20080808 Ver 1_Application_20080513

? M STATE
STATE OF NORTI-I CAROLINA
Sr??''y?vq?`t?i
h
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLF.Y
GOVERNOR
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regional Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
ATTENTION: Eric Alsmeyer
April 25, 2008
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 5
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SI:C'RETARY
OR 0808
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23, 33, and 13, Section 401 Water Quality
Certification, and Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization for the replacement of Bridge No.
102 over Lower Bartons Creek on SR 1844 (Mount Vernon Church Road), Wake County.
Federal Aid Project Number BRZ-1844(1), WBS No. 33640.1.1, State Project No. 8.2409401,
Division 5, T.1.P No. B-4303.
$240.00 Debit from WBS Element 33640.1.1.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 102 over
Lower Bartons Creek. The existing bridge is currently in poor condition (bridge sufficiency rating of 7.0
out of a possible 100) and in need of replacement. The new bridge is intended to provide a safer bridge
structure consistent with federal and state bridge standards.
The proposed bridge will be approximately 115 feet in length with three spans at 35 feet, 45 feet, and 35
feet each. Two interior bents will be placed in the streambed near water edge. The superstructure will be
composed of pre-stresse --IfflCtr-(depth) cored s ab units on concrete caps and drilled piers. The
proposed bridge has 36.4 feet of clear roadway and will provide two travel lanes. The travel lanes will be
10.5 feet wide each with approximately 7.7-foot shoulders. The project will replace the current bridge on
its existing location and traffic will be maintained through off-site detour during construction.
The project also involves replacing the existing 118-inch by 79-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with a
triple barrel 8-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). The project involves constructing
the RCBC on the existing alignment, while maintaining traffic through off-site detour. Please see the
enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), permit drawings, and design plans for the
above-referenced project. The CE was completed for this project in April 2007 and was distributed
shortly thereafter. Additional copies of the CE are available upon request.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone] or
919-715-1335
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604
I

IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Neuse River Basin (subbasin 03-04-01) and USGS hydrologic unit
03020201. Two jurisdictional perennial streams, Lower Bartons Creek and an unnamed tributary (UT) to
Lower Bartons Creek, are located in the project study area. They are currently classified by the NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as WS-IV NSW waters. Both are given a DWQ stream index number
of 27-16-(1). No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply (WS-II), waters occur within 1.0 mile of the study corridor. No
portion of Lower Bartons Creek or its tributary, or other surface waters within 1.0 mile of the project are
listed on the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) 2006 Final 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters. A jurisdictional determination letter for all water resources within the study area was issued by
the US Army Corps of Engineers on January 31, 2005.
Permanent Impacts
There will be 60 feet of surface water impacts (bank stabilization) to Lower Bartons Creek from bridge
construction (Site 1). The bank stabilization reach of Lower Bartons Creek also encompasses the area
where minimal surface water fill from bridge bent placement will occur. There will also be 85 fee of
surface water impacts to the UT to Lower Bartons Creek from the RCBC construction (Site 2)
Approximately 25 feet of those impacts is due to filling in a scour hole (3 feet deep) downstream of the
existing culvert.
Temporary Impacts
There will be 40 feet (0.03 acre) of temporary impacts to Lower Bartons Creek due to the construction of
the temporary causeway for bridge construction (Site 1). These temporary impacts occur within the same
reach of stream as the permanent impacts. There will also be 55 feet (0.01 acre) of temporary impacts to
the UT to Lower Bartons Creek due to the RCBC construction upstream and permanent
drainage easement access owns ream o t e (Site 2).
Utility Impacts
No utility impacts are anticipated from project construction.
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge was constructed in 1967 and is 90 feet in length. It consists of three spans 30 feet
each. The superstructure consists of pre-cast concrete channels with a 4.5-inch asphalt overlay. The
existing substructure consists of pre-stressed concrete caps on timber piles. The existing bridge will be
removed without dropping components into Lower Bartons Creek. Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented during the demolition of this bridge.
IMPACTS TO NEUSE RIPARIAN BUFFER
This project is located within the Neuse River Basin and is therefore subject to Neuse River riparian
buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). Bridge and RCBC construction will impact buffers along Lower
Bartons Creek and its UT, respectively. The buffer impacts from bridge construction (Site 1) are
allowable. The buffer impacts resulting from road crossings (Site 1 and Site 2) are also allowable
because less than 150 linear feet of stream buffers per road crossing are being impacted (Table 1).
Final B-4303 Permit Application
Page 2 of 5
Table 1. Neuse River Buffer Impacts
Bridge
Construction Road Crossing
(Bridge at Site 1) Road Crossing
(Culvert at Site 2)
Zone 1 Impact (sq. ft) 5,432 248 7,208
Zone 2 Impact (sq. ft) 509 1951 1,064
Mitigation requirements (exempt,
allowable, or allowable with mitigation) Allowable Allowable Allowable
Practical Alternatives Analysis
This bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The replacement
of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations. Because this bridge
needs to be replaced, impacts to the riparian buffers of Lower Bartons Creek and its UT are unavoidable.
Utility Impacts to Riparian Buffers
No utility impacts are anticipated from project construction.
RESTORATION PLAN
Following construction of the bridge and culvert, all material used in the construction of the structure
will be removed. The impact area associated with the culvert is expected to recover naturally, since the
natural streambed and plant material will not be removed. NCDOT does not propose any additional
planting in this area. Class II riprap and filter fabric will be used for bank stabilization. Pre-project
elevations will be restored.
Following construction of the bridge and culvert, all material used in the construction of the structure
will be removed. Class H riprap and filter fabric will be used for bank stabilization. Pre-project
elevations will be restored.
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL PLAN
The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the removal of and disposal of all
material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use excavation equipment for removal of any
earthen material. Heavy-duty trucks, dozers, cranes and various other pieces of mechanical equipment
necessary for construction of roadways, bridges, and culverts will be used on site. All material placed in
the stream will be removed from the stream at that time. The contractor will have the option of reusing
any of the materials that the engineer deems suitable in the construction of project. After the erosion
control devices are no longer needed, all temporary materials will become the property of the contractor.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and
Proposed Threatened are protected under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of January 31, 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally
protected species for Wake County (Table 2). One species (bald eagle) was officially delisted on August
8, 2007 (CFR 50 Part 17). The biological conclusion for bald eagle in the CE was "No Effect" with no
habitat available in the project area. The bald eagle still remains protected under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act.
Final B-4303 Permit Application
Page 3 of 5
y
w
Table 2. Federallv Protected Snecies in Wake C'nnnty NC
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion Habitat
Present
Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus Delisted Not Required No
Red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered No Effect No
Dwarf Alasmidonta

wedgemussel
heterodon Endangered No Effect Yes
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered No Effect Yes
The biological conclusion of "No Effect" rendered for the remaining three species in the CE still remains
valid. While only marginal habitat is present for the dwarf wedgemussel, no specimens have been found
from past surveys (November 14, 2004 being most recent). It was determined that additional surveys
were not warranted. Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac does occur in the project study area. The
most recent survey for Michaux's sumac, conducted on June 25, 2007 by NCDOT biologists Greg Price,
Jim Mason, and James Pflaum, revealed no specimens. This survey remains valid for two years. A
review of the Natural Heritage Program database in April 2008 revealed no occurrences of these species
within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance and Minimization and Compensatory Mitigation
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA
compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the U.S. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream, wetland, and Neuse Buffer avoidance/minimization activities proposed or
completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented.
• The culvert will be buried one foot below the streambed in order to maintain aquatic habitat and flow
regime.
• An off-site detour will be used instead of on-site detour for traffic control during construction.
• Bridge and culvert will be replaced on existing alignment.
• A preformed scour hole will be implemented.
Compensatory Mitigation
No compensatory mitigation for permanent stream impacts is proposed due to the impacts being minimal.
All permanent impacts to Lower Bartons Creek (60 feet) and approximately 40 feet of the 85 feet of total
permanent impacts to the UT to Lower Bartons Creek are for bank stabilization and do not constitute loss
of waters of the U.S. No compensatory mitigation is required for the buffer impacts.
Final B-4303 Permit Application
Page 4 of 5
I

SCHEDULE
The project calls for a letting of December 16, 2008 (review date of October 28, 2008) with a date of
availability of February 3, 2009. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in
February 2009.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: The project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these
activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (72 FR 11092; March 19, 2007). We are also
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 for the work associated with temporary impacts and a
Nationwide Permit 13 for bank stabilization (100 feet).
Section 401 Certification: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3701, 3688, and 3689 will
apply to this project. This project will impact greater than 40 linear feet of stream and impact Neuse
Riparian Buffers, requiring written concurrence. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a)
and 15A NCAC 213.0200 we are providing five copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review. In
compliance with Section 143-215.3D(e) of the NCAC we will provide $240.00 to act as payment for
processing the Section 401 permit application.
Buffer Authorization: This project has been designed to comply with the Neuse Riparian Buffer
Regulations (15A NCAC 213.0242). NCDOT requests a Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization from the
Division of Water Quality.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Greg Price at 715-5533.
Sincer &Thorpe, Gregory h.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ms. Jeanne Hardy, NCDMF
w/o attachment (see permits website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. J. Wally Bowman, PE., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Theresa Ellerby, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Final B-4303 Permit Application
Page 5 of 5
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. O ?0 Lf?
ku any pantcuiar item is not applicable to taus project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23, 33, & 13
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Gregory J. Thorpe PhD Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: Qthorue(a)dot.state.nc us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replace Bridge No. 102 over Lower Bartons Creek on SR 1844.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4303
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Site is located on SR
1884 (Mount Vernon Church Road).
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 78.665191 ON 35.933529 °W
6. Property size (acres):_ Please refer to attached drawings.
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Lower Bartons Creek and its UT
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The local area surrounding the proposed project consists of
gently rolling hills and land use is best described as residential development and natural
forest vegetation.
Page 2 of 9
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: NCDOT
proposes to replace Bridge No. 102 over Lower Bartons Creek and replace existing
corregated metal pipe (CMP) with reinforced concrete box-culvert (RCBC) on UT to Lower
Bartons Creek on SR 1844. Heavy construction equipment such as cranes excavators and
dump trucks will be utilized during construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing bridge was constructed in 1967 and
received a sufficiency rating of 7.0 out of a possible 100 for a new structure during the last
bridge inspection. Based on this rating the bridge is considered functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The project proposes to replace the existing bri dge and replace
existing CMP with a RCBC, resulting in safer transportation.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. A iurisdictional determination letter was issued for streams and wetlands
on this project by the USACE on January 31, 2005
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 9
I . Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Approximately 60 linear feet and 85
linear feet of warm perennial streams will be impacted resulting from bridge and box culvert
construction, respectively. Another 40 and 55 linear feet for Lower Bartons Creek and UT to
Lower Bartons Creek, repectively, will be temporarily impacted.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year

Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest

Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact

(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on map) Intermittent? Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)*
Site 1 (Perm) Lower Bartons
Creek Bridge Construction Perennial 40 feet 60 0.01
Site 1 (Temp) Lower Barton Temp Causeway for perennial 40 feet 40** 0
03**
Creek Bridge Construction .
Site 2 (Perm) UT to Lower
Barton Creek Box Culvert Perennial 25 feet 85 0.03
Site 2 (Temp) UT to Lower
Bartons Creek Box Culvert Perennial 25 feet 55 0.01
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 200 0.08
* Impacts do not cover entire width of channel.
** These temporary impacts are in same reach of stream as permanent impacts and therefore not calculated in total length and area.
Page 4 of 9
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake pand estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.14
Wetland Impact (acres): NA
Open Water Impact (acres): NA
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.14
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 200
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Page 5 of 9
See cover letter.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors.
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htti)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Compensatory mitigation for permanent stream impacts is not proposed (see cover letter).
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Page 6 of 9
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213.0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 0213.0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ® No ?
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Page 7 of 9
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 12,888 3
2 3,524 1.5
Total 16,412
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified within 15A NCAC 2B
.0242 or.0244, or.0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes El
No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
N/A
Page 8 of 9
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
q, z y,
Applicax&,kg&&1s Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
1844
G„
3598 4437 ?? ?a Rya
4449 9e /y
a
0 4439 y
d
p, 3595 4444
?a a
3594 Ki^sdale Dr. .60
3592
5
BE r
P OJECT
VICINITY
MAIDS
DETOUR ROUTE 0 0 -
0
Rd.
.35
? Norwood Ft°•
1834
04
? / I 2
Gee END
/
,`1860PROJECT
1859
005
26 ti
-lz?
Mt lemon 22`rch 3433
1844 13
'Qa N
3386 3433 •2
(NOT TO SCALQ
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
PROJECT: B-4303 (BRIDGE a102)
BRIDGE NO.102 OVER
LOWER BARTONS CREEK
ON SR 1844
(MOUNT VERNON CHURCH ROAD)
SHEET / OF
02/22/2008
NORTH
C4RODN4

7, , , ?:

OF HIGHWA-"`i
f',r, ":.'NT Y
P R 0 J EC T: B-4' :03, ( BR D E
EPEI?L3F ?`?, N srl]EI?
CON SIR 18441
r v'?S1%'i..r <v, T ER- ON C";t' 3 ' i ;CH R'CD .. .vim
1-S EF J' 2Y W ; iii
LOWER, BARTOINS CREEK

BEGIN PROJECT B-4303
S
?Sl LTE JLl L
JS?

TO NORWOOD ROAD
?f ?f
W
W
0
Ct
m
W
-? SR 1844
MOUNT VERNON CHURCH ROAD e
SITE MAID
NOT TO SCALE
/ ? _? /FpRK
- ? 0 SIX
T
NCDO 11
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WADE COUNTY
PROJECT: B-4303 (BRIDGE a102)
BRIDGE NO.102 OVER
LOWER BARTONS CREED
ON SR 1.844
(MOUNT VERNON CHURCH ROAD)
SHEET.9 OF 02/22/2008
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAVIES
ADDRESSES
1 Nicholas & Carrie Smith
2 Michael & Virginia Mall
3 Karl & Gale Bowman
41 Bosworth Beckwith
101100 Tredwood Dr. Raleigh, NC 29014
10516 Tredwood Dr. Raleigh, NC 29615
920 Mt Vernon Church Rd. Raleigh, NC 291114
817 M[¢ Vernon Church Rd Raleigh, NC 27614
WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 17+13.5 to 18+28.5 CL Bride 0.01 0.03 60.00 40.00

2 24+40 Rt./Lt. Culvert 0.03 0.01 85.00 55.00

TOTALS: 0.04 0.04 145.00 95.00
Revised 3/31105
1844
1-1
3598 4437 ?? ?a Rya
4449 9Q
0 4439 5
Me
d
p? > > 3595 4,
? a
6
Kinsdale Dr. . SO
3594
3592
BE
P OJECT
DETOUR ROUTE 0 0 0
QOe
Ftd.
1.35
Norwood go.
?r .? 1834
Gte END
,8so PROJECT
18
1859
Mt
.12 mon 2?Ufch 3433
1844 .13
'Qa N
3386 3433
(NOT TO SCALE)
005
.26
r '
i ?
NI)
BUFFER IMPACTS
VICINITY
MAPS
NCD ® T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
PROJECT: B-4303 (BRIDGE X102)
BRIDGE NO.102 OVER
LOWER BARTONS CREEK
ON SR 1844
(MOUNT VERNON CHURCH ROAD)
SHEET a/ OF O 02 G 22 // 2008
NORTH CARODN4
1 I ` • ? fir- .? `; , 4 ?_ ? Y`' ? ?-..-
j
300

j1J
./ /
?
• ? ?
\
? e
mar
\\ x
•O
rt
1 r? 't

1
i ? •?_
r ?? .'
t
.
,
•

i
I •
-

• •, V
•
3 ,

'ET
?
•
s

N `V D ® 1L
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WADE COUN'T'Y
TORO MAP PROJEC'T': B-4303 (BRIDGE X102)
BRIDGE N®.102 OVER
LOWER BAR'I'ONS CREED
SCALE: I" AA500' ON SR 1844
(MOUNT VERNON CHURCH ROAD)
SHEET 2 OF O 02/22/2008
BEGIN PROJECT B-4303
l5
s?
SITE 7L
--- TO NORWOOD ROAD
?f ?f
W
W
0
ti
2
m
W
b?
SITE MAP
NOT TO SCALE
RQ
JS?
SR 1844
MOUNT VERNON CHURCH ROAD A
FS -IT-E- -21
PROJECT

? R D
1? f i KS 0
R
SiX F
T0
NCDO ll
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WADE COUNT'
PROJECT: B-4303 (BRIDGE ts 102)
BRIDGE N®.102 OVER
(LOWER BARTONS CREED
ON SR 1844
(MOUNT VERNON CHURCH ROAD)
SHEET -3 OF -F 02 122% 2008

•
NAMES ADDRESSES
1
2
3
4
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
Nicholas & Carrie Smith 10600 Tredwood Dr. Raleigh, NC 27014
Michael & Virginia Hall 10516 Tredwood Dr. Raleigh, NC 27615
Karl 8 Gale B.wman 920 ME Vernon Church Rd. Raleigh, NC 27614
Bosworth Beckwith 817 ME Vernon Church Rd Raleigh, NC 27614
BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER

STRUCTURE SIZE
STATION TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT
SITE NO. / TYPE (FROMITO) ROAD
CROSSING
BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ft) TOTAL
(ft) ZONE 1
(ft) ZONE 2
(ft) TOTAL
(ft) ZONE 1

(ftz) ZONE 2

(ftZ)

1 Bridge
(1@35',1@45',1@35') 17+13.50 to 18+28.50 X 5432 509 5941
Roadway Fill 16+83 to 18+50 X 248 1951 2199

2 Culvert (3@ 8'x7') 23+95 to 25+00 X 7208 1064 8272

TOTAL: 12888 3524 16412 0 0 0

WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 1 02 ON SR 1 644 (MT. VERNON CHURCH ROAD)
OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1 844(1 )
STATE PROJECT NO. B.2409401
WBS No. 33640.1.1
T.I.P. NO. B-4303
CATEGORICAL. EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date Gregory J. orpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
J
Date John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Y
Federal Highway Administration
I 6
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 1 02 ON SR 1 B44 (MT. VERNON CHURCH ROAD)
OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1 644(1 )
STATE PROJECT NO. B.2409401
WBS No. 33640.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4303
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
APRIL 2007
DOCUMENT PREPARED BY:
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA
4?2
Date /JA. Bissett, Jr., P.E. "0001 11
Raleigh Branch Manager
3- 3o -off
Date
Nicole H. Bennett, AICP
Project Manager
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--?
Date" f Theresa Ellerby
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Group, Western Region
?QeN6aB Aqq©??0//pa00?r09c^f,?F.
0? e?[®oooe??„ L ?? B
SEAL
14842
a
G
?.? 7 9 ® q9S ? 1
ry°?Bi16B0?Gu?"'y
I
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 1 02 ON SR 1 B44 (MT. VERNON CHURCH ROAD)
OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT No. BRZ-1 844(l)
STATE PROJECT No. B.2409401
WBS No. 33540.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4303
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Erosion
and Sediment Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
PROGRAMMING AND TIP BRANCH, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
A municipal agreement will be necessary with the City of Raleigh to determine a cost-sharing
agreement for expenses associated with the accommodation of the proposed greenway. During
preparation of the agreement, these two branches should confer regarding the use of the Bridge
Replacement funds for the entire project. The portion of the bridge required to accommodate a
two-lane roadway will be funded with Bridge Replacement funds. Funding for the additional length
will be determined at a future date.
STRUCTURES
Bicycle safe bridge railing will be provided.
April 2007
Categorical Exclusion
Green Sheet

WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 1 02 ON SR 1844 (MT. VERNON CHURCH ROAD)
OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1 B44(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2409401
WBS No. 33540.1.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
NTRO D U CTI O N : The replacement of Bridge No. 102 is included in the 2007-2013 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 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."
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 102 has a sufficiency rating of 7.0 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure and is considered functionally obsolete and structurally deficient.
The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer, more efficient traffic operations.
11. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 102 is located on SR 1844 (Mt. Vernon Church Road) over Lower Bartons Creek in
Wake County, just south of Falls Lake near the Bayleaf community. SR 1844 is classified as Rural
Local by the statewide functional classification system. It connects to NC 50 approximately 3.5 miles
northwest of Bridge No. 102. Lower Bartons Creek is included in the CapitalArea Greenwaj Master
Plan (Figure 7).
Land use in the project area is primarily residential housing and forest.
The 2008 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 6,800 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected 2030 ADT is 11,800 vpd. The percentages of truck traffic are two percent dual tired
vehicles and one percent truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST). The posted speed limit on SR 1844 is 45
miles per hour (mph).
Bridge No. 102 was built in 1967. It is a tangent two-lane facility with a clear roadway width of 24
feet. The bridge has three spans and totals 90 feet in length. The deck is composed of prestressed
concrete channels with asphalt overlay and the railings are steel. The substructure consists of precast
prestressed concrete caps on timber piles, and reinforced concrete jacket piles. Height from roadway
crown to streambed is 12 feet. Bridge No. 102 is posted at 22 tons for single vehicle and 22 tons for
TTSTs.
There is a 118 inch by 79 inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) on an unnamed tributary (UT) to Lower
Bartons Creek approximately 600 feet east of Bridge No. 102. The pipe is in poor condition. No
driveways are located between Bridge No. 102 and the CMP.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 1

SR 1844 has two nine-foot travel lanes and six-foot grassed shoulders. The approaches to Bridge
No. 102 are tangent. A horizontal curve with a radius of approximately 890 feet is located east of the
CMP.
Overhead utility lines are located along the north side of SR 1844. Southern Bell and MCI
underground utility markers indicate utilities on the south side of SR 1844. The underground utilities
cross Lower Bartons Creek on poles. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There are approximately 16 school bus crossings on Bridge No. 102 each day.
Two accidents were reported in the project area during the period from January 2004 through
December 2006. There were no fatalities and neither accident involved injuries.
This section of SR 1844 is located on a route that is heavily used by bicycle traffic.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The recommended replacement structure is a bridge approximately 140 feet in length. The length
may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies. The bridge will provide two 10.5-foot travel lanes and 7.7-foot shoulders, for a
total width of 36.4 feet (Figure 3A). The 7.7-foot shoulders anticipated are based on preliminary
hydraulic design for deck drainage and future widening. A minimum 0.3 percent grade is
recommended to facilitate deck drainage. Bicycle safe bridge railing 54 inches in height with two
bar metal rails and concrete parapet will be provided.
Based on preliminary hydraulic analysis, the CMP is proposed to be replaced with a triple barrel 8-
foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box culvert.
The approach roadway in the project area will provide two 10.5-foot wide travel lanes with 8-foot
grass shoulders (Figure 3A). The design speed will be 50 mph.
Lower Bartons Creek is part of the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan. Accommodating the
greenway under the bridge increases the bridge length from 115 feet to the proposed 140 feet. This
accommodation is contingent upon a municipal agreement with the City of Raleigh to determine a
cost-sharing agreement for expenses associated with the increased bridge length.
A design exception will be needed for the lane width.
B. BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Three build alternatives were studied for this project. They are described below.
Alternative A (preferred) replaces the bridge and CMP at the existing locations (Figure 4A).
During construction, traffic will be maintained with an off-site detour approximately five miles in
length. The detour route will travel along SR 1834 (Norwood Road) and SR 1005 (Six Forks Road).
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 2
Alternative B replaces the bridge and CMP at the existing locations (Figure 4B). During
construction, traffic will be maintained with an on-site detour north of the existing bridge. The
detour bridge will be approximately 85 feet in length and provide two 10.5-foot travel lanes with 2-
foot shoulders (Figure 3A). Three 54-inch pipes will be located at the crossing of the UT east of the
bridge. The detour approach roadway will provide two 10.5-foot travel lanes with 8 foot grass
shoulders and a design speed of 40 mph. Alternative B is not recommend because of greater impacts
to the UT and residential property than Alternative A.
Alternative C replaces the bridge and CMP at the existing locations (Figure 4C). During
construction, traffic will be maintained with an on-site detour south of the existing bridge. The
detour bridge will be approximately 85 feet in length and provide two 10.5-foot travel lanes with 2-
foot shoulders (Figure 3B). Three 54-inch pipes will be located at the crossing of the UT east of
Bridge No. 102. The detour approach roadway will provide two 10.5-foot travel lanes with 8-foot
grass shoulders and a design speed of 40 mph. Alternative C is not recommended because of greater
impacts to the UT and forest than Alternatives A and B.
C. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not desirable
because of the traffic service provided by SR 1844 and Bridge No. 102.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT 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 and CMP at existing locations while using an off-site detour for
traffic, is the preferred alternative. Alternative A was selected because it minimizes impacts to
residential property, forest and stream, is more economical, and has a shorter construction time than
other alternatives considered.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 3
IV. ESTIMATED COST
Table 1 shows estimated costs based on current prices.
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Alternative A
(preferred) Alternative B Alternative C ,
Existing Structure Removal $ 27,700 $ 27,700 $ 27,700
Existing Concrete Pipe Removal 1,100 1,100 1,100
Proposed Structure 573,300 573,300 573,300
Proposed Box Culvert 91,200 91,200 91,200
Roadway Approaches 233,900 424,000 550,000
Temporary Detour Bridge 0 116,900 116,900
Temporary Pipes 0 18,000 22,800
Detour Approaches 0 205,400 213,600
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 247,800 412,400 478,400
Engineering Contingencies 175,000 280,000 325,000
ROW/Coast. Easements /Utilities 178,500 220,000 210450
TOTAL $1,528,500 $2,370,000 $2,610,450
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program
('TIP) is $1,762,000 including $200,000 in prior years, $200,000 for right-of-way, $12,000 for
mitigation, and $1,350,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. METHODOLOGY
Field investigations within the project area were conducted by qualified biologists on January 22,
2004. Field surveys were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and to document
natural communities, wildlife, Waters of the United States, and the presence of protected species or
their habitats.
Published information regarding the project area and region was derived from a number of
resources including: USGS 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle maps (Bayleaf, North Carolina),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, USGS aerial
photomosaics of the project area, and Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey
maps of Wake County. Water resources information was obtained from publications of the North
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 4
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). Animal
names and descriptions follow Bogan (2002), Conant and Collins (1998), Lee et al. (1980 et seq.),
Martof et al. (1980), Stokes (1996), and Webster et al. (1985). Scientific names and common names
(when applicable) are provided for each plant and animal species listed. Subsequent references to
the same organism include the common name only.
During field surveys, wildlife identification involved a variety of observation techniques: active
searching and capture, visual observations (both with and without the use of binoculars), and
observing the characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows). Any organisms that
may have been captured during these searches were identified and released without injury.
Quantitative water sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed using the three-parameter approach as
prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Supplementary technical
literature describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrological
indicators was also utilized. Wetland functions were evaluated according to the NCDWQ's rating
system, fourth version. Surface waters in the project area were evaluated and classified based on a
preponderance of perennial stream characteristics as defined in NCDWQ's Stream Classification
Method, second version, as well as the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet.
B. PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The project study area is located in Wake County, approximately 13 miles south of the Town of
Creedmoor and seven miles north of the City of Raleigh. Wake County is situated in the central part
of the state in the Piedmont physiographic province. The geography of this 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 290 feet above mean sea level (msl) along
Lower Bartons Creek to approximately 340 feet above msl at the far western end of the project.
The geology underlying the project area consists of two separate and distinct formations. The central
portion of the study area consists of meta-ultramafic rock of the Raleigh Belt, while the remainder of
the project area is mapped as a formation of biotite gneiss and schist of the Raleigh Belt. The meta-
ultramafic rock formation is comprised primarily of intrusive metamorphosed dunite and petidotite,
with serpentite and soapstone present in locales. This outcropping is found as a small isolated area
associated with Lower Bartons Creek. The biotite geeiss and schist formation is primarily comprised
of the nominal minerals, with garnet, mica schist, amphibolite, and phyllite also present locally. This
formation is mapped as a long, thin area stretching from Sanford to Grissom.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 5
Four soil series are represented within the project area: Madison, Chewacla, Wilkes, and Lloyd.
Soil mapping units within the study corridor include Chewacla soils (Fluvaquentic Dystrocrepts),
Madison sandy loam (Typic Hapludults), Wilkes soils and Wilkes stony soils (Tyic Hapludalfr), and
Lloyd loam (Typic Hapludults).
Chewacla soils are nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soils with moderate to
moderately-rapid permeability. The surface layer is brown sandy loam to silt loam, and the
subsoil is brown sandy loam to clay. Surface runoff is slow and the hazard of flooding is
severe. These soils typically occur in floodplains of streams and are mapped adjacent to
Lower Bartons Creek.
Madison sandy loam soils are gently sloping to moderately steep, well drained, strongly acid
soils with moderate permeability. The surface layer is brown sandy loam, and the subsoil is
red clay to clay loam. Madison soils occupy the uplands on the western end of the project
area, where they have slopes ranging from two to 15 percent. The hazard of erosion is very
severe in the steeper areas.
Wilkes soils are moderately steep, well drained soils with moderate permeability and low
available water capacity. The surface layer is yellowish brown to dark brown sandy loam to
silt loam, and the subsoil is brown to gray sandy loam to clay loam. Wilkes soils are depicted
within the study area as a thin strip along the UT to Lower Bartons Creek, and as a large area
of stony soils in the south-central portion of the study area. The slopes of the Wilkes soils
within the study area range from 15 to 45 percent. The hazard of erosion is severe due to
the very rapid surface runoff and steep slopes.
Lloyd loam soils are gently sloping well drained soils with moderate permeability. The
surface layer is reddish brown loam, and the subsoil is red clay loam to clay. Lloyd soils are
located on uplands in the eastern end of the study area, where the slope ranges from two to
10 percent. Due to this soil's high agricultural potential many of these areas are significantly
eroded.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic vegetation. Soils referred to as "Hydric A" are completely hydric throughout the
mapped soil unit. "Hydric B" soils are non-hydric soils that contain inclusions of hydric soils, usually
in depressional areas or along the border with other soil units. Based on the Wake County soil
survey, one Hydric B soil map unit occurs in the project area: Chewacla soils. According to NRCS,
Chewacla soils are known to contain inclusions of Wehadkee soils. One area mapped as Chewacla
located approximately 100 feet west of Lower Bartons Creek and approximately 100 feet south of
Mount Vernon Church Road has been found to contain hydric inclusions. This area was determined
to be a jurisdictional wetland, and is discussed later in this report.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 6
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
All streams within the project vicinity are completely within the Neuse River Basin. The confluence
of the Eno River and Flat River, which occurs immediately above the Falls Lake Reservoir dam,
forms the Neuse River, near the Wake and Durham County boundaries. Lower Bartons Creek is a
perennial stream that generally flows in a northerly direction toward Falls Lake with a drainage area
of 7..8 square miles. Lower Bartons Creek is located within Neuse River Subbasin 03-04-01. The
NCDWQ stream index number is 27-16-(1) 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. Lower
Bartons Creek and the UT to Lower Bartons Creek are classified as "WS-IV NSW" waters. The
"WS-IV" (drinking water supply) designation denotes that these waters he within a water supply
watershed, and are protected for uses such as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
primary recreation, and agriculture. WS-N waters are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds or Protected Areas, and involve no categorical restrictions on discharges. Lower Bartons
Creek is also considered Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). This is a supplemental surface water
classification assigned to waters needing additional nutrient management due to their susceptibility
to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. No Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or Sensitive Water Supply Watershed (WS-I or WS-II)
Waters occur within a three-mile radius of the project study area.
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to develop a list of waters not
meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. North Carolina's 303(d) report is a
comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies in the state. No 303(d) waters are
located within one mile of the project study 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. There are eight AMS monitoring stations in this subbasin; however, there are no stations,
within this subbasin, downstream of the project area. Lower Bartons Creek is not rated for use
support within the project area.
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. A monitoring site is located
along Upper Bartons Creek approximately two miles northwest of the project area. Data collected in
1995 indicated this site had a "Good" rating. The 2000 data gave this site a "Good-Fair" rating.
This poorer rating is somewhat expected due to the increasing development within the Upper
Bartons Creek watershed.
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. Streams and river
reaches are then given a bioclassification rating that ranges from Excellent to Poor based on benthic
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 7
macroinvertebrate collection data. A benthic macroinvertebrate sampling site is located on Upper
Bartons Creek at NC Highway 50 approximately two miles northwest of the project study area. This
site was sampled in 1995 and 2000 and was given a bioclassification rating of "Good-Fair" at both
sampling events.
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to register for a
permit. According.to the September 26, 2001 list of active NPDES permits issued by NCDWQ,
there are 20 permitted dischargers within the 03-04-01 subbasin. There is one permitted discharger
along Lower Bartons Creek: Wildwood Green WW'IP, owned by Heater Utilities, Inc. This minor
domestic waste discharger is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest and upstream of the project
area, and is permitted to release 0.1 million gallons a day (MGD). No violations have been reported.
A classification system for stream channels based on fluvial geomorphologic principles and
landscape position was used for stream analysis. Based on this classification method and field
observations made during the site visit, both Lower Bartons Creek and the UT to Lower Bartons
Creek appear to be C4 type channels at the bridge site. Lower Bartons Creek and the UT to Lower
Bartons Creek have a moderate flow over a substrate of silt, sand, gravel, and cobble. Table 2
provides further details of stream characteristics within the project study area. Stream rating forms
are included in the Appendix.
Table 2. Approximate Stream Dimensions for Surface Waters
St Bankfull Channel Bank Water Depth
ream Width Width Height Riffle Pool'
Lower Bartons Creek 20 feet 25 feet 4 feet 6 to 12 inches 2 to 4 feet
UT to Lower Bartons Creek 10 feet 15 feet 3 feet 3 to 6 inches 1 to 2 feet
3. Anticipated Impact to Water Resources
a. General Impacts
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 being
studied. The proposed project calls for replacing the bridge and CMP at the existing locations. This
will allow for continuation of present stream flow within the existing channels.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 8
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
The deck is composed of prestressed concrete channels and the railings are steel. The substructure
consists of precast prestressed concrete caps on timber piles, and reinforced concrete jacket piles.
The rails will be removed without dropping them into Waters of the U. S. There is potential for
components of the concrete deck and concrete caps to be dropped into Waters of the U. S. during
construction. The resulting potential temporary fill associated with the concrete deck and concrete
substructure components is approximately 31 cubic yards. Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities will be adhered to.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
The field survey team observed three plant communities in the project study 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
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 Lower Bartons Creek in the study area and has witnessed past disturbance
due to agriculture and the presence of an old road. The canopy and understory are somewhat open
throughout.
Dominant tree species observed in the canopy and understory layers include river birch (Betula nigra),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), umbrella magnolia (Magnolia tripetala), slippery
elm (Ulmus rubra), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), and yellow poplar (Liiiodendron tulipifera).
Shrubs and vines include American holly (Ilex opaca), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), greenbriar
(Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and poison ivy (To.5 codendron radicans).
The herbaceous community is diverse, with dominant species including giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), Christmas fern (Polysticbum amstichoides), rushes Uuncus coriaceus and
J. ffusus), velvet grass (Dichanthelium scoparium), and creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum).
b. Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
The mixed pine-hardwood forest community is located immediately upslope of the alluvial forest
and dominates the project area. This community appears to be a variation of the Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) identified by Schafale and Weakley, with increased amounts
of pine. This community type occurs on acidic soils in lower slopes, steep north-facing slopes,
ravines, and occasionally well-drained small stream bottoms. Under natural conditions these
communities are uneven-aged, with old trees present. Reproduction occurs mainly in canopy gaps,
with disturbed areas having increased amounts of pines and weedy hardwoods such as yellow poplar
and sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifZua).
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 9
In the project area, dominant canopy and subcanopy species include red maple, loblolly pine (Pines
taeda), pignut hickory (Caryaglabra), yellow poplar, northern red oak (Ouercus rubra), white oak (Q.
alba), black oak (Q. velutina), American beech (Fa gusgrandifolia), sourwood (Oaydendmm arboreum), and
sweetgum. Small trees and shrubs include tag alder (Alnus sen-ulata), eastern red cedar (funiperus
t,irginiana), willow oak ?Ouercus pbellos), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), winterberry (Ilex verlicillata),
possum haw (I. decidua), and highbush blueberry (L'accinium corymbosum). Vines present within the
study area include crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), poison ivy, greenbriar, muscadine grape (Vitis
rotundifolia), and Japanese honeysuckle. The herbaceous vegetation consists primarily of giant cane,
partridge berry (Mitcbella repens), and mock strawberry (Ducbesnea indica).
A variation of the mixed pine/hardwood forest is located in the south-central portion of the study
area. This community contains most of the same species as mentioned above; however, it is
dominated by American beech and no loblolly pine is present. In addition, plants such as wild ginger
(Hexastylis spp.) and large-whorled pogonia (Isotria verticillata) are present along the steep, rocky, and
ultramafic slopes of this somewhat unique area.
C. Urban/Disturbed Community
The urban/disturbed community consists of 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, residences are present on the western and eastern ends and a maintained
roadside is present through the center and at the western and eastern ends. Characteristic species
include microstegium, goatsbeard (Aruncus dioicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), English
plantain (Plantago lanceolata), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), lespedeza (Lespedetia spp.), panic grass
(Panicum spp.), fescue (Festuca spp.), paspalum (Paspalum spp.), and horse nettle (Solanum carolinense).
A disturbed area located immediately west of the UT to Lower Bartons Creek and north of Mt.
Vernon Church Road contains rushes (Juncus spp.), sedges (Carer spp.), flatsedge (Cyperus spp.),
ironweed (Vernonia spp.), smartweed (Polygonum spp.), and bishop -weed (Ptilimnium capillaceum).
2. Wildlife
The project area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The forested and
urban/disturbed communities offer moderate diversity of foraging, nesting, and cover habitat for
many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, 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 aeshms), eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum), and mole kingsnake (L
calligaster rbombomaculata). These animals inhabit fields, woodlands, river bottoms, and stream edges
of the upper Coastal Plain and Piedmont of North Carolina.
Many bird species may inhabit or migrate through the project area. Inhabitants may include red-
bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), downy woodpecker (P.
pubescens), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse* (P.
bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta camlinensis), American robin* (Turdus migratorius), northern
cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), northern mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos), house finch (Carpodacus
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 10
nre% canes), Carolina wren (Thgothorus ludovicianus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), American
goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), and brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Predatory species may
include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), and barred owl (Strix varia).
A wide variety of mammals are expected to inhabit the project area and surrounding landscape.
Virginia opossum (Dide phis virginiana), woodchuck (Marynota monax), gray squirrel* (SclurUs
carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern spotted
skunk (Spilogale putorius), beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra tiibethicus), and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) are species most likely to be found. In addition, bats such as the little brown
myotis (Alyotis lucifugus), Eastern red (L.asiurus borealis), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) may also be
present in the project study area.
3. Aquatic Communities
A visual survey of streams in the project area found many mayflies (Order: Ephemeroptera) and
caddisflies (Order: Trichoptera), and a few stoneflies (Order: Plecoptera).
The project area likely has a limited amphibian population, which may include salamanders and
frogs. Potential species include the two-lined salamander (Eurycea (irrigera), spring peeper (Pseudacns
cru(ifer), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), northern cricket frog (AM's crepitans), and upland chorus frog
(Pseuda(ris tnsenata).
Reptiles that spend the vast majority of their lives in aquatic communities and are somewhat
common throughout this portion of North Carolina include the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina),
eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scr ipta), and northern water
snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Fish that are likely to utilize Lower Bartons Creek include yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus). These fish thrive in habitats like the moderate
flowing, mixed substrate waters present within Lower Bartons Creek.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a. Terrestrial Communities
The study area consists of approximately 5.4 acres of Piedmont alluvial forest, 8.8 acres of mixed
pine/hardwood forest, and 2.2 acres of urban/disturbed land. Table 3 depicts anticipated permanent
and temporary impacts to terrestrial biotic communities based upon the approximate construction
limits of the three alternatives.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 11
Table 3. Estimated Impacts for Proposed Alternatives
Vegetative Alternative A
Alternative B Alternative C
Commun ty "(preferred)
Permanent Permanent Detour Permanent Detour
Piedmont Alluvial
0.72 acre 0.72 acre 0.91 acre 0.72 acre 1.19 acres
Forest
Mixed Pine/Hardwood
0.05 acre 0.05 acre 0.58 acre 0.05 acre 1.26 acres
Forest
Urban/Disturbed Land 0.04 acre 0.04 acre 0.39 acre 0.04 acre none
For Alternatives B and C, all anticipated impacts greater than those for Alternative A may be
considered temporary because they involve the construction of temporary on-site detours. The on-
site detour routes would be removed and impacted areas replanted after the completion of
construction.
b. Wetland Communities
One area of jurisdictional wetlands, occupying approximately 0.03 acre, is located approximately 100
feet south of Mt. Vernon Church Road and approximately 100 feet west of Lower Bartons Creek
within the project study area. The jurisdictional wetland is found at the lowest point in the project
area between the back of the natural stream levee and the toe of the upland slope. There are no
permanent or temporary wetland impacts associated with this project.
C. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from construction
activities. Appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spills and control runoff. Such measures will
include an erosion and sedimentation control plan, provisions for disposal and handling of waste
materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road maintenance
measures. Long-term impacts to water resources may include permanent changes to the stream
banks and temperature increases caused by the removal of stream-side vegetation.
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.
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.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 12
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. "Waters of the United States:" Jurisdictional Issues
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the
United States." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal administrative
agency of the Clean Water Act; however, the USACE has the responsibility for implementation,
permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is
defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act grants authority to individual States for regulation of discharges
into "Waters of the United States." Under North Carolina General Statutes, 113A "Pollution
Control and Environment" and codified in NCAC 15A, the NCDWQ has the responsibility for
implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the CWA.
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. One area of
jurisdictional wetlands, occupying approximately 0.03 acre, is located approximately 100 feet south
of Mt. Vernon Church Road and approximately 100 feet west of Lower Bartons Creek within the
project study area. The jurisdictional wetland is found at the lowest point in the project area
between the back of the natural stream levee and the toe of the upland slope. The wedand is
classified by the USFWS as a Palustrine-Forested Seasonally Saturated wetland system (PF01E).
Detailed hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation information associated with
this jurisdictional wetland (verified by the USACE January 31, 2005) is in the USACE data forms
included in the Appendix.
Stream impacts are estimated as follows: Alternative A (preferred), 18.5 linear feet; Alternative B, 62
linear feet, and Alternative C, 453 linear feet. The impacts are greater for Alternatives B and C
because those alternatives involve on-site detours and potential channel work. There are no
permanent or temporary wetland impacts associated with this project.
2. Permits
Permits may be required for roadway encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters.
The USACE issues Section 404 Nationwide 23 permits for activities that are categorically excluded
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions that do not
have a significant effect on the environment.
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.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is necessary for projects that require Section 404
permits. The state has General Certifications which will match the permit type authorized by the
USACE. If written concurrence is required, the NCDWQ must issue the 401 Certification before
the USACE will issue the 404 permit.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 13
The bridge demolition activities associated with this replacement will strictly follow NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities. All methods of demolition shall be
considered and implemented where practical, other than dropping the bridge in the water. The steel
bridge rails can be removed without being dropped into Waters of the U.S.; however, there is
potential for components of the concrete deck and concrete substructure to be dropped into Waters
of the U.S. Permitting will be coordinated such that any permit 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 alternative shall be followed.
3. Buffer Rules
The Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules apply to 50-foot wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to
perennial and intermittent surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse River Buffer rules do
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.
Simple perpendicular bridge crossings are designated Allowable within the riparian buffer, assuming
project impacts are below 150 linear feet of buffer (measured parallel to the stream) and/or 0.33
acre. The Allowable designation means that the intended uses may proceed within the riparian
buffer provided that there are no practical alternates, and that written authorization from the
Division of Water Quality is obtained prior to project development. Allowable with Mitigation
buffer impacts for bridge replacement projects are addressed when parallel impacts to jurisdictional
waters occur, and when a bridge or culvert is replaced with a culvert. Allowable and Allowable
with Mitigation buffer impacts require written authorization from the Division of Water Quality
prior to project development. Table 4 describes the anticipated Neuse River Buffer impacts for this
bridge replacement project.
Table 4. Estimated Neuse River Buffer Impacts
Proposed

Alternatives Alternative A
(pfeferred) Alternative B Alternative C

Permanent Permanent Detour Permanent Detour
Buffer Impacts
Allowable < 0.01 acre <0.01 acre 0.08 acre <0.01 acre 0.07 acre
Buffer Impacts
Allowable with 0.07 acre 0.07 acre 0.14 acre <0.07 acre 0.32 acre
Mitigation
Total Neuse
River Impacts T <0.08 acre <0.08 acre 0.22 acre
I <0.08 acre 0.39 acre
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 14
4. Mitigation
Mitigation of wetland 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
U.S. It is not feasible for this roadway to completely avoid Lower Bartons Creek and UT to Lower
Bartons Creek and still meet the purpose and need of the project.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to Waters of the U.S. All of the alternatives are minimizing the amount of in-stream impacts
to Lower Bartons Creek by replacing the existing bridge with another bridge and not a culvert or
pipe. All of the alternatives propose bridges that are longer than the existing bridge, minimizing
floodplain impacts. All of the alternatives will maintain cut/fill slopes no shallower than 2:1. By
replacing the bridge in-place and having an off-site detour, Alternative A further minimizes the
impacts to the streams and floodplain associated with Lower Bartons Creek and the UT to Lower
Bartons Creek.
Compensatory mitigation includes restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation of wedand
and stream functions and values that are lost when these systems are converted to other uses. The
USACE usually requires compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act when unavoidable impacts total more than 0.10 acre of wetlands or 150 linear feet
of perennial or intermittent streams. The NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for
activities authorized under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for unavoidable impacts to more
than one acre of wetlands or more than 150 linear feet of perennial or intermittent streams. No
compensatory wetland mitigation is anticipated.
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. Species may receive additional protection under separate federal
or state 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 updated March 9, 2006, and reviewed February 2007, the
USFWS identified three Endangered (E) species and one Threatened M species known to occur in
Wake County.
NCNHP maps were reviewed on February 19, 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 study area. Table 5 provides federal protected species in Wake County. Species descriptions
follow.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 15
Table 5. Threatened & Endangered Species Listed for Wake County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Listing State Listing
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocepbalus Threatened (Proposed
for delisting) Threatened
Red-cockaded
woodpecker
Picoides borealis
Endangered
Endangered
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta beterodon Endangered Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rbus micbauazi Endangered Endangered-
Special concern
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Federal Status: Threatened (Proposed for Delisting)
The bald eagle is a very large bird of prey that ranges in size from 32 to 43 inches tall and has a
wingspan of more than six feet. Adult body plumage is dark brown to chocolate-brown with a white
head and tail, while immature birds are brown and irregularly marked with white until their fourth
year. They are primarily associated with large bodies of water where food is plentiful. Eagle nests
are found in close proximity to water (usually within one-half mile) with a clear flight path to the
water. Nests are often made in the largest living tree within the area, with an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause nest abandonment. Nests can be as large as six
feet across and are made of sticks and vegetation. These platform nests may be used by the same
breeding pair for many years. Breeding begins in December or January and the young remain in the
nest at least 10 weeks after hatching. Bald eagles eat mostly fish robbed from ospreys or picked up
dead along shorelines. They may also capture small mammals such as rabbits, some birds, wounded
ducks, and carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
As of July 6, 1999, this species is currently under consideration by the USFWS for a proposed de-
listing of the threatened status. However, this raptor will still be protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Populations will continue to be
monitored for at least another five years under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Bald
eagles are a year-round and transient species in North Carolina.
Suitable habitat for bald eagles, consisting of areas of open water, does not exist in the project study
area nor within a one-mile radius of Bridge No. 102. Proposed project construction will have No
Effect on this species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Federal Status: Endangered
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 16

This bird is a small, seven to eight inch tall woodpecker with a black and white barred back, and a
conspicuous large white cheek surrounded by a black cap, nape, and throat. Males have a very small
red mark at the upper edge of the white cheek and just behind the eye. The red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) is found in open pine forests in the southeastern United States. The RCW uses
open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting
habitat. A forested stand optimally should contain at least 50 percent pine and lack a thick
understory. The RCW is unique among woodpeckers because it nests almost exclusively in living
pine trees. These birds excavate nests in pines greater than 60 years old that are contiguous with
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 the presence of large white
encrustations of running sap that surrounds the tree, often referred to as "candlesticks." 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 present in hardwood
dominated forests, are young (<30 years old), and the forests contain a thick understory. NCNHP
maps were reviewed on February 18, 2004 and in March 2005 to determine if any protected species
have been identified at or near the project area. This map review confirmed that no RCWs are
known to occur within a one-mile radius of the project study area. Based upon the absence of
suitable habitat this project will have No Effect on the RCW.
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Federal Status: Endangered
The dwarf wedge mussel is relatively small, rarely exceeding 1.5 inches in length. The shell's outer
surface is usually brown or yellowish brown in color, with faint green rays that are most noticeable
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
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 17
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: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel consisting of nearly silt-free streams, with slow to
moderate currents is marginally present within the project study area. The most recent freshwater
mussel survey at the bridge site on November 4, 2004 found no freshwater mussels. The only
mollusks present were individuals of the introduced Asiatic clam (Corbicula fulminea). Past surveys
conducted by' the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in 1991 and by qualified biologists
in March 2004 found no dwarf wedge mussel individuals in Lower Bartons Creek near the bridge
site. A letter regarding the project site is included in the Appendix.
NCNHP maps were reviewed on February 18, 2004 and in March 2005. The map reviews confirmed
that no populations of dwarf wedge mussel are known to occur within a one-mile radius of the
project study area. Based on finding no dwarf wedge mussel individuals within Lower Bartons
Creek, the replacement of Bridge No. 102 will have No Effect on the dwarf wedge mussel.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxit)
Federal Status: Endangered
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 is not present in the
project study area; however, roadside habitats do exist within the project study area. Soils in the
upland portions of the project study area are clayey textured, vegetated areas characterized by dense
undergrowth. The open roadside areas provide marginal habitat for Michaux's sumac and are
characterized by narrow and steep grassy areas. A plant by plant survey for Michaux's sumac was
conducted within the project study area on November 8, 2004.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 18
NCNHP maps were reviewed on February 18, 2004 and in March 2005 to determine if any
protected species have been identified at or near the project study area. This map review confirmed
that no populations of Michaux's sumac are known to occur within a one-mile radius of the project
site. Based on finding no Michaux sumac individuals within the project study area, the replacement
of Bridge No. 102 will have No Effect on Michaux's sumac.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The USFWS lists 14 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Wake County
(Table 6). Federal Species of Concern 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, that 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.
One State Threatened (T) species, one State Concern (SC) species, and three Significantly Rare (SR)
species have been identified within three miles of the project study area. The State Threatened plant,
bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea), is mapped approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project area.
According to the NCNHP, this population was destroyed during the construction of I-540.
Populations of the State Concern amphibian, four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum), are
depicted approximately two miles northeast and north of the project area, along the fringes of Falls
Lake. Populations of the State Rare crustacean, Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus datidz), are located
approximately 1,500 feet northeast and approximately two miles north of the study area. A
population of the State Rare and Federal fish, pinewoods shiner (Lytbrurus matutinus), has been
observed approximately two miles northwest of the study area. Lastly, a population of the State Rare
plant, western rough goldenrod (Solidago radula), is mapped approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the
study area.
In addition, one locale denoted as an "Identified Priority Area" is located within and adjacent to the
project area. This area, referred to as the Lower Bartons Creek Ultramafic Slopes by NCNHP, is
located in the south-central portion of the study area. This region of the study area contains steep
slopes and is dominated by American beech. This Identified Priority Area comprises approximately
15 acres and continues from the project area southwest along the eastern banks of Lower Bartons
Creek.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 19
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern, State Status, and Potential Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name State Status Potential
Habitat
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroripanus SC Yes
American eel Anguilla rostrada none Yes
Roanoke bass Ambloplites cavifrons SR No
Bachman's sparrow Aimopbila aestivalis SC No
Southern hognose snake* Heterodon simus SC No
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion SC No
Neuse madtom Notunis furiosus SC(PT) No
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR Yes
Diana fritillary* Speyeria diana SR No
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason E Yes
Green floater Lasmigona subtiridis E Yes
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata E Yes
Bog spicebush Lindera subconacea E Yes
Virginia least trillium Trillium pusillum var. virginianum E No
Grassleaf arrowhead Sagittaria weatberbiana SR-T Yes
Sweet pmi sap Monotropsis odorata SR-T Yes
Notes:
SC-Special Concem, PT-Proposed Threatened, SR-Significantly Rare, E-Endangered, -T-Throughout,
*-Historic Record
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.
B. HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on July 22, 2003. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by NCDOT architectural historians and staff
at the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated October 14, 2003,
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 20
NCDOT, HPO, and FHWA concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed
in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the
concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
C. ARCHAEOLOGY
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated March 4, 2004, stated that there are no known archaeological
sites within the project area and therefore recommended that "no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the
Appendix.
VI1. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the functionally obsolete
and structurally deficient bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" because of 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
preferred alternative.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether
minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined the project
would not disproportionately impact any minority or low-income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider
the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction
projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS). Since the proposed bridge will be replaced at the existing location the Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not apply.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 21
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
nonattainment area for ozone (03) and the Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area for carbon
monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated
these areas as moderate nonattainment areas for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data,
these areas were redesignated as maintenance areas for O3 on September 18, 1995. The area was
designated nonattainment for O3 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 Wake County. The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organitiation
2030 Lang Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the FY 2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program (MTIP) conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conformity
determination on the LRTP on June 15, 2005 and the MTIP on November 14, 2005. The current
conformity determination is 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 or scope, as used in the
conformity analyses.
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge 102 by constructing a new structure. This 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 Toxics (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 percent 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 traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors
located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990
CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Division of
Solid Waste Management revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area. Based on field
reconnaissance and records search, no underground storage tank (UST) sites were found within the
project area. If any unregulated USTs or any potential source of contamination is discovered during
right-of-way initial contacts with impacted property owners, then an assessment will be conducted to
determine the extent of any contamination at that time.
The drainage area of Lower Bartons Creek at the proposed crossings is 7.8 square miles. Wake
County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. This crossing of Lower
TIT. No. B-4303
Page 22
Bartons Creek is located in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone, Zone AE. This reach of stream is
in a detailed study with a published floodway. Attached is a flood insurance rate map (Figure 5).
The published 100-year base flood appears to overtop the existing roadway. Proposed
encroachments in the floodplain and floodway could result in a Floodway Modification if a "No
Impact" certification can not be obtained. Further detailed analysis during final design will be
required to adequately address all the impacts associated with the floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in
the project development with scoping letters. Scoping letters (February 5, 2004) were also sent to
various agencies.
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on August 9, 2004 in the media center of Pleasant
Union Elementary School. This workshop was an open-house format where citizens dropped in to
ask questions and voice their concerns. A display of Alternatives A, B, and C and other project
related handouts were available for viewing. Two citizens attended the workshop. Comments
included preference for closing the road during construction (Alternative A) because:
1. No encroachment/ destruction of wild/native land on either side of the existing road.
2. Alternative A is more economical to construct.
3. Overall construction time is less than Alternatives B & C.
4. Less disruption to landowner's property.
An informational newsletter was mailed to area residents and appropriate officials in January 2006
identifying Alternative A as the preferred. No comments were received in response to the
newsletter.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
All agency comments have been addressed within the document. Letters from commenting agencies
are included in the Appendix.
T.I.P. No. B-4303
Page 23

1857

?03 i
/

rteasan e- ' _ i ,
?
? filar.:

t
!\ i 1841, ? ! ! asi`` ` 2005

\8 39 ??/ ??? - \: = ? 183'??/.__. S?5
i
.--9590 41,27 ? a

•
l0 4d3S J ? -.r 1
3595 4443 1860 V
Y
III

\V
054
\ 3594 B/ I ?reeefleld
G? 3495 e/ 3_g a Elgin. SCh. /
8d ? a %
#A urn h s43.,
3 ?
? ? ?
? 008
b
\

?
`\ 1833 ..388 2L
3
?- ?

,
\
,.. 471
a 2065
/2007
----'4695 . noe

_ II ib96 I ` ;'? 7005
I 2888 I

1----

983?/
i --

i
f
1 t
North Carolina Department of Transportation
'
1
I
Project Development & Environmental Analysis

WAKE COUNTY
?. I------?

A Bk IDGE NO. 102 ON SR 1844
OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK
B-4333

ROURE 1
li
.f
Yi f f h m V..'S&T ".?
fib

of soot app ) Bridge Nc, 102.
s
A?l
I`
Bridge Nei 102 side vievv.
r '"':
m 4 $?,
Figure .2
? y 102 _ g
CL
8ft.* 10.5 ft. 1 10.5 ft. 8ft. 8ft.
0.08 ' 0.02 10.02 0.08
VAR• 6:? TO 2.1
MNARMA GRADE POINT
TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION
* 11 ft. WITH GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED (PROPOSED)
CL
BICYCLE SAFE RAIL
TRAFFIC DATA
(CONST. YR.) 2008 ADT = 6,800
(DESIGN YR.) 2030 ADT = 11,800
DUAL 2%
TTST 1%
EXISTING BRIDGE LENGTH = 90 ft.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
LOCAL - RURAL
7.708 ft 10.5 ft. 10.5 ft. 7.708 ft

t
0.02 0.02
GRADE POINT
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
(PROPOSED)
6:1
VAR 4:1 10 * BRIDGE WIDENED FOR HYDRAULIC
SPREAD AND FUTURE 12 FT. LANES
BICYCLE SAFE RAIL
F ?^*? North Carolina Department
Of Transportation ;
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 102 ON SR 1844
(MT. VERNON CHURCH RD)
OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK
TIP NO: 8-4303
FIGURE 3
8 ft.* 10.5 ft. 1 10.5 ft.
T
0.08 _ 0.02 0.02
VAR b.? "0 21
Y????? GRADE POINT
i
TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION
* 10 ft. WITH GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED (DETOUR)
i
2 ft., 10.5 ft. 10.5 ft. .2
T
0.02 0.02
GRADE POINT
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
(DETOUR)
TRAFFIC DATA
(CONST. YR.) 2008 ADT = 6,800
(DESIGN YR.) 2030 ADT = 11,800
DUAL 2%
TTST 1%
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
LOCAL - RURAL
8 ft. , 3 ft.
2:1 NA
0.08 vAR 4.1 SO
4:1
® North Carolina Department
Of Transportation
Project Development fe
Environmental Analysis
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 102 ON SR 1844
(MT. VERNON CHURCH RD)
OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK
TIP NO: B-4303
FIGURE 3A

c
L
a
E
0
a
P
t
E
a)
U
J?
p ?0
1
=a
Qz_
0
M
V
W

See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sleets
See Sheet 1-B For Conventional Symbols

,
I ? I
I J

do

9 Ilm
S

REGJN
PAO/6 /

PAUJEC!
18> w

VICINITY MAP DEMUR ROUM ?--?-.
ETO NORWOOD ROAD
*-MULKEY
SR 1
' S ` END BR
\-L-18+
LOWER BARTONS CREEKI
I?
Fi
U
O
U
C-NCCNq 6 .... 1-.T.
PO SYt 301.7
le..no11, N.c, neae
rolvl esl-w1a
!9191 i91.191¦ IF,1A
W W W.NNLKCYINC.CON
STA'G'E 01' N101ZF.1':fhl CAR01-,1N A
DIVISION ?Ol-' H :I ("1M NAT A)
WA KE COUNTY
STATI NI,TE A1011R ?VEEptt2 N0. 51¢tT
N6 i AL
SXR1]
C B-4303
FY WISMT E.LMW. NO 4ACIIISTIw
33640.1.1 BRZ-1844 PE
33640.2.1 BRZ-1844 Ftw, Uri

LOCATION. BRIDGE NO. 102 OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK ON SR 1844
TYPE OF WORK PAVING, GRADING, DRAINAGE, STRUCTURE AND CULVERT
1ILII'I'Elk IMPA("GIs
BEGIN BRIDGE
-L- 17+13.50
SITE 1 ??
STA. 14+25.00 -L- BEGIN TIP
STA. 14+25.00 -L- BEGIN CC
ohs
U?
24+27.90 +
MT. VERNON CHURCH RD.
)GE 8850 E
3 @ 8'X 7' RC7CULVERT
ND
-L- 24+52.09 +/-
STA. 26+00.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT B-4303
STA. 26+00.00 -L- END CONSTRUCTION B-4303
B-4303
ON B-4303
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT USE MR -O UCTION
Buffer Drawing
sheet _.(a a S
TO SIX FORKS ROAD
DETAIL A
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
I N01 iD SW1el
Groana 7y 0 4\aste< Slopnt
De
PSRM 8 Min.0 = 1.0 Ft.
Max. d = I.0 Ft.
B =2.0 Ft.
Type of Liner = PSRM
-L- STA. 14,25 TO 15+25 LT
DETAIL B
LATERAL BASE DITCH
I NDi tO Scdel?
FIN
rawa :r a IYf t. SIDDa
D
a
rater
F op
Tyoe of Liner =
1- R,A 1S+?'. TO
DETAIL C
LATERAL 'V' DITCH
(Not tNatural Fill
I IT
crow° rrfc slope / %• Ib
PSRN Max. d = 1.0 Ft. \ POG
D =5.0 Ft. ??
Type of Liner = PSRM
-4.- STA. 11+25 TO 16+50 RT
DETAIL D
PREFORMED SCOUR HO LE
(NOT TO SCALE)
PA. VIEW PRx i5

.T. WR[i FEKfACEUExi
A iTIxD 1PSRui
INSTALL LEVEL AND i
AN P i WITH NATURAL GROUND
N 5N1
u Nrtx
11 msrALimaN
SECTION A-A
P!E
tli - P x
WitET
A S 'RR RAP ID'T A
'L C
ON
S1ATM
N1 I O W d QWSt 1 DDE flLT9 1901
. FT. Fl. Fl. R. AR 1N FlR fAwC FlR Fle
IBif9 Fl ].M 1 1 O? A Po fS ITS

Eg° n3 sn 9"IE
ML: rnn F
4- MULKEY
e. a.x.x..,N..
PROIELT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO
B-4303 4
MV SHEET NO.
TOADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
PRELIMIN.AJRY PLANS
DO NOT USE PPot -NSTRUCf10N
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
TTY?r Y FFTr?v R II? ?f PP A I'V ?Tfa r(?
1I.L-4yC IIIVI Illy 1IIL.e 11111. /Jlli Il1l ? 11\L I`li i 111E f,1J' I
O
Ln
Op w2 W2= 14.0'
D La= R.0'
TH= 1.5'
ESL 9 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
EST. 14 SY FF
O1 NCH 1
FILTER fABRNC
-L- STA. 16+00 LT is
-L- STA. 16+50 ITT
5z 2
I J' ry
BZ T?\\ a m
NICHOLASSJJ. SMITH \ _ j r a
CARRIE J. SMITH -
?i
SITE I
LATERAL BASE DITCH
SEE DETAIL B
EST. 15 CY DDE
W. 35 TONS RIP RAP DISSIPATOR PAD
SEE DETAIL E
"
EST. 100 SY RL FAB EST. 9 TONS RIP RAP
EST. 14 Sy FIL FAB DD HG BR10
- -
'AL 1L SE DITCH

DETAIL A ., I

BRIDGE I
POP WE . .-,
SHOULDER BEAR G
k STA. 18+52.50 B+69
rz I

.,
I
I Buffer
Drawing

ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I +
Sheetof 8
'"'W

®
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2 WWWWWWWWr
+
Ln JACK R. CARROLL
NANCY T. CARROLL
pO N
N
O 1
KARL F. BOWMAN \
GALE G. BOWMAN _
.
.. _' ,(m

N
,.f
H le,
CLASS I
.. 7-51 RIP RAP

. ..
?` „ wE1... TO
TO,
I,
?a
1
S \
6?
?E
?° ITB
-
WINGWALL
ser. j ,uc;
BZ I
-e 1 R pt r ! 1 R, I
_ Sf'-FSS--E ? E E 1
C
FTC iss D_ - F .. _. _. - ? ? of ?I \ _,. f .. •_- ? ---_ I --`_ RETARd-? A.; - „?j1?
A
x7ccs
LATERAL V DITCH
SEE DETAIL C
EST. 65 CY DDE
0
MICHAEL L. HALL
VIRGINIA W. HALL
DISSIPATCRR PAD
SEE DETAIL E
EST.9 TONS RIP RAT
EST. 14 SY HL FAB
BM 51
-BL- STA 16+08.5411
38.50' RIGHT
ELEV.= 284.76
CLASS IIRIP RAP
STRUCTURE PAY
?i
l? I
i
D
E
u
m
t
a
ti
r
fn
m
D
Lv
a
SKETCH SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF BRIDGE TO PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS
1- 7
I D

1 L`
m
? UCNRE PRAY REN.
\\
\ IXGVAT
lip
1 RE
STRUCCURE PAY OFAI
SCOUR HOLE
D
DETAIL F
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
(No, 10 Scdel
ROADWAY SWDR.
GRADE = D.0011/ft
7' 3
Type of Liner = CI055 8 Rio-ROD
-L- STA. 24+50 TO 25+25 RT
-L- STA 2d+20 TO 2d+30 RT

E- L .. -
? ?
-?.eil .i• I •
E / .

re
9 w
l1 v ,

ELIZABETH
CLASS B RIP RAP s? ,x
` BECKWITH
SEE DETAIL REYNOLDS
EST. 110 TONS ? /

EST: 125 SY FILL TAB -
,
e11'
CLASS B RIP PAP -
SEE DETAIL F `
6T. 16 TONS BM 52 `
\
EST. 20 ri FlL FAB -BL- STA 24~03.96
27.88' RIGHT
ELEV.= 289.00 %

O
BOSWORTH CLIFTON BECKWITH -
`VARIES
INLET TYPICAL
D - `
NOT EST DOE = 100 CY
TYP. U' TO 50' UPSTREAM
CLASS '1' RIP RAP TB CLASS 'I' RIP RAP
All FILTER FABRIC ?,? W/ FILTER FABRIC N ti
IAN. 2.0 f1.1- "MIN. 2.0 ft.
1.5 f t. L /LS S ft. T-
?!E' "ARIES-A
OUTLET TYPICAL NOTE: SILL PLACEMENT OUTLET TYPICAL
TD SCUP AT UPSTREAM S T TO S-L
EST DOE = 65 CY DOWNSTREAM FACE EST DOE : 75 CY
EST 86 TONS CLASS T RIP RAP EST 115 TONS CLASS TRIP RAP
EST 120 SY F.F. EST HO SY F.F.
TYP 25' To 70'DOWNSTREAM TYP O'TO 25'DOWNSTREAM

E
n
P
B
n
r
n
m
i
u
a
DETAIL A
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
i Nor ro Scpiel
N `rl
[rwra $, °iL stet pi cn
0 D ELO Slope
PSRU B Min. D ' 1.0 Ff.
Max. 0 = 1.0 Ft.
B = 2.0 F t.
Type of Liner : PSRM
4- STA. 14 +25 TO 15+25 LT
DETAIL B DETAIL C
LATERAL BASE DITCH LATERAL 'V' DITCH
tnor ro Scdei D INO, to Sadel
Pu
N 1 , --- 9ooe FIII
xot ra
rcu+a tl '? D riot. crpw,a 0 .? ivrt. $IODe
B Pnero ° Mn, D n LO Fr. \
Min. 0 1.0 Ft
. PSRy Max. D : 1.0 F 1. \
Max. p = 1.0 Ft.
B =2.0 Ft. D =5.0 Ft. \
D =5.0 Ft, \
Type of Liner PSRM
Type of Liner = CLASS 8 RIP RAP -L-STA. 14+25 TO 16+50 RT \
STL 15+25 TO 16+00 LT '
DETAIL D
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
(NOT TO SCALE)
RAx NRN P PNAN NT
u NFORCENENI

TTN dSRN
i
q p W itEi
1NSTAIL LEVEL Ax0 EIUSN
50 ARE PR WITH NATLflAL GROaO
p LL ? w
mvWITHA s
AT NITA-110N
SE- A-.
Pv
oR - P Ru
aT(x 3
a 1LE1
NATURAL
•' RP RLP 1 'TWOS uN
R A lC
STATON 1 D W d CIASW I OOE flliBL WSAAI
R. R. R.
1 R. Q AN RA FABRC fTl RR
Ie+H n ].n t 1
A OS A Po 63 215

1 N \
A,
BOSWORTH CLIFTON BECKWITH _ .,

SKETCH SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF BRIDGE TO PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS
DETAIL F
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
I Nat to Scael
GRAD
RAY .DBft
/
4Q
3 5

Type of Liner = CIp55 B Rip-Rap
-L- SLA.24+50 TO 25+25 RT
-L- STA 2N+20 TO 24+30 RT
4--mm-KEY
PROJECT' REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
8-4303 4
MV SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDAALIUCS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
PRELIMIN.JRY PLANS
DO NOT US[ PO FINS RUCPION

O
v I
I
? FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
FB U F E? IMPACT
i ' Buffer Drawing
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
Sheet g of $
® ALLOWABLE 1T4". CTS ZONE 2 pO
JACK R. CARROLL
- + NANCY T.CARROLL
Lr) c\j
f` Q
1- STA. 16+00 LT c\J
-L- STA. 16+50 RT O V
KARL F. BOWMAN
GALE G. BOWMAN
sZ 2?
? 1 a I a -x- i''
0 ».
NICHOLAS J. SMITH - ° - '-
fAGGIC
\?, N? III r
VARIES
INLET TYPICAL
o "'
EST ODE = 100 CY
TYP. 0' TO 50'UPSTREAM
IB'
CLASS 'I' RIP RAP 18CLASS T RIP RAP
1
W/ FILTER FABRIC Atf, W/ FILTER FABRIC
MIN. 2.0 ft."?-MIN. 2.0 ft.
1. -?
-?YA J.S YAPrc
OUTLET TYPICAL NOTE: SILL PLACEMENT OUTLET TYPICAL
...... AT UPSTREAM S uE
EST ODE = 65 CY DOWNSTREAM FACE EST ODE = 35 CY
EST 86 TONS CLASS 'CHIP RAP EST 115 TONS CLASS TRIP RAP
EST 120 SY F.F. EST N0 SY F.F.
TYP 25' To 70, DOWNSTREAM TIP O'TO 25 DOWNSTREAM

c
c
c
v
L
0
00
0
T
m0
° 3a
N
0
o-m
?
Ncf,
NAT
0
"Im ;fxs;f 1 A I of 110cx of ;ll ut ,
,ee St"'.1 I 1? 1 01 COMVIV0101 yml vl ,
? x III/ i ? yi
_ RECnl
PRO/E ?
END
PROJE
S"11"A'111pi (011 NOWF-H Cii1ROLIN.A
IDII'VISION 0' 111t;,H11';11'S
I srn rRaeer ReRe9a N9 rn iiein
8-4303 1
.ui3ARxr F..Lwmm mars
33640.1.1 BRZ-1844 PE
33640.2.1 BRZ-1844111 Ivw, UTL
WA KE COUNTY
Fi
U
O

VICINITY MAP DE70DR ROME _--------- -
4
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT USE FOR NNSTRVMON
Ln
of
i34 Go
BEGIN BRIDGE J? UQ
-L- 17+13.50 1-
BEGIN CULVERT
-L- 24+27.90 +/-
?I e11
-L- MT. VERNON CHURCH RD.
TO NORWOOD ROAD
SR 1844 3 @ 8'X 7' RCBC
LEND BRIDGE
\ \ -L- 18+28.50
LOWER BARTONS CREEKI END CULVERT
-L- 24+52.09 +
STA. 26+00.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT B-43(
STA. 26+00.00 -L- END CONSTRUCTION E
4--MULKEY
EN°INECR? i CON°ULTANT9 STA. 14+25.00_-L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4303
°° 2]636
STA. 14+25.00 -L- BEGIN CONSTRUCTION B-4303
19191 °51.1912
(9191 °St-191i IFF31
W W W.MULKEYINC.COM
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
L, CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
Prepored In fre Office of:
4--MULKEY
197 MILES ENan¢°a i can°uLTANT°
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
.026 MILES 7006 STANDARD SPECL CATTONS
223 MILES TIM JORDAN, PE
RIGHT OF WAY DATE. ROADWAY PROJECT ENGAEER
DECEMBER 21, 2007
JEFF RECK, PE
LETTING DATE. HYDRAULIC PROJECT ENGINEER
DECEMBER 16, 2008 DOUG TAYLOR, PE
CDOT ROADWAY DESIGN PROJECT PNGAE
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER

J?
DIWSION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLZMA
SOP MERF,TC
f ?P
0 0?l
fR 1 ?
bl OF TR0M5ROp
PE
SIGNAIVRE
TO SIX FORKS ROAD

GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2008 = 6,800 LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4303 =
ADT 2030 = 11
800
,
DHV = 12 % LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4303 =
PLANS D 55 % TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4303 =
Eft1iii 50 25 0 50 100 T = 3 %'
V = 50 MPH
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) • TTST 1% DUAL 2%
10 5 0 10 20 ?• Design Exception -
Lane Width
r `
v Func. Classification -
PROFILE (VERTICAL) Rural Local

LOCATION: BRIDGE NO. 102 OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK ON SR 1844
TYPE OF WORK PAVING, GRADING, DRAINAGE, STRUCTURE AND CULVERT
__,? :??,
? ?.? ? ?, , ?? J ?. 1 ? ? i .? *:? ?'I ? .. i.. ?
}, i, _
r ?` ? r, z

C
L
Ul
t
3
E
L
?i
0
r,
v
n
E
a
U
m 0?
O L0-
C)
Qom-
9'I
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sh-eets
See Sheet i-B For Conventional Symbols
Z- ?
M
V

1 ? 'r
9 °
REGIR ' v° ,m / /
PROJE ?
{
8 PROJECT ?_` -
VICINITY MAP DEMUR ROUTE
BEGIN BRIDGE
-L- 17+13.50
SITE 1
?l
TO NORWOOD ROAD -L-
SR 1
I END BP
?-L- 18 +
LOWER BARTONS CREEKI
h
V
O
U
4--MULKEY
ENDINEERq A CONlYLTANTe
ra e9x as i a9
R..a?9w, N.c. aTeae
191919l1191a
19191 e51 •191 p ITAIU
W W W.MULK[YINC.GOM
S°J[°A°d°]E OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
nen nen uaeR unuxa xa ?aT ??
C. B-4303 g
KueapaNr r..rlw.x9 oerurrNx
33640.1.1 BRZ-1844 PE
33640.2.1 BRZ-1844 PW, UTL

LOCATION.r BRIDGE NO. 102 OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK ON SR 1844
TYPE OF WORK PAVING, GRADING, DRAINAGE, STRUCTURE AND CULVERT
STREAM 8z
WETLAND IMPACTS

NI
t4++
MT. VERNON CHURCH RD.
3 @ 8'X 7' RCBC
STA. 26+00.00 -L-
STA. 26 + 00.00 -L-
STA. 14+25.00 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4303
STA. 14+25.00 -L- BEGIN CONSTRUCTION B-4303
'ULVERT
+52.09 +/-
UCTION B-4303
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
OD NOT U!E RR MNS RV-ON
Perri* Drawing
sMe+_.,&._a f
TO SIX FORKS ROAD
DETAIL A
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
INar ro Stalal
Droun4 2.f n.s r{et Ditcnr
D ° Slooe
PSRM B Min. O = LO Ft.
Max. d = 1.0 Ft.
. B =2.0 Ft.
Type of Liner = PSRM
-L- STA. 14+25 TO 15+25 LT -L- STA. I
DETAIL D
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
(NOT TO SCALE)
RAN vf1 p pNp T
-?- u Ruu IPSRAn
N1a o
INSTALL LEvEI AND RUSH
SOWAq N11 AN 111TH NATURAL GROUND
MTH
AT NSTILLATION
SEC- A -A
PPE
ApkL OGRx P Ru
oUTLEI _ d
NATURAL
C LA 5 ' 'RP RAP 10'1NIIX E.
ri I'
LCF
STAWON B 0 W d GAII I DDE X119 PSRM
R. FT. FT. IT. ta W FTA FI11C FTA Rp
11+69 R< 3.15 1 d 04 4 90 65 215
o
-L-
PI SIG 28+23.48
Z = 30'47'33Z(LT)
D = 6"12'4J.6'
L = 495.69
T = 25399'
R = 922.32'
0'
0

EST. IL
DRCH
DETAIL C
LATERAL 'V' DITCH
I xo, to kmel
ul
r,?ou?a p ' NFr. sane
° Mm. 0 =1.o Ft.
PSRM Max. d = 1.0 Ft.
D =5.0 Fr.
Type of Liner = PSRM
-L- STA. 14+25 TO 16+50 RT
DETAIL E
DISSIPAToOR PAD
(Not Scoie)
C Lo'
D W1= 6.0'
0,00 W2 W2= I4.0'
0U a La= 12.0'
WI TH= 1.5'
EST.9 TONS
CLASS 8 RIP RAP
EST 14 SY FF
DETAIL F
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
( Not to scale)
AD
GRAx = E = o.08oefr;rr y
? J L-
B
?P?C'
Type of Liner = CICSS B Rip-Rap
-L- STA_ 24+50 TO 25+25 R1
k STA. I4+20 TO 24+20 RT

STI"kEAM &
WETLAND--,, IMPACTS
DHEx DENOTES IMPACTS IN
® SURFACE WATER_
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILTER FABRK ® IMPACTS) IN SURFACE WATER
4- STA. 16+00 LT ?t
-L- STA. 16+50 RT
0
NICHOLAS J. SMITH
CARRIE J. SMITH
77 ¶¶
?1?? ll-?
SE DITCH
8
N DISSIPATOlt PAD
RL FAH SEE DETAIL E
[EST. 9 TONS RIP RAP i -:
EST.U FIL FAB
I
EDSTING BRIDGE ' =1 SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
-L- STA, 18+52-50 TO 18+691
PROPOSED BRIDGE WE \ I

LATERAL V DITCH
SEE DETAIL C
EST. 65 CY DDE
0
MICHAEL L. HALL
VIRGINIA W. HALL
Wo lo>
R
DISSIPATOR PAD /
SEE DETAIL E J
EST.9 TONS RIP RAP
EST. N SY HL FAB
BM 51
-BL- STA 16-08.54
38.50 RIGHT
ELEV.= 284.36
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE PAY ITEM

I
l C s II RIP RAP
STRUCTURE PAY ITEM
EXCAVATION
STRUCTURE PAY ITEM
-? HAIL ROM STRUCTUI RIP RE PRAY ITEM
B TB
WE
L EXCAVATION
HAUL ROM STRUCTURE PAY IIam
E
L
e
r
a
r
2
l7
B
D
E
a
-?'-MULKEY
......Axx.•.NNTAN..
PROJECT AEFERENCE NO. SHEET N0.
B-4303 4
RNY SHEET NO.
IOADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
PRELIM[NR? PLANS
DO NOT USE P04 CO NSTRUCTION
r?
I
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
Permit Drawing
/
/ Sheet 7 Of
i
\`N O
/ cI JACK R. CARRC::3LL
O s\ Lr) NANCY T. CARF2 OLL
O \ N
N
x\
0
KARL F. BOWMAN \
GALE G. BOWMAN - -. ,
E
%
-?.,. .. ..._.... /rte-.E __. F F ??..x...`F?;
RETAIN

8'x x 7" .
BC
,, ... E E

TB
w
F CLASS 8 MP RAP
SEE DETAIL F
EST. 110 TONS
EST. 125 SY HL FM
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL F
EST. 16 TONS BM 52
EST. 20 SY NL FM -BL- STA 24+03.96
27.88' RIGHT
ELEV.= 289.00

O
BOSWORTH CLIFTON BECKWITH

0
SKETCH SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF BRIDGE TO PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS
L A T -
ERALBASE DITCH
IN- to S.-I
N uu sou
r d 0 a .9r oe
a
Pare
Faonc NO—0 ? LO Ft.
MDx. a = 1.0 Ft.
8 = 2.0 Ft.
e = 5.0 Ft.
Type of Liner = CLASS 8 RIP RAP
S1?S T!1 )aim IT
`VARIES
INLET TYPICAL
EST ODEo= SCALE CY
TYP.O'TO 50'UPSTREAM
T ?x
•
%
?11 A J/
z ?
f
BE KWITH
v1 REYNOLDS
IA'
CLASS 'I' RIP RAP 18, CLASS '1' RIP RAP
W/ FILTER FABRIC N ry W/ FILTER FABRIC
MIN. 2.0 ft.-? E?I IN. 2.0 ft
L5 ft.L '1 LS LS ft. T-
uARFT veRlE
OUTLET TYPICAL NOTE: SILL PLACEMENT OUTSET TYPICAL
To SC4E AT UPSTREAM 8 To scut
EST DOE = 65 CY DOWNSTREAM FACE EST ODE = 35 CY
EST 86 TONS CLASS 'I' RIP RAP EST 115 TONS CLASS 'I' RIP RA. P
EST 120 SY F.F. EST 140 SY F.F.
TYP 25 ' TO 70' DOWNSTREAM TYP 0' TO 25' DOWNSTREAIA

DETAIL A
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
m INO} iDGo o
OY ttn
Slope
PSRM Min, D = I.0 Ft.
Max. 0 = 1.0 Ft.
B =2.0 Ft.
Type of Liner = PSRM
A. 1
DETAIL D
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
(NOT TO SCALE)
RAN VIEW p AN NT
YNFDWCEPSW4I
o,p W,
INST" LEVEL AND .USN
a AA PR FDAN '"T. NATAL GROAN)
e°A xa I Sxt
n? . WGAn ES
AT WITAILATIDN
DETAIL B
LATERAL BASE DITCH
I at to SC...' b
Nat r Pill
GrawM :l D .? fiFt. Slane
tl
Finer
F-,;c Min. D = .D Ft.
Max. a ::0 Ft,
B = 2.0 Ft.
G = 5.0 Ft.
Type of Liner = CLASS B RIP RAP
1- SM 14+25 TO 15+25 LT A +" •^ ^^
SECT- A-A
PPE
L DI?C.
WTLET }
xwr .L N
-A Sex P AAP I Txrcw
' E
w Da
sYAnaN R O W d CIA 1 ODE qDH WSW
n. FT. FT. FT. LDP ro Dl PANIC F1' FP
1R+69 5T 1.]5 1 1 0.5 / 9R 65 ]15
DETAIL C
LATERAL 'V' DITCH
I Net ?t.s..10
NOturtl FiII
GroundI'/Ft. Slope
° Min. D = LO Ft.
PSAM Max. tl = 1.0 Ft.
b =5.0 Ft.
Type of Liner = PSRM
-L- STA. 14+25 TO 16+50 RT
DETAIL E
DISSIPATOR PAD
I Not to Scale)
rL°~
WI 6.0
0pW w2 W2_ 14.0'
0p La= 12.0'
wI TH= 1.5'
EST. 9 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
EST. 14 SY FF
O
O
O
N
0
KARL F. BOWMAN
GALE G. BOWMAN

N i
y

0
J
L
N ,
I
j 1
1?

I I
C
E
a
m
c
a
ti
r
rI
m
n
E
u
a
EA. 100 SY F2 FAB EST. 9 TONS RIP RAP
EST. 14 SY HL FAB
BASE DITCH -?
ML A EDSTMG BRIDGE ' SHOULDER BERM GUTTER.. ..
` 1 -L- STA18+51.50 TO -18+691
PROPOSED BRIDGE wE4 \ •

-'? T7!
LATERAL V DITCH.
SEE DETAIL C
EST. 65 CY DOE
-L-
PL SfG 28+23.48
Z = 30" 47' 33.2" (LT)
D = 6' 12' 43.6"
L = 495.59'
T = 25J_9_
R = 922.32'
DISSIPATOR PADI
SEE DETAIL E
EST.9 TONS RIP RAP
M. 14 SY FIL FAB
ISM 51 y
-BL STA IG-08.54Z
78.50' RIGHT
ELEV. = 284.36
0
MICHAEL L. HALL
VIRGINIA W. HALL
i?
"
SKETCH SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF BRIDGE TO PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS

DITEN ® SURF SURFAEB IMPACTS IN
GE WATER.
0
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILTER fABAIC IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
-L- STA 16+00 LT
1- STA. 16+50 IT
II
0
NICHOLAS J. SMITH -
CARRIE J. SMITH ¶¶ -
LSE DITCH SITE 1L
B
DOE DISSIPATOR PAD
INS RIP RAP SEE DETAIL E
1 \
\
1 .
DETAIL F
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
(Net to Scale)

40 AD
GRADE z D.OB08fft
tiff y
Q'
P 3
Z
:
Type of Liner = Class B Rip-Rao
?- STA. 24+50 TO 25+25 RT
4. STA 24+20 TO 24+30 XT
?T?AM
ACTS

/ / ? nt ^5 i 1
A.
\nV
T? HAUL ROAD _ST
re
CUSS II RIP RAP J '
STRUCTURE PAY REM
EXCAVATION rYC r
HAUL ROAD STRUCTURE PAY REM
? /. S u rnr ?
E rz, ABETH
ASS B RIP RAP
E DETAIL F J?
I BECKWITH
- REYNOLDS
Il0 TONS
T
T.125 SY FR FAB
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL F \
EST. 16 TONS BM 52 - \
EST. 10 SY FlL FAB -BL- STA 24+03.96 ?
27.88' RIGHT
ELEV. = 289.00
\

I
ISWORTH CLIFTON BECKWITH
NV
VAHII ;
INI ET IYPICAL
I'•T DOEe nr?I70 CY
111'. r1 II) TO I)I",TREAM
lY
4-- muLKEY
PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
B-4303 4
RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE "Mj 00NSTR0LTION
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
Perm; Drawing
Shoot g of . --
_
CLASS VRIP RAP 19 CLASS 'T'RIP RAP
W/ FILTER FABRIC N/ FILTER FABRIC > ti
MIN. 2.0 ft.'I'- ?MIN.2.0 ft.
1.5 ft,'L" 1.5 ft. ?-
A/
?TEcJ ? veR1F?
OUTLET TYPICAL NOTE: SILL PLACEMENT OUTLET TYPICAL
L
T Ta SCALE AT UPSTREAM 8 r to sane
EST DOE : 65 CY DOWNSTREAM FACE EST ODE - 35 CY
EST 06 TONS CLASS TRIP RAP EST IIS IONS CLASS 'I' RIP RAP
EST 120 ST FF EST I40 SY F.F.
TYP 25' TO 70' DOWNSTREAM TYP O'TD 25 DOWNSTREAM

.14
moll
1".W90,
1 r t ?.? kr ?r;',.. ' ?)1f F't','?•'r P,' a "', Y.'
-Nit -
?. is ? r?i'?p ? ? ? . ? , ? .` r pj. ' ! Jdf-,r?' ? 7stt.: rir" ? ? 1 ..+ ??? ? } _ ? 1
:4J`:
Alf 4,'?y'Mr[
• f' ".. t.I ! H . r YSIi •?l,?rrr -3 ? y .`'? 1?.'..
yea, y y ft
' _ ,> -{x f W 'r r: 1 . y:• #?Y ?i, 1 , . ,L, I,,7r ; F:r a 3t.. .,
r a? is t ' ? ?, 1..
.. n, r r:. w .J,v,kts „<'„"t i _:t ? s fr.. - d f ? tt r` : ?+? • `y ?-f:. ?.:'
Y ,h 7ik r ??" {'12 `Ik c <- if : 1, ?
?i*a 4 r'? l r f n "a t.. p
- jq?
r' ,fie ira ?' ', j r s 3 TF(' h` , ?k7 f ta}?' r.;
9 < ?'? ;iT f ?,. S? rLCI t.,. • f L ? l'' ,•? ?t rllrlr ?.. M ?' ? 4'..
,?,? ???? <#:? ? Y;? ',?'. ?..:` `?. !?C, H??i'J ? "?f„? t tf?'?:?° '???r 4,'?. ??'r .l' •+ .C.
r . F t i Y 3n t,"t ' _ _ >' „dt ' +#' Y:; k r "^, .. i t ^ •, t' r
v? c?fw :{ Spy t" . '?'€ ?. 2 itz {
I '' a . d FtS A N ; mar r L .
? ,ar yy •ditr{ c: r •,, e '? ,f Its f 4h y,?3 ?' 1'
:h 4 S t?t??
ti .j:' ><S +?, r ;.3d`• yt.,3. ?'` .t ?'.: s a jig. . ? t '?-r / n i ? fir{ ". + <t;. r fir, ?°
'lr y?+ s CF ? 1` . w tc y,.. s 'Y'[ r t 1':.. . - ?F / lJr ,k; 7 2 ^ ?(Y??s r , i?r ?°
3'> 9G ?•?' J`r?!,• -j?{i'? '+?3 ...:r ? .t1it' Q? Jj
sy. ,b •. -'/:. "14 d Iv r•r (,S i '_ "d i. ::. "'"` i .v s, . ,s r r::' .:.'
,, '? `at. ><2?, r;,` ,2? t.d ?''., * JI ?'. 'r •?`..' , ?, v,.Jr ?`;AC?i '?,..' y f ! '? t•?. ' f - 1
'n' ' -* `'? .. r ! •f i ?r'1t tf R' a ?- t. l ' k ''K >?.p ~ , • ? ? OD
irt; r 'v.f?'" ?. Fr ? ,,,t ??,, ?. ,? ? •? '??? vy'.. { - "i' 41 rj ;? ?- ? ? •? J ?7r:'' it : ..+• ? ?.-,t. , . ..,?, s
> MM
S -.f4 ? ?? ' ` s ? ? ? ? ? `9 ? ? 1 ? ? ??F? h f ?Cs?v >..I .? t < 'F T;??- t? ? Z s?^, n < N.'fL j<" :.,: ?'?' ?; R %-t:. r r ? ? ? ? 7T . ?•t
i i. a. F :yM ? fit. ?•Fv`.. ,• i'. H's ?.' ?.ik'
'••-?
r I
['? try r.?•* F"p.!:dl.
'9 tFrJ,r < i ? : rL'?
'a ?.r.{F-;• "l pof".sn r , w? ?>, " E ,?? J ? ? 4 1 ? ,??. F?f
, <.
J 4i'h'.4 ?: {C ? '1

M f

tra 10
W '
R I r?'
a s
¢?®
Vp W{ f
iFf?'
?'',l
? : a<
t

AOL
?y
w
0 OX
.4 Mc
Y 1 '
3 i 3 f?R 1 Jl``t?? 17Y
x I,'
J? [ .? ? ! 't t H S .ttjt? "fY !1
tau,' r ? SY ; ' ' > ) :3 t } ?'& ? • '?: 9"{?1 ? 'r ;
t.,,• ? t ? y :? ' ? ? !i` - ".:\'? r ? ? ? ,: 3? 'J.f .,it' }. ? ?* «;.-h i ?. ? t?2 t .2 ' ',,?
-7, 1
,q\' {???y? ?`. ? ,? y•'M' ???r_ ? ' •6a Y f. 3
ivy
1 ; ter.. ,f t?.?,1 ?Yi^y `?,e ? ? :•`; ' '[ ,•r-
I'le
I

?,
'
, r
v
Y r
+

7r +? + ? ll? r J 4 ' > ? .
- ,° i t '
- *1 " I I I I li? -I, .c 11 .? ? . I 1- I '' . .
rJ ?s"ts1 xy ,
I'll I - .1
} t k ?,-,
r r Sty tlld . :t` ,.r .c' ??,r:, f h. ,..: t, 1#
Wr
rtti a % •1
t x,k 1 7 r ,?
'1/? N 4-' i .r' 'f 1. I X "r "yr. b?,re f ?y .Nr: s _l f, Yfj, r,l 4 1
., cO' •kr - pv 1 . ° , r x "s It ? , r '!u .TT,,??r iJfs ter' - - 1
? W' At :V'.,,,r' -+!? _ ??' rxf r ? 'q:
.? I ?y `x }, :, y D r
C ,I 4 {' ¢ x'11 : x' : y
j*r ? ? 1, I . ? ? - ?. I , ? _;l - * p "I' I . , - I - I I , , ? " , ? ., . ", ?
I , 'yi-?4 " 4 . - 4 , ? I # , , 1, - '. ". ? 14?1_1 , 4, . , I I I
. `? ,l --r? 3+ t 1 S G„ ,It r! ,i,I ` t, +, ?t'?' h .,,? f
71 1`110?? I
* "I ?11_ "I , , 0 ??, , , !, ,:? I _l* I ,;:, I I I - " , ? ? , ": , . 11 I , ? ? ?, A, ?
I=" ?,, ,,W,''., ;r? :A 2!' Sr t r klt , ,: is ?
,a. irY' < m _"r-t? r_ $ r`y r( '?' T r' 3 f { -
+
r; X21 «:, q ,, 1! <p??; {i 4N I ,
I * , . , 4 1 - , W ? I , , ? I . - ! , ":', .? 11 ", ) ? I ?
'J 1 4 t, y i {+^1» Y' t.? a, f tf E I,,, : f
a ) .? <,h 'y r r .; ,!s it- + a.. 1 ;
. I -0
y,p ? , ,'rr . r'
11*1 A ' i? ?M`+?.pi r p. R1 .t 'C l.ci? ,IBS'. .",?r f>?YI px'c M`=rH. t s' f _ :f.
r ' }' ,t?T ya i * , $€ k , ? S,'
.1 11 ,
. (d <' 1 t x lAi r ?'.
r3 ,yp4,
€ ti t 1 a : ?}` ' f?. ^ 1I ? _ ,kit ) t . t F
K 'T ) ,t Y j
t S` "x?`
Fl_" T ?1'' 1'9R:t+ F ^ x4. f " fi N; f d }'-"E? 'F r r - 4,' - s ,y'^ r .r iK > ? r ,,##
, ,J Ay1 r _-A.. ;`.'.^ rFrt ?..e' 1[x,.1 - ? r'. a ,i, dS -'{': *, si b'?`" .. YS'S
v ! 4i yA: x? '- t o f `? a' ?? T, ^t 1x s '
t b 1` r tit ... v Y t i fi4 k f h? S". i'
. - . i .- y? +}t 7,]?)' 4 ? , ,' r ;. 3, i ? I 7 '. kc? x i? `>t.t, f ,j '-'*j 'V <;f' J'
y r lxta r f',. 1 F ?',• 4._ 1 -.1 1 ?tt 41 ; r _ ? nyr' w? j r j; ? t 1 J, 11 11 w ? 'P' ,t,' ' ^'' ' t+y??'? < ,.rr rte,, tj I .i ,7' ?,.y; ? `^`'f .?I 111 , ..bJ°7{' 'n 3 R ,`> '
? f ?• sr• r'4 s 7' rr,. 9 ? ??? I ? 1 ,? ? ? , - ? , " I I .3 Sir r, '? .j, .?5'J ll? > 'fit ?, i±l # rd? .: ?: ,; iC+ 1 ,.:. ,',. k -1 .. %*1 I f Y { i..r 'jy:;yam, ," J 7
ti jx? rr s;< r l: " 3? j Y i
, , ; 1?', ? "A' t _. , L !? ; . ? _ ? ? ?
{Y.. ,F 'j `?yYl~r'r. 4 I z,;Y£? 4`.' i> }ai ss !tr::r
t ,,ry •..ii. - 1 SyN ,t i' i ,r ^ { t:?t4ti ••
I 11
'1 j t - { a '[;: of rM s a AA- - ,i; t .I ^' s X7 , 1n ,..#
? , ? , , ? ? , ? ? I I I 1? ? . ? , ? ? , I ?, I 1, * , 4 's *?_
.y' 3
1 "I,
,?:F' Yi; rt:` 1 ': b. ':.,,. - r rte.: r' 11 < , 9.t , * Y Al- f X e :: ?-?` ;t ry ` I i? ',.' - ' Y 1 '?C .t.'t" z ,,..
;?,'' r,t, l' " , 't ; r h. 7 i9 tl +-? x'Ty + fi r `t' fr >.-- t, W11 ,
r ' 4 ! r T y? g f i?j i
- -a« v 1 . ?• ,l^' ' 3,) z<r '.+. r, ':?i. Y'±,', A.. ? j A ' 5 , V , 1 K !6r .y: - f ` "
'i .
*? 41
t, i
w ?gp? y s s> » 4 (? F,'m. k e rY? « °"'` ' + "ia iC7gQ
{ .»{:: iAi'{ t Y .R }? A 2 0,. , }• :. ?
' 7:: f?4- .'qJh i. 3 y {}?...Y , t'
T?
q '^
r iI, ti t"ry f"? ?, z 1 z>?,,.r,?Pfffrrrr < i : k' ?''" : ??, X k7 t'i. f - -ya r?t ?- IN.
g ?°? ?"
.i'g1r » 'q ?'d. {? ' I 17
li., ' }__. Y "l T""
?' r> ', y. { i j." Xp,<. `Nfly'+ ,+. , f >y +1 -rit '_? =i $:..;r i iv" 1'' 1 ?o`'jFl z?,c. _ q
,, i Ri.. '[ 'it ,3 ,;,rtN??.,[isc'1- ('?T ... I£ 1_? - ?'-;; ,f 'k.,,.. X,t, :s. .: ?? " /?+ i
. 'i 't I
H 'f ?: , !7 ,-v-t _ i1R.e?:.? ; +f ?? ?" r ?, '.t a r '` - '* `?yo CA
_',?j? , j ? , ??
.i i? ;'.' ,.YA :, > .Y:,,T : ,,? .. Y : b 'if !",;f. ?. , + ?1' - i --t"' r .'?` ?r ma y"! :< ` ;h?- pg L.' I /'
11 w
) t r v x' ir- - i ' rI a ,:'. fi 2 ? t'i:3 yet': ,i-'S :'? i '.J , 2n ; ?,9 t fx r iY 6? 11
•, A^~ ?' fi < .'H y > ' C» + i.. xl ' `?.? F I-s f t F ° 7 .'t'... dyt> ?./1' + S Y 4*_ Mtn m "'m .?..s ,
a-:rt ?r .... 1 , `•.,-.. f!.?> 1 ? _ S 1 ?, . r 'k., ?r F. _ f'd r , - J`Yv3 '},?Y?r i': k 1} 1 ! t,.
?'-- YY? Y?6 Y + 't ti _ r :t w, Ar1 TC y?S • (pp?
ff ,7t ?,y,? Fl ` t bf
, , " *
'S 'fl .. { ?'"i`' :? 4?. ,. t j C" r s5 >' a 3 r '?- Nr 7` r `j
ll!v { .1 ? ' t , 'i '"'-t . .`,?, t - - ' - , fi ', -y' k7 - act ,+' s c .?,.a
,'?: ?, t ' ., ^ _i: f i : z
{1 o {t # '.S ; ,".j. ,F, a , _c S 3 S,i 4
IM
at' '#. 61, ,,*, 1*7?-l,4 _a 1 _ ,, aY A «.: 3'i .' 3, .?,`'F .tlf yt ` r)
11 »,K ' 1% v - ,t E?? x< "• j•'y; i r, .Fi ` ,rt rj +, .,? d'j4. fj R i i ra k, l 1
,L+ >?Y;' r it t - 1 J `} Y ,,'K pi N r! r l Y' r A r 4! ; = n
t + F- w t S 'S? t ?' f t?
» ?? r# "4'a F ".r to _ f `X7 ? i#'+raS, t J r . y _ 1 ate. F .f ,'.. + r '.
$ "' =:'Ss S - fYfw. :iM r y ;r. #.,,', r i g f a r j 1 'O ':
t7 t?iu •''? ?>' r~?.. f r.i .^ ?1?: e- r p :,rj 1; ;w„'s` it ,.r ,i "°?, - ..r
iF f r, H i
?t- T ? Py7+ /??' t+? ( l: f. \ ,7- r, f y i , .. I. '?.)J..- .i tI kI 'i7;+ b , y C - > y_C {µ '4
y, ? . { . , i `,.-.:, I I ? ? I N' ^- M - `?"}t"M"{ J.; - ' W` a 1 [ s A { ° ? ?.. ????yy ?'r; ,? ,1 tr ',' t "S
1 eI ,?, -?' r :" r Y _1?ti i; i E 1 a> j zy 7iy? ;w.b r l: : ? p
Q ?.Yt r ;y. f, - ?. -??7' f' - yF,c' t i, F: ra ; ;+ f' r + R?,?i ,h
?4 I t.t, * i z f y ,f. d ,7 r 7, ::;h st:??,' ^ r+l?:r V
- ? ? I ? ? 11 . ? I , '? ? ____ 4 . , .- " '? 4, ? I All i I +, ??, ,
1 s , , lr - f ,j ` , k `V r Fl+ ?, , j`Jq eY ;l-, y ;5 f 4j
h d +*,, y„ f ? , i ? Q , t' r S . j ` L l w ? f t rte'" ? . J" ?a
?' ``. _ 4'"'; ?, .! J`Y_' 'Arj '}f?'.' c :,. 1 ` t t-.1.' , # ) j(???,,;s F1..
/ d aj w` 1 t y .r q . a i^z } `, Y r t- , itl y"_ .
a, tt' ' ' r"'`
,_ '. .++ , 11 I ,,? V--+-t-r _?,+ . I I " I" ,?
' - .. w - 1 a`' ?. xy .
--p°'"?.1? -z' :.,. z + t f-f e. r 4 t ? k , ?,o >; , ?? ,i,, i`, a ,? , .:i t
t rr f . 6 xY ,1 > - "' - /? ) ; 'l h ,* a, ':, ? a zi' r t 1'?s.,. , J- . - .
, ? rt ,, v 3 , ,' t > y , , +?
,r ;.c' ?d!. 1 ° ??, SFf ?; '_ # 1S r q{f j• e{e.-*...
® s 1`.Ai. Aj? h r - 4 <r ptA rt`A "? j 1i- ( A -'-
", 'r »' 1 n? x g at l I. 3h 1% t ,
rC- & k z ..' tT t
-.......-?.____ _ - f. ...... ,<i'r.''.M 3f < -d ''i 7 4z'. '. 1 ,? It ? ?; t,Yh ) ?'
/ sir. e• r 3 u:ysi.' s t> ! ; Y A- T `SS 11 ?l
s ' ?, y }
1 r ' 1 . Y. N, 1 I : ; { -° '-'" . r f s., t? :: t? y' i t `7
k - Y'e t ar At v? 311 12x x "y l.: #
c # ?y 'S'L l}' :?7fF A +x L _y V ?,r i '.: a lV` 4t - ':y-3 i f ?,t j I}?„ 11' I
. , ? ji?I'sx?fl<SV ? - t ,? >-Sn `' 'e- - . '!SfT`j t
r !? G. 1. I.
,7 b'J,` fjy? If, . , 9 ^ " "??1 t?
,, rd, a ` r tl F' ''
t y J *''?q... f1Y' 3 ; ^? 3? 'i13.! ' n? ? A Y` th {_
0 E" , , 0 * ,-, r : " ? ? ,;? "t" ? , _%?4 I ?11 ?, . ? , ?`?
`,a. y,f{3 ?f. t tl?,,. y}1 1lT r t?ti •i
[ X "T' y i ?o J' .y
04 a « ,y II` ^ i t','' I+r1? }! a r 1 ft , "x ; 7 xf :,$. t - »1^ YS,C + 3 F 1.,
{,p r ,„Y '? y?>r c h ` p Y,.. .3a ,ice, ',Y?
t-, , tit,;. .. ,? . !#'
R C
g - , ?o 1 ??_'-!_T, . , t , r ,',roan= i , ,,i
,g ;I r:; N" , 1, ; ;,A j#. .## t " r+ + 1 f
by
Q , ? ..
3 m W W ?- . I ?Ayy.?r' .l f•i .I .I'. '" I' G.i } ? 1 i i __ Z3 ;s f n . Sri+I 11,"" __ 1 ? ? ? ,ill t - t??+1,I I x'.* ? {
4 7*, '1? ?. if. t l t:.. i I '.'> Ohl' i 1: 1;' r: t F
? ? I +, N 11
`w ° d ?z-??f,., ? df ?, 3 '3 t, i iS' ??., x, (? .Y <?
r f
kY '?' xyFr ?fib*+ t ,". >K ri? t y 3r l,, r S' ; i F `" In <
~ y „J „ Qtr ,
, xT
> r I O W 1
. -.M._
r a
y.
tot
*? Y';? ?i? - ;:N r?z ??. ?,f?' ? X trt Y ;.f"?`?,.f I '?>. ' ?. •?[, i31(f,r ?'« k ?S r,. :,-.
..?rr•,'t'? x!x r f ? ,y ? , aH'..R?Rr''4 ! ` K #i,.,
iq, # b geStS. fs' : J - ? q ,t r. a ?t' .,J t u 'r -
r 3T 7rt' r?jl4 ,?a w t H 1 , i rt r ? > ? , ?.;? Y r y .1. C.+?` .r r' ` ,'? y
t F.fit . ,^ -" 7rr,
fi ?? rs ,?` ?? ? rr r•(QV Ir $4 r Wff?? tr !?' ? ??? , a ?-? ?i? ???`
?i 3h ! 3 + }??? ?t ? r `
r •?
,;?.,:.f tf .?` `CP S its W?•r /` A'1r;if''4, _ t.
,i f? .1 ?? s r ? 1 2 b. f
A WE
a}"1y r 3 I 1 l a? A mod. d 6
font y dr•- ?` k? 3 1 r, £^?s'. ?,7?C? ? _t ,.',?r'y?i, NylTit t' k ? r ?+ `id,.. ? ? ? ?f r `?'
?sT +p Lk? ' 4F. :+ ?, #d• 4` ??"t iY• I f' ?•. 1 eft = t.
d ? , tii ? ? a ?'rf?'' -'s' ?e r y.. ? ? ?_ `y 3E,+ ,'S +. ,' r t 3 + ; `,• ?. ? Tr>' ? ? f ?l
Oa k °:?j? y rub} 3 Ifr? YL a ry? M y o
L r
-. ??. Ste, V, t '? r
3 M ? t?

14 t i
r
1

ti . 1}I'rt Y w? Rar e,.., 7 ;. ! 1 ° 1°19
', p??'? +,? °, t ,? r •. S` L .j ??? 9E'r ? ?''` ?r n t 1 9' - > rs sJ 'k? ';I ( I
Y?. Gad f" ? =• ? ary???!' r?% Y?f i??: ?? ?._ r: ,». t a` £ s*t? ,?J ? ?Y 1 ? * ? r ?? , .i
)> r ? ? ? ?> ??? -yy`? ?i F I " ??+ ?? ? ??? it ? ?• '?,g? ? r? ?? ?
:,ft * •'FI °i? " ? N ' 'My.+ '' ? ? ? t at;+?: ? y o , ? r y ? ?`fl i
r y? t: fr a, s jY a n trtrt ?r1• ??3r i`
?' a8t ?f :: , +4 Air
r?f
56
.41 C
tot
MO.
ONO
for
:.+I
>}° I, n'?Y? Y AX t .? x t> i A d tXf ,.I' J _ k j
t !- f
O,rt i..?'fif f,f '? f «i ? t-..t)A ?` r > '":? ? ? ??y. - '_ ? ;. .'j t?. '`<'?, g+?a,? ? I
) ? r P { ; m 2? r 1 I
?? ; n•r g ?? ?? ? ?... a4 } pry ? N..? ?* t ?' ? ? it
i ?• y>. a t
,? •M?' y / ? F rr ..??'Sl1Mj?F ???. ?, 'caF.J Yy p ,? ??P'???
r 1;
01
7
r?i `Itt d t yt il?' r ..*?4 y T4 - f°n C: u?
°? ,Cpf ??? ?y? «f ? ???
p?,,yy
ks
W' J..l. .?r a!sl:?? .'f ? -: ?v .•\ i^ .. •t 31 ?? _ ,... ft? a ? . it
? ? l r

T

° f f
'>at
rr
r

y1s ?n ? S?:',
01 Federal Emergency Management Agency
ZONE X This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product Information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at w .msc.fema.gov

Figure 5
w
APPENDIX
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT _
t.i 34
Action ID. 200420708 County: Wake U.S.G.S. Quad: Ba leaf
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: NCDOT - Division of Highways
Address: Attn: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Dir., PDEA
..?1i
FR
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 4,, - ?;r t 4
FiTR'1 I? ?'..! 4i
Telephone No.: [phone], ext. 266
Property description: tion:t" _'?
Size (acres) n/a Nearest Town Bayleaf -------------------------
Nearest Waterway Lower Barton Creel; River Basin Neuse
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates N 35.933529 W 78.665191
Location description Study area for bridge replacement (TIP B-4303) as shown in drawinLys submitted on 3/29/04.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your project area delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Wilmington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Page 1 of 2