

Table 1: Streams and Wetlands within Project Studv Area Alternatives

stem

escri tion'

Cowardin
Classification"`

ubstrate Average
Stream
width
feet USACE
Stream
Quality
Score NCDWQ
Stream
Identification
Score USACE
Stream
Importance
Desi nation
DEM
Wetland
Ratin
1W1 Wetland IS PFO1F N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 54
2S1 UT Eno River I R4S64 silUsand/ ravel 1 39 18.5 Unim ortant N/A
2S2 UT Eno River I R4SB4 silUsand/ ravel 4 27 21 Im ortant N/A
2W1 Wetland R PSS1E N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18

3S1
Eno River P
R3U61 silUsand/
ravel/boulder
50
55
39.5
Im ortant
N/A
4S1 Cates Creek P R2UB1/2 sand/ ravel/cobble 10 78 34 Im ortant N/A
5S1 UT Cates Creek I R4S63/4 silUsand/ ravel 3 61 22 Unim ortant N/A
5S2 UT Cates Creek P R2U61 ravel/cobble 6 55 19 Im ortant N/A

6S1
Eno River P
R3UB1 silUsand/
ravel/boulder
50
55
39.5
Im ortant
NIA
6W1 Wetland R PFO1F N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25
7S1 UT Eno River P R2U61/2 silUsand/ ravel 6 90 27 Im ortant N/A
7S2 UT Eno River I R4S63/4 silUsand/ ravel 2 66 14 Im ortant N/A
7S3 UT Eno River P R2UB1/2 silUsand/ ravel 6 90 25 Im ortant N/A
7W1 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A 11

8S1
UT Cates Creek I
R4SB3/4 silUsand/
ravel/cobble
3
74
18.5
Im ortant
N/A
9S1A UT Cates Creek P R2U62 silUsand 6 55 27 Im ortant N/A
9S16 UT Cates Creek P R2UB2 silUsand 6 55 27 Im ortant N/A
9S2 UT Cates Creek I R4SB3/4 silUsand/ ravel 6 63 25.5 Im ortant N/A
10S1 UT Cates Creek I R4S64 sand/ ravel 5 22 26 Unim ortant N/A
11S1 UT Eno River I R4SB3 ravel/cobble/boulder 6 70 25.5 Im ortant N/A
11S2 UT Eno River I R4S64 silUsand 3 40 18.5 Unim ortant N/A
'12S1 UT Eno River I R4S63 ravel/cobble/boulder 3 65 24 Unim ortant N/A
13S1 Cates Creek P R2UB1/2 sand/ ravel/cobble 10 66 37 Im ortant N/A
1352 UT Cates Creek P R2U62 silUsand 4 57 32.5 Im ortant N/A
13S3 UT Cates Creek I R4S84 sand/ ravel 2 30 20 Unim ortant N/A
13W1 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 42
13W2 Wetland R PFO1 E N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 42

14S1
Eno River P
R3U61 silUsand/
ravel/boulder
50
55
39.5
Im ortant
N/A
14S2 UT Eno River P R2UB1/2 sand/ ravel/cobble 5 66 31.5 Unim ortant N/A
14W1 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15
15S1 UT Eno River I R4SB4 silUsand 4 66 26.5 Unim ortant N/A
15W1 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA 19
15W2 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23
16S1 UT Eno River I R4SB4 silUsand 3 59 25 Unim ortant N/A
16W1 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A N/A N!A N/A 25
16W2 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A N!A N/A N/A 25
'UT =Unnamed Tributary; P =Perennial stream; I =Intermittent stream, R= Riverine Wetland; 15= Isolated Wetland
"Cowardin et al. (1979)

Table 2: Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Alternate 3 Alternate 4 Alternate 6

System
Description*` Linear
Distance
feet
Area
acres
Linear Distance
feet
Area
acres
Linear Distance
feet
Area
acres
1W1 Wetland IS -- -- -- __ __ __
2S1 UT Eno River I -- -- -- __ __ __
2S2' UT Eno River I 148 0.01 159 0.01 -- --
2W1 Wetland R -- -- -- __ __ __
3S1' Eno River P -- -- -- __ __ _
4S1' Cates Creek P -- -- -- __ __ __
5S1 UT Cates Cr. I 97 <0.01 -- -- -- --
5S2' UT Cates Cr. P -- -- -- __ __ __
6S1' Eno River P - - -- __ __ __
6W1 Wetland R -- -- -- __ __ __
7S1' UT Eno River P -- -- 202 0.03 470 0.06
7S2 UT Eno River I -- -- -- -- 52 0.01
7S3 UT Eno River P -- -- -- __ __ __
7W1 Wetland R -- -- -- 0.02 -- 0.02
8S1 UT Cates Cr. I -- -- 219 0.02 236 0.02
9S1A' UT Cates Cr. P 65 <0.01 109 0.01 109 0.01
9S1 B' UT Cates Cr. P -- - 209 0.03 209 0.03
9S2 UT Cates Cr. I - -- 271 0.04 265 0.04
10S1' UT Cates Cr. I - -- -- __ __ __
11S1" UT Eno River I -- -- -- - 576 0.08
11S2` UT Eno River I 20 <0.01
12S1' UT Eno River I -- -- __ __ __ __
13S1' Cates Creek P 124 0.03 124 0.03 124 0.03
13S2 UT Cates Cr. P -- -- __ __ __ __
13S3 UT Cates Cr. I -- -- -- __ __ __
13W1 Wetland R -- -- __ __ __ __
13W2 Wetland R - -- -- __ __ __
14S1' Eno River P -- -- __ _ _ __
14S2' UT Eno River P -- -- -- -- 304 0.02
14W1 Wetland R -- - __ __ __ _
15S1' UT Eno River I - -- -- -- 125 <0.01
15W1 Wetland R - - __ __ _ __
15W2 Wetland R -- -- -- - -- 0.03
16S1' UT Eno River I - -- -- -- 36 <0.01
16W1 Wetland R -- -- - __ __ _
16W2 Wetland R -- -- -- __ __ __
'Subject to Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules
"UT=Unnamed Tributary; P =Perennial Stream; I =Intermittent Stream; R=Riverine Wetland; IS=Isolated Wetland

Table 3: Anticipated Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas and Riparian Buffers*
Alternate 3 Alternate 4 Alternate 6
Number 0 1 2
Riverine Wetlands ,area 0 0.02 0.05
Number 0 0 0
Isolated Wetlands Area 0 0 0
Number 2 4 5
Linear Distance 189 644 1216
Perennial Streams Area 0.04 0.1 0.15
Number 2 3 7
Linear Distance 245 649 1310
Intermittent Streams ,area 0.02 0.07 0.18
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2
Linear Distance 1316 1425 2641 2598 4801 3602
Riparian Buffers Area 0.74 0.62 1.7 1.1 3.0 1.4
'Area is expressed in acres; linear distance is expressed in feet

~' ' ~~ ~ Le end
'' ~ -. ~. 4., ~ Project Study Area
_. - T
~~
r •4 ~s ~ `. - ti's ~ iso.
t
n . ~ f:
~ '' _
~;:.- f t -
r
` ``~^ ~ - St. Mary's Road
~ _ ,~ . ,
.~.: ~ .~ f -~..3 - - -
' ~ ' H~e~ri f 11 ~ '
- '
..
j~ ~~ Highland Loop Roa ~ ,;~t°~t~ _ _
'y l
'~
^.
~ ~`,.:~ Hillsborough .~~ . ~~ ,~~h,.~ ~ ~«.. ~ Riverside Drive
F~'-~ ~.~ r i $";-.i a' '~~ '' aHtllsbol~out~h if- '~'``f "M nnta ~~ t
S 1~i. 5" _~ ~i i
.~- ~ ~ ~., -~~. - -~. : ~l ~ ~ U S 70 B a s s
., r .
.~
. ,.
., Y _
~ i
,..
'D
, ~
_ ~.
Elizabeth Brady Roa
Ywt C
- r
i i ~ ~:
y s%~ Yh1
. t' - -. PC ~ sank try. L
~. ,
o ~.~
~" , _. - t
Interstate 85
~a ~~•
~ o ~r ~ u..:. - ~ #'
C __ -w _. P: -1
. K
~ h .;
} ~ .
- ~ - NC 86 r;. ~.~
,.
..
-_ ..
..
a.
- 4C ~.
, _ C /~ ` . .
..
.. .. -.,
• •i
.. •.,
r
• ~.:_ -
..
,. ,' ~ -
.. - -i: .~ .,-. -
0.5 ~p-~ 0,5 ~ 1 ~ ~'=5 ~ `.2 Niles f :. -
y: :`
Drawn by: MG FIGURE
Site Vicinity Map Checked by: SD
EcoScience Date:
--_ ~ Corporation Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Dec 2006
04-197 TIP U-3808 Project:
Raleigh, North Carolina
04-197

SYSTEM 13
~~-.~ 13rr2
13$1
~` ~13Mf1~
t, _~~' ~tJ"'°°`~ "!~/~1~$2 X51
ssl
~ ~^`~ SYSTEM S^ ~ 4 1 SYSTEM 4
952
~~ ~'a.;.. SYSTEM 9 ~ 752
f` y5u--~+~, ~ ~`°'~. 851 :``.
~"' SYSTEM 10 1 ~
!` l 9518, ~ SYSTEM
`-~ q51 ~,
t
~r , ,
.., ~,_ __. _. _ ~,w~ ~ ~~.
. ~ ~ M . ~ ~. w,, ~, '
751--.~~~
LEGEND
PROJECT STUOY AREA
_..w....~.._... ALTERNATE 3 CENTER LINE
n - _ - - ° ALTERNATE 4 CENTER LINE
- ^ - ~ - ° ALTERNATE 6 CENTER LINE
JURISDICTIONAL SYSTEMS
JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS
E~ r~:r~,rt?,~rry~ p,tE~'°+sr~~' o SUBJECT TO NEUSE RIVER
'~' ' , ~ BASIN RIPARIAN BUFFER
JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS
~ NOT SUBJECT TO
NEUSE RIVER BASIN
! RIPARIAN BUFFER
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
'~,,~ sYsTEM 3 •~ DESIGNATION EXAMPLES
"^~ ,_ , ~ 351
~, ~ 2tl f~ 1W1 • SYSTEM 1, WETLAND 1
~.
° ~.,~~ 25t ~' iSl • SYSTEM 1, STREAM 1
~'` 1 ~
nrt--~4 651 ,,,.'`~ SYSTEM 2 ` ~ ~
SYSTEM 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'`~, ~
752 ~ ``, ~ - ~
753 1 ,~- .~. ~.... ..- '~ 252- ~.
,~ 1 ~.
N-0 B3
800 0 800
^~
SCALE IN FEET
/' i SYSTEM 6 ~
! , !•'
~`° til-,
6N1 ~^' IISQATEOI
1751- ~"~ SYSTEM i
~'~
~~ ~~.~° r- .-o~n
~ , 17w2
'` ~•° SYSTEM 15
'`+ SYSTEM t2 r~~" ~ °"
f ~,
SYSTEM 14
'~ ~ N51
' ` 161 ~~
t°
fidt ~ e tR'Y*~ hq,,I's2ts4it @ Projed~
SYSTEM 11 ELIZA
161
't
~" `.162
16x2-~
16M1'-` ~ 165-
` Eco
SYSTEM 16 • ~ (`„„.

NEPA / 404 MERGER TEAM, CONCURRENCE POINT 2a
(Review of Major Hydrologic Structures)
MEETING MINUTES
Elizabeth Brady Road (U-3808)
Federal Project Number: STP-0711(1) /State Project Number: 8.2501901
Introduction
On October 17, 2005, the NEPA/404 Merger Team met in the NCDOT Board Conference Room
to discuss and reach concurrence on the proposed major structures required for stream
crossings for the proposed project. As noted in the following discussion, a field review meeting
was requested by the Merger Team members. The field review was held on January 18, 2006.
These minutes summarize the results of both meetings.
Merger 2A Meeting
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Vincent Rhea, NCDOT Project Engineer at 9:05am.
Following introductions, asign-in sheet was distributed. A copy of the sign-in sheet is attached.
After introductions, the meeting was turned over to Mr. Douglas Smith, the consultant Project
Manager, to describe the proposed major structures. Mr. Smith noted a revised project
information package had been distributed. Revisions are summarized as follows:
1. The bridge length for the new crossing of the Eno River at stream 6S1 has been corrected
(see Table 1, page 2, and the Wetlands and Stream figure, page 7).
2. Stream 7S1 was removed from Table 1 (page 2) as a major stream crossing. The culvert
information that had been included in the original package was incorrect.,This crossing will
not require a large culvert or bridge.
3. The structure type for stream 13S1 (see Table 1, page 2, and the Wetland and Stream
Figure, page 7) has been changed. The change was based upon a revised hydraulic
analysis of the stream crossing that showed adouble-barrel box culvert could adequately
handle the flow.
4. Anew table, Table 4 (page 5), has been added. This table provides the stream mitigation
requirements based upon the Corps' field visit.
5. The notes at the end of Table 5 (page 6) have been updated to include information showing
only the Eno River and Cates Creek have suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel.
6. Table 6 (page 6) has been updated to identify the number of hazardous waste sites directly
impacted by the alignments.
7. Photographs of existing structures on US 70 Business and US 70 Bypass (Eno River) have
been added to the Information Package. The photographs begin on page 11.
Mr. Smith then provided an overview of the project to date, highlighting the 2000 NCDOT
Scoping meeting, 2001 Merger Team meeting for Purpose and Need (Concurrence Point 1),
and the 2004 Merger Team Meeting for Alternatives (Concurrence Point 2). At the Concurrence
Point 2 meeting, three build alternatives were selected for detailed study in the DEIS,
Alternatives 3, 4, and 6. The location of each Alternative was shown in the Project Information
Package and on display boards.

Descriptions of Major Stream Crossings
There are seven stream crossing requiring major structures. The structures would be either a
large culvert or bridge. Each Alternative has at least four major stream crossings, some of
which are common to all alternatives. After explaining the stream designations, Mr. Smith
described each stream crossing, the type of structure currently over the stream, if any, and the
proposed structure(s). Table 1 of these Meeting Minutes is from the Project Information
Package and was used as a reference during the discussion.
After describing each crossing, the Merger Team then discussed the crossings individually and
reached concurrence on each structure.
Discussion of Structure
3S1 New Crossing of the Eno River, Alternative 3
There were few questions regarding this structure. Travis Wilson asked about the length of the
bridge and if it spanned the floodplain. It was noted that all of the structures were designed to
span the floodway and the Eno River crossings would have some fill within the floodplain. Mr.
Jerry Snead, NCDOT Hydraulics Unit, indicated that the crossing for Alternative 3 (3S1) was at
a location where the floodplain and floodway were very similar in size. Concurrence was
reached on the structure as proposed.
4S1 New Crossing of Cates Creek, Alternative 3
The discussion of this structure was done in context of the discussions of the structure over
Cates Creek at 13S1. Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC, asked what type of structure was located at
existing Elizabeth Brady Road over Cates Creek. It was indicated that the structure was a
culvert. Travis Wilson asked if the existing culvert on Elizabeth Brady could be removed if
Alternative 3 were to be constructed. NCDOT indicated that it would be removed. Concurrence
was reached on the structure as proposed.
6S1 New Crossing of the Eno River, Alternative 4
Mr. Wilson asked about the width of the floodplain at this location. Jerry Snead indicated that
the floodplain was approximately 500 feet wide at that location. Mr. Wilson expressed concern
that approximately 40 percent of the floodplain width would have fill. Mr. Felix Davila, FHWA,
asked about size of the bridge and if it was spanning the floodway. Mr. Smith and Mr. Snead
indicated that all of the bridge structures were designed to span the floodway. Mr. Wilson
indicated that he was uncomfortable concurring on the bridge length without being able to go
into the field to look at the site. Mr. Wilson expressed concern about filling the flood fringe was the
potential adverse impact to wildlife habitat, which could result from blocking that amount of the
floodplain. There was general consensus that a field review of the crossing should be made
before finalizing the length of the structure.
The Merger Team concurred that a bridge would be recommended for this crossing with a length
ranging between a minimum of 310 feet (as recommended in the revised concurrence meeting
information package) to a maximum of 500 feet (based on the spanning the entire floodplain).
NCDOT agreed to contact the Merger Team members to schedule a date for the field review.
2

Table 1. Proposed Major Stream Crossings
w
Existing Structure Type of Required Structure
Stream L
th 8
~
Desi
nation Stream Name
Length eng
~
f
t
Width Cost
g Type Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6 (
ee
)
(feet)
3S1 Eno River None - New Bridge - - 850 x 76 $5,491,000
4S1 Cates Creek None - New Bridge - - 130 x 80 $884,000
6S1 Eno River None - - New Bridge - 500 x 87 $3,697,500

9S1a UT Cates Creek 7' x 6' Box
70 8' x 8' Single-Barrel 8' x 8' Single-Barrel 8' x 8' Single-Barrel
200 x 8
$140
080
(existing crossing) Culvert Box Culvert Box Culvert Box Culvert ,
9S1b UT Cates Creek (new None - _ New 8' x 8' Single- New 8' x 8' Single- 190 x 82 $133,1002
alignment) Barrel Culvert Barret Culvert 170 x 83 $119,1003
Double-
13S1 Cates Creek Barrel 10' x
' 50 Double-Barrel 12' x Double-Barrel 12' x Double-Bartel 12' x 8 24 x 110 $154
000
6
Box 8 Box Culvert 8 Box Culvert Box Culvert ,
Culvert
5-Span Replace Existing
14S1 Eno River Bridge 237.5 - - Bridge with New 240 x 96 $1,958,400
Bridges
'See the Wetlands and Streams Figure on page 8.
ZDimensions and cost for Alternative 4
3Dimensions and cost for Alternative 6
UT =Unnamed Tributary

Following the Merger Team meeting, a field review meeting was scheduled for January 18, 2006, to
determine the proposed bridge length recommendation.
New information since the Concurrence Point 2A Meeting and Revised Bridge Recommendation:
New information pertinent to this site (of which the Hydraulics Unit was unaware of at the November
17, 2005 meeting) has been identified. A preliminary flood insurance study was produced by FEMA,
dated April 28, 2005. The study includes a revised detailed study of. Cates Creek from the
confluence with Eno River to approximately one mile upstream of US Highway 40. This study is
available on the www.ncfloodmaps.com website. While this study is not yet effective, it is anticipated
that it will be effective by the time the project enters the final design stage.
The floodway has been redelineated in the vicinity of the confluence of Cates Creek and Eno
River, which is where the subject crossing is located. Based on a CADD overlay of the current
Alternative 4 alignment on the current and new floodplain mapping, the following changes were
observed:
The 100-year floodplain fringe at the location crossed by Alternative 4, as shown at the Merger
Team meeting and reviewed in the field, has been increased from 490 feet to 585 ft. The 100-
year floodway has been decreased from 290 feet to 140 feet (see attached figure). Based on
the new information, the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit recommends a 210 ft. bridge at this location
with a minimum low chord elevation of 500.0 feet NAVD (this length is based on a 50-foot
channel width, 100-foot riparian buffer, and 30 feet on each side for 2:1 spill-through slopes 15
feet high to get low chord of 500.0 ft. NAVD). The following figure illustrates the differenced
between the currently effective floodplain boundary map and the proposed boundary map. The
map was prepared by Mr. Jerry Snead, PE (NCDOT).
The new crossings of Eno River on (3S1) and Cates Creek (4S1) on Alternative 3 were also
reviewed, and the new floodplain and floodway delineation at those sites do not differ substantially
from that of the effective study, so no changes in bridge length recommendations are warranted. at
those locations.
9S1a -Replacement of an Existing Culvert on US 70 Business. all alternatives
It was explained that the road improvements would require a longer culvert. The existing culvert
could not be extended because it was undersized. NCDOT had considered lengthening the
existing culvert and constructing overflow culverts; however, it was determined that the current
culvert was structurally deficient and would require replacement in the near future. Concurrence
was reached on replacing the existing culvert.
9S1b -New Culvert. Alternatives 4 and 6
The culvert at 9S1b is a short distance downstream from 9S1a on the unnamed tributary to
Cates Creek. It was pointed out that because of a small difference in the alignments for
Alternatives 4 and 6; the required culvert length for Alterative 4 was longer than Alternative 6.
Concurrence was reached on the structure as proposed.

Figure is not to scale. Floodplain and floodway measurements shown in red (left of Alt 4) are taken from
the currently effective Floodway and Flood Boundary Map Panel 155 for Orange County (dated 3/16/81 -
depicted in green). The measurements shown in magenfa are taken from the preliminary FEMA flood
insurance DFIRM panel 9874, which is not yet effective and is based on a preliminary detailed flood
insurance study dated April 28, 2005. The red floodplain mapping is from the currently effective Town of
Hillsborough Floodway and Flood Boundary Map Panel 005 (dated 5/15/80). The crosshatched floodway
and blue-dotted floodplain fringe and aerial photography are from the DFIRM panel 9874, referenced
above.
13S1 -Replacement of an Existino Culvert on Cates Creek. all alternatives
The initial hydraulics studies determined that the existing culvert is undersized and US 70
Business is overtopped in a 50-year storm event. Abridge was recommended at this location
when it initially looked like a culvert would be too large to fit within the channel. However,
additional, more detailed hydraulic studies were conducted and it was determined that a double
12 x 8 culvert would be sufficiently sized to accommodate flood flows and would fit within the
channel. There was discussion of the channel characteristics at this location, the types of
structures upstream of US 70 Business, and the types of structures to be placed downstream.
Concurrence was reached on replacing the existing culvert with the proposed larger culvert.
14S1 -Replacement of Existing Bridge Over the Eno River, Alternative 6
It was pointed out that Alternative 6 would require widening US 70 Bypass between the junction
of the new road with US 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road. This would include replacing the
existing bridge. It was noted that the current bridge is structurally deficient and was placed in
the 2006 - 2012 TIP for replacement. The question was raised whether the new bridge would
5

ATTENDANCE LIST

r-- ~
~ 16 ~ ~ ~ S ~~~~ ~
-,~~.R,R~ ~ ~N~E,A~ ~~'f ~ cQra~~ic,'S °I I`~~ 25D -4c0o
a ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a~--~~
~haC~ ~wi-~c ~ N~.D~T - ~~~ 9/ l- 0?50 - yo/E,
i
G~ls-rve~~~. R. rn~~~TSc.,H~:~. Us~P6~ -~.®„~..`,)~, `~~y-gam,-4~~
.~, J
'~~~~ `' ~u,,;,u..
~,~~. -~ ~c.)t~v~c.~.~C,.xz-~' i~ ~- ~ ~? 33 tp ~ ~ ~ ~~ taco
,.
~c~~~ ~r~.~~4~ N C .~ ~(~ `~~~ ~ 133- s~(5
'1 ~N~ ~ tof F1So~.~ l Drso,~s ~~/'i.,.~i~e~" ~l T yG~~.2/,2 S f
_`
~~ha1{ __ _ NC~o %- _ GUbt~C ~v~e 7i~c _~ fit'-ZSd - y/~ ~
i~ ~X t~ ~n ~~°~u~ 1 82~ 3~
/"! ~lg ~ ~ ytC ~ 5 ~3
~~, w
f~~i~~-~~7~.t/i~.~-~c~ /~~ ~PG~n~~- ~t9-733-.2039
Scc,~ vVl ~ l~e,~,t,C~ av` U S~AC~~ ~ d - Z 51- '~`i SZ
Jt~c~-~Q ~ f;~ P fl~d3' ~f~- '1 ~~- iii ~-~-
,,. - . _ . .
G?Uq ACT N ~,-vY~N NL~u 1- ~ 1 ~~t~v~'~ Gl I ~ ~ S-U -- ~ ~ % J
~~ c~,~ ~, ~~~'+~-~, ~h end ~ Po e~ ~ Ik ~~' - 3~ ~~ ~ yl~-
_ ' ~ ~l` ~~t>..s~~~~. ~cc~t~~~'~ ~~Tu~ `~~~, X32„-~ggC~
,~~ T, ~r ' ~1 C. L ~~-t,. L ~ l T ~ ~ ~ T ~.-P ~-f~~/b f~~l ~t/t?it~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ L - ~ ~ ~,5~
( t.

C~ t ~ , y.--. ~ . ~a~ k t{ L . 1 t
~`"~"~~ 1 1~ 1""1{° t C- C,~b`l ~,~ ~`~,. ~ _.~ U ;~~~.~~~.~;` ~{ -; ~~< -~ ~ G ~.. (` i ~ `t ~ rl ~ 1. - ~'°1 `f
~aN~~~ ~~ ~o~, ~~NO 12~v die )4ssr~c. ~~~~SJ~ 3.811
t
.. _.. _ _ _
.. ~ s' . ..

r , ~ /~'1; ~ f t a ~~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ A_ ~_%~.~ /~ M %~ fir; .~~@ d a ~.. .
_. ~/'~..~ ly' ~ ~.$!.7' Y~--- ... ,.J '.1 /~`f./S/,~'~.~(j wr...2L~v. ~,.1~"~'i,
i
.. ~.~~-itjt,~ ~~ r ~~ ~r ~P~ i'ei71~~. q ~~i ll PQik~j~,0 /,~,~.1
J 11 ~r~~
~-5~`~ ~ r~l~, cue.. ~ c~~2 ~ ~~' c~ _ ~~h . i}''F~~~.. ~ ~tcz~ ~ t . ~~-t-- F
}
a 1~.~ ~w ~1 ~ _ t,GS/~G~ -t~~f . c~"~,L(~ c.:5c~c~ .a ~`n y. u~r ~'~
ct~~N ~ ~ ~ ~- c ~' c/v1~n. ~: ~at~~c-t ~1/~1 cls~ :~ty~ . /~:/ ;
~~1
:..
I
S
.F
{
_.
I

MERGER 2A CONCURRENCE FORM
12

~~
NEPA /404 Project Merger Team Meeting
Concurrence Point No. 2a -Bridge and Alignment Review
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Project No. TIP Number
8.2501901 U-3808
Major Stream Crossings
The Table 1 below identifies the major stream crossings for the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project,
the current stnlcture if applicable, and the proposed new structure. Following the table is a map
identifying the location of the stream crossings.
Table 1. Major Stream Crossing for the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension.
Stream Stream Type ofRequired Structure
Designation Name Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6~
3S1 Eno River 830' x 76' New Bridge
4S1 Cates
Creek 130' x 80' New Hridge -
6S 1 Eno River - New Bridge 310' - 500 x 87' ' -
9Sla UT Cates 8' x 8' x 200' Single-Barrel Box 8' x 8' x 200' Single•Danel Box 8' x 8' x 200' Single-Barrel Box
Creek Culvert Replacement Culvert Replacement Culvert Replacement
9Slb UT Cates - New 8' x 8' x l40' Single-Barrel New 8' x $' x 170' Single-Barrel
Creek Culvert Culvert
13S1 Cates 12' x 8' x 210' Double-Barrel l2' x 8' x 210' Double-Barrel 12' x 8' x 210' Double-Barrel
Creek Box Culvert Replacement Box Culvert Replacement Box Culvert Replacement
t4Sl Eno River - - 240' x 96' Bridge Replacement
lTvr alternative 4 the new bridge will be between 3l0 and 500 feet in length. Length to be determined in the field.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of November 17, 2005 with the proposed structures for the
Major Stream Crossings.
USACE
.'~,..- 1
USEPA ' '
NCDWQ
~~
FHWA ~-'-'~7'O
NCDOT~/
USFWS
NCWRC ~ i~7/ "~'
SHPO ~~~
DCHC MPO

Read
~t•Ma,~a t,:`:
Y,, `~'
4°~~ ~ •
~~
t~'~
S'~
m
~~`~~
~~ ~
~~sQ ~~
70
~~
~ ~~~
v~' ~ ~-
~~ ®SGceew ~ f
6,'~
\m ~ ~
W
~•
»~
® oa
Legend
~~~ Nternative 3 -Alignment and Right-of-Way
` Nternative 4 -Alignment and Right-of-Way Property Boundaries
- Nternative 6 -Alignment and Rightof-Way _--. JurisdicEonal Stream
St. Marys Road Realignment (Alternatives 3 and 4 only) _ "Wetlands
• ~< °= Pavement Removal (Alternatives 3 and 4 only) Flow Directlon
0 000 oa 2 o f e o.2a
Miles
• d Wetlands ~ Streams
~~
.r~ -_~ 9

Table 5. Summary Impacts by Alternative
Evaluation Category Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6
Length of Alternative 2.97 miles 3.41 miles 3.78 miles
Interchanges (number) 0 0 0
Construction Cost Estimate $22,450,000 $22,297,000' $22,150,000
Right of Way Cost Estimate $4,710,000 $5,865,000 $2,995,000
Estimated Utility Relocation Costs $263,000 $430,000 $525,000
Railroad Crossings (number) 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings (number) 0 0 0
Potential Residential Relocations (number)' 4 11 1
Potential Business Relocations (number)' 0 0 1
Low Income Population Impacts (number of relocatees or communities) 0 0 0
Minority Population Impacts (number of relocatees or communities) 0 0 0
Schools Affected (number) 0 0 0
Churches Affected (number) 0 0 0
Cemeteries Affected(number) 0 0 0
Noise Receptors Where Noise Criteria is Exceeded (number) 8 8 6
Existing and Proposed Greenway Crossings (number)z None None None

Recreational Areas and Parks Affected (number) Bisects Occoneechee
Speedway Racetrack trail
(private)
0
03

Historic Properties Affected (number) Bisects Occoneechee-
Orange Speedway
NASCAR Racetrack site
0
0
Known Archaeological Sites Affected (number) 0 0 0
Federal Lands Affected 0 0 0
Section 4 (f) Impacts (number) 1 0 0
Delineated Wetland Impacts (number of crossings and acreage) 0 / 0 acres 1 / 0.02 acres 2 / 0.05 acres
Delineated stream impacts (number of crossings and length) 4 / 434 feet 7 / 1,293 feet 12 / 2,526 feet
Delineated stream shading impacts (number of crossings and length x
width) 1 / 80 x 130 feet
(4S1) 0 0
Riparian Buffer Affected Zone 1 /Zone 2 (linear feet) 1,316 / 1,425 2,641 / 2,598 4,801 / 3,602
Riparian Buffer Affected Zone 1 /Zone 2 (acres) 0.21 / 0.29 1.08 / 0.72 0.80 / 0.51
CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern (number of crossings and
acreage) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
On-site Restoration Potential Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated
100 Year Floodplain Crossings 2 1 1
Federal Listed Protected Species Present Within Country4 4 4 4
State Listed Protected Species Present Within Countys 18 18 18
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands Affected 0 0 0
High Quality Resources (number of crossings) 0 0 0
Significant Natural Heritage Program Areas (number of crossings) 0 0 0
Forest Impacts (acres) 11.5 11.1 11.4
Prime & Unique Farmland (acreage) 9.3 7.5 1.3
Hazardous Materials Sitess 0 0 0
' NCDOT has prepared a relocation estimate based on the original Alternative 4 alignment. The number of.relocations and the estimated ROW costs for Alternative 4 are
anticipated to be higher than what is shown in the table.
ZThe Mountain to Sea Trail follows back roads through Orange County and crosses NC 87. There is a concept to have the trail parallel the Eno River within the vicinity of
the project corridor.
3Two parcels of undeveloped sections of the Eno River State Park are in close proximity to the northern terminus of Alternative 6 at US 70 Bypass. The alternative does
not impact the park.
'Four federally protected species have been listed for Orange County, NC. These species are the red-cockaded woodpecker, dwarf wedge mussel, Michaux's sumac, and
smooth coneflower. The last recorded observation of the red-cockaded woodpecker was over 50 years ago. The date and location of the observation of the smooth
coneflower is uncertain. Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist within the project area. No Michaux's sumac or smooth coneflower were found
during field surveys of suitable habitat conducted in May 2005. The only suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel is found in the Eno River and Cates Creek.
SEighteen state protected species are listed for Orange County. Four are fisted as federally endangered and two are listed as federal species of concern.
6All of the alternatives would widen or construct adjacent to properties with underground storage tanks (USTs) or formerly had USTs. These sites are located at the
northern terminus at the intersection of St. Mary' and US 70 Bypass, one site east of St. Mary's that would potentially only impact Alternative 6, and at the intersection of
NC 86 and I-85 at the southern terminus of the alternatives.