19920162 Ver al_Complete File_19920402

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
d ,,.. SUTF a
STATE OF N.06T CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP RTATION
PAPROR 2t
RALEIGH 27611-5201
Apr -TILAANDS GROUP
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Subject: Raleigh, Bridge No. 100 on Litchford Road (SR 2012) over Perry
Creek, Wake County, Federal-Aid Project No. BRM-5797(5), State
Project No. 6.503229, TIP No. B-1414
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the
subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to
proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A
(B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the
construction of the project.
We do not anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
p?. DM
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Mr. John Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. L. E. Stegall, P. E.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Raleigh, Bridge Not,
on Litchford Road (SR 2012)
over Perry Creek APR 2 , i 1992
Wake County -
1 Federal-Aid Project No' BRM-57,97715)
State Project No. 6•.5032228 !,_i.:
B-1414
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
a APPROVED:

ggte J?,`?[.. O. "Ward, P. E. , ManagLsr
v Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
3/t 8/9z
Date CNic o as Graf, P. E.
ftoz- Division Administrator, FHWA _

Raleigh, Bridge No. 100
on Litchford Road (SR 2012)
over Perry Creek
Wake County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRM-5791(5)
State Project No. 6.503229
B-1414
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January, 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Bill Kin aw
Project Planning Engineer

Linwood Stone
Project Planning Engineer, Unit H ad
H."Franklin Vick, P. E., Assista t Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R1'A CARP(
i?ss
•
1/1
Raleigh, Bridge No. 100
on Litchford Road (SR 2012)
over Perry Creek
Wake County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRM-5197(5)
State Project No. 6.503229
B-1414
Bridge No. 100 has been included in the current Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) for right-of-way acquisition in fiscal year 1992
and construction in fiscal year 1993. The project location is shown in
Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The
project has been classified as a Federal "categorical exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary. Approximately 0.1 acre of wetlands will be
taken by the project. Best Management Practices will be used to minimize
these impacts. The State Historical Preservation Society (SHPO) will be
given the opportunity to review the architecture and archaeological
aspects of the project. If any surveys are needed, they will be performed
prior to right-of-way (ROW) authorization. There will be no 4(f)
involvement with a future greenway since there are no detailed plans
and no park land is impacted.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 100 should be replaced on new location immediately west of
the existing bridge along an alignment shown by Alternative 1 (see Figure
2). Total length of the proposed improvements is approximately 4/10 mile.
Preliminary hydrographic studies indicate a triple 9'x 8' reinforced
concrete box culvert (RCBC) should be provided. The City of Raleigh has
plans for a future greenway along Perry Creek. To accommodate pedestrian
usage of the future greenway, a single 8'x 8' RCBC, aligned perpendicular
to Litchford Road, will be located approximately 60 feet to the south of
the triple 9'x 8' RCBC. This will provide pedestrians and bikers
passageway on the future greenway without having to cross a heavily
traveled Litchford Road. The length of the culverts should be enough to
accommodate a proposed 24-foot pavement with 10-foot usable shoulders.
Approximately 2200 feet of new roadway approaches will be required.
The approach roadway should consist of a 24-foot pavement with 10-foot
usable shoulders.
Estimated cost of the project is $780,000. The total cost contained
in the 1992-1998 TIP is $722,000.
2
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. Approximately 0.1 acre of wetlands are
expected to be impacted by implementation of this project. The approach
roadway to the existing bridge will be removed and the area restored to
its natural ground elevation. Best Management Practices will also be
utilized to minimize impacts.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Litchford Road (SR 2012) is classified as an urban principle arterial
route in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is a part of
the Federal Urban System (FAU 5797). The route is also designated as a
major thoroughfare in the Raleigh-Cary-Garner Thoroughfare Plan (see
Figure 3) and serves a suburban area of medium-density residential
development north of Raleigh.
In the vicinity of Bridge No. 100, Litchford Road has a pavement
width of 20 feet. The north approach consists of an approximate 3 degree
curve, while the south approach consists of a 6 degree 30 minute curve.
Vertical alignment is generally flat at both approaches to the existing
bridge.
The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is 45 mph.
The current traffic volume on Litchford Road is approximately 9600
vehicles per day (vpd). The estimated traffic for the proposed
construction year 1994 is approximately 15,600 vpd. The design year 2014
traffic volume is estimated to be approximately 30,900 vpd. The projected
traffic volume include 2% truck tractors semi-trailors (TTST) and 3% dual
tired vehicles (DT).
The existing bridge (see Figure 4), constructed in 1965, consists of
steel plank floor on steel beam system supported by timber piles and caps.
A U.S.G.S. stream flow gauging station is located at the southeast end of
Bridge No. 100. The recommended improvements will be located to the west
side of the existing bridge and therefore will not interfere with the
gauging station.
Overall length of the existing bridge is 36 feet. Clear roadway
width is 24 feet. The posted weight limit is 18 tons for single vehicles
and 25 tons for trucks with trailers.
Ir Bridge No. 100 has a sufficiency rating of 48.7 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure.
The City of Raleigh has acquired greenway easements along Perry Creek
just east of the existing Litchford Road right-of-way (see Figure 6). The
future greenway will eventually extend along Perry Creek between the
Northridge community and the Neuse River. This area is a portion of the
Perry Creek Greenway Corridor as designated on the Capital Area Greenway
Master Plan adopted by the Raleigh City Council in 1989. The City's
3
ultimate goal is to provide a greenway on both sides of Perry Creek.
Detailed trail design for this section of the greenway system has not been
initiated ant the exact location of the trail has not been determined.
During the period beginning in July, 1988 through June, 1991, a total
of 18 accidents were reported to have occurred between Johnsdale Road
(SR 2085) and Rowland Road. Only one (rear-end) of the 18 accidents
occurred at Bridge No. 100. One accident at Landing Way (north of Bridge
No. 100) resulted in a fatality. The majority of the accidents were split
between Weybridge Drive (7) and Landing Way (8). The resulting total
accident rate is 633.8 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100
mvm). The statewide three-year average for similar routes for the years
1988 through 1991 was 366.4 acc/100 mvm. The following is a listing of
the accidents in the vicinity of Bridge No. 100 by type:
Number of % of Total
Type Accidents Accidents
Rear-end collision 8 44.4
Head-on collision 3 16.7
Sideswipes 2 11.1
Other 5 27.8
Totals 18 100.0
The proposed improvements should help to reduce the number of accidents on
the studied section of Litchford Road.
Twenty-five school buses cross the studied bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternative alignments were studied for replacement of Bridge
No. 100. These alignments are described as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) relocates the structure and approaches to
the west o t e existing bridge using the existing facility for the
maintenance of traffic during the construction period (see Figure 2).
Alternative 2 replaces the existing bridge and approaches along the
existing alignment with an on-site detour to the west (see Figure 2).
Alternative 3 replaces the existing bridge and approaches along the
existing alignment with an on-site detour to the east (see Figure 2).
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually require closing the
bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
Litchford Road.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its
deteriorated condition.
4
Two types of structures were considered for replacement of Bridge No.
100, a bridge and a culvert. The bridge (40 feet wide and 110 feet long)
was eliminated from further consideration due to its higher cost (see
Section V for detailed costs). Consideration was given to a culvert with
and without provision for a future greenway.
According to the Hydraulics Unit, a triple 9'x 8' RCBC is required to
accommodate the flow of Perry Creek at the subject crossing. The
comparative cost estimates for alignment alternatives 1, 2, and 3 shown in
Section V are based on these dimensions. It was also determined that both
the creek and a future greenway could be accommodated in at least two
ways. One way is to provide a quadruple 8'x 8' RCBC with one box raised
approximately 4 feet above the others, but still remain within the
100-year flood plain. The structure would be approximately 140 feet long
and located at a 112 degree skew to Litchford Road. Estimated cost is
$776,300 (see Section V for detailed estimate). Another way to
accommodate the creek and a future greenway is to provide a triple 9'x 8'
RCBC across the creek and construct a single 8'x 8' RCBC south of the
creek crossing. A future greenway structure would be approximately 60
feet long, perpendicular to Litchford Road, and elevated above the
100-year flood plain. Estimated cost is $780,000 (see Section V for
detailed estimate).
According to the Hydraulics Unit, both culvert options for Perry
Creek will accommodate essentially the same water flow and not alter the
100-year flood plain.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The following estimated costs are based on a culvert (3 @ 9'x 8')
with no provision for the proposed greenway:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Roadway Approaches $348,800 $164,300 $115,800
Structures (3 @ 9'x 8') 131,400 131,400 131,400
Structure Removal 6,200 6,200 6,200
Temporary Detour - 152,500 251,000
Detour Structure - 28,000 28,000
Engineering & Contingencies 68,000 68,000 76,000
Right-of-Way 172,000 120,600 115,900
Total Cost $726,400 $671,000 $724,300
These estimates are based on the Alternative 1 alignment, provisions
for a future greenway along Perry Creek, and elevation of the proposed
roadway approximately 12 feet to accommodate a proposed 50 miles per hour
(mph) design speed.
Roadway Approaches
Structures
Structure Removal
Temporary Detour
Detour Structure
Engineering & Contingencies
Right-of-Way
Total Cost
3 @ 8'x 8'+ 3 @ 9'x 8'+
40'x 110' BRIDGE 1 @ 8'x 8' 1 @ 8'x 8'
$321,500 $341,000 $341,000
253,500 209,000 182,000
6,000 6,000 6,000
87,000 83,000 79,000
172,000 172,000 172,000
$840,000 $811,000 $780,000
VI. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

Bridge No. 100 should be replaced at a site immediately west of its
existing location (Alternative 1). This location will permit an
improvement in the horizontal alignment which will improve sight distance
for safety. A continuous 3 degree curve will replace the existing
approximate 3 degree curve (north approach) and the existing 6 degree 30
minute curve (south approach). Also, the proposed structure elevation
will be approximately 12 feet higher at its proposed location west of the
existing bridge. The new alignment, both horizontal and vertical, will
improve the design speed from the existing 30 mph to a desirable 50 mph.
Alternative 1 also avoids eastside involvement with a 42-inch city
water main, with the land east of Bridge No. 100 acquired for a future
greenway, and the U.S.G.A. stream flow gauging station on the east side of
the existing bridge. The Wake County School Bus Supervisor prefers to
maintain traffic on-site since re-routing school buses during construction
periods would create a substantial inconvenience. Approximately 1.5 miles
of additional travel per vehicle would be necessary if the road is closed
at the bridge crossing.
The City of Raleigh and the NCDOT Division Engineer prefer the
replacement structure to be located west of the existing bridge as
recommended. City plans call for widening Litchford Road to a multi-lane
facility within the decade. Since a widening project is not currently
scheduled, the provision of five-lane approaches is not recommended.
However, when Litchford Road is widened, existing right-of-way to the east
of the recommended alignment will accommodate the expansion of the
proposed structure and the ultimate roadway section.
A triple 9'x 8' RCBC and a single 8'x 8' RCBC is the recommended
replacement structure(s). The triple 9'x 8' RCBC will be used to handle
the flow of Perry Creek. The single 8'x 8' RCBC for a future greenway
will be located approximately 60 feet south of the proposed structure,
perpendicular to the proposed roadway, and above the 100-year floodplain.
The length of the structures will be long enough to accommodate a 24-foot
pavement with 10-foot usable shoulders. The separate culvert concept
requires a shorter length structure for a future greenway which costs less
6

and permits the use of natural lighting. Although the total estimated
cost of the recommended structure is almost $54,000 more than a culvert
that does not provide for a future greenway, the separate boxes are
approximately $27,000 less costly than the four adjacent 8'x 8' boxes.
Consideration was given to providing a shelf or raised area for
y pedestrians inside the triple barrel culvert required to accommodate the
flow of Perry Creek. This option was discussed with the City of Raleigh
and their concurrence to work with NCDOT on this concept is noted by the
November 27, 1991 letter in the Appendix. Subsequent coordination with
the City of Raleigh and further hydraulic studies resulted in the
recommendation of the triple 9'x 8' RCBC in Perry Creek with the 8'x 8'
RCBC located as stated in the previous paragraph. The City of Raleigh
feels this is a better alternative solution and has concurred with this
recommendation.
This project has been planned and designed according to American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
guidelines. These guidelines are intended to provide operational comfort,
safety, and convenience for the motorist. The design concepts used on
this project were also developed with consideration for environmental
quality. The effects of the various environmental impacts can (and should)
be mitigated by thoughtful design processes. This principle, coupled with
that of esthetic consistency with the surrounding terrain or urban
setting, is intended to produce highways that are safe and efficient for
users and acceptable to nonusers and the environment.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project is expected to have an overall positive impact
on the human and natural environment. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations. Current NCDOT standards and
specifications for construction practices will minimize any potential
adverse impacts.
The project is considered to be a federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
No businesses or homes are to be relocated. Therefore, no adverse
impact on families or communities is anticipated.
No significant adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social,
economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed bridge project will impact a portion of the Perry Creek
Greenway Corridor as designated on the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan
adopted by the Raleigh City Council in 1989. However, detailed trail
design for this section of the greenway system has not been initiated and
the exact location of the trail has not been determined. Therefore, there
will be no Section 4(f) involvement since there are no detailed plans for
a future greenway and no park land will be impacted.
7
The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. Wake County has been designated a moderate non-attainment
area for carbon monoxide and ozone. However, the State Implementation
Program (SIP) does not contain transportation control measures for this
location and the Raleigh Transportation Plans (TP) and the Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP) has been found to be in conformance with the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendment (CAA). Since this project is included in the TP
and the TIP, no further air quality assessments are required.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements of FHPM 7-7-3 (highway
traffic noise) and 7-7-9 (air quality) and no additional reports are
required.
There appear to be no properties in the vicinity of the project that
are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The structure itself is not historically significant. The State Historic
Preservation Officer will be given an opportunity to review both the
architecture and the archaeological aspects of the project to determine
whether additional surveys should be undertaken. If necessary, they will
be accomplished prior to construction.
The staff Biologist conducted a search of the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) files concerning known federally protected
species. The NCNHP files do not show occurrences of any federal protected
species near the project. However, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) does list four protected species and three candidate
species within Wake County. Threatened and endangered species are
protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Candidate species are
not protected under this Act; however, these species could be elevated to
a protected status before the project begins.
Michaux's poison sumac Federally Endangered
Rhus Michauxii
This rhizomatous shrub is 0.2-0.4 meters tall and is densely
pubescent. The 9, 10, or 13 oblong leaflets can be simply or doubly
serrate, and the rachis is usually wingless. The small greenish-yellow to
white flowers are borne in an erect terminal cluster in June. The red
pubescent fruit is borne from August to September. Michaux's sumac occurs
in sandy or rocky open woods and may be associated with basic soils. It
also seems to be dependent upon some type of disturbance.
The right-of-way along SR 2012 appears to have suitable habitat, and
plant surveys were conducted. Transect lines approximately 10 feet apart
were walked. Other Rhus species were seen, but R. michauxii was not. No
impacts are anticipated-.
8

Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Federally Endangered
The bald eagle is a large raptor with plumage mainly dark brown with
a pure white head and tail at maturity. This eagle is primarily
associated with coasts, rivers and lakes. No appropriate habitat is found
at the study area and no impacts are anticipated.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Federally Endangered
Picoides borealis
This woodpecker is small with black and white horizontal stripes on the
back with white cheeks and underparts. The red-cockaded woodpecker
requires pine forests (pines at least 50% dominant) where the trees are at
least 10 inches in diameter (approximately 30 years old). Nesting trees
usually are around 60 years old.
Suitable habitat is found within 1/2 mile of the project area. Large
areas of suitable habitat were found to the east and southeast of the
project area. In these areas, transect lines 50-75 feet apart were
walked. In areas where the pines lost dominance, individual pines were
checked. Suitable stands of pine were also found in the trailer park and
transect lines were walked.
Aerial photographs showed pines located in surrounding residential
areas. These areas were either walked or driven through; however, the
pines were generally too young to support the woodpecker. No cavity trees
or individuals occur in the area. No impacts to the woodpecker will
occur.
Dwarf-wedged mussel Federal Endangered
Alasmidonta heterodon
The shell of the dwarf-wedged mussel rarely exceeds 1.5 inches and is
usually olive green to dark brown in color. It is characterized by two
lateral teeth on the left valve and one on the right. The mussel inhabits
streams and rivers with sandy to pea-size gravel bottoms. These streams
have a slow to moderate flow with riffles and pooled areas. They can be
found among aquatic plants and underneath overhanging tree limbs. They
are extremely sensitive to sedimentation and pollutants.
The dwarf-wedged mussel has been found in the upper Neuse River
system, but has not been reported in Perry Creek. According to John
Alderman, an aquatic biologist, it is doubtful that the mussel is in Perry
Creek. He stated that since the creek covers such a small area and since
there is considerable development around the headwaters, it is unlikely
for the mussel to be found there. He indicated that no surveys were
necessary and that no impacts are anticipated.
The Natural Resources Technical document dated October 4, 1991
addresses the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and its
relationship to this project. John Alderman, a Wildlife Biologist with
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), was contacted
before this document was prepared and concluded that no mussel surveys
were necessary and no impacts to the dwarf wedge mussel will occur from
proposed construction. His conclusions were based on the fact that the
dwarf wedge mussel does not occur in the study area and Perry Creek
contains a heavy sediment load and a high algal concentration.
Bachman's Sparrow Federal Candidate Species
Aimophila aestivalis
This large sparrow is usually grey heavily streaked with dark brown.
The sides of the head are also grey, with a thin dark line extending from
the eye. The belly is whitish.
Bachman's sparrow inhabits dry open woods and also scrub palmetto.
The project area does not contain suitable habitat and no impacts are
expected.
Nestronia
Nestronia umbellula
Federal Candidate Species
This dioecious colonial shrub is found primarily in piedmont
woodlands, usually associated with pines. There are woodlands directly
surrounding the project area; however, the dominate species are hardwoods.
No individuals were seen and no impacts are expected.
Carolina Trillium Federal Candidate Species
Trillium pusillum var. pusillum
This rhizomatous herb stand .5-2 decimeters tall. It is
characterized by a whorl of three elliptic to oblong leaves and a flower
of white petals. It is found in alluvial woods, pocosin borders and
savannahs. Suitable habitat is not present in the project area. No
impacts are anticipated.
In North Carolina, The Plant Protection and Conservation Act and The
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern Act ensure
protection of state threatened and endangered species. The NCNHP files do
not have any records of any state protected species in the area of the
project.
Perry Creek is in the Neuse River Watershed. The creek is fairly
disturbed around the existing bridge with riprap and two large pipes
present in and near the creek. It has a moderate flow and the creek
bottom consists of cobble, pebble and some sand. Perry Creek is
approximately 10 feet wide at the existing bridge, but widens to as much
as 15 feet downstream. The creek contains a few riffles and small pools.
Perry Creek is classified as a Class B stream according to the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Best usage of Class B waters
include primary and secondary recreation, aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife and agriculture. Perry Creek is also
classified as a Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) which requires limitations
on nutrient inputs.
10
Perry Creek is not classified as a High Quality Water (HQW) or an
Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) nor is Wake County under the jurisdiction
of Public Mountain Trout Waters or the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
Approximately 0.1 acre of wetland is expected to be taken by this
project; however, elevations conducive for wetland development exist
northwest of the existing bridge structure. Vegetation along this area is
hydrophytic and species such as sycamore, river birch, sweet gum, tag
alder and impatiens are present and predominate. These species are
classified FACW, which indicates that they usually occur in wetlands
(estimated probability 67%-99%), but are occasionally found in
nonwetlands. Also, the soils above the banks show mottling.
Replacing the bridge just west of its current location will not
significantly alter the environment of the area. With the possible
exception of some silt being transported into Perry Creek at the proposed
construction site, no other significant environmental problems are likely
to occur. The contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and siltation.
These contract provisions are in accordance with the Strict Erosion
Control Measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 subpart B. Temporary erosion
control measures such as the use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, and
etc. will be used as needed. The contractor will also be required to
comply with any local ordinances governing pollution control.
The approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain are shown in Figure
5. The encroachment onto the floodplain is not considered significant as
defined by 23 CFR 650 105(q). Wake County is a participant in the
National Insurance Regular Program. The studied crossing of Perry Creek
is within a designated flood hazard zone. The planned replacement with a
crossing design of similar conveyance to the existing structure will be
consistent with the intent and requirements of the zone regulations.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland
soils by land acquisition or construction projects. Prime and important
farmland soils are determined by the US Soil Conservation Service, and may
include soils that are not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Prime and important farmland soils that have been converted to
non-agricultural uses, either through development or through local
governmental planning activities, are exempt from the requirements of the
Act. The location of the proposed improvement has been designated for
residential development in the Raleigh comprehensive plan. Therefore,
further consideration under the Act is not required.
Due to the small size of wetlands impacted, an individual permit will
not be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since the Nationwide
Section 404 permit provisions are applicable and the provisions of 33 CFR
330.5 (b) and 33 CFR 330.6 will be followed.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no
significant adverse environmental effects will result from implementation
of this project.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 100
WAKE COUNTY -
B-1414
0 mile 1/2
1 1 1 FIG. 1
D
e
a
+s

_

Q

w
cc
co i
i i

o

cr
')

W < W

Q Q

I Q
(D

O
? a
¦ 1 }QLL{
? ? m KA .O 7S
I I I
r=l Z
Q O J
O a. `
} J

H

? W
F-

Q
Q (r
O

_

Q

8 3 15 2 x? m W

z
? (if F- o 0 0 0 o u
i? ?? W o o W o
3 3
W
3RIDGE NO, 100
WAKE COUNTY
B-1414

r
r
LOOKING
LOOKING NORTH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 4
y
ONE6
it
,I
c
qF
?OAp IL
--
OIUL' A3 i i
-I?ZONE B r 1 --?
.AIJROHADRIVE ---,_ RM13
----? -.-- Goll Car
90, Badge ? ,1 / .
298 r Creek
Rock Quarry Bridge
ZONE A101?'?? ??' •?
CONE B 258 ZONE Bt
0,1 0
- _ --- P
?; Dana='??? 264
MI. 287
31 =
HUNTING
?I?r
RIDGE
QII ROAD 260
ZONE A4 ; 265 N %v
I' 100 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT/'
BRIDGE NO. 100 `,
ir P I
? hies! i i ??VO
I ?
NI / r
O
- ' Oa p `012
Q N
FOP
.? I 2 k t1P?? 230/
k I
_ r O\ O I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
- N% TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 100 ON
SR 2012 OVER
PERRY CREEK
0 feet 1000 FIG. 5
EAGLE70N Q'? j 1 1 1
CIRM.E
?•?/ FAVOR 4y I
'OATS CT. + CT. WOOD
I ?4 GOLF I
° r°y9yy COURSE
HARPS 100 2012
pP +\ ? 90
s4k v
4 ,
® 2013
4'?f
HUNTING ^ CITY
- / t2014
0
7
pa _
AU ORA 2 pP• 74
z
' N°at" 8` LL I M I T
I GREENWAY EASEMENT
R?°Of OtP??
"ORT" RD. p?yP?O
GOLF COURSE r a 4 boo ?
1
oaEr a` 1
°?. PROPOSED ROAD--w
T " ¢ m BRIDGE NO. 100
RUN sod I 2 srj /
16-
C,
r
. 1
1
2-15 ? a s
1 GEO. W. NORW000 I o
SCH, I A 2012
? py? EXCHANGE PgRN I
01% 1 2086
W NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
c TRANSPORTATION
I i DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
0o- 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
MllleROoK I BRANCH
HIGH SCH. r
S NTIRE?' WAKE COUNTY
27 BRIDGE NO. 100 ON
SR 2012 OVER
v I PERRY CREEK
rRO.
i I 0 feet 1000 FIG. 6
A: ?
? PORT Y
,tJ ??ROTAU I _
APPENDIX

City Of 6Raleigh
5Vorth Carolina
November 27, 1991
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
" q T P
?+?f?1?II3
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 100 on Litchford Road (SR 2012)
over Perry Creek, Wake County. State Project 6,503229,
B-1414.
Your recommendation for replacing the Perry Creek bridge on
Litchford Road is acceptable to the City staff. This would include
a triple box culvert with a raised berm inside one barrel to
accommodate a future greenway. The greenway design is uncertain at
this time, but it appears that the southernmost barrel is the
preferred location for the greenway provisions.
The preliminary estimate of culvert size
confirmed by the City staff. We may wish
obtain the latest hydrographic and design
;Sincerely,
. E. Bento , Jr.
City Manager
7
JLY/p54
cc: ACM - Planning and Development
Transportation Director
Parks and Recreation Director
City Engineer
has not been checked and
to contact Mr. Kinlaw to
information.
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Recycled Paper

f
City Of 6Raleigh
July 26, 1991 ,North Carolina
Mr. Clarence Coleman
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Highway Building
P.O.Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Litchford Road Project
Accommodation for Greenway
Dear Mr. Coleman:
Pursuant to our recent telephone conversations, the following is provided relative to
accommodating future greenway trail construction in the vicinity of the Litchford Road bridge at Perry
Creek. The proposed road project will impact a portion of the Perry Creek Greenway Corridor as
designated on the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan adopted by the Raleigh City Council in 1989.
The City has acquired greenway easements along Perry Creek just east of the existing Litchford Road
right-of-way. A copy of the deed of easement for these greenway areas and a map are enclosed for your
review.
As we discussed previously, my understanding is that Litchford Road will be realigned in this area
and that both a bridge facility and culvert crossing of Perry Creek are being studied. Detailed trail design
M for this section of the greenway system has not been initiated and the exact location of the trail has not
been determined. The City's preference would be to utililize a bridge crossing over Perry creek that would
provide adequate shelves adjacent to both sides of the creek. This would provide flexibility in the future
h
location of a greenway trail. A minimumof twenty (20) feet should be provided, measured from the top of
bank to the base of the abutment. A minimum of twelve (12) feet of clearance should be provided from
finished grade to the bottom of the bridge. If a culvert crossing is considered, a separate, elevated box
(tunnel) should be provided to carry pedestrian and bicycle traff ic associated with the future trail. The
1
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Recycled Paper
tunnel should be elevated to the 100 year storm level and should provide a minimum width of twelve (12)
feet and a minimum heightof eight (8) feet. If the culvert exceeds seventy-five feet in length, conduit and
boxes for future lighting of the tunnel should be provided ( as was the case with the tunnel under the
Beltline now being utilized in conjunction with the the Walnut Creek Amphitheatre).
Please keep me apprised of NCDOTs decision regarding the use of a bridge or culvert crossing.
If I provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 890-3285.
Sincerely,
Wayne W. Sc indler
Park and Greenway Planner
Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department
cc: Ed Johnson, Raleigh Transportation Dept.
file
01
2

0
?• s? o
•ye „w • "?
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OR TRANSPORTATION
P. 0. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27011-5201
July 11, 1990
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Research
Curates, Bicycle Coordinator
Bicycle Program
l
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 100 on SR 2012,
over Perry Creek, Wake County, B-1414
In your memorandum of June 26, 1990, you requested our comments regarding the proposed
improvements to the above mentioned project.
There does not appear to be any need for special accommodations for bicycles on this project.
This bridge replacement project does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it part of our
Bicycling Highway system. We have no indication that there are unusual levels of bicycling on
this roadway.
As with any of our roads and highways (except, of course, for those which have limited
access where bicycles are prohibited), bicycle travel will occur as part of the overall traffic mix.
Even though this project has no special bicycle element, reasonable efforts should be made to
accommodate existing bicycle traffic within the overall project design.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above named project. Please feel free to
contact us again regarding this or any other bicycle related matter.
CBY/jc
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
JAMES E. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
v3 is STATE?'? ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. 0. Box 15580
Durham, North Carolina 27704
July 6, 1990

'JUL 1 0 1990 `a
(? r
'o H,C7f
lyl : , , . ? LEA
t R,cSE0kk- ?
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
TIP NO.: B-1414
COUNTY: Wake
DESCRIPTION: Replacing Bridge No. 100 on SR 2012, over Perry Creek
North of Raleigh
MEMORANDUM TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: L. E. Stegall, P.E. o
Division Engineer L
SUBJECT: Review for Scoping Sheet
My staff has reviewed this proposed bridge replacement. My comments are
noted below.
1. SR 2012 is a direct extension of Atlantic Avenue and is
a direct route into Raleigh for many commuters.
2. The area North of the Bridge is developed to some extent
with single and multiple housing, a golf course, a
trailer park, and an industrial park.
3. Several utilities are in the vicinity of the existing
structure. On the surface there appears to be less
conflict on the West side of the project.
Based on the above, the Division recomoends that SR 2012 not be closed and
that we consider placing a culvert on the West side, detour traffic over
this new culvert, then remove the old structure and extend the new culvert.
Closing SR 2012 would require traffic to cross the railroad track on SR 2013
to access US 1. This existing railroad crossing is very rough and has no
signals.
An Equal Opportunity / Aft irmative Action Employer
r
Memorandum to L. J. Ward, P.E.
July 6, 1990
Page 2
I
Please consider future plans for this area in deciding the culvert length.
Avoiding the existing water line that appears to be on the East side of
SR 2012 would reduce the total project cost.
Please advise if additional information is needed.
LESIBAG: r