20090235 Ver 1_Application_20090310

I ,
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I
March 6, 2009
41* ?r
D??p ??py 0
D
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
N.C. Division of Water Quality Transportation Permitting Unit ® 9 ® 2 3
2321 Crabtree Blvd./Suite 250 ¢l
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Attention: Mr. Rob Riding, NCDOT Project Coordinator
Subject: Proposed intermediate widening of SR 1004 (Old Oxford Road), a 3.0331
mile section, from 0.4 mile South of junction with SR 1615 (Stagville
Road) to the Durham/Granville County line in Durham County. WBS
Element 5.203211
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes intermediate
widening of SR 1004 (Old Oxford Road), a 3.0331 mile section, from 0.4 mile South of
junction with SR 1615 (Stagville Road) to the North and East over the Durham/Granville
County line in Durham County (Figures 1-4). For safety purposes and to facilitate
resurfacing for long term maintenance, lane widths will be increased from eleven to
twelve feet as needed for sections that don't already have twelve foot lanes. Where
feasible the roadway will be resurfaced with two-foot paved shoulders and will have a
ditch section on each side. Radius will widen only slightly at the following key
intersection: SR 1615, SR 1626, SR 1773, and SR 1774. No trees are to be cleared for
the project. The curve at the junction of SR 1004 and SR 1626 is to remain close to its
original alignment. Infortnation concerning this activity is provided below.
Impacts to Waters of the United States Flat
Site 1: Impacts at this site involves a perennial stream, UT to the Nguse River, [NCDENR-
DWQ Index No. 3741), Best Usage Classification WS-IV NSW CA; HUC 03020201] in the
Neuse River Basin (see Photographs 1-2). Please note that existing conditions include a
double line pipe that will not be altered; however excavation is necessary on the Northwest
stream bank to improve positive flow through the northern most pipe inlet. It will also be
necessary to temporarily dewater the stream at this site for approximately a approximately
2 hours by placing sandbags in the creek upstream of the proposed activity and
pumping/diverting water into the southern most pipe during construction. No permanent
surface water fill is proposed at this site only 40ft of rip rap armoring for stabilization of
the excavated stream bank, area. Temporary surface water impacts will include 40ft of
dewatering which is concurrent with the area of stream bank length to receive rip rap
armoring.
Division Five- 2612 North Duke Street. Durham, North Carolina 27704
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
r 4 '
Site 2: Impacts at this site involves a perennial stream, UT to the Neuse River, [NCDENR-
DWQ Index No. 27-(1), Best Usage Classification WS-IV NSW CA; HUC 030202011 in the
Neuse River Basin (see Photographs 3-5). Please note that existing conditions includes an
area along the shoulder above the inlet of this cross line which is too narrow and is
unsafe. To improve this area, one four foot joint will be added to this pipe inlet. This
extension will require a slight channel change to align the stream with the new pipe end
and to allow for shoulder improvements just East of this cross line. The channel change
area will be stabilized with rip rap armoring along the sides, but not within the channel
bed. Additionally at Site 2, the last two joints on the outlet of this pipe have separated and
need to be reset. The disturbed area resulting from resetting the end joints will be
stabilized with rip rap armoring. It will be necessary to temporarily dewater the stream at
this site for approximately half a day by placing sandbags in the creek upstream and
downstream of the proposed activity. Permanent surface water impacts at this site total
5511 (this includes fill for new the 4ft joint, fill associated with the channel change, and
rip rap armoring on the outlet and inlet of this structure). Temporary surface water impacts
will be 55ft of dewatering which is concurrent with the area to receive rip rap armoring.
Riparian Buffer Impacts
Site l: The site involves a stream that is subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules. This
perennial unnamed tributary to the Neuse River is depicted on the most recent version of
the Northeast Durham (USGS 1973/1990) topographic quadrangle (Figure 1) and the Soil
Survey of Durham County (USDA-SCS, 1971) (Figure 2). Construction impacts at this
site will total 2,494 SF in Zone I and 1,770 SF in Zone 2.
Site 2: The site involves a stream that is subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules. This
perennial unnamed tributary to the Neuse River is not depicted on the most recent version
of the Northeast Durham (USGS 1973/1990) topographic quadrangle (Figure 1) but it
does appear on the Soil Survey of Durham County (USDA-SCS, 1971) (Figure 2).
Construction impacts at this site will total 1,082 SF in Zone 1 and zero SF in Zone 2.
Please note that 422 SF of these Zone 1 impacts are parallel impacts requiring mitigation
at a 3:1 ratio.
Waters of the U.S./Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Avoidance/Minimization: All wetlands and surface waters not affected by the project will
be protected from unnecessary encroachment. No staging of construction equipment or
storage of construction supplies will be allowed in wetlands or near surface waters. This
resurfacing project will involve intermediate widening. Where possible and only as
needed lft of pavement will be added to either side of the roadway without pushing out
fill slopes, moving ditches, or lengthening cross lines. An Erosion Control Plan has been
designed to prevent impacts to stream sections and, riparian buffers besides . those
previously described. Impacts at all but two of the eleven jurisdictional crossings along
this 3.0331 mile project have been completely avoided. Additionally excavation, fill, and
disturbance will be kept to a minimal to only what is necessary to complete the proposed
work. The side slopes will be steepened to the extent possible at jurisdictional sites.
Sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices for protection of surface waters
and riparian buffers will be enforced during project construction. Site 1 Site 2 will be
dewatered during construction. Please note also that complete avoidance of stream
excavation at Site 1 isn't feasible as no improvement action here will eventually lead to
completely obstructed pipes and the risk of these pipes being blown out and thereby
losing this section of the roadway. Complete avoidance of a channel change at Site 2 isn't
possible since the site involves parallel stream segments running within the ditch line on
both the inlet and the outlet ends of this cross line. There is currently more shoulder on
the South side of the roadway, however this permit site is on the inside of a curve. So if
2ft of pavement were added to the South side and the roadway was shifted 2ft South, then
this curve would be much sharper and that much more unsafe.
i
Compensatory Mitigation: Payment into the EEP Riparian Buffer Mitigation In-Lieu Fee
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund is proposed for the 1,266 SF of required buffer
mitigation. All compensatory mitigation requirements will be assimilated on a quarterly
basis by NCDOT and provided to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for their
acceptance.
Protected Species i
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. As of March 2009, there are two federally protected species listed
for Durham County.. They include smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Please note that the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) was delisted as of August 20, 2007 and is no longer in protected by the
Endangered Species Act. It is however, protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act. No suitable habitat for either of these species exists within the proposed
construction limits. Additionally, a review of the Natural Heritage Program database (last
updated January 2009) revealed no occurrences of protected species within the project
area. Therefore, based on lack of suitable habitat observed during the 12/12/08 site visit
and the NCNHP database review, biological conclusions of No Effect have been rendered
each species.
Historical Compliance
NCDOT Division 5 has consulted with State Historic Preservation Officer and NCDOT's
representative from the Human Environment Unit Historic Architecture Group for
concurrence on this proposed project (see attached 2 page concurrence form for
Assessment of Effects signed October 2008 with a finding of an effect, but that the effect
will not be adverse).
Summary
Application is hereby made for a NCDENR-DWQ Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) No. 3704 and Neuse Buffer Authorization for above-described
activities. An automated payment procedure has been implemented between the NCDOT
and NCDWQ. This procedure will enable the Division to apply for the 401 WQC without
submitting a check for this permit application. This procedure will provide payment to the
NCDWQ by charging the permit application fee of $240.00 directly to the appropriate
NCDOT WBS Element 5.203211. A pre-construction notification is attached with this
request. Per General Condition 27 [Notification Provision] of the NWP 14, this proposed
project doesn't required notification to the USACE. However we are providing the
USACE with a copy of this application for their records out of courtesy. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Heather Montague at
[phone].
Sincerely,
. ? ?112Q/L._?
J.W. Bowman, P.E. 4#K
Division Engineer
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE NCDOT Coordinator
Ms. Tasha Johnson, P.E., NCDOT DIV 5 District 2 Engineer
Mr. Mike Kneis, P.E., NCDOT DIV 5 Project Manager
Mr. Tim Robbins, NCDOT DIV 5 Roadside Environmental Field Ops
Mr. Chris Murray, NCDOT DIV 5 Environmental Officer

Division 5 WBS# (none currently assigned) County: Durham
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Proposed Minor Shoulder Widening, SR 1004 (Old Oxford Highway) .4.
mi. S of SR 1615 jct. to Durham/Granville County line.
i
On August 25, 2008, representatives of the
x North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
X North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
? There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
X There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
x I ritip i, ar effect on the National Register-eligible property/propertie ; w"hin the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:

/0-/6- 2a? IL:
Representative, NCbOT Date
I
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, 4HPO? ?Q ( r Date
tate Historic Preservation Officer Date
Division 5
County: Durham (SR 1004)
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if
property is National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE). N/A
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property
status (NR or DE) and describe the effect.
Stagville, E side SR 1004, 1 mile N or SR 1632, at end of lane (NR)
Horton Grove Complex, E and W side SR 1626, .01 mile N of SR 1004 (NR)
Bennehan-Cameron Historic District, bounded by Flat, Little, and Eno rivers, and N 400'
elevation, comprises all of this project area to the Flat River boundary.just northeast of SR 1774
(DE)
These three sites are ofprofound significance regarding North Carolina's antebellum agrarian
heritage, and include rare nineteenth-century slave and tenant houses, agricultural outbuildings,
and early African American burial grounds. Surroundings have remained largely undisturbed so
that any intrusions, such as the proposed small road widening and shoulder alteration, must be
carefully considered and reviewed in order to maintain integrity ofsetting and the
corresponding qualities offeeling and association.
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
After review and consultation between NCDOT's Historic Architecture Group, Division 5's
Environmental Officer, and NC-HPO's Environmental Reviewer, we feel that provided the
project stays within its proposed parameters, as stated below, the effect will not be adverse. If the
scope of the project should-change in anyway, NCDOT's Historic Architecture Group ana NC--
HPO's Environmental Review Officer must be contacted immediately for consultation.
Division 5 stated the following will be undertaken:
• Increasing lane widths from eleven to twelve feet
• Two-foot paved shoulders and a ditch at each side.
• Radius will widen only slightly at the following key intersections: SR 1615, SR 1626,
SR 1773, and SR 1774.
• No trees are to be cleared for the project.
• The curve at the junction of SR 1004 and SR 1626 is to remain close to its original
alignment, so as to minimize takes from the Horton Grove Complex
Initialed: NCDOT SS FHWA HPO
West.
Photograph 4. View of Site 2 from below inlet, looking East.
Photograph 5. View of Site 2 below pipe outlet, looking West.
SR 1004 (Old Oxford Road) - Durham County
intermediate widening for resurfacing

?e

- - + -,i-' - r. l OJ 3'I7IANd87
o
H . OD
- 3TIIANdtID -
-
=
o ied
ana ; o? iwxana :-
-

t
G (-
? e
n ?
W
r \\
r \'. v
- i_./ 3 WESTERN
IVHaf10 /
al!W I
_ •, • Ln?. ??'tia rM' w: "r' ?+?,.-- ? k hS,NRO'J g r3'3'IIANV2I'J, t 4.
J

J
T
t

CL C
O
p =
U
u
}
E
0

CL O
U
X
W O
C
0
t- J
C
O
t

m

d
O
L
a

m
N
a
O
L L C

O

N
X
W L
L

C
O
U
yj!(I yI ® W
W

O
Z
ZONE 2
ZONE
0
O
O
O
ZONE I
ZONE 2
I
I
? I
8. T
L
W ?
? Z
W
L m
O E
4-
X
D m
«
o? o
4-
C ^ O
_? Q M
n O u
C Q
T
O'D+ C
L C
UOC
]4- O
L XU
t O
rn E
C'o
O
00 L M
U - L m
70 L
0 7
O Ch.
N - iz
t ?
NN
ONE 2
ZONE
PI
0 o
,
og? ,
x«o I ?.
« L
w

ZONE
ZONE 2
?II
ab

T
t
U
O
4
c
O
.
Q

L U)
}
o
? C
Ip
?
J
a O
L
V)
O

'a
0
0
'0
a) }
0
7
N
n c
} 0)
a L
t
O
L N
X O
L U)
c
a w a
F
t
4 ® C\i

W 1
W w
z
z 0

,
1 '
0
N
.O
+
0
E 1w O
P
y-
0
°
m \ 10
O \
<01
1) ,-\ )rl-j,0
11 '
V LL
p/0 \ W
L P \ \
L U
L
? V U
pNN
L C
Q C
NOU \
W
z o ? ?o
0
N °
O
O
O 1

c? }
4-
o?
a 0 o
o
cm
o10 } c
::)
4- o
L
- C)
+
U)

L) 2.C
L
Q ::)
NOO
0

? w
N
N

t'.
O
L
0
l
O
E
;I
WATEgOG
h
1 -I
O Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID rtp. q a_`?902 5
;DWQ project no. ' ?+ ? U G
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a . Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1b . Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: NWP 14 (non-reporting) or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d . Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification _ Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No I For the record only for Corps Permit:

® Yes ? No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ® Yes ? No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Proposed intermediate widening along SR 1004 (Old Oxford Highway), 3.0331 miles
2b. County: Durham
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Durham
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
WBS No. 5.2031211
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: NCDOT Division 5
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: 2612 N. Duke Street
3e. City, state, zip: Durham, NC 27704
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: wbowman(apncdot.gov
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner) N/A
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) N/A
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
BI ,Project Information and Prior Project History

1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
11b. Coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Site 1: Latitude: 36.1233 Longitude: -78.8392
Site 2: Latitude: 36.1309 Longitude: -78.8182
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
Site 1: 0.106 acres
Site 2: 0.028 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
UTs to Neuse River (Flat River Arm of Falls Lake)
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-IV NSW CA
2c. River basin: Neuse
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Sites are surrounded by wooded land and residential properties.
31b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
NONE
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Site 1: 80ft of stream within the construction limits.
Site 2: 165ft of stream within the construction limits.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
For safety purposes and to facilitate resurfacing for long term maintenance, lane widths will be increased from eleven to
twelve feet by intermediate widening as needed for sections that don't already have twelve foot lanes. Where feasible the
roadway will be resurfaced with two-foot paved shoulders and will have a ditch section on each side.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Site 1: The existing two line pipe will not be altered; however excavation is necessary on the NW stream bank to improve
positive flow through the northern most pipe. The disturbed area will be stabilized with rip rap armoring.
Site 2: The existing shoulder above the inlet of this cross line is too narrow and is unsafe. To improve this area one four
foot joint will be added to this pipe. This extension will require a slight channel change to align the stream with the new
pipe end and to allow for shoulder improvements adjacent to this cross line. The channel change area will be stabilized
with rip rap armoring along the sides, but not in the channel bed. Additionally at Site 2, the last two joints on the outlet of
this pipe have separated and need to be reset. The disturbed area resulting from resetting the end joints will be stabilized
with rip rap armoring.
Site 1 and Site 2 will require temporary dewatering so that work can be performed in the dry.
Equipment may include excavator, backhoe, and grader.
Page 2 of 10
PCN Form - Version 13 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
Comments: N/A
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
f
? Preliminary ? Final
o
determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Name (if known): N/A Other: N/A
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation

N/A .
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ®No
? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
N/A
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
N/A
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f

Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction .
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W l ? P ? T N/A N/A ? Yes ? Corps N/A
? No ?DWQ
2g. Total Wetland Impacts: NONE
2h. Comments: N/A
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this .
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length

Temporary (T) intermittent
N DWQ - nbn404, width (linear
T
(I
)
other)
(feet)
feet)
Site 1 ® P ? T rip rap armoring UT to ® PER ® Corps 4011
Stream 1 along stream bank Neuse.River El INT El DWQ aft inlet
Site 1 ? P ®T
dewatering
UT to
®PER
®Corps
4011
Stream 1 Neuse River ? INT [] DWQ 811 concurrent
Site 2 ® P ? T fill for new pipe joint
and fill for
UT to
®PER
®Corps
5011
Stream 1 channel change Neuse River ? INT ? DWQ 211 inlet
rip rap armoring
Site 2 ® P ? T along channel
change and tie ins
UT to
®PER
®Corps 45ft inlet
(4011 over-
Stream 1 back to natural Neuse River E] INT E] DWQ 211 lapping
banks plus 5ft)
Site 2 ® P ? T rip rap armoring
along stream bank
UT to
® PER
® Corps
loft
Stream 1 at reset end joints Neuse River ? INT ? DWQ 211 outlet
Site2 ?P®T
Stream 1 dewatering UT to ® PER ® Corps
- 2ft 55ft
Neuse River ? INT ] DWQ
[- concurrent
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
EE 95ft
3i. Comments: Site 2: existing stream length o
nnell change(new stream length) of 40ft = 1 Oft of stream loss
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number- waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or (if applicable)
Temporary T
01 ? P ? T N/A N/A N/A N/A
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts NONE
4g. Comments: N/A
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.

Pond ID Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Proposed use or purpose of (acres)
numb
er pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1 N/A N/A N/A N/A !N/A N/A N/A N/A
P2
5f. Total NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE
59. Comments: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ®No If yes, permit ID no: N/A
51. Expected pond surface area (acres): N/A
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): N/A
5k. Method of construction: N/A
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
® Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason for Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or impact Stream name mitigation '(square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T re uired?
Site1 ® P ? T excavation ? Yes

Buffer Impact 1
and rip rap UT to Neuse River
®No 2,494 SF 1,770 SF
Site 2 ® PEI T pipe work s

Buffer Impact 1
and rip rap UT to Neuse River ® No 660 SF 0 SF
Site 2 ? T channel s

B I mp mpact 2
uffer
change UT to Neuse River El No 422 SF 0 SF
6h. Total buffer impacts 3,576 SF 1,770 SF
6i. Comments: Site 2 includes 422 SF of parallel impacts requiring mitigation associated with the channel change.
Page 5 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
To avoid and minimize impacts, this resurfacing project will involve intermediate widening. Where possible and only as
needed 1ft of pavement will be added to either side of the roadway without pushing out fill slopes, moving ditches, or
lengthening cross lines. An Erosion Control Plan has been designed to prevent impacts to stream sections and riparian
buffers besides those previously.described. Impacts at all but two of the eleven jurisdictional crossings along this 3.0331 mile
project have been completely avoided.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Excavation, fill, and disturbance will be kept to a minimal to only what is necessary to complete the proposed work. The side
slopes will be steepened to the extent possible at jurisdictional sites. Sediment and erosion control Best Management
Practices for protection of surface waters and riparian buffers will be enforced during project construction. Site 1 Site 2 will be
dewatered during construction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank
El
Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: N/A
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type N/A Quantity N/A
3c. Comments: N/A
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
41b. Stream mitigation requested: N/A linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): 1,266 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4h. Comments: All compensatory mitigation requirements will be assimilated by NCDOT on a quarterly basis and provided to
the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for their acceptance.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
N/A
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires Z Yes ? No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 Site 2 channel change 422 SF 3 (2 for Catawba) 1,266 SF
Zone 2 N/A 0 SF 1.5 ! 0 SF
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: 1,266 SF
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved iri-lieu fee fund).
Payment into the EEP Riparian Buffer Mitigation ILF Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund
6h. Comments: All compensatory mitigation requirements will be assimilated on a quarterly basis b
NCDOT and
rovided to
y
p
the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for their acceptance.
Page 7 of 10 i
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a . Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified

within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? ® Yes ? No
1 b . If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.

Comments: this NCDOT transportation facility use is present and ongoing ? Yes ®No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 36%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: NCDOT state Permit No. NCS000250
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the pran: N/A
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Durham County
? Phase 11
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
apply (check all that apply): ? USMP
® Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached? N/A
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply [_1 HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): N/A ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? N/A ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? N/A ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? N/A ? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Supplementary Information
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la . Toes the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c . If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments: N/A
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
N/A
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
S. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or \
habitat? ? Yes ® No
5b. Have you checked with the USFW S concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? [:1
Yes ®No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted ? Raleigh
. ? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
httl?://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countvfr.html and NC Natural Heritage Program Database, Element Occurrences
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
hftl2:/Iocean.floridamarine.org/efh coral/ims/viewer htm
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
[D Yes ? No
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
71b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
HPO's Environmental Review Officer and NCDOT's Human Environment Historic Staff (see attached concurrence form
for Assessment of Effects signed October 2008 with a findin
of an eff
t
b
t th
h
g
ec
,
u
at t
e effect will not be adverse).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: N/A
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? httl2://www.ncfloodmar)s.com/
J. W. Bowman, P.E.
J (M ?W rhan^- ,f-t W VIA,
J ??r 111"'
03/04/09
I
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 10 of 10
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
\ I I
II
3NI-lHOiVVW
0
o
r
rn
0 0
b
0
0

I
I

I I
I
i
I

v
I
I I
I
?
I I
I
I I
I
?
? I
I

160
165
a.
8$laz
m:3 iA :.
:
40 Q "?L'N
f11 N ?N.?
g^ y Aw
py° iPm?
Py ? -ly-
A R $gy
K
®i
i
i
I

I i^~
I j .
In
I I In
9 /0
170

0
e
O (J
r
m
S
0
0
_,w ll-lu 1 I V,v?
loo

m
S
y
m
z
r
ti
n
3WH3iVA

N
r
m
S ..
0
w
i
z
0
0
y
s
2
4

I
?a
AY

1 pW
&b

u5

+tr M I
1 O !
N
r
m
a
I
O O
p
II?oD
a,4
-N i
ttl y
y ?
8
C
D
m
2
r
H

?Qb
f
06

0
0
0
a
r
m
o
® g
0
T? iN ?QNY?I
L+ ?? A A
1 yip{
N? • py
y® r
N ?y p 0N
Q: ? y
Q Q ?
I
I
i.
i
3NI?HJ1 dW
,I I
I I I j ¢,
III II /
?I I, I
?E.I I I '
I
III III
III ?---
or
III /? - is
III ?jl? ?
III III
III II?
.III III
? II? I I?
II? III
II
III I
'I II? 9
e
III I'I
I III I? s
III ilk 'R
rY? I?
I,I
it I I I,
Iii i II
III
III I ,II
a? m I I 'Il
'4£? ICI III
I I??
I
I I it
I j 'I'I
i II
I i II q
Ig NII
it
tv!,
3NI?HDiVvW
???oDag
?opo?4n
NNw
ti
Cal MG NU
a ? yy
m Q Lf
?woDvg
yyyyyyL?+ry4y M
y?
,J5
w
145

H
S
?1N? Ld ?
u '. ' ? taW6A
w pC
1
w
o
I
0
I i
m - e,a ? e o?n?
I I ? ? bbbb3?u1?°"?
to
° I Cd
?. USX
150
Iv
Fr ra i5p.
I
2 I Iv
€ I
I
I ?
h?4 I I
I I
I 1
I `
II
II
I I .
I I
I I c X55
I:
II
I I'
I I;
vl I .
I I.
I I.
3NI ?HJ
1 '
bw
0
o?
0
l
A11 N
-4 N N
n n
a
N N
N N
P P
CD
?' tM e z
C N ?? U z
C 0? ?K
CL c9 iw za
oa x Oz
K U z? =Z o0
w n OW O
+ ?G ua
[? ya13 YV
13
ti
I W x ?
d
to)
~ x 33 a?
a7
®? o??f ? asp a
`?+v
Q Q M
O -R:q h?h h w00 'o
® v1 N C) v _
C)
O
?T.,0 I? ~Oy ° >
®?-4 y IT. ti ti a
?? o o a LL
O
Z
i r o w
.. {{yy I? V K N
= V Z y. ? b
Z d
?EO
G
yy? ?/? r
LL.1 • WO \/I V x NNm$ fFI
_ ' ? 00 'Y Q QN?OI ^I
S 1 af + 9 ?qZh?O'
Zo a z E?pjO1E0.
S I Ua e?1 a ?2-5
a. yy??vZ? . MINIM fy z
N tiJ Q W
U ? a i O ? e ? ? ? • ,
{ti h? ?? 6 A ? i '
2 ?!V„-1 ,` W LL g O
W CL? a? LL
`y o ? =w w„ ? Ci
3tz r` Z7,
N ?•l Pul U V 1
W W WW C7
aY. O"® a70 tool 4ll u ayL O{ la
09

ra
MA TCHL INF
w
I
i
i
i
8O? N yUO
g? Na
f ?+
?rv rvE ??

O O
A H
1
w
U c
o?
X
MATCHLINE

III N
~4
I
O
U W
U
?rS AVI O°oa[?i
?-? U pO?Z
®® O ? -tl
? w
Z fe? °so?
144
A
H M
U C?
W Q
aw
0 +
IL 0
ati
°d
z~
W (/t \

a
N-
N N
N
P
p
V P
P
I[??
U W
2.
V Z
W
W
x of
7t P
za AW
=Ow O?
Z

ra-o fQ
0 0
a

• 2
O 6
?

i
°
a

ti:
a 3 ?

4
a
lay -,
'
O
aSa a a ?

cn V
cl: o
0
LLo .
O of
a
N
0 \
0

M
M
n
0
O o
}
0 0
11 CL, o
w
Q? V K N
U? Z
ti N r b
O w? J • m N
W0 N U = NNM¢?tp??m fF?1
? oo ^I Q ON' 01y
O? +
a0 O o?WEai
W _ \ ZQ 2QWE 4
or W ?g•
J ; ? wLn W py
??11?/? 111 J
\0 J W y Iy¢1 • \ -
y a c
4J tiq¢? LL ? o
U tiU JQ 2W Fi ru
W a 3.- . ma h z
N M Pal U U
Z W 2 T rrpii o 6
h N HH ? N
W W WW
lW/1 h IW/I IW/1 n
a amogX® Q70 - tool us --,Lgy f
oucr.

0
a
i
i
I
J
N
@ z? w
@
UZ
7
o 0 :5
Z CL
ZI1
P6 ®
®? J
?> Q
[=4 ~
Z
r@ a
1-4
c
O
W
+O
O
I---
\W
17
Z
O
V
1
1
1

0 0 ® 4
1
I
I
I
j
N
C
C ?
' C

m
3 ?

m
?
n c s1? ?

f > S m ?.. 17
w « « « o ° >
3 3 3 3 3 ? o as

? I 1
I I
I
b 8®® i i I 1
1 I
i ?
I
L
ui
7
vi
W o
m ?
7 '° V
?' U u
m m V
O tl .C 'd
c V u° O
o ? z a LL
N O
m O ? 'm
N> 0; z-EOcT c
o m c
a a
Z r z z ?m°c O ? ?

I
3

W
m
o s

a
a
s 'N
m
m
f:

,?`?j
WC c

a

m c

mrn

m'

, -

Z W
n

°

x t
°
?
"

L

.
m
v
NCO

LL m

a
,°c_

O

G
-°
m
6 ;

N
€

N

N
€

In
1
I
O ® I
I
I
I
'

j
v
m
7 0 . ?
o U U
U
t$
J C
0 ? m 0
Q

N N 'N O
Q Q Q ?

®
O+
P /
!
F I
@
I
1
I
i
W
7

m
c

?
C
m 'S m
c

gcg o ; a °
d 2 U N 1° ? LL
1
u
m
C LL
N
N
N ? O ?

>'

0

0
c
?
O
m m
'E
? ? a
'c '2
N 151 30? u°
? y
N .J 6 0
1
I
I
-•-0
}?® ®I
1
1
I
W
j
tl
m :35
m
m o m- m
G L m N ? m m 6 L
3 a t'
b 7 m 3€ 0 3
C O S F' ? l` O
L •o ? c m c o L y
c m o 1E 6 E o °c
w a 'N a o .a
6? d?? d d d? t? o
a ? I
°?? ?4
x I I

l °
7 O
O O
O
E °c o 'E
q ?
? i n Q
L ?
N
? p
p??
N C L'
I 1 1 1, 11
? m c c`C c ° E
° o u
L 3 3 0 `o tl0 0
c 'S o 0 mco m° 0 u
O o m a a a« co U o
?Uaa?.°d9yv?W
V m c QcQ a ?E MU c¢ a
'ci ti
0? LLI d 6 6 W L r?
• o o e 4 ?? 9 ? .o
ui

K

C
Q
Q 7
«
m T j PP J O O W G
N
D ,L o c. « m V
r, tl O
w m m o
y fE
C .3
JC 3 x
JL
tl €
C

w L L
Z. Z. J

L

' r

2.` 7

2• O

'r ° m

r r O

o
7 7 7 7 7 w
1 1 1
0 El B 99
i l I I ?
I I I
I I I
I I I
?- I W W
w j j
7 ? N
'y r
. o
m m v m a
o
m n
0 o a o o
ao 0
O t m L m d
L m°° 9 r r J r 3 LL ?'
m m f m° i UmrC
w Im- ?' m o m m m m v d
i m, o a L a La r Y. W v c M* c 0 X0 I I I I 1 1
I I
° d I i "I °1
I 1
N ?{y
rn W° [a??1111 a
•_c ? ? 5 c E
E! R
a 3 E m 8 E Q °o
c e c a Q r-
c c m- v`i N .U ; Q o U o
° m ? m m m lJ v U m
o f o N-2 ° P a o .n° yEy
rr .? ? N ? m UI ° U ? OC
a s .E ° a a a c a' I. m
Q Q ?O[yy ?? O Q o •f? ?? I. Q
L 6 . '?I L L O.`1?{ L L W L
1
x 1
1
?? II?}I+FI
on ?Q i 7 7 3 6 o 0. 0.
i E ? ? ? ? .. ,Jul LLLJJJ IIIJJJ
U
c r o $ c
? o m m O
AD
LL- E c ~
LL LL
h u Z °c_ Po° b @ @
`m. E 8 c a m c o a mrn ?_F
m g.E E o$ 3 u m m 3 ?hOc >
m
C C o 7 Q lg m LL 3 w w
a "I a c o
t c c_ c o c$ c c 2 ! v.Q W o Y
(y? } 'o m o. 'Q, a o. E o. o. o. ;p 1 4p '1p E ° E 2 2 2
'y N U U ?' Q W Q 6 d i 6 L Ifl IfJ m\ 1n 3 N ?°L i, U m N U 0
0 o
O
Q
O
O

L
Q j
V a
[}?
[ O N C
\\
VV C
, C
y m
x 3 0` 5 -
I ? tl

7Ej ? I I
m
3 t E E
a 00
i
00o
Q o o c c o c
4i N N a` n
p O
ww IA = n M IL 12 m 4
0
v
x
r°
d
5 E
N
n u a tl
L m a
1 ? L LL
0
z
r

o

!5
G
z
MATC
H
LINE
$ i

O1.

a
u ts g

.S9 ? I I ? NdNU -Mel old
. i I 4426 N¦

o

I
os ft-OPMVIS Id U . o
MAT C HLINE
0
mj
W
uj
z? w
U?
E
®®
ZzCL
®n
?> Q
E~ Z
? _O
F
W
Z
O
U
b4
w?
41
ti
w
? W
y h i
II
? a
I I
I I I.?II
?? 6 2 • O o 9 5 a a .e Q -?
®o®QI?? ?®®®`'i o®i?? ®o??f I w
I I I I ? I
I, I 1
W
? U
• L+ N m
W O L Ld = i
s U `o c
=s
m m m N g=_2g c o`o
.7 x a U O 0 c c :o o j o 2 y m o d o?
m6 3 o U 8 a Uc "o g= °m 8 o ° a °c U l7 v o
S iL O l7 d 2 U N o 6 L O m `m .0
2 W N LL Q E•
gg° ° o% v m, s m `m V .p m 9 0 m .p ° O y N N c t? •p ° 0 0 o f? c c x c=
2 > x m b- 0 .p 3 m 5 0 Z 0 'm O bb m o LL LL r 7 0 o m o
o ..qqa a>°. f IsZ1? a$ .`p1 Yp > f Y W 11??? o ?^ llid? Y a w 2' 2' 2• . 2'.' ~' I1S-? `FS^' 10] v
ul U O Q N N J a °e °>>> 7 V J Q W
3 3 3 3 3 ee C¢ F J K° 3?oi
VV 11 I I I I I
+¢OHE3-{
-0 -0
O I I W
3 I I I W > >
.p 7 N N
C r. N
W '? W m m° m
? O N = ° O 'O O L U
o m U u u u n
t ° U
m c x p = o c c° 0 'n
3
a v o m m 0 0 S o t° o r n O
U o m ° ° o 1°. O
h ° x o
O
?2° ° d d N pQ x 3 6 m . O r O U O~ 0~ L LL
1 -0
yry??(yC1 c c ? t?DD m w 3 c° L f" '?' u. o o m f m° ° U s
a C C L •p m d .p d
FBI ,? C 2 O 0 N N O. '° = e O m Z~ '~O c c
?? YY p 9 pl O ) N W ` E O C O m s o L 2 .t Fm- 0 m C_ 'L°p C
`1 8 m o d2 = p X1?2+ c_ 0 5 0 x = o o. a o. a o_I E rn °_I
O c c Z °m c$ P 70? P$ 5 'G Q '?y ° t m m ",W ? E o m w m "? m u o ^?
m m? S 'd LL.° d w N ?? d 1Y LL LL d d K° F? a F 12 a I I I I ? ? I I O
°? ?€I { ? 4 I I W? e? I l w 4i ? O ? Q?
I I I II II IIII
r
mm?
w m ? ?
c ,a w E
f ? O 9
a 33?3e ?o :3C r r v m S a or o -
a° 3 3 's e e*, d N.s u e 0
a s .p .p k o o r _ `m c E E E€€ a. a Fm C7 `o m a E
OCCC ° 0. U m a a a e a° o U u 12 t vi Ui 3 0 lJ a. U T I
e? m 2 °e
O = ° a s 1 9 U W 9 9gg 9 ?! W U 9 ?g Vg 9 U N C y > .p `m
° y N? _ y y Q c c o o p o c g 2 01 2 2 2 2 c o 0 8 "d (?y :1V??< Q< 0 6 if 1?? o c "od £ >p E ?w1 m m °m y r ?°.
N L' N N. OC m W W L L 6 V O. W 6 d 6 L •\ W IL 1 6 6 0. W 1 a N N x 3 0>
I
x 1
1
oe' i i 9 5 o w o. k l?
iI I ? III
r
41 g m ' ? Y
a m m LL 9 c E'E
0 I-°
m LL
U Z C??? m??? p
p 3 a;
C, O. ° p? E tg ? N LL? .° .° 3? W W E C O.tj r
° L, y m c c a a '`'m a a a p
0
om c c ag c- o c ?E 3 E
v? u u vEi LL U m U O
I tb ?
II
Li
m
76
(? a g o E
V ? ? N H
o ? r
Nm?mms=
° O
a C N N O
C ; O I
0 9 1
N = ? m m IL ° 4
41
°
v
°m
x
t2
O
9 E
o
N
n ? a. N
L ° ° 0
1 ? d LL

Y

s 0
MATC H LINE
I
? I
I n
I
Sd I ? n
i n
I
I I

h
I ? ^
I I ^

3
. y I g
gm
?
g ? I
I
@
yql
-i
N I n
n
°
?
4.
,ya ?LL
m I I
I I ?
77

o I I n ? . S
W
UT I I
I

SR 1615 lST AG?IL?E RD1? ?--? +: 999
Ob • u

I `
I ?
I
?

I I
In
I
I
I
I ?
I^
II
I
I
I I , .m
I
I I^ w
I
I I
In

I I^ u
sF
I
I ?
I?
?

I I
I I
n
MATC H LINE
0
0
ti

9
°
W
Q
o M AT CH??NE
I? WI 1:
li ? I
II ? is
U009
CIO 10
.Fw?i ?0.QO?hC
o /
N N? / •
?a„g
o}} W'
y~? Lap J
FOJ Ni Y(4 • • / I' W
,jgz
a
a1nWW
{z?
Fp03 y
I/ ? I I
y11nn
N 0.00 I NMO?^
\' Q
\ ? 1C5s J
\ N10 yy? W
NNC? iJ 6Y ?
?\\ \\ `1 ?°Nfv ?R BW N
?C
0? OW?? `\\\ \ .l / tip ?ry .-? O
4,4
k .? a ¢ \ \ o
ti °$ \\ \?^
i. \ \ \
WF ?\
U v
P?? o

0
O
?NI`IH? ld W

s o
?
\
a
\1
O I \
p _ I ___ _.-_____
/?- cOtl WVSSV]I ZZ91 tl5
Z 3N01
1 3N01 I
- - - - _ * PT l0 99+Tt
13N01 I ¢ \ ..
Z 3N01 \ lw
I
??4s„?

k 1? _I

w

e0. I,
r
'I
,I
Q
S N
a
I ^
?
3NI-IHOiM
0
. a o
0

M
O
O
3NF?H3 ld W
I

O
? I
II I

u I h
tr ? va
I
I iro

1 Imo
a
I
tr m
1
i I a
O

I ozg
o

1 I n ?
z
I I^
V
I
1
I
?'
I
I
. IIIi I?\
I
I'
III I

?14
u5

° m
? I
I
? I
? to
I
l
N C I Im

' / PT S/0. //7tgg.7B

/ a

1 bW
o.=

leo oa

o
o
a ?

I
0
rA
O
r
H
a
O o
w
t 0 0

z
ti
a
s
r
y
N

iQb
05
i
?I
? j

Om ¦N 'PyOA
ti A p
S C1 N
rr InT AD M
?I,1 2UY
A° ^" D
r°D H
$ R ?

I
I
g

Syr OD'u
0 o v e vtn?
ac C°
PRO
s
a?
Q
II III
I i1
III j II,. ,
I I i,
I ICI,
I I?
I II , I
I ?!
I! a
Nil
I
I
co
I
3WH3i'V
3NI IHJ1 b'W
III II ?
? I I , I
III Ilj
III ?---
III /? - is
III ?j? ? ?
01.1
I
Ili i it
III II?
71 l
''Ijl II II
III I I
III Ij?
III I'I
III j?! e
,I I,I
III II,
I I.
IMF I
I II? ,
III I 'Il
i
175
140
0
145
m?roDv?
v e e o etn?
wA??cTM
y?

S
? 0.
\ \N
1 a P C to M +1
S S - -: 11 \
1
0
°I
ti y? m
G? i I ?Td
u ii
m
150
- i I PT 5/a /?•
I I?
$ I ?
I I
I I
I I
II:
II
II.
II,
I I
' ?I I
I I
I I r /55
I
II
I I'
I I;
I
II
JNjlHJ1 bW
o o.
0

W IPM
•J.. tom'

SR 1004 (Old Oxford Road) - Durham County
intermediate widening for resurfacing
Photograph 1. View of Site 1 above pipes inlet, looking West.
RE: SR 1004 Old Oxford Road -channel change (Durham County)
.,1_, 1l
Subject: RE: SR 1004 Old Oxford Road -channel change (Durham County)
From: "Montague, Heather W" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:40:29 -0500
To: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
Rob-
Thanks for your help. I don't disagree with your call on ETF. It is just good to have
some input before I calculated the impacts and general cost of mitigation. I'll be
sure to include avoidance and minimization information in my application. Please note
that at this permit site, the stream comes from the woods crosses under the driveway,
goes down the ditch line for 100ft then makes a hard left under SR 1004 then makes a
hard right and runs parallel to the roadway in a fill section (no defined ditch on
this side) for 800ft - although at least it runs farther away from the edge of
pavement (see attached picture from the outlet cross line). There is currently more
shoulder on the other side of the road, however this permit site is on the inside of
a curve. So if we added 2ft of pavement on that side and essentially shifted the
roadway 2ft south, then this curve would be much sharper and that much more unsafe.
If you ever remember traveling this entire stretch of old Oxford Road you may
remember the curves, poor drainage, no shoulders in spots? With this said, there is
no way that this resurfacing effort will correct all the problems out there, to 2ft
widening will just increase travel lanes for safety for folks meeting each other and
hopefully not slapping mirrors or running each other off the road. The extra pavement
also gives the drivers a bit-of recovery time before plunging down into a ditch or
stream if they were forced over or got a little loose in the curves. The ultimate
proposal is to add this 2ft and resurface while minimizing the disturbed area and
disturbance to streams or buffers.
-Heather
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Ridings [mailto:rob.ridingsrancmail.net]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 11:29 AM
To: Montague, Heather W
Subject: Re: SR 1004 Old Oxford Road -channel change (Durham County)
Heather,
My feeling would be that the space between the pavement and the
stream/ditch is ETF since that is road drainage into the "ditch" is
taking place.
However, beyond that would be parrallel buffer impact. The reasoning
being that through avoidance/minimization, one could make the argument
that any road widening could be done on the opposite side of the road
and thus not impact the stream or its buffer.
(In fact, this is also an avoidance/minimization issue that would be
need to be addressed for 401 issues as well .... if the road is only being
widened 2 feet, why not do all that on the side away from the stream?)
Let me know if I can help any more or if you have other questions..
-Rob
Montague, Heather W wrote:
Rob- I'm working on an application for a WQC 3704 with Neuse Buffer
Authorization for some road improvements to SR 1004 (Old Oxford Road)
in Durham County from the Historical Stagville entrance to the
Durham/Granville County line. The project involves a two foot widening
(lft on either side of the roadway, then resurfacing). There will be
two permit sites: one is where will need excavate a silted in area in
front of a two line pipe to facilitate flow. This site.will require us
to excavate material on one side of the stream and armor the disturbed
bank with rip rap. The other permit site (where I have questions)
involves a situation where the stream runs within the ditch line for
approximately 107ft (see attached pictures). Please notice the first
picture is taken from a driveway pipe looking SW down the road to
where the stream crosses under SR 1004. The second picture is from the
1 of 3 3/12/2009 9:10 AM
RE: SR 1004 Old Oxford Road -channel change (Durham County)
pipe looking NE looking back towards the driveway. The inlet of the
30in pipe is approximately Oft from the edge of pavement. The stream
goes from 12ft from the edge of pavement at the driveway to as close
as 3ft curving in and out and obviously being closet down,by the cross
line. We are proposing adding one 4ft joint the inlet end of this
cross line. This would require a channel change is align the existing
stream bed/ditch line to the new inlet. The idea is the minimize the
channel change length to minimal necessary to complete the lft
widening work through this area. We would stabilize the sides of the
channel change with rip rap but would not armor the base of the
stream. I originally drew the permit drawing up, showing approximately
50 of channel change, but I don't want to come back during
construction to ask for a MOD for a few more feet if they needed
60-70-80-90ft or whatever. Therefore I am leaning towards drawing this
up to include the worst case of the entire length between the driveway
and the cross line being channel change with rip rap armoring.
Note: other then the first site I mentioned all other streams at cross
lines, the bridge crossing, and other parallel sections of stream
throughout this 3.03 mile project will have NO impacts to waters or
buffers. Surface and buffer impacts through those areas can be avoided
since we either have adequate shoulder sections in those areas.
With this all said, my questions are: What would you feel would be the
Existing Transportation Facility through this channel change area?
Throughout the project length we felt like the mowing limits might be
a fair ETF line. The mowing limits would be the shoulder side of all
ditch lines. However you'll notice from the second picture that
pruning and trimming crosses the ditch and stops at the tree line. I'm
trying to determine whether we'd have to report parallel buffer
impacts and pay mitigation or whether the back side of the ditch
(stream channel) could be considered part of the existing
transportation facility for this permit site? For the channel change
no matter the final length, we'd not be clearing any trees from the
adjacent woods line. We'd merely move the channel over one channel
approximately 1-2ft then shape it for stability and rock armoring. Any
thoughts or input would be appreciated.
-Heather
-------------------------------------------------------------- -
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1 ,.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2 of 3 3/12/2009 9:10 AM
RE: SR 1004 Old Oxford Road -channel change (Durham County)
T
Content-Description: other side of SR 1004.JPG
other side of SR 1004.JPG Content-Type: image/jpeg
Content-Encoding: base64
3 of 3 3/12/2009 9:10 AM