20240433 Ver 1_W-5805E FINAL e-PCN Permit application PDF_20240319

W-5805E
Table of Contents
AJD Submittal: Page 2
Historic Structure info: Page 36
Archaeology info: Page 39
Indian Nation info: Page 78
Permit Drawings and SWMP info: Page 80
DIVIS Mitigation info: Page 92
P/T/E info: Page 94
CE Document: Page 116

AJD Submittal

File Home Insert Pace Lavout Formulas Data Review View Automate Add -ins Halo BLUEBEAM ProiectWise Acrobat
SECURITY WARNING Maros have been disabled,
G10 -
A B C D E F G H I J K
1 Waters _Name Cowardin_Codel HGM Cade I eas_Type I Amount I Units Waters_Type Latitude I Longitude I Local Waterway
2 Intermittent Stream A NORTH CAROLINA R4SB RIVERINE Linear 100 FOOT DELIN.PJD-404 35.96544500-78.41972600 UTto Little River
3 Wetland A NORTH CAROLINA PFO RIVERINE Area 0.02 Sq_FT DELIN_CONC 35.96519400 -78 41971800 UTto Little River
4 _
5 _
6
7

A. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING AJD: Christopher A. Murray
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Location: Intersection of NC 98 (Wait Ave.) and Moore's Pond Road (SR 2057)
County: Wake and Franklin
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.962906 ° Longitude:-78.4352720
Name of nearestwaterbody: UT to Little River (Moore's Pond, Mitchell Mill Pond)
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION
Site number
Latitude
Longitude
Est. amount
Type of
Geographic
of aquatic
aquatic
authorityto
resources in
resource
which the
review area
aquatic
resource "may
be" subject
Intermittent Stream A
35.96544500
-78.41972600
230 ft
Non -wetland
Section 404
(Site 1)
waters
Wetland A (Site 1)
35.96519400
-78.41971800
0.05 sf
Wetland
Section 404
E. Supporting Data
• Vicinity Map
• Aerial Construction Map
• NRCS Soil Survey Map
• USGS Topographic Map
• Delineation Construction Limits Map
• Wetland Determination Data Forms
• NC WAM Field Assessment Result Form
• NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
• NC DWQ Stream Identification Forms
• NC SAM Field Assessment Result Forms
• NC SAM Stream Rating Sheets
• Photographs

FA
0
F d
I
CountQY Hge Ur,
LIMITS OF AJD for W-5805E
This includes Right of Way and
Easements
98
0.1 0.2
0.4 Mi
North Carolina Department of Transportation N
%ORTH cq o Division of Highways W-5805E
R
y 7
{ Construct Roundabout on NC 98 at
�o SR 2057 (Moores Pond Rd)
���TOFTRAN5e0 Wake County Vicinity

LIMITS OF AJD for W-5805E
This includes Right of Way and
Easements
o f tAORTH C,.
0� if 0l
�o
o�'
��OF TFt
--i
10 0.03
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Construct Roundabout on NC 98 at
SR 2057 (Moores Pond Rd)
Wake County
--
NC
0.06 0.11 M
I I I
N
W-5805E
Topographic

imp
DuA
APB,'-,
LIMITS OF AJD for W-5805E
M This includes Right of Way and .1 WC
Easements
APB
i
wid
w, WMB
09 AM
W(TIC
it
B W.M
0.05 0-1 C Ai v=
North Carolina Department of Transportation N
tyORTH cq o Division of Highways W-5805E
R
Construct Roundabout on NC 98 at
�o SR 2057 (Moores Pond Rd)
OFTRANSe Wake County NRCS Soil Survey

LIMITS OF AJD for W-5805E Intermittent
This includes Right of Way and Stream A
Easements (Red Boundary) 1�1 A
o77 171
v
Wetland A �' Y s i i ,t�4l�� :71
�h
uusaii� a'r'9, �� .r' L1�r!
0.11 M
W-5805E
Delineation

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Projecusite: W-5805E City/County: Wake Sampling Date: 2-17-22
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: WL A
Investigator(s): Mitchell Wimberley & Heather Montague section, Township, Range: NIA
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplaln Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 35.965058 Long:-78.419779
Soil Map Unit Name: WmC NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes J v l No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology = significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No =
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology = naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Slope (%): 00=3
Datum:
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �0 No Is
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I r � No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes J V L No
Floodplain wetland area adjacent to an intermittent channel. Appears that channel has been dug out and deepened at
some point in the past and the spoils were placed immediately adjacent to the west of the channel creating a berm that
is not allowing overland flow to enter channel - ponding water creating wetland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
M Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑✓ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
0 Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes' Z '
No F--1 Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes 0
Q
No ❑ Depth (inches): 2
= 4
n
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WL A
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Testworksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2. Quercus rubra
10
Y FAC
Liriodendron tuli ifera
3. p
5
FACU
Total Number of Dominant 7
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4. Pinus tadea
5
FAC
5. Magnolia virginiana
10
Y FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
0.71
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
35 - Total Cover
50% of total cover.
1 7. 5 20% of
total cover: 7
Total V. Cover of: Multiply by:
0 0
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species 6 x 2 12
1. Magnolia virginiana
10
Y FACW
-
3 9
2. Ilex opaca
5
Y FACU
FAC species x 3=
3. Cyrilla racemiflora
5
Y FACW
FACU species 3 x 4= 12
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 0
4.
Column Totals: 12 (A) 33 (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = BIA = 2.75
20
- Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
10 20% of
total cover: 4
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1
El 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
2
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4
5.
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
- Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Arundinaria tecta
40
Y FACW
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Smilax smallii
25
Y FACU
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. Hexastylis arifolia
10
FAC
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4. Juncus effusus
5
FACW
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
S.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9.
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
80
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
40 20% of
total cover: 16
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
4.
5.
- Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes n No�
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WL A
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of ind
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc
0-6 10YR 211 100
6-8 10YR 511 100
Texture
sandy mu
sand
Remarks
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
L] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
D Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑✓ No El
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Projecusite: W-5805E City/County: Wake
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC
Investigator(s): Mitchell Wimberley & Heather Montague section, Township, Range: NIA
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope to floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 35.965067 Long:-78.419922
Sampling Date: 2-17-22
_ Sampling Point: UP
Slope (%): 0=3
Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: ApB NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes J v l No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil �, or Hydrology = significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No =
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology = naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is the Sampled Area ✓
Hydric Soil Present? Yes '= No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Zy I
Further west of intermittent stream up hill slightly from where water ponds in floodplain. Soil contained more loam and
lighter brown in color.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes Q No F-7-1 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
❑
n
Saturation Present? Yes No' ' Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: UP
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Testworksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
) % Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Quercus rubra
10
Y FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2. Liriodendron tulipifera
5
FACU
3. Pi nus tadea
10
Y FAC
Total Number of Dominant
6
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4. Prunus serotina
10
Y FACU
5. Carya tomentosa
5
FACU
Percent of Dominant Species
0.66
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
40 - Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20 20% of
total cover: 8
Total V. Cover of: Multiply by:
0 0
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:
}
1 2
1. Ilex opaca
5
Y FACU
FACW species x 2 -
FAC species 3 x 3 = 9
2.
FACU species 4 x 4 = 16
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 8 (A) 27 (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = BIA = 3.375
5
- Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover: 2.5 20% of
total cover: 1
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1
El 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
2
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4
5.
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
- Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Arundinaria tecta
3 Y FACW
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Hexastylis arifolia
10 Y FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
S.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9.
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
13 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 6.5
20% of total cover: 2.6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes n No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
While dominance test is >50% the prevalence index is >3.0
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of ind
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 312 100 sand loarr
6+ 10YR 412 100
sand
'TVDe: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
L] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
D Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
W-5805E
Date of Evaluation
2-19-2024
Applicant/Owner Name
NCDOT
Wetland Site Name
WA
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Mitchell Wimberley & Heather
Montague, NCDOT
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Little River
River Basin
Neuse
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03020201
County
Wake
NCDWR Region
Raleigh
F-1 Yes 71 No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.965160.-78.419783
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
® Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA Wr
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ®A Sandy soil
❑B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ❑A No peat or muck presence
®B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer— assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
®B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ®B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
®D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ®H ®H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
®I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
®C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
®E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
®A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
®A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
T
o ❑A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ®B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
®B
®B
Moderate density shrub layer
U) ❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
®C
®C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Adjacent channel at outlet of existing crosspipe appears to have been excavated/straightened with spoils placed on right bank between channel
and wetland area preventing overbank flooding and preventing surface flow from wetland to channel. Overhead utility easement parallels roadway
and is regularly maintained.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA
Date of Assessment 2-19-2024
Mitchell Wimberley &
Heather Montague,
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization NCDOT
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Habitat
Condition
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Int Stream A Inlet
Date: 2024-02-21
Project/Site: W-5805E
Latitude: 35.96547500
Evaluator: Mitchell Wimberley and Heather
County:
Wake
Longitude:-78.41975811
Total Points:
Other:
F19.0000
Stream is at least intermittent if
Stream Determination:
e.g. Quad Name:
>19 or perennial if >3(
Intermittent
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 5.0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
1.0ca
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2.0Cd
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
ool se uence
0
1
2
3
0.0gd
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
0.0(h
5. Active/relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
1.0(h
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0.0(h
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0.0(b
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0.0(h
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.0(h
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.0(h
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0.0(h
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6�
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1.0(b
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0.0
14. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
11.0116
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5(h
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =
0
3.0116
C. Biology Subtotal = f -V
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2.0116
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3.0
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0.0(h
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0.0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.0(h
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5116
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0
1.5116
`perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes:
Channel between two maintained grass lawns. Mowing occurs all
the way to top of bank. Wetland plants apparent at top of bank
and channel.
Sketch:
Bank
Bankfull Width (feet)
Water Depth (inches
Channel Substrate
Velocity:
Claritv:
low

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): W-5805E 2. Date of evaluation: 2/21/2024
Mitchell Wimberley and Heather
3. Applicant/owner name: NCDOT 4. Assessor name/organization: Montague - NCDOT
5. County: Wake 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Neuse on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Little River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.965475,-78.419758
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SA Inlet 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 0.1 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 0.5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ®Water Supply Watershed (❑l Ell ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ® High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ®Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
M
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y r
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 :5
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
®C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
® ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ®Crustacean (isopod/a mph ipod/crayfish/sh ri mp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala manders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ®A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E ®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Low rating (NCDWR Stream Form) intermittent channel on inlet side of existing cross pipe. Channel is in between two yards and maintained
grass immediately adjacent each bank. Wetland plants on each bank/channel bed.

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name W-5805E Date of Assessment
2/21/2024
Mitchell
Wimberley and
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization
Heather Montague - NCDOT
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Int Stream A Outlet
Date: 2024-02-19
Project/Site: W-5805E
Latitude: 35.96526200
Evaluator: Mitchell Wimberley and Heather
County:
Wake
Longitude:-78.419693IN
Total Points:
Other:
Stream is at least intermittent if
22.5000
Stream Determination:
e.g. Quad Name:
>19 or perennial if >30
Intermittent
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 8.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3.00b
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1.0%
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
ool se uence
0
1
2
3
0.0%
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1.0%
5. Active/relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
1.0QS
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2.095
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0.0(b
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0.0(h
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.0(h
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5QS
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0.0(h
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 5.50
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1.0QS
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0.0
14. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5qH
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5qi
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5gd
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =
0
3.0gJ
C. Biology Subtotal = f -t
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2.0116
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3.0
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0.0QS
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0.0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.0QS
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
11.0116
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0
1.5116
`perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes:
Appears to be an excavated/straightened portion of channel at
the outlet of an existing cross pipe. Spoil material was placed on
right bank creating a berm separating the adjacent wetland area.
Sketch:
Bank
Bankfull Width (fes
Water Depth (inch(
Channel Substrate
Velocity:
Claritv:
low
lightly Turbid

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): W-5805E 2. Date of evaluation: 2/19/2024
Mitchell Wimberley and Heather
3. Applicant/owner name: NCDOT 4. Assessor name/organization: Montague - NCDOT
5. County: Wake 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Neuse on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Little River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.965262,-78.419693
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SA Outlet 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 12 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ®Water Supply Watershed (❑l Ell ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ® High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ®Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
®A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
M
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y r
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 :5
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
®C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ❑Yes ®No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ®Other:
12b. ❑Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/a mph ipod/crayfish/sh ri mp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala manders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
®F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ®A ❑A ®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
®B ❑B ®B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
❑A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
®B ®B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Appears to be an excavated/straightened portion of channel below an existing crosspipe outlet. Spoils have been placed on right bank creating
a berm between the channel and adjacent wetland on the right side. Additionally, an overhead power line easement has been cleared and
maintained throughout a large portion of the assessment reach.

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version
2.1
Stream Site Name W-5805E Date of Assessment
2/19/2024
Mitchell
Wimberley and
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization
Heather Montague - NCDOT
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
MEDIUM

Photo facing upstream from
existing pipe inlet at
Intermittent Stream A
x � F
Photo facing upstream from
existing pipe inlet at
Intermittent Stream A
• 4�
... .�._ ... ... �'. ire!
6
Photo facing upstream from
existing pipe inlet at
Intermittent Stream A

Photo looking along power
easement at existing pipe outlet
of Intermittent Stream A
Photo facing downstream of
existing pipe outlet of
Intermittent Stream A
Photo facing existing pipe outlet
of Intermittent Stream A

Photo of wetland area to right
of Intermittent Stream A on
outlet side
Photo looking downstream
along Intermittent Stream A
well below existing pipe outlet
(2022)
Photo of wetland area to right
of Intermittent Stream A on
outlet side
Photo of wetland area to right
of Intermittent Stream A on
outlet side (2022)

Historic Structure
Info

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
22-05-0007
LOP, HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
' This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
W-5805E
County:
Robeson
WBS No.:
48950.1.6
Document
T e:
FCE
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
❑ State ® Federal
Federal
Permit(s):
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
T e s :
USACE
Proiect Description:
Install roundabout at the intersection of NC 98 and SR 2057/SR 4465 (Moores Pond Road)
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, relevant background reports, historic designations roster, and
indexes was undertaken May 18, 2022. Based on this review there are no NR, DE, LL, SL, or SS
in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). There are no structures over 50 years of age in the APE.
No Survey is required at this time.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting that there are
no unidentified sig-nificant historic architectural or landscape resources in the proiect area:
Using HPO GIS website and county tax data provides reliable information regarding the structures in the
APE. These combined utilities are considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of
historic resources being present.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
skeLbu Rzenp
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Date
May 18, 2022
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQ UIREDform for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007Programmatic Agreement
Page 1 of 2

W-58O5E APE
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQ UIREDform for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007Programmatic Agreement
Page 2 of 2

Archaeology Info

Project Tracking No.
22-05-0007
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
na ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.'_
- It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult t4
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: W-5805E County: Wake
WBSNo: 48950.1.6 Document: Federal CE
F.A. No: 0098038 Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: NWP 3 / NWP 14
Project Description: The project proposes contraction of roundabout at the intersection of NC 98
and SR 2057/SR 4465 (Moores Pond Road) in Wake and Franklin counties, North Carolina. The
archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) encompasses all areas of potential disturbance as
presented on the accompanying ARC-GIS mapping. The APE encompasses 10.13 acres in total
area.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Team has reviewed
the subject project and determined:
❑ There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area
of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed.)
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
❑ Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
® All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Permitting and funding information was reviewed for determining the level of archaeological input
required by state and federal laws. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will apply
because the project is federally funded. The Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) will serve as
the lead federal agency. Next, construction design and other data was examined (when applicable)
to define the character and extent of potential impacts to the ground surfaces embracing the
improvement work. At this juncture, the APE was designed to capture all areas of potential impact
within the project study area.
Once an APE was defined, a map review and site file search was conducted utilizing on-line
resources available from the Office of State Archaeology on Tuesday, May 24, 2022. Several
archaeological sites have been documented within a 0.5 mile radius of the current APE. This
information illustrates a high level of past activity in the direct area and therefore increases the
potential for recording similar sites in the project study area.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
1 of 3

Project Traclan No.
22-05-0007
Examination of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Study Listed (SL), Locally
Designated (LD), Determined Eligible (DE), and Surveyed Site (SS) properties employing resources
available on the NCSHPO website is important in establishing the location of noteworthy historic
occupations related to a perspective construction impact area. A cross-check of these mapped
resources concluded that none of the above properties with potential contributing archaeological
components are situated within the APE. Also, historic maps of Wake and Franklin counties were
appraised to identify former structure locations, land use patterns, cemeteries, or other confirmation
of historic occupation in the project vicinity. Archaeological/historical reference materials were
inspected as well.
Next, the APE was referenced on topographic, geologic, flood boundary, lidar and NRCS soil survey
maps (see attached mapping) for the evaluation of environmental, geomorphological, hydrological,
and other correlatives that may have resulted in past occupation in the project corridor. Also, aerial
photographs (NCDOT Spatial Data Viewer & other on-line sources) were examined and the Google
Street View map application was utilized (when amenable) for gaining a virtual, first-hand
perspective of the overall study area and for assessing disturbances, both natural and human induced,
which compromise the integrity of archaeological sites/deposits. Environmental determinants
suggest a heightened potential for archaeological resource recovery within the APE.
Based on the location of numerous archaeological sites in the vicinity, and positive environmental
factors for past settlement including well drained soils, an archaeological survey is recommended
prior to construction activities. This work will seek to determine if archaeological features, artifacts,
or deposits are contained within the project APE. All documented sites will be evaluated for NRHP
eligibility.
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) conducted an intensive archaeological survey and
evaluation for the proposed construction of a roundabout at the intersection of NC 98 (Wait Avenue)
and SR 2057/SR 4465 (Moores Pond Road), east of Wake Forest on the border between Franklin
and Wake counties, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2). The archaeological Area of Potential Effects
(APE) for the Project encompasses all areas of potential disturbances and covers 10.13 acres. There
are no known federal- or state-owned lands (apart from the existing NCDOT right-of-way) within
the APE.
Reviews of site and report files at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) conducted by Scott
Halvorsen of NCDOT and updated by TRC determined that there has been no prior systematic
survey within or adjacent to the Project APE but that three known sites (31FK53, 31FK54, and
31WA118) are situated within a one half mile radius (Halvorsen 2022). Based on their locations,
none has the potential to extend into the Project APE.
The fieldwork was completed in September 2022 under the direction of Jeff Johnson and overall
supervision of Tracy Millis, and required approximately eight person -days. The fieldwork included
systematic pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire APE and systematic shovel testing at 30-m
intervals of all areas except for wetlands, parcels with denied access, and areas showing visible and
severe disturbance or exhibiting 15% or greater slope, followed by closer interval shovel testing at
identified archaeological sites. A total of 59 transect and delineation shovel tests (STs) and a single
1 X 1 m test unit (TU) were excavated.
The APE is situated on a terrace mainly covered by agricultural fields planted in soybeans and
manicured lawns, but also contains moderately dense mixed deciduous and coniferous forests.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
2 of 3

Project Tracking No.
22-05-0007
Previous impacts to the Project area appear limited to agricultural activity and disturbances related
to several private residences northeast and northwest of the intersection. Soils encountered were
fairly consistent throughout the APE, and generally consisted of a sandy loam Ap horizon overlying
a sandy E horizon and a subsoil comprised of sandy clay loam or sandy clay Bw or Bt horizon.
The fieldwork identified two newly recorded sites (Table 1). Site 3IWA2855 is a small Woodland
period artifact scatter represented by ceramic sherds and lithic debitage. A low density of cultural
material was recovered from the Ap and E horizons at 31 WA2855. Site 31 WA2856 is represented
by nondiagnostic precontact lithic tools and debitage along with a 20 th century isolated find, all
recovered from an agricultural field. All of the cultural material recovered from this site was
confined to the plowzone or ground surface.
Both of these sites appear to lack research potential and are recommended not eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D as defined within the Project APE;
the sites also appear to lack the characteristics needed for eligibility under Criteria A—C. Neither of
these sites is totally contained within the APE, however, and additional delineation and evaluation
of 31 WA2855 and/or 31 WA2856 is recommended should the APE be expanded at either location.
(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized tribes
have expressed an interest: Catawba. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is
forwarded to these tribes using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and
PA Procedures Manual.)
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey Info ® Photos ❑Correspondence
Other: Report attached
Signed:
SCOTT HALVORSEN �'� ,� 11/29/2022
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
3 of 3

,0%
�� TrR C
INTENSIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND EVALUATION
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ROUNDABOUT AT
THE INTERSECTION OF NC 98 (WAIT AVENUE)
AND MOORES POND ROAD (SR 2057/SR 4465),
FRANKLIN AND WAKE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT PA 22-05-0007
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
November 2022

INTENSIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND EVALUATION
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ROUNDABOUT AT
THE INTERSECTION OF NC 98 (WAIT AVENUE)
AND MOORES POND ROAD (SR 2057/SR 4465),
FRANKLIN AND WAKE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT PA 22-05-0007
Submitted to:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT SECTION
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Lo
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
50101 Governors Drive, Suite 250
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27517
Authored by:
Jeffrey W. Johnson
November 2022

CONTENTS
FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................... ii
TABLES......................................................................................................................................................iii
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ I
BACKGROUNDRESEARCH.....................................................................................................................4
Previous Archaeological Surveys and Previously Identified Sites.....................................................4
Structures............................................................................................................................................4
Cemeteries...........................................................................................................................................
4
HistoricalMap Review.......................................................................................................................
4
Soils...................................................................................................................................................
I I
FIELDWORKRESULTS........................................................................................................................... I I
31WA2855........................................................................................................................................14
31WA2856........................................................................................................................................ 21
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................24

FIGURES
1. Location of the NC 98 — Wait Avenue/Moores Pond Road Roundabout APE for archaeology in
north -central North Carolina..............................................................................................................
2
2.
Location of the NC 98 — Wait Avenue/Moores Pond Road Roundabout APE for archaeology in
Franklin and Wake counties, North Carolina......................................................................................
3
3.
Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on an 1832 map of the property
of
WilliamM. Jeffreys, Esq...................................................................................................................
5
4.
Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on an 1871 Wake County map .....
6
5.
Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on an 1887 Wake County map .....
6
6.
Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a circa 1906-1907
USGSmap..........................................................................................................................................
7
7.
Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1910s Post Office Department
mapof Franklin County.....................................................................................................................
7
8.
Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1910s Post Office Department
mapof Wake County.........................................................................................................................
8
9.
Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1911 Wake County map .......
8
10.
Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1914 Wake County
soilsmap............................................................................................................................................
9
11.
Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1931 Franklin County
soilsmap............................................................................................................................................
9
12.
Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1938 State Highway and
Public Works Commission map.......................................................................................................10
13.
Location of NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on the 1967 (1972 photorevised) Rolesville USGS
1:24,000-scale topographic map......................................................................................................10
14.
Locations of 31WA2855 and 31WA2856 within the Project APE..................................................12
15.
Shovel tests, test unit, and archaeological sites within the Project APE..........................................13
16.
Map of sites 31WA2855 and 31WA2856.........................................................................................15
17.
Site 31WA2855, facing north...........................................................................................................16
18.
Rock outcrop at 31WA2855, facing northeast.................................................................................16
19.
Shovel Test N485 E485 at 31WA2855.............................................................................................17
20.
Base of Level 2 in TU 1 / Feature 1 plan view at 31WA2855..........................................................18
21.
North wall profile of TU 1 showing Feature 1 at 31WA2855..........................................................18
22.
East wall profile of TU 1 showing undisturbed soil sequence at 31WA2855...................................19
23.
Representative precontact artifacts from 31WA2855.......................................................................20
24.
Site 31WA2856, facing east.............................................................................................................22
25.
Shovel Test 4 (N500 E500) at 31WA2856.......................................................................................23
26.
Representative lithic artifacts from 31WA2856................................................................................24
11

TABLES
1. Summary of Archaeological Sites Identified within the Project APE................................................1
2. Previously Recorded Sites within One -Half Mile of the Project APE................................................4
3. Archaeological Sites Recorded by the NC 98 Roundabout Survey..................................................11
4. Artifacts Recovered from Shovel Tests at Site 3IWA2855..............................................................14
5. Test Unit 1 at 3IWA2855.................................................................................................................17
6. Artifacts Recovered from Test Unit 1 at Site 3IWA2855................................................................
21
7. Summary of Archaeological Sites Identified within the Project APE ..............................................
25
nl

INTRODUCTION
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) conducted an intensive archaeological survey and evaluation for
the proposed construction of a roundabout at the intersection of NC 98 (Wait Avenue) and SR 2057/SR
4465 (Moores Pond Road), east of Wake Forest on the border between Franklin and Wake counties, North
Carolina (Figures 1 and 2). The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Project encompasses
all areas of potential disturbances and covers 10.13 acres. There are no known federal- or state-owned lands
(apart from the existing NCDOT right-of-way) within the APE.
Reviews of site and report files at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) conducted by Scott Halvorsen of
NCDOT and updated by TRC determined that there has been no prior systematic survey within or adjacent
to the Project APE but that three known sites (31FK53, 31FK54, and 31WA118) are situated within a one-
half mile radius (Halvorsen 2022). Based on their locations, none has the potential to extend into the Project
APE.
The fieldwork was completed in September 2022 under the direction of Jeff Johnson and overall supervision
of Tracy Millis, and required approximately eight person -days. The fieldwork included systematic
pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire APE and systematic shovel testing at 30-m intervals of all areas
except for wetlands, parcels with denied access, and areas showing visible and severe disturbance or
exhibiting 15% or greater slope, followed by closer interval shovel testing at identified archaeological sites.
A total of 59 transect and delineation shovel tests (STs) and a single 1 X 1 in test unit (TU) were excavated.
The APE is situated on a terrace mainly covered by agricultural fields planted in soybeans and manicured
lawns, but also contains moderately dense mixed deciduous and coniferous forests. Previous impacts to the
Project area appear limited to agricultural activity and disturbances related to several private residences
northeast and northwest of the intersection. Soils encountered were fairly consistent throughout the APE,
and generally consisted of a sandy loam Ap horizon overlying a sandy E horizon and a subsoil comprised
of sandy clay loam or sandy clay Bw or Bt horizon.
The fieldwork identified two newly recorded sites (Table 1). Site 31WA2855 is a small Woodland period
artifact scatter represented by ceramic sherds and lithic debitage. A low density of cultural material was
recovered from the Ap and E horizons at 31WA2855. Site 31WA2856 is represented by nondiagnostic
precontact lithic tools and debitage along with a 20t' century isolated find, all recovered from an agricultural
field. All of the cultural material recovered from this site was confined to the plowzone or ground surface.
Table 1. Summary of Archaeological Sites Identified within the Proiect APE.
NRHP Eligibility
Site Component Recommendation
3.1 WA2855 Precontact: Woodland and nondiagnostic lithic Not eligible*
31 WA2856 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic; Postcontact 20t' century Not eligible*
*Recommendation applies only to portion of the site identified within the current Project APE; no additional investigations
recommended within APE as presently defined
Both of these sites appear to lack research potential and are recommended not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D as defined within the Project APE; the sites also
appear to lack the characteristics needed for eligibility under Criteria A—C. Neither of these sites is totally
contained within the APE, however, and additional delineation and evaluation of 31WA2855 and/or
31WA2856 is recommended should the APE be expanded at either location.

._
i
iCittrel Krwrtt qy 1
i
.e
I
L
lRO�4yM
slam
`m
I
I
J ''°rp
I
�
1f
JJ
1
" $
1
Creedm
I-
:_
Fan klin [on
�a
Yy
c
I
A
n
I aB
I y 1,
\ r
Y°rrted Rd
PA 22-05-0007
��. �r,_s
Z
® � ¢
- bu,ham Rd
- Wake Forest
Louisburg
o I
'IV�I A•
* W
:' Bc
c q° R g
a = \KA
pads i• �' ',��
3 �£ a'
Rolesville -Za
n �t
S inxkl°nd 01�J
3
LYnn Rd p
- m
V
Xehul
Gannon py�
e
- Ralei hl
9
ightdale
m a �r
y lRfdWese< Via'
ss 0
sF Wendell
P
Poae
of+hopper Rd
a
\
a 4 H
Gar er v� _ y
o�v
a
°ae meeR
I s£
I
Basemap: ESRI Street Map
0 10 N
Miles
A9w W E
0 20
Kilometers S
Figure 1. Location of the NC 98 — Wait Avenue/Moores Pond Road Roundabout APE for archaeology in
north -central North Carolina.
2

'r
Project APE (22-05-007)
ti
rfl `
.*ufir � •
� ! 1 v/ AlklU
}
r 08
t o I
v
• I
1 {
+
i! O
jll �
`
515
ll " 350
•14 oa �=
f 444
i
h
55 d
C)
11
if.
O
1Y ��
H
U
• 79
11I
,� 55
C m
jjj
J
91
•
71 Y5
11 1 19, G
� 4Q0
f
1r r
i
•
N
n
,• 420
_
394
_
�r a�
U r
�� 4 r
n J o vHri
,r,
r 1+ 6
1 �� �
.: l
, 2
•
350
'
y00 rir
O o
Rolesville, North Carolina 1993
USGS 7.5 mute Quadrangle Map
0 1 N
Miles w E
0 2
Kilometers g
Wake and Franklin Counties
Figure 2. Location of the NC 98 — Wait Avenue/Moores Pond Road Roundabout APE for archaeology in
Franklin and Wake counties, North Carolina.

BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Previous Archaeological Surveys and Previously Identified Sites
Reviews of site and report files at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) conducted by Scott Halvorsen of
NCDOT and updated by TRC determined that there has been no prior systematic survey within the Project
APE but that three archaeological sites are situated within a one-half mile radius (Halvorsen 2022) (Table
2). The two Franklin County sites were recorded by avocational archaeologist Herby Lee Alford and the
recorder of the Wake County site is unknown; none of these sites has been formally investigated or assessed
for NRHP eligibility. Both of the sites in Franklin County (31FK53 and 31FK54) are lithic sites of unknown
temporal affiliation that are less than an acre in size. According to the site form, artifacts recovered from
site 31FK53 include approximately 1,200 projectile points (PPKs), several axe heads, one stone bowl or
dish, several pieces of soapstone pottery, several stone drills, and numerous worn stones and other unknown
objects. The site form for 31FK54 states that artifacts recovered from that site include steatite,
ground/pecked stone, unifacial tools, and hafted bifaces/PPKs. The site in Wake County (31WA118) is
represented by a piece of debitage but otherwise very little information is recorded for this site. Based on
their locations, none has the potential to extend into the APE.
Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites within One -Half Mile of the Proiect APE.
Site
Component(s)
NRHP Status
Reference(s)*
3.1FK53
Precontact: unknown lithic
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Unassessed
St.i2 am 2004
3.1FK54
Precontact: unknown lithic
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Unassessed
St.i2 am 2004
31WA118
Precontact unknown lithic
Unassessed
Unknown 1979
*References in italics are site forms and are not listed in the References Cited.
Structures
A review of HPOWEB conducted by Scott Halvorsen of NCDOT and updated by TRC determined that
there are no National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Study Listed (SL), Locally Designated
(LD), Determined Eligible (DE), or Surveyed Site (SS) properties with potential contributing
archaeological components within or adjacent to the APE (Halvorsen 2022). Mapped resources within a
half mile of the APE include WA1734, the June Jones Farm; WA1735, the June Jones Tenant House (gone);
WA8358, the Poole Farm; and FK0388, the Jeffreys House (current site). The Poole Farm (WA8358) was
determined ineligible for the NRHP in 2018, and the other three were "surveyed only" with no NRHP
eligibility recommendation given (HPOWEB 2022). Based on their locations, none of these properties has
the potential to contain associated archaeological resources within the APE.
Cemeteries
No cemeteries are depicted on historic maps or otherwise known within or adjacent to the APE
(https://cemeterycensus.com/cemgps2.htm?cnty=nc/wake/; https://cemeterycensus.com/cemgps2.htm?
cnty=nc/fran/; https://ncgenweb.us/wake/records-data/; https://www.ncgenweb.us/franklin/cemetery
/cemeteries.html; https://digital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/pl5Ol2colll/id/23816/rec/l; https://digital.
ncdcr. gov/digital/collection/pl5012co111/id/32386/rec/1).
Historical Map Review
Topographic and other historic period maps were examined for information on previous occupations or
structure locations and/or on natural or cultural variables that might have influenced site locations. Both
Franklin County and Wake County maps were examined as the Project APE straddles the border between
counties. There are no structures or roads depicted in the vicinity of the APE on any of the 19th century

maps reviewed (Figure 3, Brazier and Tharp 1832; Figure 4, Bevers 1871; and Figure 5, Shaffer 1887). A
road that appears to align with Moores Pond Road and an unlabeled structure are mapped immediately
north of the county line and west of the road on the circa (ca.) 1906-1907 USGS map of Franklin County,
but the structure does not appear to have been situated within the APE (Figure 6, USGS ca. 1906-1907). A
road that appears to align with Moores Pond Road is depicted on both of the early 20t' century USPO rural
deliveries maps of Franklin and Wake counties, but no structures are depicted in the vicinity of the APE
(Figures 7 and 8; USPO 1910a, 1910b). It should be noted that while these maps are from the same time
period, the border between Franklin and Wake counties is depicted differently on each, with the Franklin
County map depicting the modern county line. A 1911 map of Wake County depicts a structure labeled
"Daniels" near the border with Franklin County, but the border was moved farther east of that structure
after this map was made, and the structure was not within the Project APE (Figure 9; Spoon 1911). There
are no structures depicted in the vicinity of the APE on the 1914 soil map of Wake County, which also
depicts the modern county border (Figure 10, Brinkley et al. 1914). Neither the 1931 soil map nor the 1938
State Highway and Public Works Commission map of Franklin County depicts any structures in the vicinity
of the APE (Figure 11, Davis et al. 1931; Figure 12, NCSHPWC 1944). The 1967 Rolesville USGS
1:24,000-scale topographic map depicts a structure to the northeast of the intersection of NC 98 and Moores
Pond Road that was outside the APE (Figure 13, USGS 1967). None of the maps reviewed suggest
archaeological deposits associated with historic structures should be expected within the APE.
PJtO d 9
•M1 till f _ _ m^ z82
It
�t
" House 84 0
F
q �
210a.0.0A0
ti
x
Approximate i 3 . o . o
Project APE
41
� to
Pe..e
Figure 3. Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on an 1832 map of the
property of William M. Jeffreys, Esq.

Approximate
Project APE
m U ' S7gt
t
to
ig Name of Township,
Yai
11 Raleigh ... ......
21 New Light,.........
r3j Oak t'rove,... ..
41 Barte : � Creek,....
-51 wal� -.r., t,
61 latle kiv �r,........
71 Cedar Fork,.....
8, Houae'o Creek,.....
91 St. Matthnw'a.......
101 Mark: 'reek,......
12 Swift Creek........
13 St. Mar}%s.... .......
14' Buckho,m........
lo, Mie, .Creek.......
161 Pawl, c armch.
Total..... _....
0
fin., "•*d""4 o.J•q J i.«'o>e SI� �, i .A$„ �49�s. --r
GO
1 F e�/ H:n r••c .�y„:' l off, r "rRi°. �/ "q�AQ N. ,ic
q
Figure 4. Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on an 1871 Wake
County map.
The present area is'I77. 2 srliles =497,�1180 acres, s",ssessed
Una for taxes in 1880' at *6,020,657=$12.11 per acre,
s Ua 1 bwludbag the city.
The Raleigh & Gaaton It. R. was completed in
h I\ IWI , the North Carolina in 1856, and the Raleigh &
ar Grcivef��1. � i'1�� A ugusl:a Air Miele in 187,,
h\ The City of Raleign was chartered and became
P I� ,L the seat of Stara gf3vernruent in 1792. The corner
stone of the present Capitol (see cut) was laid July 4,
x, 1883. pops llation in 1880, 9,265.
Approximate
i ,t� :ilrrns
Project APE
Y.
s \ < vAY14 I T.
W K� ti R E S T ��C,,0
rAKI
9 �
ti� 6 ¢ �~ Oa - I('Yt�ai• Prom A� / �l
NAR`I'SVIhI,E�.a�chetfk
Figure 5. Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on an 1887 Wake
County map.
T

rossRoads
ell
Ar
•\j\ ✓/s /
Approximates ,
Project APE R' _
_k
\� VAL/
M�
Figure 6. Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a circa 1906-190
USGS map.
All
IL
y��lo l; \
Approximate
Project APE
"Illy - =
RILEY
Figure 7. Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1910s Post Offi,
Department map of Franklin County.
VA

" WAKE
FORESTVI
ATT
I1,
1 II�h
'YOI/NGSV/"c No
FOREST \ /
l'.
� f
Approximate
Project APE
Figure 8. Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1910s Post Office
Department map of Wake County.
.surd;, r
Approximate
».
s ' 1y, ook Project APE
_ 1�4f1rJicM 6 arc � /
E FOR E S � _ �/�,F�i\ ✓
• G. b./nr1 s
TVILL "xrs e�G 3r
sfi A/st - •/oJ .� L
t Piuec ti
c•. �• /K 6 q / A II
dy N ors b
xaood: /�(EChuvrh -ems � A '�� �' . Pacers %9
W1/ 6 ,RDLE5VILI-E
�99ins l ^ - ~S l •
_...� HART5VILLE
J � .,IPH hoods• � 6
6K � '.NgoE'A/life�D'a
Figure 9. Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1911 Wake County
map.
8

F
I d'. R At,
CC Ac
De
�.. N
Cr i�N
+l AC
Dc
NS
DC
cc
Cc-
«'. Approximate
Project APE
r'Ac
Figure 10. Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1914 Wake
County soils map.
`\ Ac` Iq, i. yJ III
AC
we
� IAc
Approximate
Project APE
�� Ac
Gr,
De
ro e
DI
wY
��•,�--
�_-- II 1
Di
Ap
c
Figure 11. Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1931 Franklin
County soils map.
C

w ea
POND i •� !• r OHARRIS
• •� • • . • x ROADS
e
• F �` •
Approximate
Project APE
/S0PA
F ry
o�
I,
Figure 12. Approximate location of the NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on a 1938 State
Highway and Public Works Commission map.
"11C"rn'
VJ
1 i tPCk
79
• �` `` ����� � aka , r ,
Approximate J
ti Project APE
" X �'
Figure 13. Location of NC 98 Roundabout APE as shown on the 1967 (1972 photorevised)
Rolesville USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic map.
10

Soils
There are four soil types represented within the APE (USDA NRCS 2022). Most (55.9%) of the APE is
mapped as Rawlings -Rion complex, 2-10% slopes (RgB and RgC), which encompasses most of the APE
within Wake County. These are deep to very deep, well -drained soils that formed from residuum weathered
from granite bedrock. The next most common soil type present within the APE (27.8%) is Appling loamy
sand, 2-6% slopes (ApB), located in the northeastern third of the APE within Franklin County. This soil is
described as a very deep, well -drained loamy sand residuum weathered from felsic igneous and
metamorphic rock (USDA NRCS 2022). Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0-2% slopes, (ChA) are mapped
immediately east of the intersection and cover 9.9% of the APE. Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are
somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained, found on floodplains, and formed from loamy alluvium derived
from igneous and metamorphic rock (USDA NRCS 2022). Wake -Saw -Wedowee complex, 2-8% slopes,
(WaB) is mapped in the easternmost portion of the APE, encompassing the remaining 6.3% of the APE.
Wake soils are shallow and excessively drained; Saw soils are moderately deep and well drained; and
Wedowee soils are very deep and well drained (Kunickis 2004). Wake and Saw soils are residuum
weathered from coarse grained felsic crystalline igneous rock, and Wedowee soils are residuum weathered
from felsic crystalline rock (Kunickis 2004).
FIELDWORK RESULTS
The APE covers approximately 10.13 acres, forming a cross around the intersection of Wait Avenue (NC
98) and Moores Pond Road (SR 2057/SR 4465). The area consists of a mixture of NCDOT right-of-way,
residential properties, agricultural fields, and forested areas. A little over half of the APE is forested, and
the remaining areas are open residential yards or a field planted in soybeans at the time of the survey. A
few impenetrable surfaces exist within the APE, including the paved road surfaces, two gravel driveways
in the northwest quadrant, and exposed bedrock in the south quadrant along the unnamed tributary to the
Little River. The areas immediately surrounding the unnamed tributary are either exposed bedrock or
wetland.
The archaeological fieldwork was conducted from September 1-9, 2022 under the direction of Jeff Johnson
and the overall supervision of Tracy Millis, and required approximately eight person -days to complete. The
fieldwork included systematic pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire APE and systematic shovel testing
of all areas except for wetlands, impenetrable surfaces, and areas showing visible and severe disturbance.
Shovel tests were excavated at 30-m intervals along transects no more than 15-m from the edge of the APE.
Supplemental shovel tests were excavated at close intervals to delineate cultural material. Shovel tests
measured at least 30 cm in diameter and were excavated to sterile subsoil, bedrock, or a minimum depth of
75 cm. The survey identified two previously unrecorded sites (31WA2855 and 31WA2856) (Figure 14;
Table 3). A total of 59 transect and delineation shovel tests and one 1 X 1 in test unit were excavated as part
of the Project (Figure 15).
Table 3. Archae
Sites Recorded by the NC 98 Roundabout
Shovel Tests Artifacts** NRHP
Site # Component(s) Total Pre Both PCer Lith Hist Total Recommendation
31WA2855 Precontact: Woodland, 9 3 0 8 55 0 63 Not eligible*
nondiagnostic lithic
31 WA2856 Precontact: 13 2
nondiagnostic lithic;
Postcontact isolated
find
24 1 25 1 Not eligible*
*Recommendation applies to portion of site within APE only, additional survey may be required if APE boundaries change
* * Includes artifacts from test unit
11

as
A Previously Recorded Site Point
v O O Archaeological Site
a
O O Previously Recorded Site Boundary
n - _r � ff] Project APE (22-05-007)
31FK54i�i
31FK53
r C •7 lUN
Historic Resources
■ SL entry, Gone n4�Y _ ■ + t
Jeffreys -Ellington
A Determined Eligible - DOE O -0 Farm (wA1791) _ r- +
Surveyed Only
1 t (J
Surveyed, Gone
Designated HDs `��,i� ff • o ��
SLDOE
DOE
e �O
Rolesville, North Carolina 1973
USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map
0 1 N
Miles VvE
0 2
Kilometers g
Wake and Franklin Counties
Figure 14. Locations of 31WA2855 and 31WA2856 within the Project APE.
12

t
,. -r.
! iAM, O
� O
J
000
31WA2855
Wake County, North Carolin
31WA2856
0 0.1
Miles
0 400
Feet
0 90
Meters
Surface Find
❑ Test Unit
O Negative
Positive Precontact and
Postcontact
o Positive Precontact
Road
- Hydrography
OSite Boundary
Figure 15. Shovel tests, test unit, and archaeological sites within the Project APE.
N
W E
S
13

31 WA2855
Component(s): Precontact Woodland, nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions*: 75 m N-S X 28 m E-S
UTMs (NAD 83): E732697 N3983100
Landform: Terrace
Elevation: ca. 365 ft A1vMSL
Soil Type(s): Rawlings -Rion complex, 2-10% slopes, (RgB and RgC);
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded (ChA)
Recommendation: Not eligible as defined within APE; no further work for Project as presently defined
*Measurements based on site delineations within the Project APE only; site likely extends outside APE to the west
Description. Site 3IWA2855 is identified by a Woodland period artifact scatter of eroded ceramic sherds,
a nondiagnostic lithic tool, and debitage found on a forested terrace southwest of the intersection of NC 98
and Moores Pond Road (Figures 16 and 17; see Figures 14-15). The site measures approximately 75 in
north -south by 28 in east -west and is bounded by consecutive negative shovel tests to the north, by Moores
Pond Road to the east, by an unnamed tributary of the Little River to the south, and by the edge of the
Project APE to the west. A shovel test containing artifacts was inadvertently placed a short distance west
of the Project APE, so it evident that the site extends outside the APE in that direction. Vegetation at the
site is mature hardwood forest with intermittent pines and a light to moderately dense understory of
saplings, greenbrier, and grapevines; the southern one -quarter of the site is within wetland along the
unnamed stream. There is a large granite rock outcrop in the north half of the site (Figure 18).
A total of nine shovel tests (including all transect and delineation tests situated within 30 in of positive
tests) were excavated across the site; three of which produced artifacts (Figure 16). Seventeen artifacts were
recovered from those three shovel tests, with two producing five artifacts each and the other producing
seven artifacts. Shovel test 35 (N500 E500) produced an eroded sherd and four tertiary flakes, shovel test
N500 E485 produced three secondary flakes and two tertiary flakes, and shovel test N485 E485 produced
an untyped fabric impressed sherd, a PPK fragment, a biface fragment, a secondary flake, two tertiary
flakes, and a piece of tertiary shatter (Table 4). A charcoal concentration (Feature 1) below the A horizon
was identified in the south wall of shovel test N485 E485 and produced one biface fragment and one tertiary
flake (Figure 19). Just over half of the artifacts (58.8%) were recovered from the A horizon, 29.4% were
recovered from the E horizon, and 11.8% were recovered from Feature 1.
Table 4. Artifacts Recovered from Shovel Tests at Site 31WA2855.
Horizon
Class
Artifact Type
A
E Feat. 1
Total
Ceramic
Untyped Body Sherd, Fabric Impressed
1
1
Untyped Body Sherd, Eroded
1
1
Tools
Metavolcanic PPK Fragment, Distal Portion
1
1
Quartz Biface Fragment, Medial Portion
1
1
Debitage
Crystal Quartz Tertiary Flake, Complete
1
1
Metavolcanic Secondary Flake, Complete
1
1
Metavolcanic Tertiary Flake, Complete
2
2
4
Metavolcanic Tertiary Flake, Broken
1
1
Metavolcanic Tertiary Flake, Fragment
1
1
Quartz Secondary Flake, Broken
1
1
Quartz Secondary Flake, Fragment
1
1
Quartz Secondary Shatter
1
1
Quartz Tertiary Flake, Complete
1
1
Quartz Tertiary Shatter
1
1
Total
10
5 2
17
14

0 60
i
�,
slwaass6
5 0
0 O N 530
O
0 0
4 0
0 o N 500
E 530
1 b
- 9
3
N 470
i
k
N 470 0 360 Surface Find
r ❑ Test Unit
- 0 Negative
Positive Precontact and
to
0 Postcontact
3, 0 o Positive Precontact
C> Site Boundary
PA 22-05-0007 Road
Rye
Hydrography
fti i00 �111 L+tom
►Rig r_ I�., �.� ��`��� v t� ; �I
Wake County, North Carolin
+.fir
0 100 N
Feet
VV E
0 30
Meters S
Figure 16. Map of sites 31WA2855 and 31WA2856.
15

Sl
_Y
k *p
r
Y
im
of=�
T
.a R

Figure 19. Shovel Test N485 E485 at 31WA2855.
A 1 X 1 in test unit (TU 1) was excavated to further investigate Feature 1(Table 5). The test unit was placed
immediately south of ST N485 E485, with the shovel test positioned in the center of the north wall and the
southwest corner at N484 E484.5. An area of exposed bedrock is located immediately south of TU 1 and
was partially exposed during excavation. Feature 1 was encountered at the base of Level 2, which represents
the transition between the A and E horizons (Figure 20). In plan view, it appeared that the north wall of TU
1 was roughly bisecting Feature 1 along an east -west axis, therefore the south half of Feature 1 within TU
1 was excavated to expose it in profile. Once partially excavated and exposed in the north wall of TU 1,
Feature 1 was determined to be non -cultural bioturbation resulting from a burned and rotten tree root system
(Figure 21). The shape of Feature 1 was irregular, the boundaries were diffuse, and the feature fill was
loose. Two zones (A and B) were identified within Feature 1, but these appear to be the result of bioturbation
occurring within different natural soil horizons. Test Unit 1 was terminated after the excavation of four
consecutive culturally sterile 10 cm levels at the base of the E horizon (40-60 cmbs) and into the C horizon
(60-70 cmbs).
Table 5. Test Unit 1 at 31WA2855.
Level
Thickness
Depth (cmbs)
Strat
Horizon
Ceramics
Lithics
Historic Comments
1
10
0-10
I
A
1
15
2
10
10 20
I
A
2
14
1 Yadkin fabric impressed
sherd
3
10
20 30
II
E
1
4
F. 1
24-63
2
7
1 Yadkin fabric impressed
sherd
4
10
30-40
Noncultural
5
10
40-50
6
10
50-60
7
10
60-70
Total
6
40
0
17

Figure 20. Base of Level 2 in TU 1 / Feature 1 plan view at 31WA2855.
Figure 21. North wall profile of TU 1 showing Feature 1 at 31WA2855.
18

Test Unit 1 at 31WA2855 displayed a soil profile involving an A horizon of very dark grayish brown (1 OYR
3/2) loamy sand (0-20 cmbs), over a light gray (2.5Y 7/2) coarse sand E horizon (20-60 cmbs), underlain
by a brownish yellow (IOYR 6/6) mottled with light gray (2.5Y 7/2) very coarse sand C horizon (60-70+
cmbs) (Figure 22). The soil sequence observed within TU 1 was similar to that observed within the shovel
tests. Zone A within Feature 1 was a dark grayish brown (lOYR 4/2) loamy sand (24-35 cmbs) and Zone
B was a grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) sand (35-63 cmbs).
A total of 46 artifacts were recovered during the excavation of TU 1, most from the A horizon (n32) and
only a few from the upper 20 cm of the E horizon (n5) and the south half of Feature 1 (n9). In total, TU
1 produced two Yadkin fabric impressed sherds, an untyped eroded sherd, three residual sherds, a core, 34
flakes, and five pieces of shatter (Table 6). Metavolcanic (n21) is the dominant lithic material type in the
TU 1 assemblage, with crystal quartz (n9), quartz (n9), and quartzite (n1) also represented (Figure 23).
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31WA2855 is a low -density precontact artifact scatter likely
resulting from transient use of the area. The ceramic sherds recovered suggest a Middle Woodland period
use of the area, but the nondiagnostic lithic artifacts could represent older cultural components. The portion
of site 31WA2855 investigated within the Project APE lacks evidence of substantial artifact concentrations,
intact artifact deposits, and/or cultural features, and does not appear to have the potential to provide
substantial information on the precontact period use of the area. This site is recommended not eligible for
the NRHP under Criterion D and also appears to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under
Criteria A—C. No additional consideration of this site is recommended within the APE as currently defined,
but in the event that the Project APE is expanded to the west, further work is recommended to determine if
the site extends farther in that direction.
Figure 22. East wall profile of TU 1 showing undisturbed soil sequence at 31WA2855.
W

Figure 23. Representative precontact artifacts from 31WA2855. a) metavoleanic PPK fragment; b) crystal quartz
retouched flake; c) unidentified eroded ceramic sherd; d) unidentified eroded (possibly fabric impressed?) ceramic sherd; e—f)
Yadkin fabric impressed ceramic sherd
20

Table 6. Artifacts Recovered from Test Unit 1 at Site 31WA2855.
Horizon
Class Artifact Type
A
E Feat. 1
Total
Ceramic Yadkin Fabric Impressed
1
1
2
Untyped Body Sherd
1
1
Residual Sherd
1
1
1
3
Debitage Crystal Quartz Secondary Flake, Broken
2
2
Crystal Quartz Tertiary Flake, Complete
1
1
Crystal Quartz Tertiary Flake, Broken
1
1
2
Crystal Quartz Tertiary Flake, Fragment
3
3
Crystal Quartz Tertiary Shatter
1
1
Metavolcanic Secondary Flake, Complete
2
2
Metavolcanic Secondary Flake, Broken
1
1
Metavolcanic Secondary Flake, Fragment
1
1
Metavolcanic Tertiary Flake, Complete
8
2
10
Metavolcanic Tertiary Flake, Broken
1
1
Metavolcanic Tertiary Flake, Fragment
5
1
6
Quartz Primary Core
1
1
Quartz Secondary Flake, Fragment
1
1
Quartz Secondary Shatter
2
1
3
Quartz Tertiary Flake, Broken
1
1
Quartz Tertiary Flake, Fragment
1
1
1
3
Quartzite Tertiary Shatter
1
1
Total
32
5
9
46
31 WA2856
Component(s): Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic; Postcontact 20' century isolated find
Site Dimensions*: 95 m N-S X 60 m E-W
UTMs (NAD 83): E732742 N3983152
Landform: Terrace
Elevation: ca. 370 ft A1vMSL
Soil Type(s): Rawlings -Rion complex, 2-10% slopes, (RgB and RgC)
Recommendation: Not eligible as defined within APE; no further work for Project as presently defined
*Measurements based on site delineations within the Project APE only
Description. Site 3 IWA2856 is a low -density artifact scatter represented by a total of 25 artifacts, including
22 pieces of precontact nondiagnostic lithic debitage, two precontact nondiagnostic lithic tools, and one
20t' century glass container fragment. The artifacts were recovered from the ground surface and three shovel
tests within a soybean field to the southeast of the intersection of Wait Avenue and Moores Pond Road
(Figure 24; see Figures 14-16).
The site measures approximately 95 in north -south by 60 in east -west and is bounded by consecutive
negative shovel tests to the east and south, by Moores Pond Road to the west, and by Wait Avenue to the
north. The site is located on a terrace overlooking an unnamed tributary to the Little River that is within an
agricultural field planted in soybeans at the time of the survey. The soybeans were fully grown at the time
of survey, yielding less than 50% ground surface visibility, but there were exposed surfaces of 75-100%
ground surface visibility along the edges of the field that allowed for limited surface inspection. A small
patch of trees is present in the southern one-third of the site area along the east side of Moores Pond Road.
The southern edge of the site area has exposed bedrock on the ground surface.
The soil type at 3IWA2856 is mapped as Rawlings -Rion complex, 2-10% slopes (RgB and RgC), which
contains deep to very deep, well -drained soils that formed from residuum weathered from granite bedrock
21

(USDA NRCS 2022). Shovel tests at 3IWA2856 displayed a soil sequence involving a light olive brown
(2.5Y 5/3) or yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loamy sand Ap horizon extending up to 29 crabs. This was
underlain by a yellowish red (5YR 5/8) or brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy clay Bt horizon in shovel
tests exhibiting eroded soil profiles. Shovel tests in areas that were not eroded displayed a very pale brown
(1 OYR 7/3) loamy sand E horizon below the Ap horizon. The E horizon was underlain by a brownish yellow
(IOYR 6/6) or pale yellow (5Y 7/4) sandy clay loam Bt horizon (Figure 25).
Figure 24. Site 31WA2856, facing east.
A total of 13 shovel tests were excavated to delineate this site, three of which contained between 2-5 pieces
of lithic debitage each. One shovel test (ST N530 E515) produced a single piece of 7-Up green container
glass. A small concentration of lithic debitage (n=14) was recovered from the ground surface immediately
south of ST 4 (N500 E500), and cultural material likely extends into the soybean field, but poor ground
surface visibility prevented surface inspection in the field. One metavolcanic PPK fragment was recovered
on the exposed bedrock immediately east of Moores Pond Road. All of the artifacts were recovered from
disturbed contexts either on the ground surface or within the Ap horizon (Figure 26).
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31WA2856 is a precontact lithic site represented by two tools and
22 pieces of debitage along with an isolated 20t' century artifact. All of the artifacts were recovered from
the ground surface or within the Ap horizon of three shovel tests in the southeastern portion of the Project
APE. The site may be associated with 31WA2855 to the west of the road, but this cannot be established.
As currently defined within the APE, the site lacks evidence of substantial artifact concentrations, intact
artifact deposits, and/or cultural features, and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under criteria A—
D. No additional consideration of this site is recommended within the presently defined APE, but in the
event that the Project APE is expanded, further work is recommended to determine the full extent of the
site.
22

Figure 25. Shovel Test 4 (N500 E500) at 31WA2856.
23

INCHES
CENTIMETERS
Figure 26. Representative lithic artifacts from 31WA2856.
a) crystal quartz retouched flake; b) metavolcame PPK fragment
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TRC conducted an intensive archaeological survey and evaluation for the proposed construction of a
roundabout at the intersection of NC 98 (Wait Avenue) and SR 2057/SR 4465 (Moores Pond Road), east
of Wake Forest on the border between Franklin and Wake counties, North Carolina. The archaeological
APE for the Project encompasses all areas of potential disturbances and covers 10.13 acres. There are no
known federal- or state-owned lands (apart from the existing NCDOT right-of-way) within the APE.
Reviews of site and report files at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) conducted by Scott Halvorsen of
NCDOT and updated by TRC determined that there has been no prior systematic survey within or adjacent
to the Project APE but that three known sites (31FK53, 31FK54, and 31WA118) are situated within a one-
half mile radius (Halvorsen 2022). Based on their locations, none has the potential to extend into the Project
APE.
The fieldwork was completed in September 2022 under the direction of Jeff Johnson and overall supervision
of Tracy Millis and required approximately eight person -days. The fieldwork included systematic
pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire APE and systematic shovel testing at 30-m intervals of all areas
except for wetlands, parcels with denied access, and areas showing visible and severe disturbance or
exhibiting 15% or greater slope, followed by closer interval shovel testing at identified archaeological sites.
A total of 59 transect and delineation shovel tests and a single 1 X 1 in test unit were excavated.
24

The fieldwork identified two newly recorded sites (Table 7). Site 31WA2855 produced only precontact
artifacts, including Woodland period sherds and nondiagnostic lithic tools and debitage likely from a wide
range of temporal affiliations. Artifacts derived from both the Ap and E horizons. Site 31WA2856 is
represented by nondiagnostic precontact lithic tools and debitage along with a 20t' century isolated find, all
recovered from an agricultural field. All of the cultural material recovered from this site was confined to
the plowzone or ground surface.
Table 7. Summary of Archaeological Sites Identified within the Proiect APE.
NRHP Eligibility
Site Component Recommendation
3.1 WA2855 Precontact: Woodland and nondiagnostic lithic Not eligible*
31 WA2856 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic; Postcontact 20' century Not eligible*
*Recommendation applies only to portion of the site identified within the current Project APE; no additional investigations
recommended within APE as presently defined
Both of these sites appear to lack research potential and are recommended not eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D as defined within the Project APE; the sites also appear to lack the characteristics needed for
eligibility under Criteria A—C. Neither of these sites is totally contained within the APE, however, and
additional delineation and evaluation of 31WA2855 and/or 31WA2856 is recommended should the APE
be expanded at either location.
25

REFERENCES CITED
Bevers, Fendol
1871 Map of Wake County. Nichols & Gorman. Electronic document,
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/241/rec/10. Accessed November 2022.
Brazier and Tharp
1832 Plan of a tract of land situated in the counties of Franklin and Wake, NC, the property of William M.
Jeffreys, Esqr. Electronic document,
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/177/rec/l. Accessed November
2022.
Brinkley, Lon Leland, N.M. Kirk, Risdon T. Allen, and Bruce Berger Derrick
1914 Soil Map, North Carolina, Wake County Sheet. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Electronic document, https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/301/rec/26.
Accessed November 2022.
Davis, William A., Eugene F. Goldston, Cash H. Wonser, and Williamson E. Hearn
1931 Soil Map, North Carolina, Franklin County sheet. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Electronic document,
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/1146/rec/18. Accessed November
2022.
Halvorsen, Scott
2022 Archaeological Survey Required Form. AR22-02-0012, Construction of a roundabout at the intersection
of NC 42 (West Academy Street) and Piney Grove/Wilbon Road (SR 1101) in Wake County. North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
HPOWEB
2022 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service. Electronic document,
http://gis.neder.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed October 2022.
Kunickis, Sheryl H.
2004 Soil Survey of Franklin County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission (NCSHPWC)
1944 Wake County, Fourth Division. Electronic document,
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/1404/rec/36. Accessed November 2022.
Shaffer, A. Webster
1887 Shaffer's Map of Wake County. Electronic document,
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/968/rec/13. Accessed November 2022.
Spoon, William L.
1911 Map of Wake County, North Carolina. Electronic document,
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/419/rec/22. Accessed November 2022.
United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
2022 Web Soil Survey. Accessed October 2022,
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed November 2022.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1906-1907 Franklin County, North Carolina. The Norris Peters Co. Electronic document,
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/1138/rec/10. Accessed November
2022.
1967 Rolesville, N.C., 1:24,000-scale topographic map.
United States Post Office (USPO)
1910a Rural Delivery Routes Franklin County, N.C. Electronic document,
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/1738/rec/12. Accessed November 2022.
1910b Rural Delivery Routes Wake County, N.C. Electronic document,
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/I725/rec/21. Accessed November 2022.
26

APPENDIX 1. ARTIFACT CATALOG

Site
Bag Method TU
Colyd North East
Fea
Horizon Strut L-d
(cm)
Qty
Wt(g) Size C-p
Class Portion
Artifact Type
Material/xy-
Color/Tampa
EST/HiA Gronp
Comments
31WA2855
12
1/4"
STP
ST-35
500
500
E
B
40-60
1
0.1
1
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
gray -tan
aphyrw
31WA2855
12
1/4"
STP
ST-35
500
500
E
B
40-60
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
weathered, tan
aphyrw
31WA2855
12
1/4"
STP
ST-35
500
500
E
B
40-60
1
0.6
1-2
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, broken
met-lcanic
weathered, tan
aphy w
31WA2855
12
1/4"
STP
ST-35
500
500
E
B
40-60
1
1.1
2-3
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
gray -tan
aphyrw
31WA2855
13
1/4"
STP
485
500
A
I
0-22
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
dads gray
aphyrw
31WA2855
13
1/4"
STP
485
500
A
I
0-22
1
0.6
1-2
lithic
debimp secondary
flake, fragment
quartz
white
milky
31WA2855
13
1/4"
STP
485
500
A
I
0-22
1
0.3
1-2
lithic
debimp coml y
flake, broken
quartz
white
milky
31WA2855
13
1/4"
STP
485
500
A
I
0-22
1
0.4
1-2
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, complete
quartz
white -gray
milky
31WA2855
13
1/4"
STP
485
500
A
I
0-22
1
3.6
2-3
lithic
debimp coml y
shatter
quartz
gray
milky
31WA2855
14
1/4"
STP
485
485
A
I
0-28
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
gray
aphyrw
31WA2855
14
1/4"
STP
485
485
A
I
0-28
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debimp com l y
flake, complete
met-lcanic
gray
aphyrw
31WA2855
14
1/4"
STP
485
485
A
I
0-28
1
0.9
1-2
lithic
debimp tertiary
shatter
quartz
gray -brown
milky
31WA2855
14
1/4"
STP
485
485
A
I
0-28
1
0.8
lithic
tool distal
ppk, fragment
met-lcanic
gray
poiphyritic
31WA2855
15
1/4"
STP
485
485
1
E
B
28-65
1
0.3
1-2
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, complete
ayA l quartz
clear
31WA2855
15
1/4"
STP
485
485
1
E
B
28-65
1
6.1
lithic
tool complete
retouched flake
ayAlquartz
clear
streaked
unif cial retouch, possible scraper
31WA2855
16
SF
SF-9
Ap
I
0-0
1
15.0
lithic
tool proxmmal
ppk, fragment
met-lcanic
weathered, gray
aphyrw
large contracting stem
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.6
1-2
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
bluish gray
aphyrw
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.1
Q
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
gray
aphyrw
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debimp tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
gray
aphyrw
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.7
1-2
lithic
debimp secondary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
light gray -gay
poiphyritic
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.4
1-2
lithic
debitage secondary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
gray -light gay
poiphyritic
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.2
1-2
lithic
debitage com l y
flake, complete
met-lcanic
dads gay
poiphyritic
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, broken
met-lcanic
dads gay
aphyrw
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
weathered, light gray
aphytw
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.2
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
ayAal quartz
clear -white
streaked
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.2
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, brokev
ayAal quartz
clear
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.3
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
shatter
ayAal quartz
clear -white
streaked
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.5
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
quartz
white
milky
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
0.6
1-2
lithic
debitage secondary
shatter
quartz
white -gay
streaked
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
7.1
4-5
lithic
debitage coml y
shatter
quartz
white-pivk
streaked
31WA2855
17
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 1
0-10
1
7.0
2-3
lithic
debitage tertiary
shatter
quartzite
white -gay
streaked
31WA2855
18
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 2
10-20
1
0.1
Q
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
gray
aphyrw
31WA2855
18
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 2
10-20
2
0.1
Q
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
dark gay
aphyrw
ova broken after recovery
31WA2855
18
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 2
10-20
1
0.1
Q
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
gray
aphyrw
31WA2855
18
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 2
10-20
2
0.3
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
gray
aphyrw
31WA2855
18
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 2
10-20
3
0.5
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
dads gay
aphyrw
31WA2855
18
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 2
10-20
2
0.3
1-2
lithic
debitage com l y
flake, brokev
ayAal quartz
clear -white
streaked
31WA2855
18
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 2
10-20
2
0.4
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
ayAal quartz
clear
31WA2855
18
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
A
I 2
10-20
1
189.1
>5
lithic
debitage pr..y
quartz
white -gay
streaked
31WA2855
19
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
E
B 3
20-30
1
0.1
Q
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, brokev
ayAal quartz
clear
31WA2855
19
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
E
B 3
20-30
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, complete
ayAal quartz
clear
31WA2855
19
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
E
B 3
20-30
1
0.9
1-2
lithic
debitage coml y
flake, fragment
quartz
pink
vov-culNral7
31WA2855
20
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
E
B 4
3040
1
0.6
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
quartz
white
milky
31WA2855
21
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
1
Zo A
24-35
1
0.6
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
weathered, gray
pmphyritic
plagioclase quartz
31WA2855
22
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
1
ZoveB
35-63
1
0.1
Q
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
gray
aphyw
31WA2855
22
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
1
ZoveB
35-63
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debitage coml y
flake, broken
met-lcanic
gray -light gay
aphyrw
31WA2855
22
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
1
ZoveB
35-63
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
gray
aphyrw
31WA2855
22
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
1
ZoveB
35-63
1
0.2
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, broken
quartz
white
milky
31WA2855
22
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
1
ZoveB
35-63
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
quartz
white
milky
31WA2855
22
1/4"
TU
TU-1
484
484.5
1
ZoveB
35-63
1
2.7
2-3
lithic
debitage secondary
shatter
quartz
white-pivk-gray
milky
31WA2856
1
1/4"
STP
530
515
Ap
I
0-26
1
1.4
1-2
lithic
debitage s com l y
flake, broken
met-lcanic
weathered, tan -red
aphyrw
31WA2856
1
1/4"
STP
530
515
Ap
I
0-26
1
1.0
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
quartz
white
milky
31WA2856
2
1/4"
STP
515
500
Ap
I
0-22
1
0.2
1-2
lithic
debitage prnmary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
gray -tan
aphyrw
31WA2856
2
1/4"
STP
515
500
Ap
I
0-22
1
0.8
2-3
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
tan -gray
aphyrw
31WA2856
3
1/4"
STP
ST4
500
500
Ap
I
0-29
1
0.2
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
gray -tan
aphyric
31WA2856
3
1/4"
STP
ST4
500
500
Ap
I
0-29
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
light gray -gray
aphyrw
31WA2856
3
1/4"
STP
ST4
500
500
Ap
I
0-29
1
0.8
1-2
lithic
debitage coml y
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
light gray -gay
poiphyritic
plagioclase quartz
31WA2856
3
1/4"
STP
ST4
500
500
Ap
I
0-29
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
gray
aphyrw
31WA2856
3
1/4"
STP
ST4
500
500
Ap
I
0-29
1
0.1
Q
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
tan
aphyrw
31WA2856
4
SF
SF-1
Ap
I
0-0
1
1.8
2-3
lithic
debitage coml y
flake, broken
met-lcanic
gray -tan
aphyrw
31WA2856
4
SF
SF-1
Ap
I
0-0
1
0.3
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, broken
met-lcanic
gray -dark gray
aphyrw
31WA2856
5
SF
SF-2
Ap
I
0-0
1
18.7
4-5
lithic
debitage tertiary
core, fragment
quartz
white-pivk
milky
31WA2856
6
SF
SF-3
Ap
I
0-0
1
9.9
lithic
tool complete
retouched flake
ayAal quartz
white -yellow
streaked
uviftacial retouch
31WA2856
7
SF
SF4
Ap
I
0-0
1
0.5
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
gray -dark gray
poiphyritic
plagioclase
31WA2856
7
SF
SF4
Ap
I
0-0
1
0.1
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
quartz
white
milky
31WA2856
8
SF
SF-5
Ap
I
0-0
1
0.8
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
shatter
quartz
white -yellow
milky
31WA2856
8
SF
SF-5
Ap
I
0-0
1
2.1
2-3
lithic
debitage tertiary
shatter
quartz
white -yellow
milky
31WA2856
9
SF
SF-6
Ap
I
0-0
1
1.1
2-3
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, complete
met-lcanic
dads gay
aphyrw
31WA2856
10
SF
SF-7
Ap
I
0-0
1
0.1
Q
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
weathered, tan
aphyrw
31WA2856
10
SF
SF-7
Ap
I
0-0
2
0.3
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
gray
aphyrw
31WA2856
10
SF
SF-7
Ap
I
0-0
1
0.9
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
gray -dark gray
aphyrw
31WA2856
11
SF
SF-8
Ap
I
0-0
1
0.3
1-2
lithic
debitage tertiary
flake, fragment
met-lcanic
tan -gray
aphyrw

Indian Nation Info

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
July 6, 2022
Attention: Ashley Lowery
NC Department of Transportation
2612 North Duke Street
Durham, NC 27704
Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
Regarding proposed roundabout at NC 98 and SR 2057/SR 4465 in Wake and Franklin
2022-193-198 Counties STIP Project W-5805E
Dear Ms. Lowery,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Permit Drawings
and SWMP Info

Highway
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
^T
1a
WBS Element: 48950.1.6
TIP/Prof No: W-5805E County(ies): Wake Franklin Page 1 of 2
General Project Information
WBS Element:
48950.1.E ITIP Number: W-5805E Project Type: I Roadway Widening I Date: 1/23/2024
NCDOT Contact:
S. Reid Davidson, PE
Contractor 1 Designer:
Forrest Brooks, PE
Address:
Division 5
2612 N Duke St.
Durham NC 27704
Address:
5808 Faringdon PI.
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone:
919-317-4794
Phone:
919-872-5115
Email:
srdavidson ncdot. ov
Email:
(brooks drm .com
City/Town:
Wake Forest NC
County(ies):
Wake
Franklin
RiverBasin(s):
Neuse
CAMACounty?
I No
No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
Yes
Project Description
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
0.186 miles Surrounding Land Use: Rural
Proposed Project
Existing Site
Project Built -Upon Area (ac.)
1.8 1 ac.
1.2 1 ac.
Typical Cross Section Description:
Variable 12-16' lanes with normal crown. Split by monolithic islands at the approach to the
round about. 02 super elevation away from center of round about. Paved shoulder
Normal crown along each corridor to intersection approach with paved shoulder.
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hrlday):
Design/Future: 1 15000 1 Year: 12043
Existing: 8400 1 Year: 1 2023
General Project Narrative:
(Description of Minimization of Water
Quality Impacts)
The intersection of NC 98 (Wait Ave) and SR 2057/SR 4465/SR 1106 (Moores Pond Rd) will see improvements in the form of a round about. Widening will occur near the
intersection which will impact the -L- line stream crossing and adjacent wetland. There will be minor buffer impacts as the widening improvements taper back to existing Y line at the
next stream crossing, south of the intersection. In the longer stretches of monolithic sections surrounding the north and south quadrants of the roundabout, curb cuts were
designated to control spread in the travel lane.

I lighway North Carolina Department of Transportation
Stormwatc r jm
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 48950.1.6 TIP/Pro' No.: W-5805E Count ies : Wake Franklin Page 2 of 2
General Project Information
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body (1): UT to Little River (Moore's Pond, Mitchell Mill Pond)
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
27-57-(1)
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Water Supply II (WS-II)
Supplemental Classification:
High Quality Waters (HQW)
(NSW)
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Aquatic T&E Species?
Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect: Neuse
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
No
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer I N/A
Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer? INo
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
N/A
I
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body (2): 1
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Aquatic T&E Species?
Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative) I
Surface Water Body (3): 1
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Aquatic T&E Species?
Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)

J CC J / /=/ / H / U/ 1 / /U C;A U/ J / /=/ J
Cnn Chnnt 9 R 9-nr (nniinntinnnl Ciimhn/c
PROJECT AREA
MOORES 1-----I
POND
`co DETOUR ROUTE -0-0-4
�TY O
ry 1, y
98
SR 4465 _ ► ��
wp.11 AVE' � ♦ ��
•
ao
BEGIN PROJECT �-� END PROJECT
,
• • • 96 � 40
,
ciQ' cn
• o ,
7let,�o ,♦,
VICINITY MAP
NTS
P"
H
U)
E(0
\(1)
as
L
a 0
NU-� 4--
CD 0
�00
o�
C oa
BEGIN PROJECT W-5805E
-L- STA. 12 + 60.00
-L-
POT
STA.
17 + 79.03 =
-Y-
POT
STA.
16 + 04.31
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
-Y- STA. 11 + 99.31
STATE OF NORTH lk----"AROLINA
DIVISION OF H11"'HWAYS
WAKE COUNTY �
FRANI,CLIN
COUNTY
LOCATION.- 111C 98 AND SR 2057 / SR 4465 / SR 1106 (MOORES POND ROAD)
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, & DRAINAGE
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
STATE
STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
W-5805E
I
STATE PROJ. NO.
F. A. PROJ. NO.
DESCRIPTION
48950.1.6
0098038
PE
48950.2.6
0098038
ROW
48950.3.6
0098038
CONST
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
END CONSTRUCTION
-Y- STA. 2 0 + 6 9.31
END PROJECT W-5805E
—L— STA. 2 2 + 44.03
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 1 OF 4
r, -Sr -"v- Prepared in the Office of: HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DA TA PROJECT LENGTH k
DRMP, INC.
—L— NC 98 LENGTH ROADWAY PROJECT W-5805E = 0.186 MILES 5808FARIN,NC PLACE
flA RALEIGH, NC 2-511
40 20 0 40 80 ADT 2023 = 8,400 PHONE:[phone]
ADT 2043 = 15,000 ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS Www-drmp.com I NC License No. F-1524
PLANS —Y— SR 2057 l%
ADT 2023 = 1,900 2024 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS SIGNATURE:
40 20 0 40 80 ADT 2043 = 31500 ROADWAY DESIGN ENGINEER O
60 MPH -L- & -Y- AP RI L 19, 2 02 3 KAYLA M. PO U LOS, PE a
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) 25 MPH —RAB— PROJECT ENGINEER
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
8 4 0 8 16 FUNCTIONAL CLASS: NCDOT CONTACT. S. REID DAVIDSON, P.E. JUNE 12, 2024
—L— = MINOR ARTERIAL DIVISION 5 /Division Design Construction Engineer HERB L. RIDGEWAY IV
—Y— = MAJOR COLLECTOR LETTING DATE: PROJECT DESIGNER �
PROFILE (VERTICAL) SIGNATURE:

Z
O
w
w
z
z
QJ
03
e6 0�
O
o
-�i
\ F \� �
O �
A
LOIS SHEARON MURPHY GF
DB 2344 PG 708 (FRANKLIN COUNTY EGISTRY)
DB 2344 PG 712
DB 2344 PG 716
DB 2344 PG 720
F� PB 2023 PG 867 (WAKE COUNTY EGISTRY)
PB 2023 PG 276 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) k�0
PB 2023 PG 14 (FRANKLIN COUNTY REGISTRY) 20
0 os� P
KATRINA W. COLLIE
IPE INLET PROTECTION DB 16908 PG 2598 S
EE DETAIL A (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY)
6 TONS CL I RIPRAP PB 2007 PG 323
0 SY GEOTEXTILE (FRANKLIN COUNTY REGISTRY)
N 12'32'12.5*E
Nljoow-so
' • / •�
DRMP, INC.
5808 FARINGDON PLACE NC LICENSE NO. F-1524
RALEIGH, NC 27609 www.drmp.com
[phone]
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
W-5805E
4
RNd SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
,,�`��n C A R �����
♦ ����H, C A R p l*ii
����FES S I p�ql '.,-
S I pygl
:.
_�.`
Q�Q,FES
e SEAL -
SEAL =
050515 =
= 55416 r =
F�!G I NFL 'O`'�`'�
�'� 0 '-/VGIN
lix
0,,,,
a�i
T� �� ►�
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
4 0' 0' 4 0'
ll"
GRAPHIC SCONE
TRUST OF ALICE PEACE SHEARON V �So \ 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
BETTY SHEARON ROWLAND v A F CONC. Q ?I
DB 5069 PG 485 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) \ C A HEADWALL
PB 2007 PG 2435 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY)
c
SLO STABILIZATION R OVE QO 7 DO
\ SUi DETAIL D 12" CP
40' R DETAIL A
\ RIP RAP CHANNEL PROTECTION
7 SY O
\ / Not to Scale)
�I
�U� - ° � � � E VPECIALITCHLAT GEOTEXTILE d��'� SOj�� � < Natural Bed
DSO \ SU SEE DETAILq j j / y�o Elevation
LOIS SHEARON MURPHY o �-o �,
TRUST OF ALICE PEACE SHEARON o vS Rj DITCH DITCH
BETTY SHEARON ROWLAND SPECIAL �; ` / F LINE LINE
DB 17458 PG 2381 LAT V DITCH o
SEE DETAIL B \ oo� C A �
(TRACT 4 MAPPED) A �� ��, F, 5 1.5� Tuck Geotextile
i a Minimum of lft
Geotextile* (TyP)
DETAIL E ��1 DONNA FREEMAN Chanel e)d *Place Geotextile Under Riprap
/ o O \ oS Len th= 10 Ft. in Locations Directed by Engineer
� \ �� DB 778 PG 644 g
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH /g1, s o
`� Type of Liner= CL 1 Rip -Rap Ra — Keyed —in
( Not to Scale) CC) Q DB 746 PG 221 yp p- p y
o �� PB 1997 PG 452 -L- STA. 16+40 LT
REMOVE 30 RCP
O
B��Q W. PRIVETTE
O
1 DB 19416�_ S 021(WAKE COUNTY REGIS RY)
BOBBIE W. PRIVETTE TOMMY RAY HILL DB 19416 PG 1025 DB 19416 PG 1021(WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) DB 14937 PG 1118 DB 19416 PG 1029
DB 19416 PG 1025 PB 2007 PG 2435 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) DB 19416 PG 1033
DB 19416 PG 1029 PB 2007 PG 323 (FRANKLIN COUNTY REGISTRY)
DB 19416 PG 1033
PB 2023 PG 867 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY)
�ooSs SPECIAL LAT V DITCH
F SEE DETAIL B
4 \ REMOVE 18" RCP
\ 3 TONS CLASS B RIP RAP
\ 10 SY GEOTEXTILE
N, ,
/s
Zo X0O � SEECIAL DETAILTBV DITCH
�cA� \ F
moo 00
/ I
c��� SPECIA E V TDITCH (Q
AIL C
o � oRoRE
REMO 15' CP
sc
2 TONS CLASS B RIP RAP
DITCH
Natural �.�et Fill o �� DERAL B'
Ground ?.� �d Slope / O S J SPECIAL LAT V DITCH
SPECIALLAT
D / .3 00 // Q SEE DETAIL C ( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL SLOP I 4 C�E51 + SLOPE STABILIZATION
Min. D=0.5 Ft. PIPE OUTLET CHANNEL LAT V DITCH �� TABILIOD I J ( EE DETAIL D o�
STABILIZATION SEE DETAIL F SEE DETAIL B ETAIL
Natural �.;� et Fill
FROM -RAB- STA. 11 + 15 TO 12 + 00 RT 20 TONS CL I RIPRAP �/ �Ground 4I D Slope
24 SY GEOTEXTILE g1 j T C\
D ETAI L F Min. D = 0.85 Ft.
PIPE OUTLET CHANNEL STABILIZATION
( Not to Scale) SPECIAL Do
LAT V DITCH / / " - - - _ _ _ o \ FROM STA. -L- 13 + 00 LT TO -L- STA. 14 + 25 LT FROM STA. -Y- 13 + 50 LT TO -Y- STA. 15 + 00 LT
Natural Bed SEE DETAIL C / 0� \ \ FROM STA. -L- 14 + 25 LT TO -L- STA. 16 + 40 LT FROM STA. -Y- 17 + 00 LT TO -Y- STA. 18 + 00 LT
Elevation � � FROM STA. -L- 16 + 50 LT TO -L- STA. 17 + 00 LT FROM STA. -Y- 18 + 00 LT TO -Y- STA. 20 + 50 LT
Natural Natural / SD a FROM STA. -L- 19 + 00 LT TO -L- STA. 21 + 50 LT FROM STA. -Y- 13 + 50 RT TO -Y- STA. 15 + 00 RT
Ground Ground / / i ;�� \ �ooSs F �� FROM STA. -L- 14 + 50 RT TO -L- STA. 15 + 00 RT FROM STA. -Y- 17 + 00 RT TO -Y- STA. 18 + 00 RT
OXC& c'p FROM STA. -L- 16 + 50 RT TO -L- STA. 17 + 00 RT
2, Tuck Geotextile a Minimum of lft _ _ \ Xp FROM STA. -L- 19 + 00 RT TO -L- STA. 22 + 00 RT
/ / / / SPECIAL \
Geotextile* (NP) / / / / LAT V DITCH C V \ SPECIAL
Channel Bed * � \ \ \ LAT V DITCH
(Variable) Place Geotextile Under Riprap / / R SEE DETAIL E \ SEE DETAIL B
Length= 14 Ft. in Locations Directed by Engineer �(, / z / ��/ AGF \ \
Type of Liner= CL 1 Rip -Rap - Keyed -In / / Yr \ \ \
�
STA. -L- STA. 16 + 30 RT 5�� / ") oo< A�
goo A A
PUE \ \ WINSLOW HOLDINGS, LLC
DB 2246 PG 724
��o ,00 � � / � \ � \ \ � BM BM
2006 PIG 2006 PG 2001 (BFRANKLIN COUNTY OUNT REGISTRY)
REGISTRY)
SPEC�AL LAT V DITCH � � A
SEE DETAIL C o& S o
�
\D '° ' F \ � � FROM
STA.
0+ 10 �O �0 +60 RT
SPECIAL LAT V DITCH FR
J' \ \�o OM -RAB- STA. 105 O 5 RT
SEE DETAIL B 'Sly
� s FROM -RAB- STA. 12 + 45 TO 13 + 00 RT
�o FROM -RAB- STA. 13 + 40 TO 14 + 50 RT
SLOPE STABILIZATION
SEE DETAIL D Fo
F
i� MURPHY A F
7 3 TONS CLASS B RIP RAP LOIS SHEARON MUR \
i o 7 SY GEOTEXTILE TRUST OF ALICE PEACE SHEARON A
BETTY SHEARON ROWLAND *0o \
F ELSIE P. SHEARON (FRANKLIN COUNTY GIS) C
R 4�-, DB 946 PG 983 (WAKE AND FRANKLINTY REGISTRY)
COUNTY
/ \ / RETAIN 18" RCP
oPo� BM 2006 PG 1748 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) Q LOIS SHEARON MURPHY F v
BM 2006 PG 2001(FRANKLIN COUNTY REGISTRY) ��
TRUST OF ALICE PEACE
SHEARON OWLANDRON
�40 FILL IN WETLAND ELSIE P. SHEARON (FRANKLIN COUNTYS) �oS/
DB 946 PG 983 (WAKE AND FRANKLIN COUNTY REGISTRY)
BM 2006 PG 1748 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) o��
°o
MECHANIZED CLEARING BM 2006 PG 2001 (FRANKLIN COUNTY REGISTRY) S�o
/ o° \ So
Al
ooS� o° SURFACE WATER IMPACTS o A
TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS '�0 eo�
o
—c —

Z
O
w
W
ff�
z
LD
ff3 E]
w-eq
�-eq
fAff} <
fAff} <
A 4
CT
CT
Al
/ m\ / / ,3 Sm /
% �� / m �/ / // / / / / / \ w
S RMP
a az65ID
\ \ I \
W0 \ \ \ \tea. I / v DRMP, INC.
B W. P IVE TE \ \ ° 5808
EIGH,NCC2 609PLACE
_ / V � V 66 19 I� O-N(WAKE OUNTY RE�IS iRY) \ V se V (919)an-s11s
y 3 / / 3
�OBB W..PRI�TTE / V _ / Lj / _ / PB� 1�,416 PGI 10 5 W \ f A
% P \ DB f�37 I118 3�3.ID�� I �gl 19�16 PG 109
'G10 I ( 9hZ %L�PV'T`7 RE-GI5� � � / � _ � / / J I e
P 102 / / / \PB 2007 PG 24-(SAKE/COUNTYISTRY I W
���A��� /_i �_�_� /j /_— F / / / / — ( �BI 19A1� PG 10 3 I W \ A
41Et I�29/ m- i / B�2007 PG �23 FRANKLII� C(y� �NXY �fS�RY) 8, v
>37� 3>>� m ��/ / Y"/ i m �v ee
B'20 3-F 86 111�AtEE37C�U TN EGI TR't)��� / / v / �3,z5m� , -373. ��\\� 4 �� (� �0 ( 3 4K PG 71 UN1�Y EGk TF�Y)
3a2s0 % �/ — // �/ �3z5.ID6 \ _
\ 387 �381.� // / \ i A A 4
\�/�3gID 37
—g75 0 2
3.6�/�- \ �? �34� P� 720
A 38 .86-
r` / _ — /e/ \ /�B 202��6�84,
� �WAI E UUNTY E ISTRYN 32 /2,5 E
/383.66 —T 0- ' / 7�° �' of
/ \\ / I /PB �023 C�T�(�*ANKLI(N
7�,/(W�4KE C'`pUNTY RE STRY,
// /// PB 023 PG1 I C�pUN Y RE IST14Y)
�382.00- o — / / /SPECIAL LAT V DITC-H_.—373-"_ � _ / / � �m% i \ � / m�7��/ A �
� S� E D ETAIt -Er �- s>z 5 / � � � // �
/ / % \ / / 13
3g0
387.0ID
KAT IN COLL`-IEI
�•� w /
DB_ 169 � G 25§81 I w ID25«_ _ —
_38�IDID- / // INLET PR T�CT N
/ / S CLASS B RIP RAP _ — — / / (�AK COUNT REGI
SEE DETAft' / / /
/ 10 EOTEXTILE 16 JONS CL I RIP P / / / / / IB 2QJU� PG
73IDm' — / v / '37 / F AN LIN OLJ TY I ISAIRY) / V" /
— 3/9 v \ V / — i j20 SY GEOTEXTI I / / / W / / .379.ID6
NC LICENSE NO. F-1524
www.drmp.com
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
W-5805E
RNd SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
��NI CAR
p�
S
• SEAL 9�
e
050515
SHEET NO.
4
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
111111111//
�C AR p� � o,�
/ .,
SEAL l�
' 55416
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 3 OF 4
%\ ���>5 _ w%�. 3,�— //S�IA�Ca, v DiZc % \ 1 E —� //%P°�b o�° _/� 40' 0' 40'
V �% ° / �� SPECIAL LAT-/ TJ1T 1 m w I / \ / / �V AIL
7�.6
0!
3
^QPHC SCA
LE
/377.ID6 _
%
01,
/ /� � ���\5� A A—369.66- / V
371:0 \ J / � / I l l / l � � w R�
/ OJ�s /SHE NURPHY / /� TONS 1' S PPjP P
-TF�S _OF L�C� CE S ARON / — a�aA C \\ V A�°� SS �•\ /�m I / I / / / / EOItXTII�E
_--- BETT�H ARQDJI�ID
/ DB 7 (WAKE CO STRY) � � AHEADWALL -R13-2001 P-G- 2A35 4W -[- C0 E-GIS-TRY) / �� \ \�eV `�• / / �' w �% / % �' ivi G� Y'" — /// � � mm / /
� 368. � %
SLO AB IZ TI N R OVE I / _ %i % ��/ �3� /0 g92. 3zz.mm
S DE AIL 12" CP
T R — '�—i�i% i �i�_�� DETAIL A
°/ / 5m� m• / 368.50--- CL S \ /�-, / �� / / / /
.off /\ / / \ / / / �� \ w / / I �IP RAP I %/ �. �`� ///' / / ��5 /
'sPE�1 L T GE TETILE �\� / / \ CHANNEL PROTECTION
m p 7 SY /3i �`� / / / ( Not to Scale)
A(� \ / � / I 1 / / / / —_> .gym��� ��
Gp F V�IT H I 3 3�35 / /°�0_3> m V �� �� 3ti° ,3z�/ ^ —3z°• / Natural Bed
369.06 A � � A � 0. AV I g ��
Elevation
Oa SHE URPHI� °o / _ / E E AIL a / / �� % /
\ / / h% -i j\ // ���— / / 3 �ID� DITCH DITCH
VAIII — _. / TRU OFvALICE PEA SHEARON ��. v y v / / ) w % % / 373 — / 36g
age / 31"" � Gam BETTY NEAR ON RO ND--, SPPEECIA � / / � � ° � �— �
� SE��DETAIL B � ° % � � � �%\ / � � I C � / /� ° m`� ! jC' -F/� � � / 3zi.5a�
M� / — DB 1745k G 2381 \ / \� / / _ / /
/ i / S4 / / 1.5'
\(TRACT 4 1\�PED) mm A�/ \ V//,� I / /� \ Tuck Geotextile
�Minimum of lft
�- — / DO NA FREEMAN\ Channel Bed (TVP)
e Place Geotextile Under Ri ra
73.�� �3>m / Geotextile*
� � mks'" � \ �/ /� � 9 (Variable) P p
DETAIL E D 77$�P� �4 e Length 10 Ft. in Locations Directed by Engineer
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH \� — m _ / m ID« �3°°� / , / @I / �/ ��.0 V T
m / o / @ i / — ype of Liner= CL 1 Rip -Rap Ra - Keyed -in
3 3 / / /° - ,q / �:lh` / . �°/ — A 74 6 PI p- p y
( Not to Scale) 0 \ 6g�e `. - °�
/ m _ _--f% /�-- /III // �� / / % /\ P1997 PG 452\ -L- STA. 16+40 LT
y���
1 �— /� DETAILB
Natural Fill // 9 6°zz'
�' �'�e< / //i/ // ! / ` J / / SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
Ground ?. �d Slope \ �� se / 364sID / /� m / S G i I SPE AL LAT/V /DITCH /
D ae / / / / / / �/ j mm % �� V I I I % / I I E \ ( Not to Scale)
00 / / / ( � � SSE DE7T L I l
v� /// I I �iL° r� @/ l / t I 2 i'�I//
°��. � / / / /3 / (R4
A,� m / T B I� N � ° � V � � V CUES � � % �a M / I$ E�D� AI �I�IIA��I�N/
\ o� LAT D 1 � \ ( I P I
Min. D=0.5 Ft. ,6_ PIPE OUTLET C 4EL �� SEE DET IL B � _� \ I I I ( I @@ I ( or
�TA�ILIZATION SEE TAIL F m� %� / e9 �/ w I \ N I V 1 I \ Natural �.� het Fill
\ 0 TONS CL I Rj�IPRAP 1 / /,�� / / :mm \ V �' g°\ �� I I I \ Ground 4.� �p'� Slope
FROM -RAB- STA. 11 + 15 TO 12 + 00 RT �` 24 s IGE TEXTILE '�% / �� / T� m;'% / % \� '� I 1 I I I I \ I D
VC
D ETAI L F I / / l / Min. D = 0.85 Ft.
PIPE OUTLET CHANNEL STABILIZATION
( Not to Scale) . ���° / I SP°EeIAL / /� / / — % _ _ e� A V V > s� I /
V / V/ !PI CIM ��T FROM STA. -L- 13 + 00 LT TO -L- STA. 14 + 25 LT FROM STA. -Y- 13 + 50 LT TO -Y- STA. 15 + 00 LT
Natural Bed /EE U AI C GA % mm// FROM STA. -L- 14 + 25 LT TO -L- STA. 16 + 40 LT FROM STA. -Y- 17 + 00 LT TO -Y- STA. 18 + 00 LT
Elevation \ ���m / / ,� ��,/ / / �� L6 / s 3�'° / / v A\ \ a I FROM STA. -L- 16 + 50 LT TO -L- STA. 17 + 00 LT FROM STA. -Y- 18 + 00 LT TO -Y- STA. 20 + 50 LT
Natural Natural % / //� e / FROM STA. -L- 19 + 00 LT TO -L- STA. 21 + 50 LT FROM STA. -Y- 13 + 50 RT TO -Y- STA. 15 + 00 RT
Ground Ground I l / / i / / ems,///�i �- m�/v� y
. I / \ / / I / \ \ 11 1 /�/ / / / / \ V v \\ V _ °�0, \ \ \ FROM STA. -L- 14 + 50 RT TO -L- STA. 15 + 00 RT FROM STA. -Y- 17 + 00 RT TO -Y- STA. 18 + 00 RT
FROM STA. -L- 16 + 50 RT TO -L- STA. 17 + 00 RT
Tuck Geotextile / — mm 3 37zs0 \ s \ >
a Minimum of 1ft / I / /� / / �/ / w v \V y �O \ \ a A� FROM STA. -L- 19 + 00 RT TO -L- STA. 22 + 00 RT
* (TYP) / (/ 1 I 1 / �w I I �� m / % / ///� _ zEaA� �_ t v� \ ,
Geotextile / I I m �� /� / / / _ _ \ a > % V L�T VRT�H \ \ � \ \
LAT V DITCH_ A s° A � A� � � \
Channel Bed *Place Geotextile Under Ri ra i 1� / / A� `e ,4T
Variable Riprap I I I �� // % i // R SEE DETAIL E SEE DT IL A \ s
Length= 14 Ft. ( ) in Locations Directed b Engineer 371.OID— \ V A Ase \ v
y g I I I I ( 367 / / 373.5 \ V \ \
Type of Liner= CL 1 Rip -Rap Ra - Keyed -in V � � _ — � � \\ \ V� � � \ \ � \ \
'09.00
�-376.ID8-3>ZaSID 09\��\ \ V A N\ \VA ��
STA. -L- STA. 16 + 30 RT _ _ e WIN QW H' r 'S 'LCC�
3 v
V� A V �6g V \ 36F54g `3 S
\�A� ��I DB 46 FP �i2 �\ aea�
'1 V
M
_.---_ _� 'I� I1(\`?e • /\ \ �% �\V% \ \ \\\ A �\ v3/v°��A\ / \i \ f\�1Is 1 cT�I 0 V p/G
V/FKE
0/AT V D368.00- 0 PV 0RAV^T�
W /\�\Uv%N/
ITC—
cOUye\sy^ R
�TSRTYR)
�—368.06- —367IDID
/ ji 367.5—
,
Y)
VA
\\� / 1 / I / / / s % \ \ �/ / -i �/ /367 m� — — / —36Nb- — — — — � I I \�o V A �\ N F \� A\V e asa A �A , � � I I I / / FROM -RAB- STA. 10 + 10 TO 10 + 60 RT
5ID — _ 9.5ID— �vv I /
0s� I % / �- ✓ mm / / 366° 1 I SEC AL A V ITtH
--- �`�— \ \ v\ �� I �— FROM -RAB- STA. 11+05 TO 12+15 RT
—36 III \ \ EEVDET IL \ �Qi ��V� ` ` \��3 ��� I I I / �� FROM -RAB- STA. 12+45 TO 13+00 RT
FROM -RAB- STA. 13 + 40 TO 14 + 50 RT
3
LtZATtOW
363y 6
S IP%,P _ �OIS HEAR0N MUBeH_Y
V I I \ �\ \ � � \� — //�' \ % o� /�AV� ��TRUST 6F �C1CF FEA�E SHE �ROf� � 1 I 1 I V — \ / / \� �V \, I I II A \
w
BM/ 00°SqL— _� i-- _� i CQ, S 'Sh 362.08- UC Y' S�AFCO iVVWLAN `0 I I � � � / � o � � � V � A \\ m I � I� � � J 6
�v -/,'/ DEL-SIE-P�Sy�RON RAI�IIfL-tN COUWT GI ) 1 I I I I % \ \ / / \V �a� /����/// � % \A —365� \ ��� / I \ � a ��
R \ _ I —
\ �\ V A \— °,8463ID�W�rKE AND�RANKLIN\ 0/LINTY R GIST
\ �� ML96— — — — i , / /� ��/ /�/� �\ V A \ \ / e I 11% V / / �� %IDS��7m°RETAIN 18" RCP \
/ %/�� A V A \ / / M 200.5BG 1748 (WAKE EOTMIT II�IST Y\) 1 II I I Q \ / / L IS SHE 4 bFU�l �� _ ,� m//� % �V \\ s
%/ 362.50/ M 200$ PG 2 Ci1TFR IN LIN COIJN N"I" GIS Y)� I % T /
9 \ \ �'� 1 y I V 1\ / \ I y' //,B SH�RON
/
��� FILL IN WETLAND \ \ \ / / �' -3> 6 \ / L I �. �FE ��Id�(�A N L I �_
VA VA \ \ \ III/ / (� p� 4� Pb�J 3'�IIV1 ��ATV�F,R-A�1KL1 IJN �EUI ��/� \V
°\%\�\ I \ �� ` I �\ \ \ \ I I I \ I )\ / I/ / I \ �,8� �/ 6Gp�rt4 �WA+cE'�%a cars Y 6 / ! ,� % / %' i %�\ \ \ �% l \
MECHANIZED CLEARING I I / I // \ \/ // I I I / M®I-(FRAP�KL'f�l �0 TY I R R%
/i
�)�„
S SURFACE WATER IMPACTS / /// I / I I I / /
\ @ �� w ( // 0
\ l I // I ►� Il �� % I111 / 11 /
369%. 0/ TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS /0,
\e
� \
.�� W `�A5\ 605�0.356IDE360.06
365.n e-/ \��^'.. /-�/i / i / / � Mh�@ I I\ \ WBs ♦ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\VA�\V\\\\\��e1 wm i
/\

WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS 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
-L-15+74 to 16+45
42" RCP -IV Buried 0.7'
< 0.01
0.02
< 0.01
< 0.01
44
25
-L-15+74 to 16+45
Inlet/Outlet Channel Stabilization
< 0.01
27
TOTALS*:
< 0.01
0.02
< 0.01
< 0.01
71
25
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
2018 Feb

J CC J / /=/ / H / U/ 1 / /U C;A U/ J / /=/ J
Cnn Chnnt 9 R 9-nr (nniinntinnnl Ciimhn/c
PROJECT AREA
MOORES 1-----I
POND
`co DETOUR ROUTE -0-0-4
�TY O
ry 1, y
98
SR 4465 _ ► ��
wp.11 AVE' � ♦ ��
•
ao
BEGIN PROJECT �-� END PROJECT
,
• • • 96 � 40
,
ciQ' cn
• o ,
7let,�o ,♦,
VICINITY MAP
NTS
P"
H
TJ
U)
E(0
\(1)
as
L
a 0
NU-� 4--
CD 0
�00
o�
C oa
BEGIN PROJECT W-5805E
-L- STA. 12 + 60.00
-L-
POT
STA.
17 + 79.03 =
-Y-
POT
STA.
16 + 04.31
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
-Y- STA. 11 + 99.31
STATE OF NORTH lk----"AROLINA
DIVISION OF H11"'HWAYS
WAKE COUNTY �
FRANI,CLIN
COUNTY
LOCATION.- 111C 98 AND SR 2057 / SR 4465 / SR 1IO6 (MOORES POND ROAD)
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, & DRAINAGE
SITE 2
BUFFER IMPACTS PERMIT
STATE
STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
W-5805E
I
STATE PROJ. NO.
F. A. PROJ. NO.
DESCRIPTION
48950.1.6
0098038
PE
48950.2.6
0098038
ROW
48950.3.6
0098038
CONST
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
END CONSTRUCTION
-Y- STA. 2 0 + 6 9.31
END PROJECT W-5805E
—L— STA. 2 2 + 44.03
BUFFER DRAWING
SHEET 1 OF 5
Prepared in the Office of: HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH
DRMP, INC.
—L— NC 98 LENGTH ROADWAY PROJECT W-5805E = 0.186 MILES 5808FARIN,NC PLACE
flA RALEIGH, NC 2-511
40 20 0 40 80 ADT 2023 = 8,400 PHONE:[phone]
ADT 2043 = 15,000 ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS Www-drmp.com I NC License No. F-1524
PLANS —Y— SR 2057 l%
ADT 2023 = 1,900 2024 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS SIGNATURE:
40 20 0 40 80 ADT 2043 = 31500 ROADWAY DESIGN ENGINEER O
60 MPH -L- & -Y- AP RI L 19, 2 02 3 KAYLA M. PO U LOS, PE a
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) 25 MPH —RAB— PROJECT ENGINEER
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
8 4 0 8 16 FUNCTIONAL CLASS: NCDOT CONTACT. S. REID DAVIDSON, P.E. JUNE 12, 2024
—L— = MINOR ARTERIAL DIVISION 5 /Division Design Construction Engineer HERB L. RIDGEWAY IV
—Y— = MAJOR COLLECTOR LETTING DATE: PROJECT DESIGNER �
PROFILE (VERTICAL) SIGNATURE:

Z
O
w
w
z
z
QJ
03
0
O
�o O
.o� 900
S
O
\ F \� O
O 00
�o _ A
000
O\
O \\
9 A
LOIS SHEARON MURPHY GF O
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO,
W-5805E 4
(3 RMP \ RNd SHEET NO.
Oj ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
DRMP, INC. ENGINEER ENGINEER
O BQ W. PRI VE T T E 5808 FARIN , NC PLACE NC LICENSE NO.p.c F-1524
jj'' RALEIGH, NC 27609 www.drmp.com �111111
O2 \ [phone] ,`�\\IIIII►I�
1 DB 19416c R 021(WAKE COUNTY REGIS RY) ,,��o��� CARO���,��, ,,��o��H. CARO������
BOBBIE W. PRIVETTE
TOMMY RAY HILL DB 19416 PG 1025 . ; •• ESSI� • ��
DB 19416 PG 1021(WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) DB 14937 PG 1118 DB 19416 PG 1029 ::moo by • = = : �o tiq•.,
DB 19416 PG 1025 PB 2007 PG 2435 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) e SEAL = SEAL l •' =
DB 19416 PG 1029 PB 2007 PG 323 (FRANKLIN COUNTY REGISTRY) DB 19416 PG 1033 _
DB 19416 PG 1033 050515 - - 55416
PB 2023 PG 867 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY)
SPECIAL LAT V DITCH
\ F SEE DETAIL B
4 \ REMOVE 18" RCP
\ 3 TONS CLASS B RIP RAP
\ 10 SY GEOTEXTILE
�S
X00 �SPECIAL TV DITCH
SEEDETAILB
16'' \ F
4 \\
c
TRUST OF ALICE PEACE SHEARON
BETTY SHEARON ROWLAND v A F CONC.
DB 5069 PG 485 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) \ C \ \ \ HEADWALL
PB 2007 PG 2435 (WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) v \ \ \
NC
N
Is,° x
LOIS SHEARON MURPHY °°co� x
TRUST OF ALICE PEACE SHEARON
BETTY SHEARON ROWLAND LAT V DI CH 0
DB 17458 PG 2381 SEE DETAIL B /
(TRACT 4 MAPPED)
SITE 1
D ETAI L E/
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
DB 2344 PG 708 (FRANKLIN
DB 2344 PG
COUNTY EGISTRY)
712 ;
NGINF�'o�'��'�
�',��'•FNGIN�`�'o��,'�'
DB
2344 PG
716
ss
��S
,,,��
i�4�P' TIii�
DB
2344 PG
720
0
���
►�0,,,,
Fo PB 2023 PG 867
(WAKE COUNTY EGISTRY)
N 12'32'12.5"E
PB 2023 PG 276
(WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY) k�O
J,
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
PB 2023 PG 14 (FRANKLIN
COUNTY REGISTRY) 2�
,ro
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
O �
P
KATRINA W. COLLIE
PIPE INLET PROTECTION DB 16908 PG 2598 S
SEE DETAIL A /PB
AKE COUNTY REGISTRY)
1A TONS CL I RIPRAP 2007 PG 323
20 SY GEOTEXTILE (FRANKLIN COUNTY REGISTRY) (�
cp SPECIA LA V DITCH (Q ` ORo 4 4 r-R_RAB- P STA./0-F00.00 E TAI L CHI��°° �GRAPC SCALE
AB- STA. 14-F7/.24 REMO 15' CP
00
_STA
PC Sto. 16 +9/.34 ° (D V° Q
-Y- POT STA 16-F79.31 = 2 TONS CLASS B RIP RAP O
1 -RAB- PCC STA. 13-F26.58 7 SY GEOTEXTILE Q�
>�
405
SLO STABILIZATION R OVE Q R /�' 7 S
S DETAIL D 12" CP f A ��
O
40'cL T S �° R R ��06 / ���` DETAIL A
RIP RAP CHANNEL PROTECTION
7 SY
1 S �1 on
4ti SPECIAL LAT G OTEXTILE(Not to Scale)
/ V DITCH 6o�0 SOj� O?A Natural Bed
/ ETAIL�go,
L Elevation SEE D� � � "� DITCH DITCH
F Jr LINE LINE
j -j +N� 1 5, � Tuck Geotextile
/4" a Minimum of lft
/ DONNA FREEMAN Geotextile(TYP)
* Channel Bed
(Variable) *Place Geotextile Under Riprap
O� DB 778 PG 644 Length 10 Ft.
o
Not to Scale) o \ q� oo° in Locations Directed by Engineer
( DB 746 PG 221 Type of Liner= CL 1 Rip —Rap —Keyed—In
PB 1997 PG 452 -L- STA. 16+40 LT
REMOVE 30" RCP
o °o o .� . _
�
Natural N °` Fill �: o R° �� D ETAI L B
Ground 2. < Slope / °dS ° �' SPECIAL LAT DITCH SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
7 D 3 ®p �� Q� SEE DETAIL C (Not to Scale)
� 4
SPECIAL
/ ��L�P SLOPE STABILIZATION
Min. D=0.5 Ft. PIPE OUTLET CHANNEL LAT V DITCH T B ON I o o EE DETAIL D o�
STABILIZATION SEE DETAIL F SEE DETAIL B ETAIL D // °
/, o � o o � � Natural �•;� het Fill
FROM -RAB- STA. 11 + 15 TO 12 + 00 RT 20 TONS CL I RIPRAP 1 1 o O\ o ° ° Ground 4.7 D F�a� Slope
24 SY GEOTEXTILE /g1, 6ti T �, C o C\
T
O
D ETAI L F / o eo 0 00° D -
-0.85 Ft.
o 0 \ F
PIPE OUTLET CHANNEL STABILIZATION ` o 0 Min. Do
o
( Not to Scale) SPECIAL Oo
B LAT V DITCH
C / �' RO ° \ \ FROM STA. -L- 14 + DO LT TO -L- STA. 16 + 40 LT FROM STA. -Y- 17 + 00 LT TO -Y- STA. 18 + 00 LT
Natural ed SEE DETAIL C / GF`
Elevation
Natural Natural
Ground Ground
2' Tuck Geotextile
j a Minimum of lft
Geotextile* /• (TYP)
Channel Bed *Place Geotextile Under Riprap
Length= 14 Ft. (Variable) in Locations Directed by Engineer
Type of Liner= CL 1 Rip —Rap — Keyed —In
\ FROM STA. -L- 16 + 50 LT TO -L- STA. 17 + 00 LT FROM STA. -Y- 18 + 00 LT TO -Y- STA. 20 + 50 LT
/ s0 \ a oo ��\ FROM STA. R L- 19 + 00 LT TO _L- STA. 21 + 50 LT FROM STA. -Y- 13 + 50 RT TO -Y- STA. 15 + 00 RT
oo FROM STA. L- 14 + 50 RT TO L- STA. 15 + 00 RT FROM STA. -Y- 17 + 00 RT TO -Y- STA. 18 + 00 RT
s c'p FROM STA. -L- 16 + 50 RT TO -L- STA. 17 + 00 RT
_ �_ ° _ _ _ -per FROM STA. -L- 19 + 00 RT TO -L- STA. 22 + 00 RT DETAIL D
SPECIAL
/ O O SPECIAL
LAT V DITC \ O A\ LAT VDITCH SLOPE STABILIZATION
SEE DETAIL A SEE DETAIL B ( Not to Scale)
6
° O
STA. -L- STA. 16 + 30 RT
O /oo� O Oj /� oTFo PUE v v WINSLOW HOLDINGS, LLC
DB 2246 PG 724
M2006 PG B BM 2006 PG 2001(FRANKLIN COUNTY REGISTRY)
COUNTY REGISTRY)
SPEC�AL LAT V DITCH � � A
SEE DETAIL C coo S
F �FROM -RAB- STA. 10 + 10 TO 10 + 60 RT �Z / / z ° SPECIAL LAT V DITCH O o FROM -RAB- STA. 11 + 05 TO 12 + 15 RT
_YA POT STA CST 129.3/= SEE DETAIL B ' �SC F FROM _RAB_ STA. 12+45 TO 13+00 RT /
O �� 40 FROM RAB STA. 13 + 40 TO 14 + 50 RT
SLOPE STABILIZATION -L- POT STA f 4
SEE DETAIL D -RAB- PCC STA 12+35.62 i
O O �
��7 i O �j� 3 TONS CLASS B RIP RAP LOIS SHEARON MURPHY _L- POT STA. 17t79.03 - �Z �� F , vt�`
7 SY GEOTEXTILE TRUST OF ALICE PEACE SHEARON v �� �� \ O
BETTY SHEARON ROWLAND oo
R 4 ° �O\ ELSIE P. SHEARON (FRANKLIN COUNTY GIS) %� °o C O
DB 946 PG 983 (WAKE AND FRANKLINTY REGISTRY) 7 \ �° � COUNTY Q � �o�° v \
/ RETAIN 18" RCP
2006 PG LOIS SHEARON MURPHY \ \ a a
BM BM
2006 PG 2001 1748
RANKLIN OCOUNT REGISTRY) REGISTRY) F
TRUST
SHEARON OWLANDRON 0 �� o
° O ELSIE P. SHEARON (FRANKLIN COUNTY . S) e/ O�
O DB 946 PG 983 (WAKE AND FRANKLIN COUNTY REGISTRY)
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1 BM
2006 PG 2006 PG 2001 FCOUNTY REGISTRY) E°°T�� ° (FRANKLIN COUNTG REGISTRY) O BM os
O
Al
°° SITE 2 / / ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
��°/ F�oo
O� 4. r�0 °O
njtK
r . .F_7

Z
O
w
w
ff�
z
LD
�z
w�
z�
ff�
to -�4
>_�
z�
z
z
Q� 1
03
�B W. PI�IVE TE
b6' 19 I� O�II(WAKE OUNTY IRE& S �R/Y) A \ \ s \
�
\ ID Z / I fl / \
5ID_ -OBB W..P'RIV-ET_E / / - / - - _ OMM j �Ar� HILL/ / / o B� 0,416 PGI 10�5 W f
3a5 -��-/ 3 \ e as
Vc�o ��i c� �oL+�r� R G1�� / v ��r4� `r/ GA18 / . - 2.00 I I I �I PBS 19p16IRc Io29 1 I 8 1 \
/ \PB 2007 EG 24 S--WAKE/COU Y GISTRY) i W I v
I P 10 5 / // / / - I 1 V \
� �, � / / B �0� PG 3'23i(FRANKLFf� C NXY �TS�RY) �BI 19�1� PG 10 3
ID
�3y.IDID % \A / �/ /� 107V3 Sm / \ / / / SzSID.3�2.ID '61B/2�44 P(� 0 ( tANKLIN C UN1�Y EGk T Y) \ a \ \
Vv \�3 -o / v / / \ \ \ B �23�4 PG 71
\� 382.5ID -_ / // �B' 20?�3 P� 86 111�AtEE37C�UNTN EGI 1f F�'t) - \
\ 3gs VA �3g1.� / �/ / // �/ �375.IDID / / ,� \ / �� \ \
V v 1 344 PG,71�
� /�/ // �� 3X'4 m@ �/ / /� /� \ V \ \\ I
�3g� _SS°� v v �373.ID0 _ / v � I A34� P� 720
/ S\ v� / - _ - / �i' - / / v / mm �i F �B 202 iG �(�� �WAI�E COUNT E ISTRYN 32 / 5 E
/383.IDID \ \�` �► 7 ID� / 13. m� `s �D \ \
\\V� I /PB �023 (�5 7�6�(W,,4KE C`pUNT RE STRY�Y n0 8
mwso
'I If o • / •�
DRMP, INC.
5808 FARINGDON PLACE
RALEIGH, NC 27609
[phone]
`\-382.00-
PB -023 PPG1 \(F tANKL�N C'OLIN Y RE �ST14Y)
382.ID0- ,ro
SPECIAL LAT V DIT'EFL_ �3�3°� _ / SmID/ % �// IDm�� I \ A
-�
\- 'y o\� i v / S�E DETArt I
38J,00
� / KAT IN COLLIE
MOVES 8= P A P./
/ / /� / 7@ / 5� w-
/\� A� X - / INLET P�TCTI N / I( DB 1690� G 2598 1 I
_380.IDID_ A \ \ / / S CLASS B RIP RAP SEE DET / / (WAK NT COUREGI TRT)� \ o
\ ft'A / @
NC LICENSE NO. F-1524
www.drmp.com
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
W-5805E
RNd SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
��NI C A R p�/���
Es S Ip� ti9
SEAL 9�
e
050515
SHEET NO.
4
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
111111111//
��H C AR (Y *i,�
/ .,
SEAL l�
' 55416
�'; 0��''FI!G I N��'
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
10 EOTEXTILE B 2
I o 16 �® s cL IRIP P/// � / I I p/ //
�/ 037SY GEOTEXTI /jLIN /�COLI TY 1� E IS/rOY) V" o �3a o
/ / 1 / 379.IDID CRo Pal
3�ID� / / / O i- \ \ \ � o �
/ / - V /\ / 5 P
A 3, a o/S��IA MCA v
SPECIAL T-/ TJ1TeH - _ � w / / �� WAWL � ! IDID / o . mi
/ / o / / 3 m 376vID
^mi 06.
/ TA. l4 7/Z/ oSwS/
3R MO 15
V
RARHIC CCA�E
m
_ Syo \ I VA• _ •�� i � � �/ � / � � � �n s� @`o Sw � �W o � � � � / � / / .�ID // �m� /� : `'' �
/ o5m /� v\v - �9L \ - - - - - �/ / // / /I _Y- PCIStd. 16-�9/.4
/ ,371.ID \V TONS S � RIP-
- - OJSs SHE �etURPHY i F _ A3> v� \ 36 6�� / //, �Yl POT S A -
- ---TFS�� LTCC C,E S ARON / _ S (\v V A �o \ / m �_� / EOiXTIt�E-
�' \v \ s SID A v / j AB- PCC STA l f2 .5
- - - BE I I �H AHON LAND CONC.
DB G9 � 485 t "KE CO tS`TR o° \� \V \A \ HEADWALL / /�� % @
-RB�001 P-G- 2A3/4wAAKE� C 0UN1S EGISrtRY) / �� \ @ �v ���, A �` 3IDa. _ / �`' �w f ,S l o� �o� /Q� �j /� �7� �j /
�- / / / l / 405 RE \�
/ 'I �� / 3 S2=IDID �372ID0
SLO ABI IZATITN R OVE-
/ V� S DE AIL 12" CP
.� 37ID' 6' m 377.50 / mID
/ e s DETAIL A
//m/ �� \� S� o //�� l 1 ��/ / I CLTS �r �/
_ � A \ \ / ID / -
368.5ID�� . � -_ 6' / �
RIP RAP I .�1 / m = �/ / / / CHANNEL PROTECTION
7 SY
�'l
L?T G TE ILE (Not to Scale)
T�H/ / 35 / / �ID � 9 ° 37Natural Bed
/ 7 .jti�369.ID0/LIJI SHE�Ro URPHI� o E AIL s a / / �� j / ,� / _ - - v
VA 11 - TRU�7 0 LICE PEA SH�ARON 0 o _ ID7.ID A� a \ \\ \ / / /ti / R /� _� �S3ID; _ '�� 3y _ DITCH DITCH
� Elevation
e / / / �36q.5ID /S / amID SPECIA \ \ / / I \� �5 \ -� �j // 'i / - / / �� \ LINE LINE
ID BETTY _AR RO ND �T p _ I C oo F/ 3�,.SID / \
DB 174 $ FAG 2381 � SSE_DETAI B / \ / % / SAS / 73. �% ov / / / -cA /
� _ ` \ / \ �• 1.5' a Minimum of lft
( RACT 4 P ED) �� Tuck Geotextile
�ozID--/�-�3�mz"//-/65mIDO� /
C_ /,�o Geotextile*(TVP)
/ / r ' - / DONNA F/2EEMAI� Channel Bed
VA / / / l /369.5ID- '�° �'
m A / / r- - A e9 (Variable) Place Geotextile Under Riprap
D ETAI L E _ / / / y� v / �� 3 / /� / / - / - 1 �, Len th = , o Ft.
SPECIAL LATERAL ��/� BITCH \� - Sim - // S/� / D 7781 P�i� e in Locations Directed by Engineer
V ID �/ DB 746 PG 221 Type of Liner= CL 1 Rip -Rap -Keyed-In
( Not to Scale) 36e-�e / j / - °� m o ° ��ID°c // / �I /� / PB 1997 PG 452
� m i °v= o a - � -L- STA. 16 + 40 LT
,RE j(YR�/ �� �(/-
_ °�° .o / m�..o / SS A\ Q\ / / // y /
Natural Fill �/�/ �: A -00.ZL3- m - DETAIL B
Ground ��e� I / / '� �� / ° / / SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
?•� D ��O Slope / / 364.5ID / �, �. v / IdS i o o / / SIPE ALILf�T\V PI C� / Not to Scale
m �l . / I I 34 ®� / / / @ I I SEE DET, L �C / l / / ( )
IA4I A� G�ES� � � � I� �S M / �st�PD� AI �Ip�I2A�TI6N/
_o� LEE D D TCFI �@ I \ Natural Fill
Min. D=0.5 Ft. PIPE OUTLET C NEL
STABILIZATION SEE TAIL F mho SEE DE�IL B / S ID � / w I / N I \ D ��et
FROM -RAB- STA. 11 + 15 TO 12 + 00 RT o TONS CL I RIPRAP 1 0 /mo / D F�a p
TES / Ground 4. Slope
24 Sr'�GE XTILE.mi' o C I \
Min. D = 0.85 Ft.
D ETAI L F
PIPE OUTLET CHANNEL STABILIZATION t/ / mm 7 / //j j/ // ////ID�m�/ V //�!��% 7d - o ��� V A�A �A �I
( Not to Scale) \ \ -p / SPE�AL / // / / o �\ ° S ° ° �o �V \ \\ Asa % I I A \ FROM STA. -L- 13 + 00 LT TO -L- STA. 14 + 25 LT FROM STA. -Y- 13 + 50 LT TO -Y- STA. 15 + 00 LT
Natural Bed y / oEE DF�TAI�[ CG�P� FROM STA. -L- 14 + 25 LT TO -L- STA. 16 + 40 LT FROM STA. -Y- 17 + 00 LT TO -Y- STA. 18 + 00 LT
Elevation \ ��m / FROM STA. -L- 16 + 50 LT TO -L- STA. 17 + 00 LT FROM STA. -Y- 18 + 00 LT TO -Y- STA. 20 + 50 LT
Natural Natural / / / / / / w/\/j!- e �j� �/ A V v \\\ \ V �. FROM STA. -L- 19 + 00 LT TO -L- STA. 21 + 50 LT FROM STA. -Y- 13 + 50 RT TO -Y- STA. 15 + 00 RT
Ground Ground I / / 4�-� / Vmji / / \ V A \
y \ @m / � / � / / @m / / S v / , S ° \ v V v \\ \ \ � - oo\ � I �\ � \ \ FROM STA. -L- 14 + 50 RT TO -L- STA. 15 + 00 RT FROM STA. -Y- 17 + 00 RT TO -Y- STA. 18 + 00 RT
/ \ FROM STA. -L- 16 + 50 RT TO -L- STA. 17 + 00 RT
2, Tuck Geotextile I / / / / / / / �°/ - IDID ��/ m o o \ se V� a>l.s \ S �jc \ \
a Minimum of lft /� ID5 �/__10- �o V �\ \ o e
/ / / ,/ �/ / /s - IDID- V A \ \� I FROM STA. -L- 19 + 00 RT TO -L- STA. 22 + 00 RT D ETAI L D
Geotextile ( ) / / �� % / /"/ // / / LAT V DITC \ asp \ / �\\. _ A�\ \ LAT \ \ \ / V A \ y \ V A SLOPE STABILIZATION
Channel Bed *Place Geotextile Under Ri ra I I / 1� / ' - A� \ s
p p / / R SEE DETAIL - A \ \ V '�`� CAN
Length= 14 Ft. (Variable) in Locations Directed b Engineer \ /o�/ // -3o.IDID V A V A \Str DT�IL �B \ I A \ _\ �se \ \ \ �� (Not to Scale)
y g V I I(67� �/� �// / 375 _ -_ v I vvv v vv \ \ \
Type of Liner= CL 1 Rip -Rap -Keyed-In � I _
\ \ 1 I I o ID o / v - - /i / - v �� vvv v vv�e� -\
O 6 / e / -�") / 37ID.IDID- � 9 98
STA. -L- STA. 16 + 30 RT I -� m // �j_ - -
3 --- _ p
WIN/S0/L/ O/ W -H4A �// P�cNG/�S
DB
o
A�\ nalon Place Excelsio4
2:1 or Flatter
vr
- _ _ - -- 2�U%\�G� �RU4:1 FMatitront Slopes
1368.IDID�� ��RY)����v�ITCH
:��30T�_-368.00 Type of Liner= PSRM
-367.5ID
�� - - \ \ FROM -RAB- STA. 10 + 10 TO 10 + 60 RT
3E /\sa II
\\ �AoA� / l � o � l/ / � \ e r- ✓mID' // 3\z -_i / _/ � � e_
SEC AL A �/ IT H \
\ vv \ ID o vV I / - FROM -RAB- STA. 11 + 05 TO 12 + 15 RT
\\ \\ / `� ,yob \ \ S /% / /� �- /� 3o .ID /� A I \ o �- \ �V� _ \A�3 -� I l / \
o\A ` / �S A � Ao / ///- -ST�l5 Z9. _ IDID- - - - EE DE IL� \ \ i S
v�vvv \vv v A / 67IDID-��a� ii�� -� _ / / I \ \ ��v�v _ I / / i
_ _ / \\ \� 1 / FROM -RAB- STA. 12 + 45 TO 13 + 00 RT
Vvv ?l � v �/' �' /�,y6 / 6 .,�5, �� �/ �S _ ID4.5� _ \ \ \ I I \ boo, - I I v ,
� 03 -� \ oq A \ � w ,� \\ - FROM -RAB- STA. 13 + 40 TO 14 + 50 RT
L�A 1��V IDS 855
eYTI-Ot'f-P T Q 4
- A - P C S Al f3 .62
A-00���3o.0ID
as\ �� /�--� \
� � IDI I -
A I i74943
T�Id S IP--L(�/HEARON MURP I-Y \ \ -L� IP T STA. 5 v v ,SS
V/VVE>� x/ TRUST 6F AC1C'E FEA�E SHEANON
_ \� \
\ 1 I 1 c°/ _00°S9C- �� �% / / S \ hID \ 36`00_
\\ �5 v// / ID a �v v - /o / r�Y'sHEAo RowL�NQ
c / v \ \ v \ ��, �/ LSIE�P�Sy�R0N !3� I�bIfL-tN Co I T Y GI)
of �- � \ � e \ �
�� A\ \ \ \ _ 4 PG 9 3ID�W E AND�RANKLIN OUf�TY R GIST
00'L96-�J'�-�I��� n V�\
. e s7,.IDID /� �A \C RETAIN 18 RCP \
M 200�.5BG 1748 (WAKE 'EOTMIT I��ISTT�I�) W I �� I Q � / L IS SHE-,4 btU����l �� � ,o m//�
\ \ \3IDz.5ID� �M -2006 PG�2 (71TFR-AIN LIN COU.NTV GIS Y)� I I I I l q5� o v - \ \\ \ s v A o o
\\ / \\ \ \ \ 9 I N� 1 / \ T�u� QF A
o \ � T Yi H�1,RON
/
w \ \ I 1 ' / r AQ
/ R.�Ez�W���N a_ �ID
v \\ \\ \ \ 34�/ / / / /
\\ \\ \ \ � 3
\ \ \ \ \ I \ ` I \ I \ 1 I I / , J D r '� �IIV1A �a�i�F,a-A�iKLI Wa l i
I�\\\ \� \ V I I/,� I f1\ � ,B / �� -
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1 I I w / / / I / �� + Tf48 �WA+&E 0.91�Pr ,- C;I•SJ/RY,1' / /
I I I �e®�-(F--R,�Ker� GO TY I�RSYi v / / T� / / ��� vv �5v�� A owe /
/_- _ - o /\ \
N / / o /// I I �\ -� v \ / / / ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2 / �/ \ / / (� //// / /i S.IDID - _
/���.364.IDID��� %^�-��' / / /o@��
o I
__ / � o
B tnl o @ 3E9.
/ / /I'\\ o�\\ �o o,✓ \��
z \ \\ \ , \� os ��\ o�IM / \ / / �� ► ICI \
Q o\ I / I
� 9
-_
o I r I\ i 5 e� C
e \ \ a a' M \ �� / 6 6 \ \ 3 / / 36ID.00-
Ll e \ \ - 3E5�B� 3�i ID/j / \ I e
/ \ \ \ \ \\ \ y @

RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACTS BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT
Site Station Structure ROAD PARALLEL
No. (From/To) Size / Type CROSSING IMPACT BRIDGE ZONE 1 ZONE 2 TOTAL ZONE 1 ZONE 2 TOTAL ZONE 1 ZONE 2
(ftz) (ftz) (ftz) (ftz) (ftz) (ftz) (ftz) (ftz)
1
-L-15+61 to 16+92
42" RCP -IV Buried 0.7'
X
5955
4354
10309
2
-Y- 12+00+12+56
Fill Slope
X
644
1016
1660
TOTALS":
6599
5370
1 11968
0
0
0
0
0
NOTES:
2018 Feb

WETLANDS IN BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLANDS IN
BUFFERS
STATION ZONE 1 ZONE 2
SITE NO. (FROM/TO) (rt2) (rt2)
-L-15+74 to 16+10 442 375
TOTAL: 442 375
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1/23/24
Wake&Franklin Counties
W-5805
Revised 2018 Feb SHEET 5 OF 5
Rev.Jan 2009

DIVIS Mitigation Information

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BiSER
Secretary
MARC RECKTENWALD
Director
Mr. Chris Murray
NCDOT Division 5 Project Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
2612 N. Duke Street
Durham, North Carolina 27704
Dear Mr. Murray:
Subject: Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
March 7, 2024
Division 5 Project — TIP W-5805E NC 98 and SR 2057 / SR 4465 / SR 1106 (Moores Pond Road) Roundabout
Construction, Wake and Franklin Counties, WBS Number 48950.1.6; USACE Action ID 2022-01785
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division
of Mitigation Services (NCDEQ-DMS) will provide the mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information
received from you on March 7, 2024, the impacts are located in CU 03020201 of the Neuse River basin in the Central
Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Neuse
Stream
Wetlands
Buffer (Sq. Ft.)
03020201
Non-
Coastal
CP
Cold
Cool
Warm
Riparian
Zone 1
Zone 2
Riparian
Marsh
Impacts
(feet/acres)
0
0
44.000
0.020
0
0
0
0
DMS commits to implementing sufficient compensatory mitigation credits to offset the impacts associated with
this project as determined by the regulatory agencies in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010. If
the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new
mitigation acceptance letter will be required from NCDEQ-DMS.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at 919-707-8420.
Sincerely,
CS &2� 9S/allt4"'Pf-
Elizabeth A. Harmon
DMS NCDOT ILF Coordinator
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE — Raleigh
Mr. Rob Ridings, NCDWR
Mr. Brad Chilton, NCDOT — EAU
File: W-5805E — Division 5
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 1 Division of Mitigation Services
'®}Jl[ 217 West Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
NOPTH CAFULM
aepakh & Eawl�aaa� , n \ /"� 919.707.8976

P/T/E Info

3/7/24, 11:21 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
IPaC
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
WaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical
habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced
below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but
that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area.
However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust
resources typically requires gathering additional site -specific (e.g., vegetation/species
surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the
USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to
each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI
Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that
section.
Location
Franklin and Wake counties, North Carolina
�
x
$
Y
r
x�
k'
s
Local office
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
�. [phone]
[phone]
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 1 /16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
3916 Sunset Ridge Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607-3726
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 2/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of
project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each
species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes
areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in
that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at
the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow
downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this
list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any
potential effects to species, additional site -specific and project -specific information is often
required. 0 * %,
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the
Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be
present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted,
funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list
which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from
either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field
office directly. _
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC
website and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed speciesl and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown
on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under theirjurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also
shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for
more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 3/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAME
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
i •
NAME
STATUS
Proposed Endangered
STATUS
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E g
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. -
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Amphibians
NAME STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi Threatened
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does
not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
\'%*4 -
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus Endangered
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does
not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528
Clams
NAME STATUS
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 4/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Threatened
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does
not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Green Floater Lasmigona subviridis Proposed Threatened
Wherever found
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location
does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecptspecies/7541
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolate hre ed
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does
not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511
0
Insects
NAME STATUS
-40 emowa
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 5/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the
endangered species themselves.
There are no critical habitats at this location.
You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on
all above listed species.
Bald & Golden Eagles
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act' and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
bald or golden eagles, or their habitats3, should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.
Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov//program/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-
migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-
measures.pdf
• Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC
https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-
golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action
There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald
eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF
PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 6/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
NAME
IPaC: Explore Location resources
BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to jul 31
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely
to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your
project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read
"Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled
"Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to
interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-
week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey
effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One
can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also
high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events
for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted
Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in
week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week
12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season( )
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 7/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds
across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your
project area.
Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of
surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The
number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are
based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle --
Non -BCC _
Vulnerable —'�
tomb
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified
location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The
AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried
and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project
intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in
that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey., banding, and citizen science
datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a
particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 8/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.
It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially
present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating
the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if
you have questions.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act2. , 1%
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and
consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.
Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov//program/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-
migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
• Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC
https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-
golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how
this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this
location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see
exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around
your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date
range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional
maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 9/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other
important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and
use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF
PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
BREEDING SEASON
Breeds Sep 1 to jul 31
0
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska. -
1
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 to Sep 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10 to Aug 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely
to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your
project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read
"Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled
"Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to
interpret this report.
Probability of Presence( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-
week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 10/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One
can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also
high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events
for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted
Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in
week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week
12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. *`*
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
F—P111111111LIMISMA
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season (
r" xi
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds
across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your
project area.
Survey Effort (ie)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of
surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The
number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are
based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES
]AN
FEB
probability of presence
MAR APR
MAY JUN
breeding season , survey effort no data
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 11 /16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Bald Eagle
Non -BCC
Vulnerable
Chimney Swift
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all
birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds
are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the
locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.
To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of
Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity
you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science
datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a
particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.
It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially
present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by
the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and
citizen science datasets.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 12/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes
available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret
them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering,
migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps
provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird
on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their
range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands); '00 N
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in
the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either
because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in
offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or
longline fishing). if N N
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in
particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of
rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and
minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
It
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and
groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data
Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to
you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal
maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird
Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the
year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional
information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact
Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating
the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 13/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of
priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other
birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of
presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint.
On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar)
and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key
component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more
dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack
of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying
what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they
might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to
confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or
minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more
about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to Ill,
avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge
lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must
undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the
individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
There are no refuge lands at this location.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 14/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to
determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PFO1A
FRESHWATER POND
PUBHh
RIVERINE
R4SBC
RSUBH
CA0
<03
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory_
website Y
Ar
NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on -site delineation to determine whether
wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of
high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A
margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular
site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image
analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work
conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any
mapping problems.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 15/16

3/7/24, 11:21 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There
may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted
on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of
aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or
submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and
nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also
been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial
imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe
wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or
products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.
Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should
seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory
programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
INW)
GpN�
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LH4WQZVFKZGXFBMX5Y7AM5T7NU/resources 16/16

W-5805E Proposed, Threatened, and Endangered Species Information (3/7/2024)
*Carolina madtom (Endangered): IPaC identifies potential for this species at the project location,
however, the project is well beyond any Identified Stream Reach (NCDOT source). Therefore, following
the current Programmatic Conference Opinion -Bridge and Culvert Replacements/ Repair/Rehabilitation
Effects on Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog in NCDOT Divisions 2,4,5 and 7 (May 7, 2020), a
biological conclusion of MA-NLAA is rendered for this species.
*Neuse River waterdog (Threatened): IPaC identifies potential for this species at the project location,
however, the project is well beyond any Identified Stream Reach (NCDOT source). Therefore, following
the current Programmatic Conference Opinion -Bridge and Culvert Replacements/Repair/Rehabilitation
Effects on Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog in NCDOT Divisions 2,4,5 and 7 (May 7, 2020), a
biological conclusion of MA-NLAA is rendered for this species.
*Atlantic pigtoe (Threatened): IPaC identifies potential for this species at the project location, however,
the project is well beyond any Identified Stream Reach (NCDOT source). Therefore, following the revised
Programmatic Biological /Conference Opinion -Bridge and Culvert Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations
in Eastern North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (September 11, 2019) with addendum to Revised
Programmatic Biological /Conference Opinion -Bridge and Culvert Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations
in Eastern North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (June 1, 2021), a biological conclusion of MA-NLAA is
rendered for this species.
*Dwarf wedgemussel (Endangered): IPaC identifies potential for this species at the project location,
however, the project is well beyond any Identified Stream Reach (NCDOT source). Therefore, following
the revised Programmatic Biological /Conference Opinion -Bridge and Culvert
Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations in Eastern North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (September 11,
2019) with addendum to Revised Programmatic Biological /Conference Opinion -Bridge and Culvert
Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations in Eastern North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (June 1, 2021), a
biological conclusion of MA-NLAA is rendered for this species.
Green floater (Proposed Threatened): IPaC identifies potential for this species at the project location.
On July 25, 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a proposal to list the Green floater
(Lasmigona subvirdis - PESU) as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Upon listing, USFWS is
expected to provide habitat description, area of influence/distribution range and limits of Critical Habitat
for the Green floater. When this information is provided, it will help to inform NCDOT's determinations
on habitat that could be impacted by NCDOT actions.
*Yellow lance: IPaC identifies potential for this species at the project location, however, the project is
well beyond any Identified Stream Reach (NCDOT source). Therefore, following the revised Programmatic
Biological /Conference Opinion -Bridge and Culvert Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations in Eastern
North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (September 11, 2019) with addendum to Revised Programmatic
Biological /Conference Opinion -Bridge and Culvert Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations in Eastern
North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (June 1, 2021), a biological conclusion of MA-NLAA is rendered for
this species.

*The project will adhere to all applicable Conservation Measures and Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements — Monitoring and Reporting #2 and #3 as outlined in the aquatic mussel PBO and the
Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom PBO.
Michaux's sumac: IPaC identifies potential for this species at the project location. Limited habitat for
Michaux's sumac is located within the project limits within the portion of the study area particularly
along the woods edge. A plant by plant survey of the project study area was conducted on June 6, 2022.
No specimens were found during the survey, therefore, a biological conclusion of No Effect is rendered
for this species. Additional surveys for Michaux's sumac will be completed as necessary prior to
construction of the project. The "shelf -life" for a survey for Michaux's sumac is two years. The current
let date of the project is August 8, 2024.
Bald eagle: There are no large trees sufficient for eagle's nest, nor were any nests or birds observed
during the site visit. The project will not result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Ac.
Northern Long -Eared Bat (Endangered): The USFWS has issued a revised Programmatic Biological
Opinion (PBO) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), and NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) in
eastern North Carolina (December 15, 2022). The revised PBO covers the entire NCDOT program in
Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. The programmatic determination for NLEB for
the NCDOT program is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. The revised PBO will ensure compliance
with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for ten years (effective through December 31, 2030) for all
NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8. Although this PBO covers Divisions 1-8, the USFWS
only considers NLEBs to be known or potentially found in 30 counties within Divisions 1-8. Note that
none of these 30 counties are located within Division 5. NCDOT, FHWA, and USACE have agreed to two
Conservation Measures which will avoid/minimize mortality of NLEBs. These Conservation Measures
only apply to the 30 current known/potential counties shown on Figure 2 of the revised PBO and do not
include any parts of Division 5. Additionally, NCDOT, FHWA, and USACE have agreed to three Monitoring
and Reporting Requirements to monitor the impacts of incidental take. (Note: M&R2 is adhered to by
Biological Surveys Group (BSG) and is not discussed below).
M&R1: If dead bats suspected of being NLEB are observed during clearing, demolition, or
construction activities of the Action, such bats should be collected and preserved for
identification. Gary Jordan of the USFWS Raleigh Field Office should be contacted at
gary [e-mail] to arrange transfer of the bats. Dead bats should be placed in a freezer
until they can be transferred.
M&R3: NCDOT staff and/or consultants must follow the NCDOT Bat Habitat Assessment SOP by
filling out Bat Habitat Assessment Forms for projects that affect bridges and culverts. Minimum
dimensions for conducting a culvert survey are 5 feet in height and 60 feet in length. Bridge and
structure assessments are valid for two years. These forms will be submitted to the NCDOT
Biological Surveys Group (BSG) using the Survey 123 application or emailed to
[e-mail]. BSG staff will enter the forms into its database even if no bat presence is
detected. If NLEBs are detected at a bridge or culvert, the USFWS will be notified via email at
gary [e-mail]. Note: No structures requiring bat surveys are located within the project
construction limits. Additionally, no bridges are located within the project construction limits.

Tricolored Bat (Proposed Endangered): The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has issued a
Programmatic Conference Opinion (PCO) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and NCDOT for the tricolored bat (TCB) (Perimyotis
subflavus) in eastern North Carolina (November 20, 2023). The PCO covers the entire NCDOT program in
Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. The programmatic determination for TCB for
the NCDOT program is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. Once the TCB is officially listed, the PCO
will become the programmatic biological opinion (PBO) by formal request from FHWA and USACE. The
PBO will ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for approximately five years
(effective through December 31, 2028) for all NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8.
NCDOT, FHWA, and USACE have agreed to three conservation measures (listed in the PCO) which will
avoid/minimize take to TCBs. These conservation measures apply to all counties in Divisions 1-8. Note
that at this time, no TCB maternity roost trees have been identified in Divisions 1-8. Additionally, NCDOT,
FHWA, and USACE have agreed to two Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.
M&R1: If dead bats suspected of being TCB are observed during clearing, demolition, or
construction activities of the Action, such bats should be collected and preserved for
identification. Gary Jordan of the USFWS Raleigh Field Office should be contacted at
gary [e-mail] to arrange transfer of the bats. Dead bats should be placed in a freezer
until they can be transferred.
M&R2: NCDOT staff and/or consultants must follow the NCDOT Bat Habitat Assessment SOP by
filling out Bat Habitat Assessment Forms for projects that affect bridges and culverts. Minimum
dimensions for conducting a culvert survey are 5 feet in height and 60 feet in length. Bridge and
structure assessments are valid for two years. These forms will be submitted to the NCDOT
Biological Surveys Group (BSG) using the Survey 123 application or emailed to
[e-mail]. BSG staff will enter the forms into its database even if no bat presence is
detected. If TCBs are detected at a bridge or culvert, the USFWS will be notified via email at
gary [e-mail]. Note: No structures requiring bat surveys are located within the project
construction limits. Additionally, no bridges are located within the project construction limits.

DRAFT Environmental Commitments (March 8, 2024)
BAT SPECIES
If dead bats suspected of being Northern long-eared bat or Tricolored bat are observed during clearing,
demolition, or construction activities of the Action, such bats should be collected and preserved for
identification. Gary Jordan of the USFWS Raleigh Field Office should be contacted at
gary iordan(cr�,fws.gov to arrange transfer of the bats. Dead bats should be placed in a freezer until they
can be transferred.
AQUATIC SPECIES
The following "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" [15A NCAC 04B.0124 (b) — (e)] are
incorporated into NCDOT projects that occur within or upstream of water bodies that contain federally
protected aquatic species. Within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the following shall apply:
• The contractor may perform clearing operations but not grubbing operations until
immediately prior to beginning grading operations.
• Once grading operations begin in the Environmental Sensitive Areas, work shall progress in a
continuous manner until complete.
• Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing operation.
• Seeding and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately
following final grade establishment.
• Seeding and mulching shall be done in stages on cut and fill slopes that are greater than 20 feet
in height measure along the slope or greater than two acres in area, whichever is less.
The following are additional measures intended to further reduce deleterious construction
related effects to the waterway:
Off -site detours will be utilized to the maximum extent possible.
No heavy equipment will be placed in the stream outside of the impervious dikes.
The following documents will be used during design and construction: 1) NCDOT Erosion and
Sediment Control Design and Construction Manual; 2) NCDOT Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities and 3) NCDOT Stormwater Best Management Practices
Toolbox.
Culvert/pipe structure construction activities will have containment measures in place to prevent
components of the structure from dropping into the stream outside of the impervious dike. The
method of containment will be proposed by the contractor and approved by the engineer as necessary.

Special sediment control fence NCDOT Standard No. 1606.01 or a combination of special sediment
control fence and standard silt fence will be installed between the top of the stream bank and adjacent
grading activities. Once the disturbed areas of the project draining to these areas have been stabilized,
the special sediment control fence and/or standard silt fence and all built up sediment adjacent to
these devices will be removed to natural ground and stabilized with a native grass mix.
All appropriate sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits, will
be maintained to ensure proper function of the measures following NCDOT protocols.
Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner as to prevent surface
runoff/drainage from discharging untreated into the riparian buffer. All interim surfaces will be
graded to drain to temporary erosion control devices. Temporary berms, ditches, etc. will be
incorporated, as necessary, to treat temporary runoff before discharging into the riparian buffer (as
specified in the NCDOT BMP Manual).
All sedimentation and erosion control measures will be appropriately maintained following NCDOT
standards to ensure proper function of the measures. This project must adhere to conditions of
General Permit NCGO1000 to Discharge Stormwater under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System for Construction Activities. The project design and construction activities are
required to "select, install, implement and maintain best management practices (BMPs) and control
measures that minimize pollutants in the discharge to meet the requirements of the permit." Among
these conditions, the permit requires: 1) all erosion and sedimentation control measures must be
inspected at least once every seven calendar days and 2) within 24 hours after any storm event of
greater than 1.0 inch of rain per 24 hour period. It is understood that these requirements and
implementation of other appropriate BMPs are monitored through multiple layers of oversight. At a
minimum, the following personnel monitor erosion control measures:
Contactor project manager
NCDOT Division Environmental Officer and Environmental Specialists
NCDOT Roadside Environmental Field Operations Staff
Utility relocations required by bridge or culvert replacements must minimize sedimentation impacts to
federally protected species (freshwater mussels, Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom). No
stream open cuts for utility relocation will occur on this project.
In the event that visible sediment loss from the project is observed at the bridge site, a review of
turbidity levels will be made upstream and downstream 400 meters (0.25 mile) to determine if
sedimentation effects are occurring beyond the Action Area as defined in the Biological Opinion. If
visual observation of turbidity levels downstream appear to be elevated beyond upstream
observations, the project inspector will contact the Division Environmental Officer. If determined that
project -related sediment is occurring beyond 400 meters, the USFWS must be contacted immediately
to discuss potential remediation.

CE Document

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
A. Project Description:
W-5805E
48950.1.6
0098038
The proposed project involves constructing a roundabout at the intersection of NC 98 and
SR 2057/SR 4465 (Moores Pond Road) at the Wake and Franklin County line. The proposed
improvements include a roundabout with one 16-foot rotary lane. Twelve -foot lanes and four -foot
paved shoulders will be provided on both NC 98 and Moores Pond Road within the project limits. The
project location is shown on Figure 1. Proposed improvements are shown on Figure 2.
The project is included in the 2020-2029 North Carolina State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP). Right-of-way acquisition and construction are expected to begin in fiscal years 2023 and 2024,
respectively.
The total estimated cost for the project is $1,850,000, including $150,000 for right of way acquisition,
$50,000 for utilities, and $1,650,000 for construction.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety at the intersection of NC 98 and Moores
Pond Road.
For the five-year period between November 1, 2013 and October 31, 2018, a total of 42 crashes
occurred at this intersection. Thirty-five of these crashes resulted in injuries. A total of 77 people were
injured in these crashes. The majority of crashes occurring during the study period (64.29%) were
angle -type crashes. Sixteen people were injured in angle -type crashes. The total crash rate for this
intersection for the study period was 230.01 crashes per 100 million vehicles entering the intersection.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
Type I(A) - Ground Disturbing Action
D. Proposed Improvements:
23. Federally -funded projects:
a) That receive less than $5,000,000 (as adjusted annually by the Secretary to reflect any
increases in the Consumer Price Index prepared by the Department of Labor) of Federal funds;
27. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects, including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting, if the project meets the constraints in 23 CFR 771.117(e)(1-
6).
v2019.1 W-5805E Type I(A) CE Page 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
E. Special Project Information:
Potential Project Effects
The proposed project will require the acquisition of additional right of way. Temporary construction
easements and permanent drainage and utility easements will also be required.
The proposed project is expected to impact less than 0.1 acre of wetlands and approximately 140
linear feet of stream (these impacts are based on an impact area 25 feet outside the proposed slope
stakes). The project is not located within a 100-year floodplain. Figure 3 presents environmental
features in the project area.
Complete Streets
Bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit accommodations were evaluated for the project. There are no
bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities within or adjacent to the project study area. The four -foot paved
shoulders proposed on both NC 98 and Moores Pond Road within the project limits will provide
additional width for bicycles. NC 98 is proposed to be widened in the future, as indicated in the Capital
Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).
Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations will be provided as a part of this future widening.
Stage 21M1 of the Integrated Project Delivery Process (IPD) has been completed and the NCDOT
Integrated Mobility Division and Wake and Franklin County Planning staffs have concurred with the
proposed four -foot paved shoulder on NC 98 and Moores Pond Road due to this future widening and
the limited scope of this project.
Utilities
The proposed project will require relocation of telephone, cable, and overhead power lines within the
study area.
Public Involvement
A public meeting was held for the proposed project on January 23, 2023 at New Life Church on NC 96
near Wake Forest. Property owners in the area were notified about the workshop by postcards
distributed by mail. A project map showing the project design was displayed and informational
handouts were available to meeting participants. No formal presentation was made; the public could
attend at any time during the meeting hours.
Seven people attended this public meeting, not including project team staff. Two comment sheets
were received from local citizens during the public meeting. Comments were also received via the
public website.
In addition to the public meeting, a public input website was created to receive comments from
residents and businesses in the study area. Postcards providing the website address were mailed to
area property owners on January 4, 2023. Comments were accepted from the website starting
January 4, 2023, until February 9, 2023.
In total, nine comments were received regarding the proposed project. Five comments expressed
support for the project. Other comments suggested installing roadway lighting to improve visibility of
the proposed roundabout at night and one comment suggested keeping the existing four-way stop.
v2019.1 W-5805E Type I(A) CE Page 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
Community Impacts
A Direct and Indirect Screening Tool (DIST) was completed by RKA in September 2022. The DIST
identified that 720 people live within a one -mile radius of the project study area. It is reported that 20%
of the population living within the one -mile radius are minority. It is reported that 4% of the households
within the one -mile radius have a household income below $15,000. It is reported that 2% of the
population living within the one -mile radius speak English "less than very well."
Direct, negative impacts to farmland soils, agricultural operations or voluntary agriculture districts were
noted as being possible. Within the project study area, there are farmlands of statewide importance
and prime farmland soils, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Additionally, one
of the properties within the study area, in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of NC 98 and
Moores Pond Road, is actively farmed. A preliminary screening of farmland impacts in the project area
has been completed. An AD-1006 form was submitted to NRCS in July 2022 and it was found that the
project has a total site assessment score below the Farmland Protection Policy Act threshold of 160
points. As such, these farmland conversion impacts are not considered notable.
Although not identified as a possible negative impact, an off -site detour will be utilized during
construction. The intersection is expected to be closed for approximately a year, with a 3.2-mile detour
for drivers on NC 98 and a 3.4-mile detour for drivers on Moores Pond Road. Low impacts were noted
by the school systems and emergency service agencies for both Wake and Franklin Counties.
Additional information regarding the proposed detours and their effects are provided below.
Detour
The intersection of NC 98 and Moores Pond Road will be closed during construction. The proposed
detour route for drivers on NC 98 is approximately 3.2 miles. From the west, the detour follows NC 96
(Zebulon Road) to US 401 to NC 98. The proposed detour route for drivers on Moores Pond Road is
approximately 3.4 miles. From the north, the detour follows SR 1104 (Satterwhite Road)/SR 1946
(Jack Jones Road) to NC 96 to US 401 to Moores Pond Road. The proposed detour routes are shown
on Figure 1.
Wake County Schools was contacted to provide input on the impact of a possible intersection closure.
Wake County Schools indicated there will be a low impact to school bus transportation if the
intersection was closed. One Wake County school bus travels through the intersection of NC 98 and
Moores Pond Road twice a day.
Franklin County Schools was contacted to provide input on the impact of a possible intersection
closure. Franklin County Schools indicated there will be a low impact to school bus transportation if the
intersection was closed. No Franklin County school buses travel through the intersection of NC 98 and
Moores Pond Road.
Wake County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was contacted to provide input on the impact of a
possible intersection closure. Wake County EMS noted the intersection closure would cause low
impact to emergency response and noted the detours are acceptable.
Youngsville Fire Department was contacted to provide input on the impact of a possible intersection
closure. Youngsville Fire Department noted the intersection closure would cause low impact to fire
response within their coverage area but did note a potential moderate impact on mutual aid response
from both the Bunn and Rolesville Fire Departments. Mutual aid is when another fire department
responds to assist with structure fires in neighboring districts. The Youngsville Fire Department did
note the project intersection is not inside their coverage area, although it is possible they could be
dispatched into areas in Wake County, including the project area.
Impact forms were also sent to Wake County Fire Services and Emergency Management Department
and Franklin County EMS, with no response received after six weeks.
v2019.1 W-5805E Type I(A) CE Page 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
Cultural Resources
NCDOT architectural historians reviewed State Historic Preservation Office data on May 18, 2022 and
found no existing National Register of Historic Places -listed or eligible properties in the project's area
of potential effects (APE). There are no structures over 50 years of age in the APE. No historic
architectural survey is required. The "Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form"
was signed on May 18, 2022.
NCDOT archaeologists conducted an on-line map review and site file search of data provided by the
Office of State Archaeology on May 24, 2022. As explained in the May 25, 2022 "Archaeological
Survey Required" form prepared by the NCDOT Archaeology Team, there are numerous
archaeological sites in the project vicinity and positive environmental factors for past settlement. An
archaeological survey was conducted in September 2022. The survey identified two newly recorded
archaeological sites, both of which were recommended Not Eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project. In the event that the Project APE is expanded,
further work is recommended to determine the full extent of multiple archaeological sites. The "No
National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites Present Form" was signed
on November 29, 2022.
Protected Species
As of March 1, 2023, the US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Information and Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) website (ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) shows the following species are potentially affected
by activities in this location:
Federally -Protected Species Potentially Occurring in Project Study Area
Common Name
Scientific
Status
Potential
Biological
Name
Habitat?
Conclusion
Tricolored bat
Perimyotis
Proposed
Unknown
Unresolved
subflavus
Endangered
Neuse River
Necturus
May Affect, Not
Waterdog
lewisi
Threatened
Yes
Likely to
Adversely Affect
Noturus
May Affect, Not
Carolina Madtom
furiosus
Endangered
Yes
Likely to
Adversely Affect
Fusconaia
May Affect, Not
Atlantic Pigtoe
Threatened
Yes
Likely to
masoni
Adversely Affect
Dwarf
Alasmidonta
May Affect, Not
Wedgemussel
heterodon
Endangered
Yes
Likely to
Adversely Affect
Tar River
Parvaspina
May Affect, Not
Spinymussel
steinstansana
Endangered
Yes
Likely to
Adversely Affect
Elliptic
May Affect, Not
Yellow Lance
lanceolate
Treatened
Yes
Likely to
Adversely Affect
Michaux's Sumac
Rhus
michauxii
Endangered
Yes
No Effect
NCDOT biologists conducted a site review on February 1 and February 17, 2022 and found suitable
habitat for Michaux's sumac in the study area. A follow up survey conducted June 6, 2022 found no
specimens within the study area. It is therefore expected the proposed project will have "no effect" on
Michaux's sumac.
v2019.1 W-5805E Type I(A) CE Page 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
IPaC identifies potential for Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom in the study area, but the
streams within the study area are greater than 0.25 mile from an identified stream reach for these
species. In accordance with the Programmatic Biological Opinion -Bridge and Culvert
Replacements/Repair/Rehabilitation Effects on Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog in
NCDOT Divisions 2, 4, 5, and 7 (August 3, 2021), a biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect is expected for Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom.
IPaC identifies potential for Atlantic pigtoe, Dwarf wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel, and yellow
lance in the study area, but the streams within the study area are well beyond any identified stream
reach for these species. Following the Programmatic Biological Opinion -Bridge and Culvert
Replacements/Repair/Rehabilitations in Eastern North Carolina NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (September 11,
2019) with addendum to Revised Programmatic Biological/Conference Opinion -Bridge and Culvert
Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations in Eastern North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (June 1,
2021), a biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect is expected for Atlantic
pigtoe, Dwarf wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel, and Yellow lance.
The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act enforced by the USFWS.
No known Natural Heritage Program occurrences exist for this area. There are no large trees sufficient
for eagle's nests, nor were any nests or birds observed during the site visit. Therefore, based on lack
of habitat, it is expected the proposed project will have "No Effect' on bald eagle.
On September 14, 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a proposal to list the tricolored
bat (Perimyotis subflavus - PESU) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Given the
proposal to list PESU as Federally Endangered, NCDOT and its federal partners, FHWA and USACE
are initiating a conference programmatic consultation to address impacts to this species. USFWS has
not provided an official effective listing date, but it is anticipated to occur in the second half of 2023.
Upon listing, USFWS is expected to provide habitat descriptions and an area of influence/distribution
range for PESU. When this information is provided, it will help to inform NCDOT's determinations on
habitat that could be impacted by NCDOT actions. If listed, NCDOT will resolve Section 7 prior to
project construction as appropriate.
Streams, Buffers, and Wetlands
Biologists with NCDOT conducted a site review on February 1 and February 17, 2022. This review is
documented in the natural resources and protected species memo, which is a part of the project files.
The project study area is located within the Neuse River Basin and the Neuse River Basin Buffer
Rules apply. There are two streams within the study area. One stream is on NC 98 just west of the
project intersection and is an intermittent stream. The other stream is on Moores Pond Road south of
the project intersection and is a perennial stream. The proposed project will affect approximately 140
linear feet of stream, based on the area 25 feet outside the proposed slope stakes.
The proposed project will affect approximately 8,807 square feet of Zone 1 and approximately 6,307
square feet of Zone 2 of the riparian buffer for both streams, based on the area 25 feet outside the
proposed slope stakes.
According to data from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ), the entire
study area is within a Class II Water Supply Watershed for the Little River. NCDOT will strictly adhere
to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) (HQW standards) throughout
design and construction of the project.
Two wetlands were identified within the study area. The wetlands are located within the Neuse River
Basin. The project may impact less than 0.1 acre of wetlands, based on the area 25 feet outside the
proposed slope stakes.
The project study area is not within a 100-year floodplain.
v2019.1 W-5805E Type I(A) CE Page 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
Permits Required
Given that the project may affect streams and wetlands, it is anticipated a Section 404 permit will be
required for the project. A Nationwide Permit 14 or a Regional General Permit 50 may be pursued for
this project due to the wetland and stream impacts. A buffer authorization and a Section 401 Water
Quality Certificate will be required from the NC Division of Water Resources.
v2019.1 W-5805E Type I(A) CE Page 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
F2. Ground Disturbing Actions — Type I (Appendix A) & Type II (Appendix B)
Proposed improvement(s) that fit Type I Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement,
Appendix A) including 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18, 21, 22 (ground disturbing), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, &/or 30;
&/or Type II Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B) answer the project
impact threshold questions (below) and questions 8 — 31.
• If any question 1-7 is checked "Yes" then NCDOT certification for FHWA approval is required.
• If any question 8-31 is checked "Yes" then additional information will be required for those questions
in Section G.
PROJECT IMPACT THRESHOLDS
Yes
No
(FHWA signature required if any of the questions 1-7 are marked "Yes".)
1
Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
❑
2
(USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)?
2
Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden
❑
R1
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)?
3
Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
❑
R1
reason, following appropriate public involvement?
4
Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low-
❑
R1
income and/or minority populations?
5
Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial
❑
R1
amount of right of way acquisition?
6
Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval?
❑
[1
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
7
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic
❑
R1
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
If any question 8-31 is checked "Yes" then additional information will be required for those questions in
Section G.
Other Considerations
Yes
No
8
Is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) determination unresolved or is the project
R1
❑
covered by a Programmatic Agreement under Section 7?
9
Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters?
❑
[1
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW),
10
High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed
[1
❑
impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)?
11
Does the project impact Waters of the United States in any of the designated
❑
R1
mountain trout streams?
12
Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
❑
R1
Section 404 Permit?
13
Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
❑
Commission (FERC) licensed facility?
v2019.1 W-5805E Type I(A) CE Page 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
Other Considerations for Type I and II Ground Disturbing Actions (continued)
Yes
No
Does the project include a Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
14
(NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological
❑
2
remains?
15
Does the project involve GeoEnviron mental Sites of Concerns such as gas
❑
2
stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.?
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory
16
floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a
❑
2
water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650 subpart
A?
17
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially
❑
2
affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
18
Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit?
❑
2
19
Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
❑
2
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
20
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources?
❑
[1
21
Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS,
❑
R1
etc.) or Tribal Lands?
22
Does the project involve any changes in access control or the modification or
❑
R1
construction of an interchange on an interstate?
23
Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
❑
R1
community cohesiveness?
24
Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption?
❑
[1
25
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan
❑
R1
Planning Organization's (MPO's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f)
of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act,
26
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
❑
R1
Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or
easement with public -use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the
property?
27
Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout
❑
R1
properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)?
28
Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)?
❑
[1
29
Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT Noise Policy?
❑
[1
30
Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the
R1
❑
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)?
31
Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
❑
2
affected the project decision?
v2019.1 W-5805E Type I(A) CE Page 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F (ONLY for questions marked `Yes'):
Response to Question 8:
Tricolored bat is proposed for listing as endangered. It currently has an unresolved Biological Conclusion
If listed, NCDOT will resolve Section 7 prior to project construction as appropriate.
IPaC identifies potential for Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom in the study area, but the
streams within the study area are greater than 0.25 mile from an identified stream reach for these species
In accordance with the Programmatic Biological Opinion -Bridge and Culvert
Replacements/Repair/Rehabilitation Effects on Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog in NCDOT
Divisions 2, 4, 5, and 7 (August 3, 2021), a biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect is expected for Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom.
IPaC identifies potential for Atlantic pigtoe, Dwarf wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel, and yellow lance
in the study area, but the streams within the study area are well beyond any identified stream reach for
these species. Following the Programmatic Biological Opinion -Bridge and Culvert
Replacements/Repair/Rehabilitations in Eastern North Carolina NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (September 11,
2019) with addendum to Revised Programmatic Biological/Conference Opinion -Bridge and Culvert
Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations in Eastern North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (June 1, 2021), a
biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect is expected for Atlantic pigtoe, Dwarf
wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel, and Yellow lance.
Response to Question 10:
According to data from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ), the entire
study area is within a Class II Water Supply Watershed for the Little River. All WS-II waters are High
Quality Waters by supplemental classification. NCDOT will strictly adhere to "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) (HQW standards) throughout design and construction of
the project.
The two unnamed streams in the project area are subject to the Neuse River riparian buffer rules. The
proposed project will affect 8,807 square feet of Zone 1 and 6,307 square feet of Zone 2 of the riparian
buffers for these streams, based on the area 25 feet outside the proposed slope stakes.
Response to Question 30:
Within the project study area, there are farmlands of statewide importance and prime farmland soils.
Additionally, one of the properties within the study area, in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of
NC 98 and Moores Pond Road, is actively used as farmland. The project will affect approximately one
acre of prime or important farmland soils. A preliminary screening of farmland conversation impacts in the
project area has been completed. An AD-1006 form was submitted to NRCS in July 2022 and it was found
that the project has a total site assessment score which does not exceed the Farmland Protection Policy
Act threshold of 160 points. As such, these farmland conversion impacts are not considered notable.
v2019.1 W-5805E Type I(A) CE Page 9

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
H. Project Commitments (attach as Green Sheet to CE Form):
NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS
STI P Project No. W-5805E
Intersection Improvements at the intersection of NC 98 and SR 2057/SR 4465
(Moores Pond Road)
Wake and Franklin Counties
Federal Aid Project No. 0098038
WBS Element 48950.1.6
Roadside Environmental Unit/Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT will strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) (HQW
standards) throughout design and construction of the project.
NCDOT Division Five/NCDOT Biological Services Group
Tricolored bat is proposed for listing as endangered. If listed, NCDOT will resolve Section 7 prior to project
construction as appropriate.
All environmental commitments included in The Programmatic Biological/Conference Opinion -Bridge and
Culvert Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations in Eastern North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8
(September 11, 2019) with addendum to Revised Programmatic Biological/Conference Opinion -Bridge
and Culvert Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations in Eastern North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (June
1, 2021) and Programmatic Biological Opinion -Bridge and Culvert Replacements/ Repair/Rehabilitation
Effects on Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog in NCDOT Divisions 2,4,5 and 7 (August 3, 2021),
will be adhered to during final design and construction of the project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
I. Categorical Exclusion Approval:
STIP Project No. W-5805E
WBS Element 48950.1.6
Federal Project No. 0098038
Prepared By:
110Z��":.EDC96451
ocSigned by:
3/17/2023 13, GaC�-es...
Date Devyn Teates, PE
Ramey Kemp Associates
Prepared For: S. Reid Davidson, PE,
NCDOT Division Five
Reviewed By: C
DocuSigned by:
3/17/2023 ' `S f'u ya�
ABCOE6FA98854B2...
Date Chris Murray, SPWS
NCDOT Project Engineer for Planning and Environmental Studies
• If NO grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
[1 Approved and 3), NCDOT approves the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion.
• If ANY grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
❑ Certified and 3), NCDOT certifies the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion for FHWA approval.
• If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion.
DocuSigned by:
3/21/2023
�R�za acs�a�.
Date Ben Upshaw, PE, Division Five Project Development Engineer
For Brandon Jones, PE, Division Five Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required.
N/A
Date for John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Note: Prior to ROW or Construction authorization, a consultation may be required (please see
Section Vll of the NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement for more details).
v2019.1 W-5805E Type I(A) CE Page 11

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
WAKE FOREST I
ALLENS LN
�/N /
_\ N
coin
ES Rol
96 SRA946
ROLESVILLE—SR 2055 (OLD -PE
I
O C MOORES POND ROAD DETOUR
• NC 98 DETOUR
STUDY AREA
0 0.5 1
Miles
._l
J
STIP PROJECT W-5805E
j
QUAIL -DR o
m
(P
m
10
N 98
l
wOF NapiN 4q� NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
y TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
�f�FHr aF rapNsa RAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES
NC 98
AT SR 2057/SR 4465
(MOORES POND RD)
WAKE AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES
STIP PROJECT W-5805E
VICINITY FIGURE 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DB198D9-F4CD-47AE-BC03-D8765C7F8D58
4
UTILITY INFORMATION DRIVEWAY NOTE 12 12 4
��� .END CONSTRUCTION p Ro4`1
TO PROVIDE GREATER VISUAL CLARITY, EXISTING AND DRIVEWAY LOCATION AND SIZE N
PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE ARE PRELIMINARY AND ARE 11F -Y- STA. 20 +
MAPS OR ON OTHER DISPLAYS. THE UTILITY INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED r
y + SHOWN ON THESE MAPS IS LIMITED TO LOCATIONS OF ON FINAL DESIGNS.
MAJOR EXISTING AND POTENTIAL UTILITY O C1 z�+o
EASEMENTS. THE DESIGNS SHOWN ON THESE MAPS, G\O/ TYPICAL
AND SEC IOD ROAD
N I e 1f BEPI`A`�
INCLUDING UTILITY EASEMENTS, ARE PRELIMINARY AND ARE �vw 1 } jA APPROACHING THE ROUNDABOUT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE. • \v% ! / op •
F +
DESIGN DATA DESIGN DATA • N
Functional Class = Minor Arterial (L) Functional Class = Major Collector
Design Speed = 60 MPH Design Speed = 60 MPH END TIP PROJECT W-5805E
ADT 2043 = 10,500 ADT 2043 = 3,380 \ C,-L- STA. 22 +44.03
Date of Orthophotography = 2021 Dote of Orthophotography = 2021 4" '
I 25+00
SCALE INCOMPLETE R/W PLANS � ��� • • � f
DO NOT USE MR R/W ACQUISITION ;
PRELIMINARY PLANS z' , • •
15' DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
a
HORIZONTAL SCALE (1"=30')
O � z
-
Z'a C • 15 00 r --- --- • : y--m oD
ba byn ti -►- - �x� Z�
b -- _l- Z 3
bC o c� h7 _ N — w r�'i w
;r ly ►y _` 10+00 -- ,A' 16' ` N�>\ N—S CO W O ai
n at) N CU z a' tr z
C
HEARON
'L I I C + O
C
TIP
• .•. } �.
I
LEGEND C
• I
I
1111111 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY Imo' PROPERTY LINES
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY --- COUNTY LINES ^ '12' 12 )
PROPOSED EASEMENTS (DRAINAGE,
a ad d3a srgT ® CONSTRUCTION, AND UTILITY)
LAKES, RIVER, STREAMS, AND PONDS
0 F iy
O�
ti ® BUILDINGS PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE �� 1
® EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
—E— TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT�-
ti EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
s'y PROPOSED ROADWAY "-wla--- ' WETLAND LIMITS BOUNDARY
o9rgT1�N vN\o n ANDP GSEDTERIDEWALK, ISLAND, CURB BEGIN CONSTRUCTION 4' 16' 14' 75' INSCRIBED DIAMETER
N ® EXISTING
SIDEWALK,
ISLAND, CURB // —Y— STA. 11 + 99.31
ANDTYPICAL SECTION 2
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROUNDABOUT
FIGURE 2