20090377 Ver 1_Application_20090407

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regional Field Office
3331 Heritage Trace Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
ATTN: Mr. Andy Williams
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 7
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23, 33, Section 401 Water
Quality Certification, and Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization for the
replacement of Bridge No. 66 over Strouds Creek on SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road)
in Orange County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1002 (12); WBS No.
33562.1.1; State Project No. 8.2502201; Division 7; TIP No. B-4216
$240.00 debit from WBS 33562.1.1
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 66
on SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road) over Strouds Creek. There will be approximately 52 linear feet of
temporary impacts to Strouds Creek due to the construction of a temporary workpad. Less than
0.01 acres of permanent impacts to Strouds Creek will occur due to a bent replacement. There
will also be approximately 8,183 (5,143 for Zone 1, 3,040 for Zone 2) square feet of Neuse
buffer impacts.
Please see the enclosed copies of the permit drawings, Stormwater Management Plan, buffer
drawings, design plans, and Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) for the subject project. A
Categorical Exclusion (CE) was completed for this project in May 2008 and distributed shortly
thereafter. Additional copies are available upon request.
This project is currently scheduled for letting on January 19, 2010 (review date of December 1,
2009).
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
March 25, 2009
^Rrw rt? '1009
s Rpo`
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
090377.
d
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
W SSITE-4 ..NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION;
4701 Atlantic Ave.,
Suite 116
Raleigh, NC 27604
A copy of this"permit application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at:
} httpi//wwwlncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional
informatiori, please call Greg Price at [phone].
Sincer
fem.. Gregory .Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
w/o attachment (see permits website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 Environmental Officer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Theresa Ellerby, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
o/t0?, INA?TyF?.9\\O1G

ONiii? Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
.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: 23 33 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
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No 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 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Replace Bridge No. 66 over Strouds Creek on SR 1002
2b. County: Orange
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Hillsborough
2d. Subdivision name: not applicable
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: B-4216
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. not applicable
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): not applicable
3d. Street address: 4701 Atlantic Ave., Suite 116
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27604
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: not applicable
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: not applicable
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
la. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): not applicable
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.8745 Longitude: - 79.06495
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 1.87 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Strouds Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C-NSW
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:
Mostly forested and residential
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
130 feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace a structurally deficient and/ or functionally obsolete bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves replacing a 50-foot bridge with a 100-foot, 2-span bridge on the existing alignment with an off-site
detour. Standard road building equipment, such as trucks, dozers, and cranes will be used.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ® No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
El Preliminary El Final
of determination was made.
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
Yes ® No El Unknown
El
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ®No
61b. If yes, explain.
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
61b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ®P ? T Bridge Strouds Creek ® Nos 4,173 345
B2 ®P ? T mpacts d
i Strouds Creek ® Nos 970
1 2,695
B3 ?P?T ?Yes -
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts 5,143 3,040
6i. Comments.
6
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Dissipator pads and pre-formed scour holes are proposed outside of Buffer Zone areas to prevent erosion.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
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: not applicable
31b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
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.
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
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
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.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
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 in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
I a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ® Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
® Yes ? No
Comments: See Permit Drawings
2. Stormwater Management Plan

2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? n/a %
21b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
See enclosed plan
? 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? not applicable
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HOW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
? Yes ? No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
9
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ®Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. 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:
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):
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.
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.
not applicable
10
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes
? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes El No
impacts?

Sc. 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?
NC Natural Heritage Program database, USFWS website, NCDOT field surveys
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?
NMFS County Index
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 ® Yes ? No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NEPA Documentation (CE)
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: Hydraulics coordinating with FEMA
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Flood maps

Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D ?) , J] r q
1
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name A plican Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Project: 33562.1.1
TIP No. B-4216
Graham County
03/24/2009
Hydraulics Project Manager: Jeffrey Reek, P.E. (Mulkey Engineers & Consultants),
Marshal Clawson, P.E. (NCDOT Hydraulics Unit)
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION
The project B-4216 consists of constructing a 2 span (2@50') 21" cored slab bridge, to
replace the existing bridge #66 in Orange County on SR-1002 over Stroud's Creek. The
total project length is 0.123 miles. The project creates impacts to Stroud's Creek, which
is located in the Neuse River Basin. The project drainage systems consist of roadside
ditches and a small storm drain system.
Jurisdiction Stream: Stroud's Creek
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
The project is located within the Neuse River Basin in Orange County. The stream is a
class C, as well as nutrient sensitive waters. The Neuse River Riparian Buffer rules apply
to this project.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MAJOR STRUCTURES
The primary goal of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is to prevent degradation of the
states surface waters by the location, construction and operation of the highway system.
The BMPs are activities, practices and procedures taken to prevent or reduce stormwater
pollution. The BMP measures used on this project to reduce stormwater impacts are:
• Concentrated flows diffused outside of the Neuse River Riparian Buffer. Three
dissipater pads and one performed scour are utilized to diffuse the flow.
Major Structure:
• A bridge will be placed from -L- Station 18+05 to -L- Station 19+05. In
accordance with current guidelines, the bridge is designed so that the spill-thru
abutments are located a minimum of 10 feet from the top of bank. The bridge is
also designed so that all bridge drainage will be picked up in a storm drain system
at the end of the bridge in order to stop any direct discharges into Stroud's Creek.
The storm drain system is discharged into a performed scour hole.
N !C3?
T C U o'+
c ? E
W U £ ~
c
mm' c
c G m m
K.c E d
iwU?a
N
Ct 3, ? V
R
mN E
Y
C N
u
£ N ?
o?.
UF??ipgg
n 3r
dU c
c v
o ?
z 8 3
NO I
6 ? A V
mll. m ?
r 3
C ?
m
? T
3 p)
N
N in
o E
o
N ,y
N Z ?
Z
O
d ?p
Y ?
6
N ? ? L N
.y O o ? 9
W
O o O d N
`z p ?. p
W N O ?
p
w
P
U
z
6
°o
LL
N
N
W
a
N
Z
8
u
z
m
W
0
5
a
O
N
W
¢
N
N
U
4
w
a
3
w
U
a
LL
¢
N
W
W
6 ,
r
7
¢
N
I W
O
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES ADDRESSES
1 Alexander G. Ballwin 102 Cornell Lane ®ak Ridge, TN 37830
2 Sf.fe o{ NorEh Carolina N/A
3 Hyla S.Cohen 1927 SE Marys Road Hillshorongh,NC 27278
•
ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 66 ON SR 1 002 (ST. MARY'S ROAD)
OVER STROUDS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-1002(12)
STATE PROJECT NO. 5.2502201
WEIS No. 33552.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4216
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
114
Date Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
0!510 -7106 Date John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 56 ON SR 1 002 (ST. MARY'S ROAD)
OVER STROUDS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT No. BRSTP-1002(12)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2502201
WSS NO. 33562.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4215
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
MAY 200B
DOCUMENT PREPARED BY:
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA
0%, CARD
<?
'•??.• Ekss p•.'?q
`C
' SEAL
-2-b$ d lI f tr rr ?yl = MOW i
Date L. Kevin Austin, P.E. r•??? FOCI NE?? \?
Principal V IN cU4 S-Z-o?
Date Nicole H. Bennett, AICP
Project Manager
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Z-0b --
Date v Theresa Ellerby
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Group

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 66 ON SR 1002 (ST. MARY'S ROAD)
OVER STROUDS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT No. BRSTP- 1 002(1 2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2502201
WBS NO. 33562.1 .1
T.I.P. No. B-4216
STRUCTURES
Anodized two-bar metal railing will be provided on the bridge.
Bicycle safe bridge railing will be provided.
ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL/ROADWAY DESIGN
A landscape plan will be developed with the property owner of the historic John Berry-Baldwin
House (Sunnyside) and NCDOT. The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) will review the resultant
plan.
DIVISION ENGINEER
Coordinate construction scheduling with T.I.P. Project B-4592 along the proposed detour to insure
that only one bridge is dosed at any given time.
Coordinate with Orange County Public Schools prior to any road closures.
The Neuse River Riparian Buffer rules will be implemented during design, construction and
maintenance of the project.
ROADWAY DESIGN/HYDRAULICS
Anodized guardrail will be provided on the bridge approaches.
The driveway off St. Mary's Road into the Eno River State Park will connect back to the existing
driveway.
May 2008
Categorical Exclusion
Green Sheet
ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 66 ON SR 1002 (ST. MARY'S ROAD)
OVER STROUDS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT No. BRSTP-1002(12)
STATE PROJECT No. 8.2502201
WBS No. 33562.1.1
T.I.P. No. 8-4216
I NTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 66 is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina
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."
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 66 has a sufficiency rating of 13 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient. Replacement of this
inadequate structure will result in safer, more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 66 is located on SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road) in Orange County, approximately two miles
east of Hillsborough, North Carolina. The statewide functional classification system classifies
SR 1002 as a Rural Major Collector. At its western terminus, SR 1002 connects to US 70 Business
and extends northeast from Hillsborough to the Orange County line. Land use in the project area is
mostly wooded and residential.
The John Berry-Baldwin House (Sunnyside), located in the northeast quadrant of the project area,
was identified as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The property is accessed from
SR 1544 (Baldwin Road). St. Mary's Road Rural Historic District is included on the state Study List
(it is not locally designated as a historic district). Bridge No. 66 is located at the southwestern edge
of the district, and the John Berry-Baldwin House is a contributing building within the district (#692
in Figure 6).'
The Eno River State Park is located in the southeast quadrant of the project area and along Strouds
Creek (Figure 2).
Bridge No. 66 is approximately 1,300 feet from the confluence of Strouds Creek and the Eno River
The estimated 2008 average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 10,700 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected 2030 ADT is 18,700 vpd. The percentages of truck traffic are three percent dual-tired
vehicles and one percent truck-tractor semi trailer (I'TST). The posted speed limit on SR 1002 in the
vicinity of the project is 45 miles per hour (mph).
Bridge No. 66 was built in 1953. It is a tangent two-lane structure with a clear roadway width of 24.5
feet (Figure 3). The bridge has two spans and totals 50 feet in length. The superstructure is
composed of a timber deck on I-beams with timber railing. The substructure consists of reinforced
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 1
concrete end bents and interior bent. The height from crown to streambed is 11 feet. Bridge No. 66
is posted at 17 tons for single vehicles and 21 tons for TTSTs.
The approach roadway is a two-lane facility with nine-foot wide travel lanes and six-foot grass
shoulders.
Overhead utility lines are located on the north side of SR 1002 and overhead telephone lines are
located on the south side of SR 1002. A well and septic field are located in the northeast quadrant
of the project area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There are approximately 40 school bus crossings on Bridge No. 66 each day.
No accidents were reported in the project area during the period from October 1, 2004 to
September 30, 2007.
This section of SR 1002 is designated as a Secondary Priority Route in accordance with the Orange
County Proposed Bicycle Transportation Route Map.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on preliminary hydraulic analysis, the recommended replacement structure is a bridge
approximately 100 feet in length. The new bridge will be approximately 36 feet, five inches wide and
will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with six-foot, two and one-half inch shoulders (Figure 4A).
Standard bicycle safe bridge railing 54 inches in height will be provided. The guardrail and bridge
railing will be anodized metal railing. The existing vertical clearance will be maintained. A minimum
0.3 percent grade is recommended to facilitate bridge deck drainage. The length of the new structure
may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
The approach roadway will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders, including
four-foot paved shoulders (Figure 4A). The design speed will be 50 mph.
B. BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Two build alternatives were studied for this project. They are described below.
Alternative A (preferred) replaces the structure at the existing location (Figure 5A). During
construction, traffic will be maintained by an off-site detour along SR 1561 (Lawrence Road) and US
70 Bypass, approximately three miles in length. User costs are estimated at $12,000 per day for a.
four-month road closure. The detour would result in approximately 3 minutes additional travel
time. No substantial impacts are anticipated to emergency services and school bus routes
(Appendix). The NCDOT will coordinate with Orange County Public Schools prior to any road
closures. NCDOT Division 7 concurs with the use of this detour.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 2
The construction schedule for the replacement of Bridge No.66 will be coordinated with the
replacement of Bridge No.64 (B-4592) over the Eno River on SR 1561 to insure only one bridge is
closed at any given time.
Altemative B replaces the structure at the existing location (Figure 5B). During construction, traffic
would be maintained with an on-site detour south (downstream) of the existing bridge. The detour
structure would provide two 12-foot travel lanes with two-foot shoulders (Figure 4B). The approach
roadway would provide two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot grass shoulders, and a design speed
of 40 mph. This alternative is not recommended because of higher cost, greater impacts to the Eno
River State Park, and greater impacts to land from the St. Mary's Road Rural Historic District.
C. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY
Alignments on new location within the project area were eliminated because additional right-of-way
would be required from historic resources and the Eno River State Park. '
The No-Build (or "do-nothing") alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is
not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1002 on Bridge No. 66.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT's Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
"rehabilitation" of this bridge is not feasible because of its age and deteriorated condition.
D. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative A, replacing the bridge on existing alignment while maintaining traffic with an off-site
detour, is the preferred alternative. Alternative A was selected because it minimizes impacts to the
John Berry-Baldwin property, St. Mary's Road Rural Historic District, and Eno River State Park, and
it is more economical than Alternative B.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
DESIGN EXCEPTION
No design exceptions are anticipated.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 3
IV. ESTIMATED COST
Table 1 shows estimated costs based on current prices.
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Alternative A
(preferred) Alternative B
Structure Removal (Existing) $ 19,000 $ 19,000
Proposed Structure 390,000 390,000
Roadway Approaches 172,000 172,000
Temporary Detour Bridge 0 134,400
Detour Approaches 0 242,100
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 140,000 267,500
Engineering Contingencies 129,000 175,000
ROW/Contt. Easements/Utilities 91,000 113,500
Total $941,000 $1,513,500
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the Draft 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement
Program is $1,125,000, including $150,000 in prior years, $100,000 for right-of-way, and $875,000
for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES-HAROLD UPDATING
A. METHODOLOGY
Field investigations in the project area were conducted by qualified biologists on January 15, 2004.
Field surveys were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and to document natural
communities, wildlife, and the presence of protected species or their habitats.
Published information regarding the project area and region was derived from a number of
resources including: United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle
map (Hillsborough, North Carolina), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWT maps, NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project area, and Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey maps of Orange County. Water resources information was
obtained from publications of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species within the project area
and vicinity was gathered from the USFWS list of protected species and the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
Dominant plant species were identified in each stratum for all natural communities encountered.
Plant community descriptions are based on those classified in Schafale and Weakley (1990), where
applicable. Names and descriptions of plant species generally follow Radford et al. (1968), unless
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 4
more current information was available. Animal names and descriptions follow Bogan (2002),
Conant and Collins (1998), Lee ei al. (1980 et .req.), Martof et al. (1980), Stokes (1966), and Webster et
al. (1985). Scientific names and common names (when applicable) are provided for each plant and
animal species listed. Subsequent references to the same organism include the common name only.
During field surveys, wildlife identification involved a variety of observation techniques: acdve
searching and capture, visual observations (both with and without the use of binoculars), and
observing the characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows). Any organisms that
may have been captured during these searches were identified and released without injury.
Quantitative water sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
Jurisdictional wedand determinations were performed using the three-parameter approach as
prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Supplementary technical
literature describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrological
indicators were also utilized. Wetland functions were evaluated according to the NCDWQ's rating
system, fourth version. Surface waters in the project area were evaluated and classified based on a
preponderance of perennial stream characteristics as defined in NCDWQ's Stream Classification
Method, second version, as well as, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Stream
Quality Assessment Worksheet.
B. PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The project area is located in eastern Orange County approximately two miles east of the town of
Hillsborough. Orange County is situated in the north-central part of the state in the Piedmont
physiographic province. The geography of Orange County consists predominantly of rolling hills,
with steep areas following major streams. Narrow, nearly level floodplains exist along most of the
streams. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 490 feet above mean sea level (msl)
along Strouds Creek to approximately 530 feet above msl at the far western end of the project.
The geology underlying the project area is part of the Eastern Slate Belt and consists primarily of
metamorphic rock. Two geologic outcroppings are present within the project area: felsic
metavolcanic rock and a phyllite and schist formation. The felsic metavolcanic rock formation is
comprised of metamorphosed dacitic to rhyolitic flows and tuffs. The phyllite and schist formation
consists of the nominal minerals with biotite, pyrite, phyllonite, fine-grained meta-sediment, and
meta-volcanic rock.
Five soil series are represented within the project area; Chewacla, Congaree, Georgeville, Herndon,
and Tatum. Soil mapping units within the study corridor include: Chewacla loam (Fluvaquentic
Dyrtrochreptr), Congaree fine sandy loam (Oxyaquic Udifluvents), Georgeville silt loam (Typic
Kanhaphrdults), Herndon silt loam (Typic Kanhapludults), and Tatum silt loam (Typic Hapludults).
Characteristics are presented below.
Chewacla loam soils are somewhat poorly drained and are found along small to medium-sized
waterways throughout the area. These soils have a moderate permeability and a shallow depth to the
seasonal high water table (within 12 inches); therefore, both overbank and groundwater flooding can
occur and persist for many days. Chewacla soils are found on the far northern portion of the project
area along Strouds Creek.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 5
Congaree fine sandy loam soils are well drained and are found along medium to large-sized
streams and rivers. Congaree soils have a moderate permeability and a seasonal high water table at
approximately 30 inches from the soil surface. Even though the seasonal high water table is
relatively deep, over bank flooding is not uncommon. Congaree silt loam is found within the project
area immediately adjacent to Strouds Creek.
Georgeville silt loam soils are well drained and typically found on broad upland ridges. This soil
has a moderate permeability and a deep seasonal high water table. Two soil mapping units of
Georgeville silt loam are represented within the project area, one with two to six percent slopes, and
one with six to 10 percent slopes. A potential erosion hazard exists due to Georgeville's position on
the landscape. Georgeville soil types are found on uplands on both sides of the project area.
Hemdon silt loam soils are well drained and are typically found on broad upland ridges. These
soils have a moderate permeability and a deep seasonal high water table. The series is found at the
far western end of the project area atop a wide ridge.
Tatum silt loam soils are well drained and are typically located on side slopes in upland areas.
Tatum soils have a moderate permeability and strongly acidic subsoil. This soil series is found as a
small area on the southern side of Saint Mary's Road on the steep slopes along the eastern side of
Strouds Creek.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic vegetation. Soils referred to as "Hydric A" are completely hydric throughout the
mapped soil unit. "Hydric B" soils are non-hydric soils that contain inclusions of hydric soils, usually
in depressional areas or along the border with other soil units. Two Hydric B soil map units occur in
the project area: Chewacla loam and Congaree fine sandy loam. No hydric inclusions were found in
these soil map units within the project area.
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
Streams, creeks, and tributaries within the project vicinity are completely within the Neuse River
Basin. Strouds Creek is a perennial stream flowing in a southerly direction toward the Eno River,
which is located approximately 1,800 feet from the Bridge No. 66 crossing. Strouds Creek is within
Neuse River Subbasin 03-04-01. The NCDWQ stream index number for the creek is 27-2-9 and the
USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit is 03020201.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses. Srouds Creek
is classified as "C-NSW." The class "C" designation denotes freshwaters protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and other uses. Srouds
Creek is also considered Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). This is a supplemental surface water
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 6
classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject
to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. The Eno River, including the
confluence with Strouds Creek, is classified as a WS-IV drinking water supply watershed. The WS-
IV classification places minor restrictions on discharges into the watershed. No Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or 303(d) waters occur within a one-mile
radius of the project area.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-quality
monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water-quality
data. The AMS detemvnes the "use support" status of waterbodies, meaning how well a waterbody
supports its designated uses. There is an AMS monitoring station on the Eno River approximately
nine miles east of the project area. The Eno River at this station has a use support rating of "Fully
Supporting." Strouds Creek is rated "Support Threatened" (ST) for use support in the project area.
An "ST" rating is given to water bodies that support their designated uses but have a lower water
quality than do the "Fully Supporting" streams.
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is used to assess the biological integrity of
streams by examining the structure and health of the fish community. Data collected in 2000
indicated this site had an "Excellent" rating. Previous samples taken from 1984 to 1990 generated
"Good" ratings.
Bioclassification criteria have been developed that are based on the number and type of benthic
macroinvertebrates (primarily Orders: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera) present in
streams and rivers because they are very sensitive to the effects of water pollution. A benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling site is located on the Eno River at SR 1569, approximately three miles
southeast and downstream from the project area. This site was last sampled in 2000 and was given a
bioclassification rating of "Excellent"
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to register for a
permit. There are no currently pemtitted dischargers on Strouds Creek.
A classification system for stream channels based on fluvial geomorphologic principles and
landscape position was used for stream analysis. Based on this method and field observations made
during the site visit, Strouds Creek appears to be a C5 type channel at the bridge site. The stream has
a moderate flow over a substrate of silt to cobble, with moderately embedded sand and cobble.
Approximate stream dimensions are shown in Table 2.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 7
Table. 2. Approximate Dimensions of Strouds Creek
Characteristic Dimension
Bankfull width 20 to 25 feet
Channel width 15 to 20 feet
Bank height 2 to 3 feet
Water depth in riffles 3 to 9 inches
Water depth in pools 1 to 2 feet
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality from construction-related activities include increased
sedimentation and turbidity. Long-term construction-related impacts to water resources include
substrate destabilization, bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow rates, and possible
temperature fluctuations within the channel due to removal of streamside vegetation. No adverse
long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from the alternative under consideration.
The proposed project will replace the bridge at the existing location, which will allow for
continuation of present stream flow within the existing channel, thereby protecting stream integrity.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources from runoff and erosion in the
project area.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
The bridge deck and railing will be removed without dropping components into Waters of the U.S.
There is potential for components of the substructure to be dropped into Waters of the U.S. during
construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete bents is approximately 35
cubic yards.
0. BIOTIC REBoURCES
1. Plant Communities
The field survey team observed three plant communities in the project area: Piedmont alluvial forest,
mixed pine/hardwood forest, and urban/disturbed community. These communities are described
below.
a. Piedmont Alluvial Forest
The Piedmont alluvial forest community occurs along river and stream floodplains in the Piedmont
of,North Carolina with small, indistinguishable fluvial landforms and vegetation zones. It is best
classified as a variation of Schafale and Weakley's Piedmont Alluvial Forest type. This vegetative
community is situated immediately adjacent to Suouds Creek in the project area and has been
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 8
disturbed in the past by activities such as agriculture, forest management, and beaver dams. The
canopy and understory are somewhat open throughout.
Dominant species observed in the canopy and understory layers include sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennrylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgurn (Liquidambar
sryraciflua), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Shrubs and vines present within the project area
include privet (7lgustrum sinense), eastern red cedar (Juniper s virginiana), silky dogwood (Corpus
amomum), black willow (Salrx nigra), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The herbaceous community is very diverse, with
dominant species including goldenrod (Solidago spp.), multiflora rose (Rota mult flora), Christmas fern
(Palysticbum acrosticboider), rushes (Jrrncus effusus), and creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum).
b. Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The mixed pine/hardwood forest community is located upslope of the alluvial forest. This
community appears to be a variation of the Dlesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
identified by Schafale and Weakley, with an increased amount of pine. These communities typically
occur on acidic soils in lower slopes, steep north-facing slopes, ravines, and occasionally well-
drained small stream bottoms. Under natural conditions they are uneven-aged with old trees present;
however, there are few older trees present within the project area, likely due to past disturbance
activities such as agriculture and forest management.
Dominant canopy and subcanopy species within the mixed pine-hardwood forest community
include Virginia pine (Pinur virginiana), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), pignut hickory (Caryaglabra), yellow
poplar, white oak (Quercus alba), American beech (Fagusgrandifolia), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
sweetgum, and loblolly pine (Pinur taeda). Shrubs and vines include flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), strawberry bush (Euonymur americana),
blackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbrier, and Japanese honeysuckle. The herbaceous vegetation consists
primarily of creeping grass, partridge berry (Mitchella repens), wild ginger (Hexastylis spp.), and
muscadine grape (Vitis r aundttfolia).
C. Urban/Disturbed Community
The urban/disturbed community is the most dominant vegetative community within the project
area. Typically, this community is characterized by areas that are periodically maintained by human
influences, such as roadside and power line rights-of-way, regularly mowed lawns, and open areas.
Within the project area, agricultural fields and residences are present throughout. They are especially
prevalent on the western side of the project area. This area is dominated by herbaceous vegetation
such as multiflora rose, blackberry, foxtail grass (Setaria spp.), goldenrod, and rice-cut grass (Leersia
spp.). Trees present within the maintained yards include loblolly pine, flowering dogwood, white
oak, and American holly (Ilex opaca).
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 9
2. Wildlife
The forested and man-dominated communities in the project area offer mild diversity of foraging,
nesting, and cover habitat for many species of amphibians, reptiles, buds, and mammals. Species
that may be associated with these types of communities are described below. An asterisk (*)
indicates the species that were directly observed or for which evidence was noted during field
reconnaissance.
Reptile species associated with the project area may include snakes such as the rough green snake
(Opbeodrys aestevus), eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum), and mole kingsnake (L
ca!ligaster rhombomaculata). These animals inhabit fields, woodlands, river bottoms, and stream edges
of the Piedmont and lower mountains in North Carolina. No reptiles were observed during the site
visit.
Many bud species may inhabit or migrate through the project area. Inhabitants may include red-
bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), downy woodpecker (P.
pubescent), blue jay (Cyanocitta nistata), Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse* (P.
bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), American robin* (Turdus migratorius), northern
cardinal* (Cardlnalis cardinalis), northern mockingbird* (Mimuspolyglottos), house finch (Carpodacur
mexicanus), Carolina wren* (Tbgothorru ludovidanus), dark-eyed junco* Uunco byemalis), American
goldfinch* (Carduelis tristis), and brown-headed cowbird (Molotbrus ater). Predatory species may
include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensir), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), and barred owl (Strix varia).
A wide variety of mammals are expected to inhabit the project area and surrounding landscape.
Virginia opossum (Didephis virginiana), woodchuck (Marmota monax), gray squirrel* (Sciurus
carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), raccoon (Procyon loto> , eastern spotted
skunk (Spilogale putorius), white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus), beaver* (Castor canadensis) and
muskrat (Ondatra #bethicus) are species mostly likely to be found. Bats such as the eastern pipistrelle
(Pipistrellut subflavus), the eastern red (Lasiurus borealis), and the evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis) may
be present in the project area.
3. Aquatic Communities
Minor bank erosion was observed along Strouds Creek. A primary reason for the minimal erosion is
the presence of several existing beaver dams upstream of the project area and evidence of historic
beaver dams within the project area. These structures act as grade control for the stream and slow
the water during large rain events. During a cursory visual macroinvertebrate survey of Strouds
Creek, several stoneflies (Order: Plecoptera) and caddisflies (Order: Tricoptera) were observed,
especially at a large riffle immediately downstream of Bridge No. 66.
The project area likely has a limited amphibian population, which may include salamanders and
frogs. Spring peepers (Hyla crxdfer) and pickerel frogs (Rana palustris) are two species that may be
present.
Reptiles that spend the majority of their lives in aquatic communities and are somewhat common
throughout this portion of North Carolina include the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), eastern
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 10
musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), yellowbelly slider (Chgsemys scripta), and northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon).
Fish that are likely to utilize Strouds Creek include yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides), American eel (Anguilla mstrata), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), and
creek chub (Semotilus almmaculatus). According to information provided by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Strouds Creek contains a large sunfish population that
includes redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (Lcpomis
cyanellus), and warmouth (Lipomisgulosus).
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a. Terrestrial Communities
Table 3 shows permanent impacts to terrestrial biotic communities. These impacts were estimated
based upon the approximate construction limits of the two alternatives.
Table 3. Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Alternative A

Vegetative Community
(preferred) Alternative B
(acres) (acres)
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.18 0.48
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.82 1.33
Urban/Disturbed Community 0.88 1.62
Totals 1.88 3.43
Temporary fluctuation in populations of animal species that utilize terrestrial areas is anticipated
during construction. Slow-moving, burrowing, and subterranean organisms will be directly impacted
by construction activities, while mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities. Habitat
reduction may occur when an ecosystem is disturbed.
b. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from construction
activities. Impacts usually associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization
and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the substrate and impacts adjacent
stream-side vegetation. Such disturbances within the substrate lead to increased siltation, which can
clog the gills and feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species.
Appropriate measures will be taken to avoid spillage of construction materials and control runoff.
Such measures include an erosion and sedimentation control plan, provisions for disposal and
handling of waste materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road
maintenan cc measures. NCDOT's Bert Management Practicer for Protection of Surface Waters (BMP-PSW)
and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be enforced during the construction stages of the project.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 11
The removal of stream-side vegetation and placement of fill material during construction contributes
to erosion and possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to reduce the impacts
by supporting the underlying soils. Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds,
trash, and other materials into the aquatic communities at the construction site. As a result, sand
bars may be formed both at the site and downstream. Increased light penetration from the removal
of stream-side vegetation may increase water temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus
reducing aquatic life that depends on high oxygen concentrations.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. "Waters of the United States:" Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters and wetlands within the project area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as "Waters of the United States." At the Federal Level
the USACE has the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provision
of the CWA. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330. At the state level
NCDWQ has the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions
of the CWA.
Jurisdictional surface waters include perennial and intermittent streams and certain impoundments.
Strouds Creek occurs as a perennial surface water in the study area.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. No
jurisdictional wetlands occur within the project area.
2. Permits
Permits will be required for roadway encroachment into surface waters. The USACE issues Section
404 Nationwide 23 permits for activities that are categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because they are included within a category of actions that do not have a significant
effect on the environment. Regional conditions also require compliance with General Condition 13
concerning notification and coordination with the USACE for permit applications for projects with
greater than 150 total linear feet of impacts.
The USACE issues Nationwide Permit 33 when construction activities necessitate the use of
temporary structures such as cofferdams, placement of access fill material, or dewatering of the
construction site. In addition to the requirements for NWP 23, any work below the ordinary high
water mark must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date and a restoration plan of
reasonable measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects to aquatic resources must be submitted.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is necessary for projects that require Section 404
permits. The State has General Certifications that will match the permit type authorized by the
USACE. The NCDWQ must issue the 401 Certification before the USACE will issue the 404
Permit. Compensatory mitigation may be required when more than 150 linear feet of stream and/or
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 12
more than one acre of wetland impacts occur. Written concurrence from the NCDWQ is not
required.
Due to a lack of jurisdictional wetlands within the project area, permits involving activities that
discharge fill into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are not anticipated to be required.
The bridge demolition activities associated with this replacement will follow NCDOT's Best
Management Practices far Construction and Maintenance. All methods of demolition shall be considered
and implemented where practical, other than dropping the bridge in the water. The timber deck and
timber bridge railing can be removed without being dropped into Waters of the US; however, there
is potential for components of the substructure to be dropped into Waters of the US. Permitting
will be coordinated such that any pen-nit needed for bridge construction will address issues related to
bridge demolition. If there is a practical alternative to dropping bridge components into the water,
that alterative will be followed.
3. Buffer Rules
The Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to
perennial and intemtittent 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. Neuse River
Buffers are divided into two zones. Zone 1 includes the first 30 feet out from the water and
essentially must remain undisturbed. Zone 2 consists of the landward 20 feet which must be
vegetated, but allows for certain land uses. Grading and replanting in Zone 2.is allowed provided
that the health of the vegetation in Zone 1 is not compromised.
Table 4 shows anticipated Neuse River Buffer impacts for the proposed project.
Table 4. Estimated Neuse River Buffer Impacts
Proposed Zone 1 Zone 2 Total Neuse River
Alternatives (acres) (acres)
Buffer Impacts
(acres)
Alternative A

(preferred) 0.06 0.08 0.14
Alternative B 0.14 0.11 0.25
Simple perpendicular bridge crossings are designated Allowable within the riparian buffer. The
Allowable designation means that the intended uses may proceed within the riparian buffer provided
that there are no practical alternates. Allowable with Mitigation buffer impacts for bridge
replacement projects are addressed when parallel impacts to jurisdictional waters occur. Allowable
and Allowable with Mitigation buffer impacts require written authorization from the Division of
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 13
Water Quality prior to project development. Both of the proposed alternatives are expected to have
only Allowable buffer impacts.
4. Mitigation
Mitigation of impacts has been defined by the Council on Environmental Quality to include
avoidance, minimization, and compensation. These activities must be considered in sequential order.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the
US. Bridge No. 66 is structurally deficient; avoiding replacement is not a feasible option.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to Waters of the US. Both alternatives minimize the amount of in-stream impacts by
replacing the existing bridge with another bridge instead of a culvert or pipe. The proposed
alternatives are longer than the existing bridge, thereby minimizing floodplain impacts. By replacing
the bridge in-place and having an off-site detour, Alternative A further minimizes impacts to the
floodplain associated with Strouds Creek.
Compensatory mitigation includes restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation of stream
functions and values that are lost when these systems are convened to other uses. The USACE
usually requires compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act when there are unavoidable impacts to perennial or intermittent streams.
Because there are no anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or streams, compensatory stream
and wetland mitigation is not expected to be required for either of the proposed alternatives.
F. RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected
be subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate
laws.
1. Federally Protected Species
Species which are listed, or are proposed for listing, as endangered or threatened are recorded in
Section 4 of the ESA. As of the latest list dated January 31, 2008, the USFWS identified four
endangered species known to occur in Orange County (Table 5). Species descriptions and biological
conclusions are provided below. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) maps
were reviewed on February 12, 2008 utilizing data updated on September 28, 2007 to determine if
any protected species have been identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that no
species identified as endangered or threatened by the USFWS have been identified within a one-mile
radius of the project area. It should be noted that the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was formerly
listed as a Threatened species for Orange County; however, as of August 8, 2007 it has been
formally delisted. Information regarding the bald eagle is included in Section F.3.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 14
Table 5. Federally Protected Species for Orange County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus micbauxii Endangered
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laetigata Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
This bird is a small, seven- to eight-inch tall woodpecker with a black and white barred back and
conspicuous large white cheek surrounded by a black cap, nape, and throat. Males have a very small
red mark at the upper edge of the white cheek and just behind the eye. The red-cockaded
woodpecker (RC?? is found in open pine forests in the southeastem United States. The RCW uses
open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (PinuspalustrsJ), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand optimally should contain at least 50 percent pine and lack a thick
understory. The RCW is unique among woodpeckers because it nests almost exclusively in living
pine trees. These birds excavate nests in pines greater than 60 years old that are contiguous with pine
dominated, foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW may extend 500 acres and must be
contiguous (separated by no more than 330 linear feet) with suitable nesting sites.
Living pines infected with red-heart disease (Formes pint) are often selected for cavity excavation
because the inner heartwood is usually weakened. Cavities are located from 12 to 100 feet above
ground level and below live branches. These trees can be identified by "candles," a.large
encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. Colonies consist of one to many of these
candle trees. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 10 to 12
days later.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the RCW consisting of open, mature stands of southern pines does not exist
within the project area. The pines that are present in the project area are young (<30 years old),
mixed with various hardwoods, and the forests contain a thick understory. Proposed project
construction is not expected to impact this species. Based upon this consideration, the proposed
project will have NO EFFECT on the RCW.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 15
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
Date Listed: March 14, 1990
The dwarf wedge mussel is relatively small, rarely exceeding 1.5 inches in length. The shell's outer
surface is usually brown or yellowish brown in color, with faint green rays that are most noticeable
in young specimens. Unlike some mussel species, the male and female shells differ slightly, with the
female being wider to allow greater space for egg development. A distinguishing characteristic of this
mussel is its dentition pattern: the right valve possesses two lateral teeth, while the left valve has only
one. This trait is opposite of all other North American species having lateral teeth. This mussel
inhabits creeks and rivers that have a slow to moderate current with a sand, gravel, or muddy bed.
These streams must be nearly silt free in order to support dwarf wedge mussels.
The dwarf wedge mussel is considered to be a long-term brooder, with gravid females reportedly
observed in fall months. Like other freshwater mussels, this species' eggs are fertilized in the female
by sperm that are taken in through their siphons as they respire. The eggs develop within the
female's gills into larvae (glochidia). The females later release these glochidia, which then attach to
the gills or fins of specific host fish species. Based on anecdotal evidence, such as dates when gravid
females are present or absent, it appears that release of glochidia occurs primarily in April in North
Carolina. While the USFWS notes that the host fish species is unknown, evidence indicates that an
anadromous fish which migrates from ocean waters to fresh waters for spawning may be the likely
host species. However, recent research has confirmed at least three potential fish host species for
the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina: the tessellated darter, Johnny darter, and mottled sculpin.
These fish species are found in Atlantic coast drainages of North Carolina.
Biological Conclusion: MAYAFFECT, NOTLIKELYTOADVERSELYAFFECT
Suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel consisting of nearly silt-free streams, with slow to
moderate currents exists within the project area. However, the Strouds Creek watershed currently
exhibits a moderate silt load resulting from residential development upstream, and therefore, does
not provide exceptional habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel.
A freshwater mussel survey was conducted on March 25, 2004. According to the report, three
species of freshwater mussels were observed: elliptio mussels (Ellzptio spp.), creeper (Stmpbitus.
undulatus), and notched rainbow (Villosa constrida). No dwarf wedge mussel individuals were
observed during the surveys, and the report gave a recommended biological conclusion of MAY
AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT. The USFWS concurred with the
findings and biological conclusion in a letter dated December 15, 2004. A copy of the USFWS
concurrence letter is included in the Appendix. According to the Natural Environment Unit, a
resurvey for dwarf wedge mussel is planned for 2008.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 16
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxit)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered-Special Concern
Date Listed: September 28, 1989
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from one to three feet in
height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate leaflets. Most
plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants with both male and
female flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal, erect, dense cluster, and
colored greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from June to July; while the fruit, a red
drupe, is produced through the months of August to October. Only 36 extant populations are
known, with 31 in North Carolina, three in Virginia, and two populations in Georgia.
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. It spreads by
producing cloning shoots from the roots of mature plants. Apparently, this plant survives best in
areas where some form of periodic disturbance provides open areas. At least twelve of the plant's
populations in North Carolina are on highway rights-of way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially
maintained clearings.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac consisting of sandy or rocky open woods does not exist in the
project area. The mapped soil units throughout the project area contain soils with textures of silty
loam to silty clay. Since Michaux's sumac spreads by clonal shoots from root systems, the firm soils
in these areas would not provide suitable habitat for this plant. Based upon this assessment, the
project would have NO EFFECT on Michaux's sumac.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea iaetdgata)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
Date Listed: October 8, 1992
Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to five feet tall from a vertical
root stock. The stems are smooth, with few leaves. The largest leaves are the basal leaves, which
reach eight inches in length and three inches in width, have long stems, and are elliptical to broadly
lanceolate, tapering to the base, and smooth to slightly rough. Mid-stem leaves have shorter stems or
no stems and are smaller in size than the basal leaves. The rays of the flowers (petal-like structures)
are light pink to purplish, usually drooping, and two to just over three inches long. Flower heads are
usually solitary, with flowering occurring from May through July. The species is now known to
survive only in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Six populations survive in
North Carolina, and are located in Durham and Granville Counties.
The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone
bluffs, and power line rights-of-way, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated with
limestone (in Virginia), gabbro (in North Carolina and Virginia), diabase (in North Carolina and
South Carolina), and marble (in South Carolina and Georgia). Optimal sites are characterized by
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 17
abundant sunlight and little competition in the herbaceous layer. Natural foes, as well as large
herbivores, are part of the history of the vegetation in this species' range.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the smooth coneflower consisting of open and disturbed areas within regions
containing a gabbro or diabase geology is present within the project area. The USFWS has
established the late May to October period as an appropriate bloom-time survey window for this
species. A pedestrian survey for the smooth coneflower was conducted on September 24, 2004 and
again on June 6, 2006. No smooth coneflower individuals were observed during either survey. The
USFWS concurred with the findings and biological conclusion MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY
TO ADVERSELY AFFECT, the smooth coneflower in a letter dated October 8, 2004. A copy of
the USF IS concurrence letter is included in the Appendix. Based on current protocol, smooth
coneflower would receive a NO EFFECT biological conclusion. Due to the date of the last survey
and the Let date of the project, a re-survey for smooth coneflower will be conducted in 2008.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7. Species designated as FSC are defined as
taxa, which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2)
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing. The USFWS lists 11 FSCs that are known to occur in Orange County. NCNHP
maps were reviewed on February 12, 2008 utilizing information updated on September 28, 2007, to
determine if any protected species have been identified near the project area. According to the
NCNHP information, a population of Atlantic pigtoe, FSC mussel species listed in Orange County,
is located approximately 0.25 miles southeast of the study area in the Eno River. NCNHP does not
depict any other populations of FSC's within one-mile of the project area.
Species identified as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the State of North Carolina are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Orange County FSCs per the September 2007 NCNHP
database, their state status, and the existence of suitable habitat within the project area are shown in
Table 6.
Several state protected species have been identified at various locations within one mile of the
project area. These include Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), creeper (SImphitus undulates), and
Neuse River waterdog (Necturus Levan). In addition, three areas mapped as NCNHP Identified
Priority Areas (IPA) are located within three miles of the project area. These IPAs are the Eno River
Aquatic Habitat, located throughout the Eno River; the Poplar Ridge Slopes, located along the
southern side of the Eno River, and an Upland Depression Swamp Forest, a small area found 2.5
miles southeast of the project area.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 18
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern, State Status, and Potential Habitat

Common Name
Scientific Name
State Status Habitat
Available
American eel Anguilla rostrata None Yes
Carolina darter Etbeostoma collis 1 idinion SC No

Common Name
Scientific Name
State Status Habitat
Available
Roanoke bass Amblo lites cavi rons SR No
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia mason E Yes
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa E Yes
Green floater Lasmi ona subvindis E Yes
Savanna lilli ut Toxolasma ullus E Yes
Yellow lam mussel La silis cariosa E Yes
Butternut u laps dherea None Yes
Cream tick-trefoil Desmodium ochroleucum SR-T No
Sweet inesa Monotrosis odorata ' SR-T No
Tone 's mountain mint P cnantbemum torn SR-T No
Notes:
E-Endangered, SC-Special Concem, SR-Significantly R=, -T-Throughout
3. Bald Eagle Status and Concerns
As of August 8, 2007 the bald eagle has been delisted (formerly Threatened) from the USFWS
Endangered Species list. According to the December 20, 2007 USFWS list of federally protected
species for Orange County, the bald eagle receives protection from the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGPA). This federal law prohibits "taking" -- killing, selling or otherwise hamming
eagles, their nests or eggs. Due to the bald eagle's current delisted status, a biological conclusion is
no longer necessary for this species.
Suitable habitat for the bald eagle consisting of large bodies of open water does not exist within the
project area or within 0.5 mile of the project area. Strouds Creek is too small to support and sustain
bald eagles for nesting or foraging. The Eno River, located approximately 1,800 feet downstream of
Bridge No. 66, does not provide suitable habitat for the bald eagle until the back waters of Falls
Lake approximately 12.5 miles east of Bridge No. 66. In addition, NCNHP does not list any
occurrences of the bald eagle within a one-mile radius of the project area. Therefore, it is
anticipated that the proposed project construction will not impact bald eagles or their habitat.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 19
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. COMPLIANCE GUIDELINES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies
to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on
properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on July 28, 2004. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by NCDOT architectural historians and staff
at the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). The John Berry-Baldwin House (Sunnyside) was
identified as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The house is eligible under
Criterion B for its nineteenth century builder-architect, John Berry, and Criterion C for its
architecture. The John Berry-Baldwin House is also a contributing building to the St. Mary's Road
Historic District (Figure 6). In a letter dated March 5, 2004, the HPO concurred that the John
Berry-Baldwin House is individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is listed
in the State Study List.
In a concurrence form dated August 30, 2004, the HPO concurred with the NCDOT and FHWA
determination that Alternative A would have no adverse effect on the John Berry-Baldwin House
and the St. Mary's Road Rural Historic District with the following conditions: use of anodized two-
bar metal railing and guardrail, on the new bridge, and the preparation of a landscape plan, in
consultation with the property owner and HPO, for the St. Mary's Road frontage affected by the
proposed permanent drainage easement. The HPO concurred with the NCDOT and FHWA's
determination that Alternative B would have an adverse effect.
After efforts to further minimize harm to the historic property, the HPO, in a concurrence form
dated January 28, 2008, concurred that Alternative A would have no adverse effect on the historic
property with the condition that a landscape plan be prepared in consultation with the historic
property owner. The FHWA used the HPO's concurrence as a basis for a "de minimis" finding for
the historic property. As a result, no further evaluation is necessary for the John Berry-Baldwin
property.
Both concurrence forms are included in the Appendix.
NCDOT and HPO staff met with the owner of the John Berry-Baldwin House on January 22, 2004
and agreed to the joint development of a landscape plan. NCDOT Roadway Design will coordinate
with the property owner, and HPO will review the resultant plan.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 20
C. ARCHAEOLOGY
In a memorandum dated March 4, 2004, the HPO recommended that "no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project." A copy of the memorandum is included
in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No substantial
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocations of residents or businesses are expected with implementation of the
proposed alternative.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether
minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined the project
would not disproportionately impact any minority or low-income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the immediate
project area.
The Eno River State Park proposes to expand park boundaries westward along the Eno River to
US 70 Bypass. The NC Division of Parks and Recreation purchased a 22-acre parcel in 2004 with
State Parks & Recreation Trust Funds. The parcel is located in the southeast quadrant of the project
area and along Strouds Creek down to the Eno River, approximately 1,300 feet. Since the proposed
project will require a permanent drainage easement on property from a publicly owned recreational
facility, an evaluation is required in accordance with Section 4(0 of the US Department of
Transportation Act of 1966 (23 CFR 771.135). See Section IX for the Section 4(E) Evaluation.
The Fammland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider
the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction
projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Since the proposed bridge will be replaced at the existing location, the Farmland Protection
Policy does not apply.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 21
The project is located in Orange County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, 40 CFR Pars 51 and 93 are not applicable,
because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to
create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 64 by constructing a new structure. The project
will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location of the existing
facility, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts relative to the No-
Build alternative. As such, FHWA has determined that this project will generate minimal air quality
impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special mobile source
air toxic (MSAT) concerns. Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs.
EPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSATs to decline significantly over
the next 20 years. FHWA predicts MSATs will decline in the range of 57 to 87 percent, from 2000
to 2020, based on regulations now in effect, even with a projected 64 percent increase in vehicle
miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, both the background level of MSATs and the possibility of even
minor MSAT emissions from this project will be reduced.
The project is located in Orange County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel HID
nonattainment area for ozone (03). The area was designated nonattainment for 03 under the eight-
hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures
for Orange County. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Burlington Graham MPO 2030 LRTP
and the 2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (MTIPs) conform to the
intent of the SIP (or base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate).
The USDOT made conformity determinations on the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO LRTP,
the Burlington Graham MPO LRTP and Orange County projects from the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) on June 15, 2005.
For the donut area of Orange County, the projects from the 2006-2012 STIP conform to the intent
of the SIP (or base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate). The
current conformity determinations are consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR
Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project's design concept of scope, as used
in the conformity analyses.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. The project's impact on noise
and air quality will not change.
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 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 22
772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required. The
proposed project is not considered a Type 1 project per 23 CFR 772.5 (h).
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Division of
Solid Waste Management revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area. A field
reconnaissance survey was performed and no underground storage tank (UST) sites were found
within the project area. If any unregulated USTs or any potential source of contam nation is
discovered during right-of-way initial contacts with impacted property owners, then an assessment
will be conducted to determine the extent of any contamination at that time.
The drainage area of Strouds Creek at the proposed crossing is approximately nine square miles.
Orange County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. The project site
is located in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone. It is not anticipated that a floodway modification
will be required since the bridge will be an "in kind" replacement. The Flood Insurance Rate Map
(Figure 7) shows the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the project.
This stream is not included on the 303(d) list for impaired streams
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
Scoping letters were sent early in the planning process to involve local officials and agency
representatives in the development of this project.
A combined Citizens Informational Workshop for B-4216 and B-4592 was held on September 27,
2004 at C. W. Stanford Middle School. Residents, property owners, and business owners had the
opportunity to take part in project development, ask questions, and voice concerns. Bridge No. 66
proposed Alternatives A and B were displayed along with alternatives for Bridge No. 64 (B-4592).
Seventeen citizens attended the meeting and eight comment sheets were received. Five citizens
preferred Alternative A for Bridge No. 66.
An informational newsletter was mailed to area residents and appropriate officials in March 2006
identifying Alternative A as the preferred alternative. No comments were received in response to
the newsletter.
IX. SECTION 4(F) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1 966
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in coordination with the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) proposes a transportation action to replace Bridge No. 66 on
SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road) over Strouds Creek. One historic property and one public recreation area
are located along SR 1002 in the project area. The historic property and the public recreation area
require an evaluation in accordance with Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act
of 1966 and the federal regulations 23 CRF 771.135.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 23
Part 23 CFR 771.135 Section 4(E) (49 U.S.C. 303) states that "The Administrator may not approve
the use of land from a significant publicly owned public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless a determination is made that:
(i) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property; and
(ii) The action includes all possible planning to minimise harm to the property resulting
from such use"
A. PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action includes the replacement of the existing bridge with a new bridge
approximately 100 feet in length. The new bridge will be approximately 36 feet wide and will provide
two 12-foot travel lanes with six-foot shoulders (Figure 4A). Standard bicycle safe bridge railing 54
inches in height will be provided. The guardrail and bridge railing will be anodized metal railing. The
existing vertical clearance will be maintained.
The approach roadway will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders, including
four-foot paved (Figure 4A). The existing 60-foot right-of-way will be maintained and a temporary
construction easement will be required for construction and the park driveway connection.
The purpose of this project is to replace an older, functionally obsolete structure with a wider
structure that will carry the standard loads.
B. DEBCRIPTION OF 4(F) RESOURCE
Within the project area, there is one property eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
and one publicly owned recreational facility that qualify as Section 4(0 resources.
1. John Berry-Baldwin House
The John Berry-Baldwin House (Sunnyside), located in the
northwest quadrant of Bridge No. 66 (Figure5A), is eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. The property is
accessed off of SR 1544 (Baldwin Road). The house is eligible
under Criterion B for its nineteenth-century builder-architect,
John Berry, and Criterion C for its architecture. The John
Berry-Baldwin House is a contributing building to the St.
Mary's Road Rural Historic District, listed on the State Study
List in 2001 (Figure 6). In a letter dated March 5, 2004, the John Berry-Baldwin I
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred that the John Berry-Baldwin House is
individually eligible the National Register of Historic Places and is listed in the State Study List.
The National Register boundary (Figure 6) follows the existing right-of-way on St. Mary's Road and
the existing right-of-way on Baldwin Road. It includes approximately 16 acres.
2. Eno River State Park
The property is in the southwest quadrant of the project area and along Strouds Creek. It is within
the Eno River State Park (Figure 2). The Eno River State Park consists of the river and over 2,731
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 24
acres of riparian land. It is within the Eno River Valley in Orange and Durham counties, northwest
of the City of Durham. Acquisition of additional land is planned to protect the river valley and its
significant natural resources and to provide new outdoor recreation and environmental education
opportunities. In 2004, 22 acres on St. Mary's Road along Strouds Creek were acquired with State
Parks & Recreation Funds. The funds used are not Section 6(l) funds from the Land and Water
Conservation Funds. The existing access to the property is approximately 80 feet from the existing
bridge. No park amenities exist.
C. IMPACTB TO SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY
The project proposes to replace the existing 24-foot wide bridge with a 36-foot wide bridge and
provide guardrail on the approaches. The replacement structure will be approximately 100 feet long
compared to 50 feet for the existing structure. Access to the park will be moved approximately 160
feet west to provide for the bridge approach guardrail. Temporary construction easements and
permanent drainage easements will be necessary for the improvements. Table 7 shows impacts to
the park property and the John Berry Baldwin property.
Table 7. Summary of Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources
Temporary Permanent
Baldwin Propertv 0.03 0.30
Eno River State Park 0.18 0.13
During the preliminary design of the recommended alternative, the minimum standard shoulder
section was incorporated into the design to minimize harm to the Section 4(0 property.
D. AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES
Several preliminary alternatives were considered for the project, including the No-Build Alternative,
rehabilitation, and new alignment. Each of these alternatives was eliminated from further study
because they did not meet the purpose and need for the project.
The No-Build alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not desirable
due to the traffic service provided by SR 1002 on Bridge No. 66.
2. Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT's Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of this bridge is not feasible because of its age and deteriorated condition.
3. Alignments on new location within the project area were eliminated because additional right-of-
way would be required from the Section 4(f) resources.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 25
E. ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
Measures to minimize harm were incorporated during the design for both the historic resource and
the park property. These are described below.
1. John Berry-Baldwin House
1. Maintaining the existing horizontal and vertical alignments.
2. Use of an off-site detour during construction of the new bridge.
3. Minimizing the standard shoulder and ditch section to avoid right-of-way acquisition.
4. Providing anodized two-bar metal railing on the bridge and anodized guardrail on the
roadway approaches.
5. Commitment to develop a landscape plan with the owner of the historic John Berry-
Baldwin property, HPO, and NCDOT.
2. Eno River State Park
1. Maintaining the existing vertical clearance.
2. Use of an off-site detour during construction of the new bridge.
3. Minimizing the standard shoulder and ditch section to avoid right-of-way acquisition.
4. Providing anodized two-bar metal railing on the bridge and anodized guardrail on the
roadway approaches.
5. Connecting the relocated driveway to the existing driveway.
F. COORDINATION
Early coordination for the project was initiated with the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) during
project scoping. Additional coordination with the HPO was held during the development of the
project to obtain concurrence with the eligibility of properties over 50 years old and to obtain the
determination of effects to the eligible properties in accordance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. NCDOT and HPO staff met with the owner of the John Berry-Baldwin
House on January 22, 2004 and agreed to the joint development of a landscape plan. NCDOT
Roadway Design will coordinate with the property owner, and 14PO will review the resultant plan.
In a concurrence form dated August 30, 2004, the HPO concurred with the NCDOT and FHWA
determination that Alternative A would have no adverse effect on the John Berry-Baldwin House
and the St. Mary's Road Rural Historic District with the following conditions: use of anodized two-
bar metal railing and guardrail, and preparation of a landscape plan with the property owner, HPO,
and the NCDOT. The HPO concurred with the NCDOT and FHWA's determination that
Alternative B would have an adverse effect.
After efforts to further minimize harm to the historic property, the HPO, in a concurrence form
dated January 28, 2008, concurred that Alternative A would have no adverse effect on the historic
property with the condition that a landscape plan be prepared in consultation with the historic
property owner. The FHWA indicated its intention to use the HPO's concurrence as a basis for a
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 26
"de minimis" finding for the historic property. As a result, no further evaluation is necessary for the
John Berry-Baldwin property.
Both concurrence forms are included in the Appendix.
During project development, the property- in the southwest quadrant of the project area was
purchased by the Division of Parks and Recreation, and coordination with the Division of Parks and
Recreation was initiated. A meeting was held on May 10, 2006 to review the proposed roadway
designs. The Division of Parks and Recreation requested that the vertical clearance on the bridge be
maintained, the bridge provide for animal crossings underneath, and that the access to the park be
designed to connect to the existing driveway.
In January 2007, the Division of Parks and Recreation reviewed the project plans and determined
that the project would have no adverse effect on the park property. In January 2008, after it was
detemlined that a permanent drainage easement would be necessary, the Division of Parks and
Recreation reviewed the project plans again. In a letter sent January 28, 2008 (Appendix), the
Division agreed that the project plans were acceptable as proposed.
G. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Planning to minimize harm to the public recreation area and historic resource has been performed as
an integral part of this project. No additional right-of-way is required and permanent impacts are
limited to drainage easements.
In coordination with the Division of Parks and Recreation, measures to minimize harm incorporated
into the project include maintaining the existing vertical clearance, providing for animal crossing
under the bridge, and providing a new access to the park that connects to its existing driveway. In a
letter dated January 28, 2008, the Division of Parks and Recreation agreed that the plans were
acceptable as proposed. The approved Final Nationwide Section 4(0 Evaluation and Approval for
Federally-Aided Highway Projects with Minor Involvement with Public Parks. Recreation Lands
and Wildlife and Waterfowl refuges follows.
Based on the above considerations and since the project meets the criteria set forth in the Federal
Register (December 23, 1986), a Programmatic Section 4(0 Evaluation for the park property satisfies
the requirements of the Section 4(0 Evaluation.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 27
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(E) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project BRSTP-1002(12)
State Project 8.2502201
T. I. P. No. B-4216
DESCRIPTION:
Replace Bridge No. 66 on SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road) over Strouds Creek in Orange County.
Yes No
1. Is the.proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of ?
existing highway facilities on X
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? ? X
3. Is the Section 4(o land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or ?
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose? X
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(o site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres
10 acres-100 acres
greater than 100 acres
............ 10 percent of site
............ 1 acre
............ 1 percent of site
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 28
Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its
intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(E) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and
the proposed mitigation for, the Section
4(f) lands?
Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (DingellJohnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS?
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Yes No
X
X
X
N/A
? X
Page 29
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT

Yes No
The following alternatives were evaluated and ?
found not to be feasible and prudent: X
1. Do-nothing.
Do es the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ? X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X F]
impacts of extraordinary measure?
2. Improvement of the highyav without using _ ?
the adjacent public park, recreational X
land or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of ?
retaining walls, etc., or traffic X
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 30

and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park,
recreational land, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge. (This would be a X
localized "run around." 1
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) s stantial social,
r
envir
onmental, or economic
impacts
or (iti) a ubstandal increase in
roject cost or engineering
difficulties
and (tv) s ch impacts, costs, or
fficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 31
MINIMIZATION OF HAFNI
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible ?
planning to minimize harm. X
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
C. Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
d. ncorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
OAddidonal or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
1. Maintain existing vertical clearances
2. Use of an off-site detour during construction of the new bridge
3. Connect the new park access to the existing driveway.
4. Minimize shoulder and ditch section to avoid right-of-way acquisition
5. Provide anodized two-bar metal railing and anodized guardrail.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult Nationwide
4(f) evaluation.
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 32
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated Nndth the following (attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) Land x
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies x
c. US Coast Guard (for bridges requiring bridge permits) IV A
d. DOI, if Section 6(0 lands are involved N A
SUAMLARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(0 evaluation approved on December 23,
1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to this
project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to mininnize hams will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfulll completed.
Approved:
Date Envuonme tal Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
a5 a7
Date y Division Administrator
FHWA
T.I.P. No. B-4216
Page 33

,'' •? ssa j?
s_

S
i
.
I 6CV BJRK 6
\ ! GPAY
\ i
5;r
\ ° ?P/???
?
i_rr
p
BUMe ? y
'S s
Q¢
s q r? ?
)I
/

a
/
I BRIDGE
-J P do NErb.,.
iJO
661
ay ,°r CNS k..a ! r+ P dlian+Y"lr. N5l?/i •.. •.....
"' t o
-BRIDGE NO 64
T7 ,/

! x,91 ? k?.. \??
?yva?PoBOROU6H ,? -
-1 =BOROUGH
a
?`?
^><'t
E -' --
NC
.
rr]c
i
shad '! .- .. us c

6 3
Y. 11 -ST EK,S jV n N> 34
a5Jf o- X '? Cp, ti ga Nk HILLSBOROVCH y i''. t \\\ a"
C IXEE Cana :. °i? ? Itt LIMIT6 * y ` 01 ]. a,Y .....

b r r
L - I
f{ t
EN6 a '. ? \ e
;1
4
=;

61 DETOUR ROUTE
I
=.i ?t fta :` 1 I?B s
O R,A
N G t!
.
?
y
(
?V
N
Y
C pel N55!'
w
.? a Carr6orat.y.ly.?s Prar. ?
?,.
*., North Carolina Department of Transportation

rafa
a-.i
. z '7 roject Development & Environmental Analysi ''..
P
y
ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 66 ON SR 1002
OVER STROUDS CREEK
B-4216

1. FIGURE 1
rLrr ?
0
A
N
N

? i O
v U
y
o
$ ;o
m
r? ? %
'
y'O
r ? E a
?i v o ? o

?.\ N
Z?

"' x
?-
1
-se CD
cc Z

is
?\ \!
r
J S f G

( f

-4592 cc

cc
L R `
216 >
t O
W

Eno Ricer State Park Land Proposed Boundarv. FIGURE 2
View of east approach from Bridge No. 66.
View of west approach from Bridge No. 66.
Bridge No. 66 side view.
B-4216 Bridge No. 66 on SR 1002 over Stsouds Creek
Figure 3
I
co
41?
m a
c
? c
C-A
d
I ?
0
u
w?
= N
oO
odo
Q J
1 J
Z 4
O
W
l7

7-
4d
a
4
U'
S
r

W
f
/ O W
W
Fu
e U.c ocp
?
qy 'e w'D ?
uN d
Q? Z7
?W >
?kSw p O

m

N
W 4
eJ?
0
Z
6
Z
--? O
ri ,
-
-k-c1 N

a N
0O
od
ma
o z V
?
r'O
N ? Y

O
O
s

??
ll
J
T
O

O Q"t u. uz?+

U
mp
? 00
W
Vu o
+ ON
N ?? J m
<
O
Y O
Y
Z Z
Z? A

VOp F
I
xo w
lk?w
qIJ
co
0
$ o
ao
N
r ?
N
r
Z
O
U
xj
4O k:
or4i
O
4
r 4
z u
0 Y
W F
Z
O
U
oc
0 O
m?
Q
5
Y
0
m
v
Cq
o oe
?

W
V
Z? ?-
K
Nyq{'
OpIn?da
U4 O
O0r?Z
ptz ? W F-
?

Y
00
O
p
m

go
-

r
.,
0.1
Z 4 It u 4
a 4 r rU ? ?
3
N Q4
LL mM vee
Q

O i
NN V
ne ? ZO
YY o u

?0
%
?
Z
3
s 0
?oG

0

RF? 6
proposeu Y --
w
W
J
0
0
J
4
N
w
E °
X
o-
a
4

E'
y m
7 O
s ? V 54.E G
v
O ? Wv, y G

H

? r J 4 Z
s w "' . MM
C
Z
D 5A
4 $_

U
Z
1
9
a
n
o n
i ?
J ?
6 w
u-'
w
z
N

Al

mm
idy+ $ o-
S £rt

W
Sv q
?O W 6 $

d ?
tz 6
C

v
0
fl
•
if
1
•11 0
J\ 1
d
OA
w
s

RECEIVED
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
December 15. 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
DEC 22 2004
OF 19Gff1RYS
P UEAMOF A111 M Him
This letter is in response to your letter of December 6, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
that the replacement of Bridge No. 66 on SR 1002 over Strouds Creek in Orange County (TIP No. B-
4216) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information provided, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site on March 25,
2004. The survey extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of SR 1002. No specimens
of dwarf wedgemussel were observed. Based on the information provided and other information
available, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed bridge replacement may affect,
but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel. We believe that the requirements of section
7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must
be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review.; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Toro Au rgerr
Acting Ecological Services Supervisor
__..cc: John Thomas; USACE,-Raleigh,NC._
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
m FEB Ld3 ?OOd
February 18, 2004
?° olvk'loti
0yoo, ' HIGF{45ikY r
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
ten bridges:
• B-4002, Alamance County,. Bridge No. 96 on SR 2116 over Meadow Creek
• B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 on NC 902 over Sandy Branch
• B-4109, Durham County, Bridge No. 120 on SR 1303 over Mud Creek
• B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 on SR 1002 over Strouds Creek
• B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 over Clarks Creek
• B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 on SR 1007 over Poplar Creek
• B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 on SR 1301 over Terrible Creek
• B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 on SR 1844 over Lower Barton Creek
• B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 on SR 2217 over Beaver Dam Creek
• B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 over Eno River
These continents provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable, wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities

to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation, including
trees if necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; -
Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough
to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of stone water and pollutants;
8. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the fl ood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected area.
A list of federally protected species for each county in North Carolina can be found at htlp://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/coun".htrnl. Additional information about the habitats in which each species is
often found can also be found at http://endaneered.fws.gov . Please note, the use of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if
suitable habitat occurs near the project site. If suitable habitat exists in the project area, we
recommend that biological surveys for the listed species be conducted and submitted to us for
review. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies and results.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for these projects, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
0
r
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation.' In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for these projects include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing; ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat and waters of the US;
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
9?t yao
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor

cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Thomas, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
(f
f:
Federal.Vdg: BRSTP-1102(2) TIP#:B-4216 Counry: Orange
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Projec:Descrlption: Replace Bridge No. 66 on SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road)
On January 28, 2008 representatives of the
x North Carolina Department o£Transportation (NCDOT)
X Federal Highway Administration (FMVA)
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.
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.
? There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) 2re listed on the
Signed/
NCDOT
®a'
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Representative, HPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
Date
Date
Date

Federal Aid #: BRSTP-1102(2) TIP7:13-4216 Couqy: Orange
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or /DE) an?d1 describe the effect..
.?of2 H B?YY - ?al ct!ull H. /T?Uf ?- ?? ???
Tit. ?onsdlf-a->?'?
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT FH,VA EPO
FHWA intends to use SHPO's concurrence as a
basis of a `de minimis" finding for the following
properties, pursuant to Section t-t

it
PARKS & RECREATION Fax:[phone]
FMA
NCDENR
Jan 2 2007 10:20 P.01
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Michael F. Easley, Govemor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Lewis R, Ledford, Director
January 2,,2007
Nicole H. Bennett, AICP
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
Dear Ms. Bennett:
I am responding to your e-mail dated December 21, 2006 regarding plans for 3-4216 in Orange
County. I have reviewed your e-mail and the attached preliminary plans. I would concur that
the bridge replacement will cause no adverse impacts to the Eno River State Park. However, I
look forward to receiving additional information that details the project and any mitigation
measures to winimi?e resource impacts. If you have any questions regarding these comments
please don't hesitate to contact me at [phone].
sin re] ,
rian L. Strong
Head, Natural Re rogram
1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Caroline 27699-1615
Phone: [phone] - FAX: [phone], Internet: www.ncsoarks.net
An equal Oppo=* • ARhm live Adorn Employm.50 %RwfSW - 10 % Past Conmmsr PaW
Nor`thCarolina
NaAW11Y
fi
lr
C®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Michael F. Easley, Govemor uVlliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary Lewis R. Ledford, Director
January 28, 2008
Ms. Theresa Ellerby
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Envirormiental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27599-1548
Dear Ms. Ellerby:
I am writing in regards to the proposed bridge replacement on St Mary's Road
in Hillsborough, NC (B-4216) over Stroud's Creek. The Division has reviewed the plans
(plans received 1/28/08) and they are acceptable as proposed. I would recommend the
following be implemented during construction:
• Best management practices (BMP's) for the control of erosion and sedimentation should
follow the stands for High Quality Waters.
• Compliancewith the BMP's and other mitigation measures should be closely monitored.
• No heavy equipment should be used within the streambed. Top down construction
methods would be preferred.
• No wet concrete should be allowed to come into contact ,;6th the water.
• Weep holes should not be places above the steam channel.
• There should be 25 feet of bare earth left on each side of the stream beneath the bridge
and Rip-rap should not be placed where it would obstruct wildlife movements.
The Division appreciated this opportunity to comment on the proposed bridge replacement
project. If you have any further questions you can contact meat [phone]
&aaLly'trong
Head, Natural Resources Program
cc: Dave Cook, Eno River State Park Superintendent
Nicole IL, Bennett; Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
- ----- - -
Sue Regier, NC Division of Parks and Recreation -- -
1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1615 NOnrthCarolina
Phone: [phone]-FAY: 919.715-3085 • Internet www.ncsoarks.net
An Equal opportu * - Atramallve Adon Employer-50 %RecycW- 10 % Post consumer Paper lVatllCidy
I
Federal Aid # BRSTP-1102(2) TIP # B-4216 County: Orange
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 66 on SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road)
On Aug. 30, 2004 representatives of
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® 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.
? 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.
There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT
3C7 7649
Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
HPO

I,
Date
0•
j State Historic Preservation _Officer

Federal Aid #_ BRSTP-1002(2) TIP # B-4216 County: Orange
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):
a
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect. ` -
??hwM??vu r5 ?D?dwIh I louse C???
I () A-rwtod t z? r Pik t It it/?L-? OAG w( Co,rdt}t trnS e, 1c?a- adr_I prat"
Prop do JKPvf si-lPo,
i ?cl.T- ds ??T (ULP0T
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
- - Initialed:- NCDOT -?LS FHWA--7-144- -- 46e

e,ra5[Air
-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 5, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
David Brook ?- V 6` .J?C1 1i I Vlk{?
Division of Historical Resources
David L-&- ' ector
011
- 2?p4
Ot'f?{t?YS
,
Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Replace Bridge 66 on SR 1002 over
Strouds Creek, B-4216, Orange County, ER04-0392
Thank you for your letter of February 9, 2004, transmitting the survey report by Richard Silverman. We
appreciate the extensive research Mr. Silverman has conducted regarding the history and evaluation of the John
Berry-Baldwin House. His report will be-a useful resource on the builder-architect John Berry and his house
"Sunnyside."
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is individually eligible and is listed in the State Study List for the National Register of Historic
Places undet the criterion cited:
John Berry-Baldwin House (Sunnyside) northwest comer of the intersection of SR 1002,
(St. Mary's Road) and SR 1554 (Baldwin Road), Hillsborough vicinity, is eligible for the
National Register under Criteria B and C. The house is the home of builder-architect John
Berry who lived in the residence during big productive years. Berry constructed some of
North Carolina's significant 19`s-century buildings and contributed to the construction and
development of many of the Piedmont's regional institutions. The property is also
significant as a very rare example of a house designed by and for a 19'-century builder-
architect. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as described and
delineated in the survey report.
The John Berry-Baldwin House is also a contributing building to the St. Mary's Rural Road
Historic District, listed in the State Study List in 2001. We regret that this information was
not included in the State Historic Preservation Office's National Register and Study List
Roster. We will update our roster immediately to include the district listing.
We are enclosing a map of the St. Mary's Road Rural Historic District proposed boundaries. Please schedule an
effects meeting_He[ween SHPO and NCDOT-to discuss the potential effects of this project upon the-properties
within the St. Mary's Rural Road Historic District.
w .hpo.derstateneus
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Faa '
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-0617 (919) 7334763 .733.8653
March 5, 2004
Page 2
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.
1
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication
concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Enclosure
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT

5 . Proposed Boundaries for a St. Mary's Road Rural Historic
St. Mary's Road Study-Final Report
August,25 1999_(GA.1 Project 99-125-t0)
29 .
?I
a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey 1. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 4, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacey Baldwin
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
1
FROM: David Brook ?Y-'1 / Ar I <?Lt. 1
SUBJECT: Request for commerrts on Bridge Replacement projects
B-4002, Alamance County
B-4063, Chatham County
B-4109, Durham County
B-4216, Orange County
B-4300, Wake County
B-4301, Wake County
B-4302, Wake County
B-4303, Wake County '
B-4304, Wake County
B-4592, Orange County
ER03-0389 through ER03-0398
Thank you. for your letters of February 5, 2004, concerning the above projects.
Division of Historical Resources
David L. S. Brook, Director
We are unable to comment on the potential effect of these projects on historic resources until we receive further
information.
Please forward a labeled 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map for each of the above projects clearly indicating the
project vicinity, location, and termini. In addition, please include the name of the quadrangle map.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the area, it
is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be .
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Paia800: - - -
www.hpo.dcr.state.ne.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax ,
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.4617 [phone].733-8653
-.-.. -,-:? "I A411 Moil C..,Ae. rto Rabinh NC 77699d617 [phone] -715.4801
March 4, 2004
Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication
concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Bridge Memo 2 February 27, 2004 \'.N
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of. the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Amry
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit,
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Hal
Bain should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment, should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels,' lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
--- If carragated-metal-pipe-arctres,-reinforced corrcrete-pikes,-or corferet-lmcculverrts
used:

Carolina
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinators
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 27, 2004
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Alamance, Chatham, Durham, Orange, and
Wake counties. TIP Nos. B-4002, B-4063, B-4109; B-4216, B-4300, B-4301,13-
4302, B-4303, B-4304, and B-4592.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
-- -4-ifpossibi?britlgesupports-(bents)-should-not-bE-piaced-in-the-stream
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]

Bridge Memo
February 27, 2004
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end' of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific continents:
1. B-4002, Alamance County, Bridge No. 96 over Meadow Creek on SR 2116. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
2. B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 over Sandy Branch on NC 902. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-41
No. 120 over Mud Creek on SR 1303. We
Bridge Memo 4 February 27, 2004
4. B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 over Strouds Creek on SR 1002. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Due to the close proximity of the Eno River we
request conducting a survey for the following state endangered and federal species of
concern mussels: Yellow lampmussel and Atlantic pigtoe. Also, a significant fishery for
sunfish exists at this site, therefore we request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish
from April 1 to June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 over Clarks Creek on SR 1007. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
6. B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 over Poplar Creek on SR 1007. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 over Terrible Creek on SR 1301. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
8. B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 over Lower Bartons Creek on SR 1844. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
9. B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2217. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
10. B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 over the Eno River on SR 1561. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. We request conducting a survey for the following
state endangered and federal species of concern mussels: Yellow lampmussel and
Atlantic pigtoe. Also, a significant fishery for sunfish exists at this site, therefore we
request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to June 30. Standard
recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in.or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 over Lower Bartons Creek on SR 1844 (Mt. Vernon
Church Road). The Lower Barton Creek Ultramafic Slopes natural area lies on the south side of
the road; this is an unprotected site of Local significance. Just downstream of the bridge is the
following -
Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi), State Significantly Rare
B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2217 (Old Milbumie
Road). There is a vague, historic record of the following, just downstream -
veined skullcap (Scutellaria nervosa), State Significantly Rare
B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 over the Eno River on SR 1561 (Lawrence Road). See
comments for project B-4216. This site is a few miles above Eno River State Park. Also, a tract
just upstream of the bridge has been recently acquired, or is in the process of being acquired. In
addition, the section of the Eno River from Hillsborough to the confluence with the Neuse River
is a Nationally significant aquatic habitat, for many additional rare species than those listed
above.
Our program recommends that NC DOT enact strong sedimentation controls to ensure that
populations of these rare species, and particularly the water quality of the Eno River, not be
impacted during the bridge replacements. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not
be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for
rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<Nvww.ncsl2arks.net/nhR/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
cc: Brian Strong, Division of Parks and Recreation, Resource Management Program
David Cook, Superintendent, Eno River State Park
e?.
e??
?r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Michael F. Easley, Governor
February 27, 2004
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
o
A
Subject: Replacement of Bridges in Alamance, Chatham, Durham, Orange, and Wake counties
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area, for the projects listed below:
B-4002, Alamance County, Bridge No. 96 over Meadow Creek on SR 2116 (Preacher Holmes
Road)
B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 over Sandy Branch on NC 902
B-4109, Durham County, Bridge No. 120 over Mud Creek on SR 1303 (Pickett Road)
B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 over Clarks Creek on SR 1007 (Poole Road)
B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 over Poplar Creek on SR 1007 (Poole Road)
B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 over Terrible Creek on SR 1301 (Sunset Lake Road).
Our Program does have records of rare species, significant natural communities, or priority
natural areas at the site or within a mile of the project area, for the projects listed below:
B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 over Strouds Creek on SR 1002 (St. Marys Road). This
site lies just upstream of the Eno River, where there are numerous rare aquatic animal species.
Species recorded at the confluence of Strouds Creek and the river (at Lawrence Road) are -
yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), State Endangered and Federal Species of
Concern
eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata), State Threatened
notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), State Special Concern
Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi), State Special Concern
One
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 NorthCarollina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/ )Vd&rallU
Natural Resources
w ;A&
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Michael F: Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary --Thilip K: McKnelly, Director- ° " • --
MEMORANDUM
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Bridge Replacement Unit
Department of Transportation
FROM: Brian Strong, Environmental Review Coordinator 13
DENR, Division of Parks and Recreation
DATE: September 6, 2002
SUBJECT: Review of Department of Transportation Bridge Replacement Projects
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit comments prepared by the Division of
Parks and Recreation (Division) on a number of proposed bridge replacement projects. These
projects were received from Mr. William T. Goodwin (dated April 24, 2002) and John Williams
(received June 25, 2002).
Prior to discussing individual comments on specific projects I would like to make one
general comment. A number of projects are listed as replacement of bridges with culverts. The
Division would like to express concern with this type of replacement. As you know, culverts are
often beset by a number of persistent problems associated with their installation and
maintenance. Culverts are frequently the focus of restoration projects as either culvert removal
or mitigation efforts designed to remediate their destabilizing influence. Since culverts are often
used in lieu of bridges as a cost savings alternative, the proper design of the culvert is often not.
factored into the cost of the project. Impacts of improper design and installation include the
angle of insertion (too high or too low), sizing of culverts, culvert placement (too low or too
high), and lack of culvert maintenance resulting in degradation of streams. In addition, culvert
are often insufficiently designed to handle fish passage due to inadequate depth of water at time
of passage, inappropriate water velocity, inadequate resting places above and below the stream
structure, and physical obstructions to passage. Culverts have been identified as one of the
greatest sources of stream morphology change in the United States. In general, the Division
recommends that bridges be used in all instances where practical.
Enclosure 1 presents the bridge replacement projects were potential environmental
impacts were identified. The majority of the impacts involve impacts to significant natural
heritage areas, rare plant and animal species. Other impacts include proximity to state trails,
state-parks, and natural heritage aquatic habitats. Enclosure 2 presents the accompanying maps
discussed in Enclosure 1.
Pipe-let-tne-knowif there-is-any-ftirtlrerinformation y
. questions regarding the enclosed material, my telephone number is [phone].
1615 ?[aii Se;-vice Center, Raleigh, `north Carolina 37699-1615
IImo!` `.
Nicole Bennett
From: Nicole Bennett
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 9:18 AM
To: Nicole Bennett
Subject: FW: NCDOT Projects 8-4592 and 8-4216
From: Mike Tapp [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 8:51 AM
To: Laura Willon
Cc: Gwen Snowden
Subject: RE: NCDOT Projects B-4592 and B-4216
Based on the descriptions of these projects, there will certainly be impacts to Emergency Services, however, we do not
believe they will be significant ones. The project may increase response times to access the area northeast of the project
due to the need to use alternate routes to reach areas northeast of the project. If you need additional information, please
contact us.
Mike Tapp
Deputy Director/Fire Marshal
Orange County Emergency Services
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
pager: 919-216-9580
From: Nicole Bennett
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:56 PM
To: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]:
Subject: FW: NCDOT Projects 8-4592 and 8-4216
Major Snowden and Major Tapp:
My finn is preparing a planning document for the replacement of Bridge No. 66 on St Mary's Road. I contacted
Major Kent McKenzie in December 2006 to receive comments regarding potential impacts to emergency services.
I was following up on the correspondence and was given your names to contact instead. I have included the
previous a-mails to make you aware of the project
I have attached a map showing the project location and proposed detour route. I need to know from you if you
believe the proposed project would have substantial impacts on emergency services. This needs to be included in
the appendix for my report. You can reply by mail or via e-mail, whichever is most convenient for you.
If you have questions, or need additional information, please call me at 919-858-1921 or a-mail me
Thank you for your assistance.
Nicole Bennett
From: Nicole Bennett
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:49 PM
To: 'Kent McKenzie'
Subject: RE: NCDOT Projects B-4592 and 8-4216
Major McKenzie
We are about to finalize our document for project B-4216, the replacement of Bridge No. 55 on St. Mary's Road
over the Eno River. (B-4592 has been completed.) Were you able to consult with the affected fire departments to
discuss anticipated impacts to emergency services during construction of the project? We have been asked to
include written correspondence from your office in the appendix of our documenting stating whether or not there
will be significant impacts to emergency services.
I have attached a map showing the location of the project and the proposed detour route. As a reminder, the
preferred alternative for this project would require an off-site detour using Lawrence Road.
Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. If you could send me your
correspondence at your earliest convenience, I would appreciate it. We are trying to finalize the planning document
in the nest few weeks.
Thank you,
Nicole Bennett
From: Kent McKenzie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:46 PM
To: Nicole Bennett
Cc: Gwen Snowden; Mike Tapp
Subject: FW: NCDOT Projects B-4592 and B-4216
Ms. Bennett,
Colonel Ball. is no longer with Orange County Emergency Management, and I am serving as the Interim EM Director. I
received the text of your email to Col Ball, but unfortunately the attachments did not come through. Based on your text
descriptions of these projects, there will certainly be impacts to Emergency Services, but I don't believe they will be
insurmountable ones. The area involved covers two different fire districts, and the project may increase response times
for some locations. If you can please re-send the attachments to us, we will consult with both of the Fire Departments that
these projects will affect and get our response back to you.
Thanks,
Kent McKenzie
Major Kent McKenzie
Interim Emergency Management Director,
Emergency Management Deputy Director for EMS
Orange County North Carolina
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Office 919-968-2050
24-hour 919-933-2600
From: Jack Ball
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:54 AM
To: Kent McKenzie
Subject: FW: NCDOT Projects B-4592 and 8-4216

From: Nicole Bennett[SMTP:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:53:42 AM
To: Jack Ball
Subject: NCDOT Projects 8-4592 and B4216
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Colonel Ball:
I am working on the Planning Documents for two bridge replacement projects in Orange County: B-4592 is for the
replacement of Bridge No. 64 on Lawrence Road over the Eno River and B-4216 is the replacement of Bridge No.
66 on St. Mary's Road over the Eno River. The proposed recommended alternatives for each of these projects calls
for an offsite detour during construction. For B-4592, the offsite detour uses ST. Mary's Road and US 70 Bypass.
It would be approximately 2 miles long. For B-4216, the offsite detour uses Lawrence Road for the detour route.
Do you anticipate either of these detours to present a problem from an emergency services perspective?
I have attached the vicinity maps for each project, both of which show the detour routes. If you need additional
information, please let me know.
Thank you,
Nicole Bennett
Nicole H. Bennett, AICP
Senior Planner
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Direct: 919-858-1921
Fax: [phone]
Our portfolio of signature projects tells our story.
Read it yourself at www.mulkevinc.com.
Fell
Nicole.Bennett
From: Robert Miller [Robert. [e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:28 AM
To: Nicole Bennett
Cc: Sharon Linster; Lora Worsham; George McFarley
Subject: RE: NCDOT Project 8-4216 Replacement of Bridge No. 66 on St. Mary's Road
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
We have five buses that cross the bridge twice a day but we will just have to deal with it. Do you think this
could be done while school is out? Thanks
From: Nicole Bennett [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:11 AM
To: Robert Miller
Subject: NCDOT Project B-4216 Replacement of Bridge No. 66 on St. Mary's Road
Good morning, Mr. Miller:
My firm is preparing a planning document for the North Carolina Department of Transportation for replacement
of Bridge No. 66 over Strouds Creek on St. Mary's Road. The preferred alternative includes an approximate 2-mile
off-site detour during construction. The detour would use Lawrence Road. I have attached a map that shows the
location of the project and the proposed detour route.
Could you please tell me 1) how many buses cross this bridge daily and 2) if you anticipate significant disruption to
school bus operations as a result of the detour?
If you have questions, please call me at 919-858-1921 or e-mail me if you prefer.
Thanks so much for your assistance!
Nicole
Nicole H. Bennett, AICP
Project Manager
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Direct 919-858-1921
Fax: [phone]
Our portfolio of signature projects tells our story.
Read it yourself at www.muikpyinc.com..
All e-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law, which may result
in monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including law enforcement.
D ECT: $216
TIP PR

t sn-W
a2l6_rdY-
et A9=???
rmlt?b
MCT:
T .

o r
(11 ?
q N a?LE i?
?J {y 4 c
w b (.? ?.qzu ?

?

y h ZOM?

Z. s M
U "
? a
y 3 Z i
?
a
c nO?
' FS
7
y O?
m2
?
O
4 N
?? a 6i
? t
af i
O oo V' m
mn

11 1P 11 U 11 A r

T
??3e oo OD
?
i
2 O m

? r

y m
z
?
F i x N

Z
? Q m
i
y
G O
v A D m
b

m

1 x

P P
11 9 11
0
J
i N
y b
? 1 x
Cy a
P ? P `C ?y=? ro
{ ! m ? l
s
9 ^?
"t
A m m ?
?m z
?I
M
z
?O
q N
?o
II
I'

H
}

I
i

H
Nqo GRrp
B,?,DJ
S
SOr/.o
m
s
o Q ??
0
a ?
C) M ??
t
I
I
C1
b
? n
x ?c
? x
to
' o0
?o
82 to
{ { {?
lbw `
rl ,
c
v
BAIDWiN RD.
SR 1554-
0
O
r
0
N
r
p:
I?
8 cpn
r
?z
m
0.tAstot15
dg?
14zG-! L=

?
o
? N
g
4
T _
0
$
a amsc

? n
R ? ? I
F
n
a •N m °? ?
w gm
o 0
e wx _
a? m =
?o
Y,

t
1451
rz [M'C { 1 f I ?y \
N 1 1 / V
r,
r 1 1 /
z I t
1 Y; ? Y
,1 e r
ZYL
` In K
a
?n ? ?'` •? 1 11? , Iw; ?5?
n I ?
< I? I
$ i5t00
r ?k ?, ? p O
1 [? n
??44{y¢ V?
i n v ei{ -n 6 yya?L '.-
00
5
g? c I
O
r
mO - /v
ti
tc.Y
?
lYll ?
I y
F 4'
r s
?
fi s
o
GOFiO'? S
•C'?L§4'•d O

G
'Qn Ag.{
1
/Vw,
.? o
"w. `mow L, i ?
OO liO
9y t
iy
i `9 l
I? Tf _
r

?a p
t

I , o
Ir
lS z s?:5

N GQf? ?
?0+00
t? o Q
i?
Cm r
4m?
a
1o xJ?
? y
w
7 ? o BS o?
,, oso s?
o.
N+ va :•o
pl mN NN
(? y94m
mAi D9
N ?p
2 m
ry •
1. C 0.? f Y a
? 1 q ? 1
y •
-A?
1 1 t
?- ? ? FLGt&F n SipAx PINPFRTV gglx ?
8
m
0
m a? 8
eogp as m
m j
0
p J
N

R S=ONS
.bpd Jl ?i f,ud.prT_+C t.d9p
r°
'o
?mr
Q mC? O 9
00 _
?g3
. a
^ v
L
s Vr °o
8
M;i II
?p ? i??l'1/? ///1/ j l l!l II
+ rs» /" i
A?/ fem.
5le
\ ? ?v 1
n O giq ?? / ?
.r., y..
??790-\ nBI
IsO

n-
l??ea F°b ?b

\\ w
Ijl1 ??\\I\I l f f%T?
1 ? ?_ S!B\\\\ \5/5 ? _// / RID
A rsa \ \ \\?.? ?i elr,y
NTMN%r43s
`? I? 'y: \ uses
i
?l l'1ll ? , ? ? /
4 ?
l _
?. /
1-15+00
89
88 o_9'n
I I ? P la ?/?%,I L :? r Y o
,
?,y_?? y,_ oc E e o Vol
Y_1. 2 ?n
G v
b ? / ? // ?s\ -sue do Q
4 _?-_.? =,,{{ % CAS EE E+ (11?
/ AA
1 ? m^ 1{
y S? j Ate. p
ar- Y "_C. --l Y1
r €
K ?rq 1 1 S\ 1 Ili
.o

z^N•
Y
r
m
`r21a .Yppo
C: zr,
y A
? ? ? bb a
a n ? `? ? o
A A «
0114
Ln A
M
M
)ITV ..
r'
i
,s
O'nO

woz
V) 0c)
r1l
Nmco
4
O;Cubn,L ` ;.
co0?
°OZ
°..
®1
m
? 17y
m0 G7

o,

tsn_wet.dgn
coNTRACT:

r

1
j 0
No
o ?

O
22
N
° 0
z 0

o
v

N
u 0

o

u

y p
Zp
m

H
=Z
u, 0
1

o=
gg N
0K
r n ~_ N N
000 ?1

n
< O < o (ry c
m ?
° s II I I II' II II II x -
y
m
II Dr CA Nome a 0?
0
ae?e?eo°o
a
5Z
= 00
OM
M
y N
S
0 r r
Z Z M
C

M
F y

F m
_ C O D

? C D m
r

9i m <
b rn
M

F ? v
o?
A

c M

O
m A
a
OM
n <
¢
¢
AI M L4
y 3

P P
N J
II II p
_ooo
N ? O
? `o A
m m
N H N

D
Z Z I
c a .
?
n e

0 o y l e a
a ?

a ?
pCpb
" O 3p
O 3Y
` ? 0
O
Yll
[ m C
T , ; c
UM
rn 3?
4 °
K
r a
7nc
a o
1 0 m m a
Q m
2

O
y
O ?,
c
a
?
?'
to
b

x

' ?,wua.rr'l 404,
R zz
hO?
y
fi
ps ;I
u
NM
cueiY C
'
^" a
.
n..+ r
e
G
u;?
06 s
c c T
i'•I
j.<

TIP PROJECT B-4216
V
?z
tv
O
m
?(A
w,4
?C
,?o BR,o
3a,
D
+ +L ` S
D
o co
O + r N
p co Z N O
r 0 0m A O D
co ?l r co I N
Z m m O-t1S•? Z o
n L1 S0?/. / v o
.1 C I
n O Z
O % .% m O
J
m Z
N
N ° C
o. Q
T-Z Z
0
1
+ -
cm Q4LDWIN RD.
I- SR 1554.
O
G
N
00
b C
c
2
b
b C
ls1 C
a b
n
N
M
1M
?v
b
8m
?z
59
r
a
z
y
(7jn
o
o ?
n
?h
O A
rA
O ?

///
? 'y

? C

o

C ?
>
?

> 0
? III
Ga

z
,

t
P
N p ?i
IJ J [A.
a
y

8 o
a ? p
N 0? E
N N S

m
r
b?

tsh.dgn
CONTRACT. TIP PROJECT: B-4216 J

i
j
1
>
I
j

1 0
y
o

?
O
?
=
O
Zp
N

? 0
U
o

N
^

?

8 0
y
o

u

0
?

n

A ??
A
?
°z?

N

m z
JI O
v~
O
ml
?z

??
gg x
O
o NN c
n
00 3
n O?O? n mn
O
F II it Ih II II II .T
v

_ . m v
D
w o"?o?? a om
O
3 sae
c
i o0
o?
m
H
i r r
2 Z Z m
y

mm

Z N p
n
c m

?n
m °
`m M
?
°
n j
o

Z = o
N
P P y -
II II p
O O p
O
W '? A
m m m
N N yl

C Z
j k
n
? n1 O Y ? ee v3 `?
^

?
d
p
i bo
?^s? o
4 Z

a 1 0
? '
0

a
0
p

m

m

a
m x

o ?

A n
k
y
b
`
n
7
b

aee
?aay
. fi

=
?
"

S

^
C
n

?vavv
J
S.M
?? y?
'4
J
^'

o_t s

o
=x
^
s

A
m
C
i

i 1
m I r
O
D N
FNA C
H
H,goe??
?l
lk?
D
i
+ D
N
Q U ? QJ
O + N +
N
c w z 7-1
p 0 co ° D
N? O N
PI I
G1 0 0 H N 1 +
S
O Z ?OSO// v ;o
z as ,, _?
I
vl ? ? /j ? Ir
Z . _.?._
N_ j
a c
P
0
IZ z
Iv
10
+ co
c m Q4lDWIN RD.
1 SR 1554
O
c
N
N A
o .?.1
b o
b
n
QO
b o
b ?
b
x
C
yn
C ~
o
N
y
a
?
y
m

v\vruv.v)'
\pO 9
8F
l
x r

J)IO..rX\1U ?? ??
oa
y ?
r
?z

I1? NI
? T
oQ
h
c ?.

\ 1
\
:T.
O

i v
i

0 6

O i.
C

u
U u
N
C ? y

N
N N
,

to W
A
?
y
8
8 :
$ N 4
N N

9
m
rl
b?

6
?
i
REVISIONS
i ?
z
0
z?
o
O
T
O
s?
Z
O
2
O
6

°
r 5 1
E
0 '
O '
0
?
N
D

41
n
o
N n '"
o
g
? m
m=c ?
m
;

i _
L
_ ?r a9
- gm
o s
?i agr?g e`
i? 9zd ij ?s
a
? 6 ° as
s?
llm

s
'I r f?l
rl i I?
?, 4 I
?O xga J \\ t m li
p ' \ ` r
^ N r ? \
aL /try 2
= "i

IrO
Ric
aFi
ya?>
//?/ cr mII
r
- • C i?!" .
I
08
-ten
I.
i

i
> V
2v
99??
Qp>•
ad>?
G 15x00
> a
599m? ? ?" O
n R? ?; G n
s?0 4 z4 x:"g"p ??
PE ? fb
yr ,
1 its
s
t 9 : ?, - L
L

20+00
290
O
i
G
BNpp /v' - yp 1551 9BSI

V
It
(A?1

rr °
08 nm
r
?
n g n
88

n
t ? o ? r
- a?

m
a? Ao t
g N

8 =_
ojm
T
F
Y
Ro rs "'
:
$
E $
a
v . G.

?N\

e?3
C° r
nm C
H v
I

v
?
z ??

IT
I? z
I?
$ Rl ? a ?gf
az ? a
o ?
a?
Q b
REVISIONS
N ?
z
Z
o?
z
9
0
to
m
O
3
N
cc
6
i
1 7.7
Nmn
a me j o= ga
4
L
"m
rat' ?5]9 jl??! T
. /J90
/ 506
I h3F2 ?50',,
m 5 Y \,3l
0
L
?\/--`mot
QQ 1.93-
rt O

J /; / l ?lyJ I
.500/ /? .'I F t .
n_?J_?OOF// 5m0" /

;i
-?. -J
533/ ?
\Lx V,??,?\ \5,16-6- j Pi
3fZ
5a` \ \\ i
I; A
'3¢5 q
IIII ?•\\ \ \\-555 -- ?\
LI ?-5¢s ?fS
/
1111 ?' 5e3
s?
?y -
•SRV-- -/5 +00
99
> as - n
/ -- ou
$ ?_ nmO
88 m
\? / arm t ?b ti y N? B

?z
//?,,pp•555/i -
S{:\
\ S
I",1?1J?

9
6 ag /?
a ?n-I
o9n
a

.Y.,p.
`?4y /ice ?
R 4 .:ih?a7/
\
T+9O? ?:?
1
/
I
\ \ ? 1+ ? \ BpSI ? ??y\? ?? X515 0l ? ??\?S H t
I 1 r,

xi r.
' ?^T i
'
oI
r -
?>I
- 4?y©

t ° F
d
n
? my S
m? ?R ° m
y
nz og< y ? ~N
n r
F ^ +
D
S^
? T
3r
g _
0
ggA
"S
ll ?
tu . . .
Eo as

aA A
?$
by Q.

•? a
3s t

b mN ? ? 9'
j
..}5
i
ai z
FFF G
°vF
I
i

m
Z
,
'

fAA

am o

?v
W
N

?
v o
a
? S

$ p
y
IJ y a
r

K4
t l ?5
t
A? xY?f? ?i P ?'4G
?+SSRY ?r¢d L + '.

v? - ?4n
S-, Z
n
a
r
m
f n K}? * 2
qrj
o, ins. k e4
h
CJ ? i KiY ?4.+?
a b ?0fi
A y i
t S
t k ?.,y
S $ u

3 y 000 >

F
.
C w .. m LT+M/;
0;0 z
c)X
,+ ..
ooc
fTiZ
tS
r e

ry Lq?SMa~{N ?a
f
'

AZ I
PPIRi
I:.
a
- a.
a z,K r
tr
"" mp
m. ?.?
D
La
a
ZN TI ?F1'tic fj YTY?tF ?(c ??

5 ?+
i
„
1 VVY ?^ 1
d r s ' M1
Y Y
d4 J '
OHO r
;voz
P47
Noo
-i Nrn OO ..
AU3
Coot y
v C) C C),
v m Z.

?Z„' , ITI
>

P
m Y
l
0
W ? boo
III ? ? b y a
M ? H
5

f 'a
tsh_buf.dgn
CO.
0 0? ? o

U p U U
O I
T

O r
rt
OI
O
9
O
P N
N
c p oI o

N
O O O
om g g
rZ ti
(m [1
^
n
? ;° N N
O ?
<~
s
O
A II' II III II II II
N
F °
s
II C p N i0 Oo

? V O
? 2? 2e ?2° G O
2
m m
z z
Q G
2 S
? p
C >
Q 2
m
v
? p
Q Q
P p,
0
CT:

b
ti
x
W
r?V
H
n
A
0
<a as a?'t:
N ?
0
yp? ? I??^CB
a
F
9 a
t b°
_
° °m
ic? *;
b 4
?? om ;p ? zo?
K? >. ti
r
p m b
a
O Z
m
m
? ? I1

C

b
I

a?
hh??
y

C? N
e
e
z ,
ta ;3
k..
"
o
° i
C!!=.:C

Z
O Q iiy
V.,; . r
stl
J
IA
y
S Z n
o
^
o? o
F
n O ` Itf

Q Z
N
2 LC
OK
C
mZ
m f1
mm
y
T F
Om
0
C
z
°
O
o?
m
y H
mm
C
N?
yy
C
a
2
O
0
°
TIP PROJECT: B-4216
ao O
?C
D N
N V
O .
H1o BRIO
1
D
N
A
+ D -- I D
N
o Ln m
+
°o +
o co z N o rn
°o om °o D
A
O r 00 V N N
z m m C 0tv m o
o
0
f
c z
z
ol PC
N_ O C
P
Z Z
I °
?o
+;a
c m BA(DW?N RD.
O SR 7554
C
O
Q
y
x
?C
O
a
b O
O
C
^? b
VJ
b
coi O
N
ix
k!
I?
9
m
S?
?z
r
?m
z
y
? Ul
m N
mn
o
n ^?
0
i
O O
Ul
(4 ?
Un
O

'
11
?

1`x

O

I
a

U U C
Y N

N
i
m m

N
@ o'
N ° o'
a
N N e

m Hr a
9
C
y
s
SF
.d,n
N ?
x
f
z?
0
zz
SR
9
T
m
O
0
x
c
O
3n°
c n d:
u n^
8 a Yq <I
N?n
r
n°m
msi ?m •o
>o ?
L
_ am
L
?? I Ins I }r \
= =? lai ?e ?L I -/ 5\
?* 7 a ?rroxc c= .. ? //
I 9
II
3C d ? o
O it r
r /
za.
1
? -•.:., to ? H/r9P?e.
sb am I I?
lA I I ??iGp NO\
\ ly I?,F
15+00
- J
n i
o \ ?,
!I Io
5-
O ?
2 r.

$= 599?y pN
°?u,s Lyod?

,

v?F 1 i ? ? - `f\\
R' ` a
olO _ - .;
Kr g O? \\?
It i9Os // ?.. .. \\\) 1
?I
mc°
B
LS R9 m O
!01 MIN
?6 z? ? sz
i E
CIO
s L /?
td
It
tt

»
- o
a
S8 -
00 ' ?
ii
^
:" g
mD
o,
o
a°
A, O
NC r'QjQ 7 } ?
t
g _ o
y
rr D_
? L o ?
emm
/ .;5995 ': a
r ? " g:a > 9995 ? ' ? ?
? Z yn?
^
c ?
I n oc.
20+00
ob 6 6 b Ca
?pi5? 1. / Y
I `;1 ?a In ,... o j ?
15 4 E / o n
` ` `^ W n
6
m
---?-L 1UC'rB[K RECiST _
B4pbx FO - Sx i55x 9 B=I _ `rSJBRK, P
i £ ----- ?PERTr zJ
Qwr
03
! 8 a
I F a ? d
m as
-e
s 3,
m ?Z °5
m ?
I
I
2/11/2009
R:\Roadw av\Pra i\b4216.rdv_ t sh.don
2:42:38 PM- 09/08/99
CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: B-4216
0 0 0 ?? fi
0 U A
° u R, mo 1
r 1 Gl Q N.; Nu:9 M?
r o m o o m "P'z. C n
?1 a?n
m S Z 2Z i^... "e °
Z O '•.
y N n- n
MM o O c N G y 3 Z zr a a? m. ??I Pf o 0
No V C m 1 g , c ?
T 2 1 1? SF: 1? 3 m_
0Z gg b cK
r
mn
Q n < O< O ti m Z 1 1 1 1
m _ 1
A ° II II I' II II II 11x m? \p? 1 Y°? 1
II yCy NA Pte' ? ? V T? I 1
F O NOC"O
;aeae2eGO a Z
Z Rp
O
~O 8 ? I
m _
N
O m m
C
GI L1
r = a p
m N p
c: F C
H ? D C ?p
9 j N
° h :T-
o
m? v Q m O it ?
m m y A04 --
`? a ? ? q0 GRi O ti I : ? v
~ 0 bu !
II II p ,` I ; H ? .
N ?ca
W d A C } I C) rn + rl
O m Z i '.O v 0 W
y N N I O Om A O D ~
a /\
6 22
60 H o N I a ` Jl -? `T'
00
N 5 + b 0 O = m ;0
D Z n tz? i0
z C) Na N??^ a z ??' IO ?' O E
,t7r, c Oil. 8 z
Y ?' / z (Vj, ay
° `m I z T? o a c •?y?a, 11}.,1 ,??
D $??? 1 Z z b x
< a?> y o
r
pm ? Om y
o-
z BALD
cm W?N RD. n
i SR 7554
c
? N
? I
° S
?a n
Ftt
b
y `
Y °
b A U N ?C!
N N C
N , tIj
y
y e
ab g
X +? O O ? r N N 1
A* ?2
? b
? e
n m 3?
?I
?I
A
N
.j
Q
a
c m
N m v
N v n
Ca n
N j
D
< m m a ymDa Da ymDa Da ymDa Da Da n
D D a x m y a y a x m y a y 9 s m y a y 9 y a o
a a O D o o s o o D O o O z
m y a 2aDa Da 2aDa Da 2aDa Da Da O
D
m y 2 r2.
mD Z. !-2.
D 2. r2.
ND 2. 2. a
m
z y m •OD< DD AOD< DD •OD< DD DD y
m m D m<D G9 om<D Ga T<D Ga <a T
y •O m a Ma O m 9 m v
N O T 9
m a
m o
m D D DO D DO 2 D DO DO
a 6i ?? 2H
2 A

y
m Z 2 m O m X Z m O m x O
O O m X m x D
D a mm T O mm m• m
mm m m
S C r
m Or a T
r 9 r-
a a
T Da
y 9U
I a
D9y 9N y
D9-1 9(J 9 2
N y D _
yTy ?
y?•T STy +
y1•? _
TDI y •?
yN m
a m 2
9Tn m= 9TD T= 9TD TD T= m

S m
m m
m
m m
m
C >

?
m
O a
O D
0a
0>
O a
O a
O D !
9
D
D Za2 T(II 2Tx Tm Za2 TS Tm T ;
y m O D a O D a O D D a D

a T -i r1'

+y m2
D
N -Irr

+y N

mD y?r

+y +r

my r

mD m
> m
m
D n r> Jr rA mr rN m m 3
< O
T
n y T n y T n n y
I `
=
T C mr0 r m10 r .10
?i
r
m
m
C 9 m m Z m n m m Z .0 m m Z m .0
y '^ Z
T y m O m O m n m O N m m 2

z
y
m
-?. a
s m
z.
n
y. a
x m
z
n m
y.
x A

m

n C L

n
Day a9 Da1 Oa Da'1 9-1 99 j y $

zmm
mm
.mm
mm
m
zm
mm
mm ?
c
(q 9 9y a 9m a 9 9 9
N N a m
0. I
N ?Om OD Om F. DT O,
^ D jm
Z K 2p
D KO KT ^KC m
K HKO K
O K
a
z
a
' DDO
m c D
n zDm
D a
D
: zDm m
o DD c
y r I
D
a m a
y a m o
c m
m a s m
o m O
m a o D
- o m
i m
O S m
a•m a

w m m y

yam

D a m c

yaa z c

a n

o
4 O m x y s m m m 9
any -D m +m nm

z m m m v m m m c m m< O<
m s a m m a a m 9 a Ma m a y
yyN My m A m m K
O mxln m ax m sx y m
m 9 N yy y y ZN
y O m T K
A m m Ob
ym a y 9y. m
O- O O m K O m r tli m
v m
m
m
m
D
w K- m

m m m
.? a
m I
O m
m D
m I
m Z 11?
?m w
H
o r 1
y
m ; N.t
Z I O J y
PO YP TO -C C
t? N
z ++ m m r D o Z
Oy p0 O o? m zm m!4.z 4 !1 0 oZ p -p 0 ? N O Z 0
O k
Z 0.0 m 0 Z 0-n
Z 0 z 0 T .0 I
00 ci

N
Lvi
A
N
+
N
N
O
O
ti
O
N
y
D
N_
O
G
O
y
A
J

9
A

? 7
8
m bi 1
RR0

?e
3

0> s
B r

D
z
30
?m
?o O
D N
r
D
A
G
v
z
m
v
0
A D
m
O +
U
c o
r
n 0
? a
O +
U
O °o
z
cC
C
m
O
O
O
O
G1 O
O
v O
O
7 O O o
_
w z O r°a
> O
- o o a
D m --
O
n

v O
O

7 O
z N
n O
l N
10
30
v
Dm
v
N
r?
y L m O foil N D D

m m m m < 0 O m

y D
m -' m
0 y
C
J m N m m S m
s ro m m m m
R
D m m m D

y
m 9 m
n
m O O m m
9 m m m c
c r
j a m
r ? m
r(c:o> co
N
1-
Pp y uci ? ?N ? N
+
m ? I
D
r? o S o m ?? - rn
m0 Zm n m1 ?G1 r
r op O O 0?
mm Z 0 O zCl N
y+ O Z N -i m
00 -1O
R 0'
Y m
z N O
N G7
O Z T
Nm N v A _
oO H
om OD
-i
AN N CD
i V
+ L
N p
00
y N
O
a
N A
O
N
0-
0-
66
A
p D 'V
p
s ?a n

OO
m
m 1

D
++

j N ,1j
0- F-
Ooo O? MW
00 m
Z

aY
pZ 0

r N

? Z
++

? 0
z?
z
A 0
w
H

Cm
Z-4
m0
ti
O
O

A
O ?° N
4v
r? N

$ D
Of 7
c+1
A s <
Ma a

m

a ?

9
?Z

.Q D
o
REVISIONS

n?
x
x €
z
? o
0
0
z
i t
o?
m
0
M
T
O
y?y
O
x
0
C
2n°
'i
? B4sp{ ed
i ? 3t
mg i
t L i 4
7 ?
a
O I;
3
_ m o
ffn y
o ° r
am
_ e:
mLC .I

d

o ? o
_ ? Yz
mat ? a ? RmpO
o
°
o ?

I I

•

o L ->o n ?
- vm
r n
-
n
a e

.z a
i a

?t4v
T

4
u? ?O
?R^o
'4.

a
_

a
???
QQ 10.
' R
P
_
3
g
? s o j
1 e
e
T M m YYY
v e° a p?

Gq
6 .

s $p x
=g s °
?>

. P..... `. p
xy
.e4Y .. L1
I
I 1?
B
v$
n ! II
<

no 4! .a

p
? I '
J
` I

'
o

b$ ? A

I
o

I
I
,
:wJ
O Uf l 4 m _
`
O ,
+ I5.
? i Lx
O1 ?
{
I m

I ?° .m° ? I F I a:
I.

? Q?
?
I I
I
? s o (n 4 I II ly

\ m 5?
G
27g? c ?' • '
?. t x71 Sa 77
L

is
c
.. .. i. rwr2 O.
k Ip
??I \, .1.5 to g0 VI y?S
`O? \\II ?O? i on NCV3.
+[? 2r:
8 ? g 5;1
z

°m
?
? II a 'I II II (/1 u u 'I u n
II

_ ? g m
v 1 I V
?
R??

- \? - m?yr OD?

n N ?tti p`
m r D
Nm?z II II
Ii pO II II II II
I
N
II
to amaw0 II
I
In to tN.l tuc

?E4

zi;

n r 'm
r Om]Iyr OD
\w _
u4?m
? II II II 1111
"mw Q

? ..
on ?
o ?+z!
o
pn
ab?v
? N
NYJ O ?
r ?r
? ?Fa yp pmb-Ir ODb
Ili ?2 ?'
F uu uuII II II VI
arr p
]n °m ???? \? o
umi n2.RNaa+

o tq-

a N r \\

2 Ao
J S ? I C!
wa' ?
/5+00
Jo $p sa ?°? _-
l m OO m0
mI'nq mm 88
? ?7aQ?. ? :7 x 5' o
Pew 8 =y i o? t,
22
O
ti
y9 r r m C G?,O ! pyS .
m _
PO 8 mo
tTy > ? s?i? ? ? ° ? n
v .?9:? O N ? ? Q W
Ja / ?`i No a b..
it °` - r5 r w -
y ti D
{y5
3 .0 i•s?°;
a?
if yA ?L lnlr
o m -
o c
--, .... .5 f., o z x
O

I(
S ? SN
f 5
b. I C ... [l 4
?, £ 1 I
SN / r
C / ? C1

GG'rg(E ECr}yER ?'
l ss
s
a
0
? 8 >e I x?
?n

I IS
Yld CIS ??
.
' Pe C
6 E Im
k

OOy °m N i?
o ° ? O
n
i N nRo ?'
V' O
m
a r
7
i
?
a
?
in m
° 1
z 5
^
m m

O
N
18