20080313 Ver 1_Application_20080219

~`~~~G~j
F^e t/~ ,
~~0 1
~wgrF
'~ - . SR .'~ifiq~~r'Ar..'
..... n ~7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 5, 2008
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 5
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
080313
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23, 33, and 13, Section 401 Water Quality
Certification, and Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization for the replacement of Bridge No.
29 over Clarks Creek on SR 1007 (Poole Road), Wake County. Federal Aid Project Number
BRSTP-1007(8), WBS No. 33637.1.1, State Project No. 8.2409201, Division 5, T.I.P No.
B-4300.
j lb
-$Debit from WBS Element 33637.1.1.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 29 over
Clarks Creek. The project proposes to demolish the existing bridge and replace with a reinforced
concrete box-culvert because the drainage area is less than five square miles. The project involves
constructing the box culvert on the existing alignment, while maintaining traffic on-site by a temporary
detour. Please see the enclosed copies of the permit drawings, buffer drawings, design plans, and
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) for the above-referenced project. The CE was completed for this
project in January 2006 and the Construction Consultation was completed in October 2007; each was
distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies of these documents are available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Neuse River Basin (subbasin 03-04-02) and USGS hydrologic unit
03020201. Clarks Creek. and its unnamed tributary (intermittent stream), located in the project study
--- -
area, are. currently unclassified by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ). However, the Neuse River
downstream of the project area and nearby named tributaries to the Neuse River all have a DWQ best use
classification of C-NSW. No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters
(HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply (WS-II), waters occur within 1.0 mile of the study
corridor. No portion of Clarks Creek or its tributary, or other surface waters within 1.0 mile of the project
are listed on the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) 2006 Final 303(d) List of
Impaired Waters.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] Of 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER FAX: [phone]
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

One wetland (Site 1) is located within the project area, approximately 80 feet northeast of the bridge. It
is a forested wetland adjacent to Clarks Creek. It is considered riverine based upon its location within
the Clarks Creek floodplain and is classified as a palustrine, seasonally flooded, forested wetland
supporting broad-leaved deciduous vegetation (PFO1C, Cowardin classification).
Streams and wetlands were verified during a site visit with the USACE on June 8, 2004. No
jurisdictional determination letter was sent by the USACE. NCDOT does not request the USACE to
evaluate this site using the Rapanos guidance. Instead, NCDOT is satisfied with the delineation as
reviewed and approved in the field on June 8, 2004, and request that the USACE evaluate this permit
application based on that field review.
Permanent Impacts
There will be 148 feet of surface water impacts to Clarks Creek (Site 1); 63 feet due to the box culvert
installation and 85 feet of channel improvements and ri rapping along the stream banks or ank
stabilization.
Temporary Impacts
There will be 70 feet (0.04 acre) of temporary impacts to Clarks Creek (Site 1) due to the permanent
drainage easement access. Another 55 feet~0.03 acre) of surface water impacts to Clarks Creek (Site 1)
wiIl occur resulting from the construction of a tempora culvert for the onsite detour. Also, 0.02 acres
of temporary wetland impacts (Site 1) will occur in association witlithe onsite detour. --'
Approximately 95 linear feet (<0.01 acre) of surface water impacts to the UT to Clarks Creek (Site 2)
will occur due to its close vicinity with the construction of a rip-rap barrier along the roadway fill slope.
The rip-rap barrier will help stabilize the roadway fill slope and prevent filling in of the channel of the
UT to Clarks Creek.
Utility Impacts
No utility impacts are anticipated from project construction.
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge was constructed in 1961 and is 61 feet in length. It consists of two spans 29.5 feet
each. The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. The deck is composed
of prestressed concrete channels and metal railings. The substructure consists of prestressed concrete
caps on timber piles. The existing bridge will be removed without dropping components into Clarks
Creek. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented during the
demolition of this bridge.
IMPACTS TO NEUSE RIPARIAN BUFFER
This project is located within the Neuse River Basin and is therefore subject to Neuse River riparian
buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). The construction of the culvert and new road alignment will impact
buffers along Clarks Creek. These buffer impacts are classified as impacts resulting from a road crossing
and are allowable with mitigation because over 1501inear feet (approximately 195 feet) of stream buffers
are being impacted (Table 1). Impacts to the buffers of the UT to Clarks Creek are categorized as road
impacts other than crossings of streams. These impacts are allowable with mitigation (Table 1).
Temporary buffer impacts classified as allowable will occur along the onsite detour. There will be
Final B-4300 Permit Application
Page 2 of 6

11,376 square feet of mitigable buffer impacts for Zone 1 and 3,933 square feet of mitigable buffer
impacts for Zone 2.
Table 1. Neuse River Buffer Impacts
Road Crossing
(Culvert) Impacts Other Than
Road Crossin Onsite Detour
(Tem ora )
Zone 1 Im act (s . ft) 10,254 1,122 2,955
Zone 2 Irri act (s . ft 3,933 0 1,956
Mitigation requirements (exempt,
allowable, or allowable with miti ation) Allowable with
miti ation Allowable with
miti ation Allowable
Practical Alternatives Analysis
This bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The replacement
of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations. Because this bridge
needs to be replaced, impacts to the riparian buffers of Clarks Creek and the UT to Clarks Creek are
unavoidable.
Utility Impacts to R~arian B~fers
No utility impacts are anticipated from project construction.
RESTORATION PLAN
Following construction of the culvert, all material used in the construction of the structure will be
removed. The impact area associated with the culvert is expected to recover naturally, since the natural
streambed and plant material will not be removed. NCDOT does not propose any additional planting in
this area. Class II riprap and filter fabric will be used for bank stabilization. Pre-project elevations will
be restored.
Following construction of the culvert, all material used in the construction of the structure will be
removed. Class II riprap and filter fabric will be used for bank stabilization. Pre-project elevations will
be restored.
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL PLAN
The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the removal of and disposal of all
material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use excavation equipment for removal of any
earthen material. Heavy-duty trucks, dozers, cranes and various other pieces of mechanical equipment
necessary for construction of roadways, bridges, and culverts will be used on site. All material placed in
the stream will be removed from the stream at that time. The contractor will have the option of reusing
any of the materials that the engineer deems suitable in the construction of project. After the erosion
control devices are no longer needed, all temporary materials will become the property of the contractor.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and
Proposed Threatened are protected under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of December 20, 2007 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally
protected species for Wake County (Table 2). One species (bald eagle) was officially delisted on August
8, 2007 (CFR 50 Part 17). The biological conclusion for bald eagle in the CE was "No Effect" with no
Final B-4300 Pernut Application
Page 3 of 6

habitat available in the project area. The bald eagle still remains protected under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act. A review of the Natural Heritage Program database in December 2007 revealed no
occurrences of these species within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species in WAkP f nnnty N!`
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion Habitat
Present
Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus Delisted Not Required No
Red-cockaded

woodpecker picoides borealis Endangered No Effect No
Dwarf Alasmidonta

wedgemussel
heterodon Endangered No Effect No
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered No Effect No
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance and Minimization and Compensato Miti ation
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA
compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream, wetland, and Neuse Buffer avoidance/minimization activities proposed or
completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
(~ An anadromous fish moratorium from February 15 to June 15 will be adhered to during project
construction.
O The roadway fill slope has been steepened to a minimum of 2 to 1 ratio and lined with rip-rap to
avoid permanent impact to the UT to Clarks Creek.
• est Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented.
The culvert will be buried one foot below the streambed in order to maintain aquatic habitat and flow
regime.
Compensator~iti~ation
The Jeffreys Warehouse Mitigation Site was originally constructed as on-site mitigation for R-1030,
US 117 from south of NC 581 in Goldsboro to the US 264 Bypass in Wilson. There are two parcels
associated with this mitigation site. The west parcel (approximately 50.2 acres) is bounded on the
northwest by the Little River and on the southeast by the US 117 right-of--way. The east parcel
(approximately 37.5 acres) is bounded on the northwest by the US 117 right-of--way, on the northeast by
a Wayne County Board of Education school bus maintenance shop, and on the east and southeast by
private property. The site was constructed in 2007 and has undergone one year of hydrologic and
vegetative monitoring.
Final B-4300 Permit Application
Page 4 of 6

The site was originally debited for R-1030AA. To offset the unavoidable 15,309 sq. ft. (11,376 sq. ft.
for Zone 1 and 3,933 sq. $. for Zone 2) of buffer impacts associated with T.I.P B-4300, the Jeffreys
Warehouse Mitigation Site will be debited 40,028 sq. ft. (0.92 acres) of Neuse Buffer Restoration.
No compensatory mitigation for permanent stream impacts is proposed. Streambanks along Clarks Creek
are currently unstable in the project area. Approximately 85 feet of the 148 feet of total permanent
impacts are for bank stabilization and do not constitute loss of waters of the U.S. The remaining minimal
impact of 63 feet (culvert) is in a degraded section of stream directly under the existing bridge.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a letting of August 19, 2008 (review date of July I, 2008) with a date of availability
of September 30, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in October
2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: The project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these
activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (72 FR 11092; March 19, 2007). We are also
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 for the work associated with the onsite detour and
other temporary impacts.
Section 401 Certification: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3701 and 3688 will apply to
this project. This project will impact greater than 40 linear feet of stream and impact Neuse Riparian
Buffers, requiring written concurrence. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A
NCAC 2B.0200 we are providing five copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review. In compliance with
Section 143-215.3D(e) of the NCAC we will provide $240.00 to act as payment for processing the
Section 401 permit application.
Buffer Authorization: This project has been designed to comply with the Neuse Riparian Buffer
Regulations (15A NCAC 2B.0242). NCDOT requests a Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization from the
Division of Water Quality.
Final B-4300 Permit Application
Page 5 of 6

A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Greg Price at 715-5533.
Sincer y,
~• ,
(~~ Gregory .Thorpe, Ph.D.
`~'_ Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
w/o attachment (see permits website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. J. Wally Bowman, PE., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Theresa Ellerby, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Ms. LeiLani Paugh, NEU
Mr. Randy Griffin, NEU
Final B-4300 Permit Application
Page 6 of 6

Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USAGE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 8 0 3 1 3
(li any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23, 33, & 13
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: gthorpe(a~dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replace Bridge No. 29 over Clarks Creek on SR 1007 with a culvert.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4300
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Site is located on SR
1007 (Poole Road) near SR 2518 (Hodge Road) intersection.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 78.5078 °N 35.7540 °W
6. Property size (acres):_Please refer to attached drawings.
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Clarks Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The local area surrounding the proposed project consists of
gently rolling hills and land use is best described as residential development and natural
forest vegetation.
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: NCDOT
proposes to replace Bridge No. 29 over Clarks Creek with a box culvert on SR 1007 Heavx
construction eauipment such as cranes excavators and dump trucks will be utilized during
construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:_ The existing bridge was constructed in 1961 and
received a sufficiency rating of 7.0 out of a possible 100 for a new structure during the last
bridge inspection. Based on this rating the bridge is considered functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The project proposes to demolish the existing bridge and replace with
a reinforced concrete box-culvert resulting in safer transportation.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USAGE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information.. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. Streams and wetlands were verified during site visit on June 8 2004
No JD letter was sent by USAGE. Per personal conversation with Eric Alsmeyer on December
12, 2008, no Rapanos forms are necessary -
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 9

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Approximately 148 linear feet of
warm perennial stream will be impacted resulting from a box culvert. Another 125 and 95
linear feet for Clarks Creek and UT to Clarks Creek, repectively will be temporarily
impacted. Aproximately 0.02 acres of wetland will be temporarily impacted by onsite
detour.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number

(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,

herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 1 Temporary road fill Forested Yes 20 0.02

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.02
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: approx. 0.1 acre
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation,.ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or

Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 1 (Perm) Clarks Creek Box Culvert Perennial 25 feet 148 0.08
Site 1 (Temp) Clarks Creek Box Culvert Perennial 25 feet 70 0.04
Site 1 (Temp) Clarks Creek Temp Culvert Perennial 25 feet 55 0.03
Site 2 (Temp) UT to Clarks Creek Temp Access Intermittent 2 feet 95 < 0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 368 0.15
Page 4 of 9

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) _

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody ~

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the nroiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.15
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.02
Open Water Impact (acres): NA
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.17
Total Stream Im act (linear feet): 368
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies ~to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
Page 5 of 9

were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
See cover letter.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http:/lh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/lineaz feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a sepazate sheet if more space is needed.
Compensatory mitigation for permanent stream impacts is not proposed see cover letter)
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
Page 6 of 9

website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ® No ^
Page 7 of 9

2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(s uare feet) Miti ation
1 11,376 3 34,128
2 3,933 1.5 5,900
Total 15,309 40,028
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified within 15A NCAC 2B
.0242 or .0244, or .0260. Miti>;ation will be provided by NCDOT, utilizing surplus credits from
the Jeffereys Warehouse miti ag tionproject located in HUC 03020201.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
Page 8 of 9

N/A
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
f
Z+S-d~
App>"icant~Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

2516
Dr.
nm rD O c~
By a~~a<
E F~
p` Snatly River Ct
N?sH m y R~vpr
Q
^ o ~ OO. ~ ~ ?a Flowing River LL
Moonglow aic o?U
1007 o Rd.
E
E
BEGI11l
PROJECT
ape.. Knr-htdale i~~s Dr. /
v' Or /
E V U
U
Q0
A ~ ~ ~
Rivertlale Lodge Qt.
st ~~e ~/ ~
=e Vy.
Id Stones Mill St/ ~
pm Tower Gertlen~Dr. ~
Param:c
Valley Black
LL Rock
251
c Gppk Dr. m
r ~~ ~
m cfi Scream Dr.
3 ~ m ~
6Park Dr. p
l~ Branch
~oiden valley
1 Dr.
Scenic Woods Dr.
~~~~~~~~
~V~~~~
~ Coven
Wagon
\ ~ Ln.
~ta 3
0tie V
\ov z~'
1
E11tD
PROTECT
>#~
O ~
4192
_POOk
I ° ~'~~` 10 0 7
~~ Pheasant
Lun
DD
r
y y
1
~~1LY®~
II~IVISI®N ®F IIIGI~IWAYS
WADE C®UN'I'Y
PR®JECT: ~-4300 1ERII~GE X29)
)3RII)GE N®. 29 ®VER
CI.ARgS CREED
®N SR 1007
tP®®I.E R®A®)
S1HEE'I' ~ ®F ~O fl0 % 1 % 2007

"
( ~
/ j
r ~ ~~ ~"
'"
,
,
,'
1
,
;~
I
~~~~` ~
<~`f as ~ / //
1-\ \ '
\) ~
_I `` If
,
~ i11
_.. I \j t ~_ /, l ~
/ `-/
",:.,,
1 .
J ~"
~
~
a /
`' ` ._~~ ~ ' J

-~ _:'
~
,
r l
i
a
i i`, ' / _ ! - *
.." t~~c^ ~ ~
_ JV ti ~ ' j ! '
` X11
1\!, ' rIl I 1 ' ~' "_. .'~r~T.a . ~ j~_--~'
'~ '//
~'^-:~.. \-Sty'. ,-I"~ P1

' w="
~ .
, 1 '
~
1
s i t 1 ,`\ -~
,
->;,Tr~ilt<c %f'`/~--~
`- ~_
t j v`--
- .
`

.,
- ~ ' - . •.~ '
1~ ~
i
~~
\ : ~ 250 ` ~ >\ ,

; of ~ - ~ ~ ""1-~ "~~ :."'It. ,"

_
, fl T, y ~ ~ _ 1 l

-- ~_ ~
,
._. ~
/~~1 ~O \t =i; ~ ~w _ y' ~ ~I ( ~~; .f \, i
{ ~`~L =..-.._ ;~ r~~i/,1. L'~~~
ti~~i•~r~ ~ .. 1

' -

._ .
-

~~~
__
-
.., _,
~ ~
M
-

._ ._ -. .--

---
~. --
1 ti F - ~....-
1 1. -... ,~

-

~

!~ J
r~

::
/ 1 ..
-T ~ ~rf - y
~
~ - f,

~ ~
, 1,~ rte.-~ `.Jl~

`.ter /

~'
~ J _ ;
~
;~
~
.
1
;..
~}
I \~ ~
'-
_
~
2
,,
~ i- ~ °~

i '
- ,•~

~-
i /` 4

`>/ iLJ/
DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
WADE C®UNTY
I~R®JECT: ~-300 (BRIDGE X29)
BRIDGE N®. 29 ®VER
CLARKS CREED
SCALE: I" :1500' ®N SR 1007
(h®®LE R®AD)
SHEET ~ ®F 1 ~ IO // I ~ 2007

STA. 15+00.00 -DET-
BEGIN CULVERT
-L- STA. 19 + 94.0
TO RALEIGH -- _.
-~
~ 2 @ 10' X 11' RCBC POOLE RD. SR 1007
00 -L- BEGIN TIP P
PROJECT B-4
~~~~ ~~~
TO KNIGHTDALE
~~~® Jl
®IVISl®N ®F I~3I(aI-1WA1~S
WADE C®UNTY
BIZ®JECT: x-4300 (~131DGE ~29D
]818II3GE N®. 29 ®VEId
~LARICS C18EEI~
®N SI8 1007
(1D®®LE R®AII~)
SHEET ,3 ®F /D 10% fl% 2®07
CONSTRUCTION
STA. 25+50.00 -L- END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 25+61.55 -DET-
w ~~
V l7 p
cn U a'
S END CULVERT ZZ
3 @ 84" CSP) V -L- STA. 20+14.00

~11d0/l~~ll`~~ Jl ~ V'V' ~~~~
NAA~1:~ Al~T~ AII~b~R]ES~1/S
NAA'1:]E~
A-~~R1E~5~~
2 Caeorge ~. `I`urmer 125 ffi'ICEOIIl Road I$aleigh, NC 27~c®~i
3 ~ugene ]Banks X429 ~oole Road Raleigh, NC 2~~]L®
4 Andrew 1~. lBroadie ~4®9 1fDoole Road Raleigh, NC 2~~iY®
5 Valley Woods 225 ]FJ(odge Road RnigloEdale, NC 2545
l~o6ile 1/sEaEes

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type

TEMPORARY
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fillln
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 20+~4 TO 20+31-DET- LT CULVERT 3 84" CSP 0.03 55

1 20+04 -L-LT/RT CULVERT 0.08 0.04 148 70
2 10'X11' RCBC

1 20+70 TO 21+15 -DET - LT Detour Roadwa 0.02

2 19+00 TO 19+94 - L - RT Mainline Roadwa <0.01 95
Unnamed Tributa

TOTALS: 0.02 0.08 0.07 148 220
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Wake County
Project: B-4300 (Bridge #29)
Sof

2516
k;,s~y
or.
~B^ • Kni tOtl9e r
9~ltla/e Fsral p
V' ee pr ~ E11 tD ~
F U
I
0~ a ~ ~~,~.~ PROJECT
roe. ~odea 4r
y a`j0 Rivereale / ~ I
F°99 51. ±`t
p SMdy River LL S V y / I 0eF~
Itl Stones Mill Bl/ I q
Or ~ > v
p ~ Flowirrp River Ct. pm lower Gertle IDr. ~
4192
yU
Paradise O ,
1~0 7 r, Rd. Valley Black
\ = LL Rock p
D . °°h
$ O
~ £ I I 1 rcharo. c
arm ln.
~ Covered , w po
Wagon ao'm U F~\°y~' 100 Rd
Ln. 3 ~.
E \~ o u' u e
0\e °~ Pnaesam
~ g c`_
2 51 °_
cow `°n
D \ ` eam = r°
's crrk a. m \ ° 2 ~
s ~ > D Y ^
" 6fi =_ u o 8
a m ~ . Btream Dr. £ y
BEGl11l ~ -
1I ncn 6Perk Dr. o
oltlen Valley
PROJECT Bra -
Dr. ~
Scenic W°°tls Dr 1
~U~FEI~ ID'IIE~AC~°S
~~~~~~~~
~V~~~~
`L/ 1L1r ® .LL
I~IVISI®N ®F I3IG~W~~S
W,~RE C®UNTY
PR®JECT: 8-4300 (~RII)GE X29)
ERI~GE N®. 29 ®VER
CLr~RRS CREEK
®N SR 1007
(I~®®LE R®.~D)
SIHEET ~ ®F
1 O % 1 % 2007
'i~ ~ -

~
~
3 ~ .:. ~•.
• as ~'~ a `-• \. I ,,S - ; tl _M (` ` w ;, ~ - _ ; a
i
• ~
, \~-
• ~ / /. 31,1.. a `\ • f
- . i ,
Lj t ~~ ~~ t \ ( t•
':,
`
fA " •. i\
~
.iH ~i
, '~
p
a .-.~- •
~,
a
//
I t
\.•--.
~
`
,t
t
~ ~ ~~
~
f
q
,
a ,
t
.
~
.c \~
~
~~ \,J
~~ • ~ ` ~
~
{
/, , ,
\~• .2.1}1
_.-- '.al
`i'
. ~=r ~~.'
`~~ -~
• Jr•-
rj •~
,
~% ; I !,-' + _
~
`am\~
f '
~
~ t
~ ; •,
%4~ ~.'
--~,
~
~
~
+
i
?n,..
f
~.-'~'''7Y ~~~- -_ ~
~
/
~
/
!! _
•
h
~I ~ _ r~F i{ _/-'_
~
~~~ ~^
j
.
I r ~ , '_ a i f I
~ tj
ttl r
~a,~``
~1t ~ ((! 1 / - J
~ ~
1
V
i~7 }l
_ , ~
~
>~ _ 1
•_i ~/ /~ ti 1 l~
J
a~'ft t
~ ~ I f ~ ~ t~
/7 "-
• V ~
'
' ~-
! J `"

///ma
/(~~/
~
~ ,
~ -~ . . ~
~
~ _
~
~
~-
.
/
y
!/ _~
' _
_ .
,~
~
-_f ~ (~`_ _' ~ yp - :' ~. ~~
,;`Park _ 'I
. ,r , . ~~ r^~ ° 2`' J -
.. == ( t • --`~~,/
~ •/~_
~ J

yt.. --•.-__~
. i ~ /,
; i (
~ ~
\\ \ r ...
~ r~C~:ftM
~
t~l
may ~'
'
,~ _ 1 `
.
.., -.
~
' i j/(/ i O ~: ~ / ~ 1W- ~ y i i \ 1 \, \ ; ..y, A . ~'.`l~i~•y,~ iJ~ ;~'t ~+~. ~ {

. ~..

. r _ .-. `
~1
- ......

I
-

.~ ,
/
-

S _ n- -- i _

'
~l • •
•
r
l .
~ II I ~
\
,-
1"'" _
.-
,
_
.. _

-. ~
1
~ ~ ` ~
` . t- 2,236 _. !_ ~
t
~
} { r ~r-~•-~ " ~ ~\ ~ •((
~
1
~
-
~
I
,
/ i tip^,.
i ~
~`~ , ~`'\
f
~ `
?`~_
u ~~
- i/
~~~®~
DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
WAKE C®UNTY
I~R®JECT: B-4300 ABRIDGE X29)
BRIDGE N®. 29 ®VER
CLARKS CREEK
SCALIE: b" . 15®Ot ®N SR 1007
(F®®LE R®AD)
SHEET ®F ~ ~0 % 1 % 2007

,. 15+00.00 -L- BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
,. 15 + 00.00 -D ET-
STA. 25+50.00 -L- END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 25+61.55 -DET-
w p~
~ ~
U p
Y ZZ
BEGIN CULVERT ~ END CULVERT
-L- STA. 19+94.00 3 @ 84" CSP U -L- STA. 20+14.00
-DET-
E TO RALEIGH -- - _ _ - - _
r 2 @ 10' X 11' RCBC POOLE RD. SR 1007
B-4300
+ 00.00 -L-
~~~~ ~~~
TO KNIGHTDALE
~~~®~
DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAI~3
WA,I~E C®UNTY
hR®JECT: 8-4300 QBRII)GE ~29D
BRII9GE N®. 29 ®VER
CL,~RIt9 CREEI4;
®N SR 1007
(E®®LE R®.~I3)

a
~~~~1L~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
N.~2~]E~ .~NII~ A®~R1ES~lES
NA1~IlE~
:~1D~R1E5SR5
~ ~aeorge ~. ~'urmep 125 ~1CEOIId Road Ra-eig}~, NC 27~O~i
3 ~aegene ~anlis 7429 boo-e Road Ra-eig}n, NC 27010
~ Andrew ~. 1$coadie 74109 1[~oo-e 1$oad 18a-ei~}o, NC 27~i10
5 dal-ey Woods 2725 g$odae Road ~~igh~da-e, NC 27545
~o~i-e ~s~aEes

BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT

SITE NO. STRUCTURE SIZE
/TYPE
STATION (FROM/TO ROAD
CROSSING
BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ftZ) TOTAL
(ft2) ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ftz) TOTAL
(ft2) ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ftz)
1 DETOUR 19+39 to 20+84 -DET- X 2955 1956 4911

1 ROAD 19+40 to 20+73 -L- X 10254 3933 14187

2 ROAD 17+30 to 19+65 RT -L- x 1122 1122

TOTAL: 2955 1956 4911 11376 3933 15309
Rev. May 2006

c
a
L
3
E
L
Q
a
>,
L
0
0
n
P
E
L
0
0
a
v
v
r 0~
o to
O~v
N TP
~_..
wm
~~-
9 ~~
See Suet 1-A For Index of Sleets
See Suet i-B For Conventional Symbols
~'/
0
0
•~
O
'~1
~_
n,_
Inl:
WAKE COUNTY
mwn i ~ ~. ~ xn
PRO~C7
' us ~
~ I'I
` ` -
- - ,,,,~
VICINITY MAP
_~TO RALEIGH
STA. 15+00.00 -L- BEGIN CONSTRUCTION "i~
STA. 15+00.00 -DET-
STA. 25+50.00 -L- END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 25+61.55 -DET-
~ ~~
CLARKS CREEK~~ O Q
U
BEGIN CULVERT (i~ s~TE i END CULVERT ?Z
-L- STA. 19+94.00 3 @ 84" CS~~ -L- STA. 20+14.00
ET-
2 @ 10' X 1~
S[TE 2
[~i
v
0
U
t-MULKEY
EN6INEER6 R CCN6ULTANT9
PC Box 3314'!
Rufi9N~ N.C. 4]G3A
191 91 65 1-1 91E
19191651.19161FA1U
W W W.MULKEYINC.CCM

LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.29 OVER CLARKS CREEK ON SR 1007
TYPE OF WORK PAVING, GRADING, DRAINAGE AND CULVERT
~TR~~~ ~ W~~°I,~NI~ IMI~.~~'f~
~{B.Cpp:~I++i~ ~i«tY!^~ t /~ PREL[NIINARY PLANS
St1LVI /jl ~ 17 1 W NDT U%iDA CONSTAVRIDN
+00.00 -L-
TO KNIGHTDALE
POOLE RD. SR 1007
TIP
+00.00 -L- END TIP
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
GRAPHIC SCALES

50 25 0 50 ~~ DESIGN DATA

ADT 2008 = 8,900 PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4300 = .148 MILES Prepored in 1fe Office of:
-~M U LKE Y
LNGINC[Re i CCN6ULTANT6

OF TRANSPoRTATION
FOR TIC NOR
H CAROLDU DEPT HYDRAULICS ENGIII~ER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

NOgJ
°f x
.
T ~~, cep

PLANS ADT 2030 = 19,500 LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-43W = .004 MILES zoA,,~,,,,~,,,,~ sPECD7c+rwNS ~ °~

50 25 0 50 loo DHV = 10 %
D = 75 % TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4300 = .152 MILES
TIM JORDAN
PE
P~
'
RIGHT' OF R'AY DATE: ,
' strvA7DRR:
T = 6 %~
AUGUST
2007 ROADWAY PROJRCf ENGINEER ROADWAY DESIGN *"+ ~'
°
f
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) V = 60 MPH 17. JEFF RECK, PE ENGII~ER °i iftNtlSN
lO 5 0 lO 20 ' TTST 1% DUAL 5°/D I.E77ING DATTi: ~''D161'i`~' PROfacr RNGR'NE£R
AUGUST 19.2008 DOUG TAYLOR, PE
PROFILE VERTICAL( cDOr RoaDwnr DSS/GN PROJRC7 EN P.E. PE
SIGNA7URE 5797E RIGIDYAY DESlCN EYCiNEFR

i
0
z
ROCK CROSS VA1VE
~x0i i0 0[uf
DETAIL M
,. ,
F: ~~
in~~4r~EE~r`"i'iY°ii "[Qc'~xaaaxc .rx
~.m ...rs~n.~ a.,.
sECnoN A-A I
~ xrcE
n'tlK'~ SigEw BE¢~
rfm--. ¢arzx xb[x
e.cEFU ,
rlLrcx rwxlc
SECTION B-B
- POT Sio.17+00.00
0
ma
Z Z
~~~~e JS~
O
O
~ =
__ ~ ~
y i ,~ -. ~ `-IP y---- -~ ~ - - - .
_ _._- ._ .
~ -
, - . ~ CUSS B-AF RAP ..
sEE DEruL I
~~ EST. 60 TONS
L r -BZ 1 EST.190 SY flL FAB
BZ 1
., + ~ 1 O -BZ 2
Bz
GEORGE H, TURNER JA.
ANNA H. CARLIN
NARY D. MCDONALD
[I
U
DETAIL G
ROADw0.
Y DITCH
o
1 NOr 5cce
( ~

xomral A'~o+pe
Front
~iooe
:r
Lrbund

a
D
Fitter Nin. 0 : LO Fi.
Fabric MOx. d =t.0 F1.
IYDB of Liner = CLASS B RIP AAP
-L- SFA Z3+00 TO 25+00 LT
E
a
a
i
m
B
n
E
0
a
0
a
u
u
DETAIL I
LATERAL BASE DITCH
Inot ro Scelet
N r I ~ Fir
L(ound .~ I'/Ft. Stbpe
d D ~
Filter
Fnbri< uln.0 = LD Ff.
Nax. d : LO Ft.
B = 4.0 Ft.
= 5.0 Ft.
Type of Liner CLA55 B RIP RAP
{-STA Iw+50 TA 1aa9n tT
DETAIL H
SPECIAL BASE DITCH
I NOt fa Sc01e1
crown 7y 0 F1DAtyT oirbcn
d slope
Filter Fabric B
Min.O = 1.0 Ft.
Max.O = L0 Ft.
B = 4.0 Ft.
TYOe of Lin¢r = CLASS B RW AAP
-L- STA 15+50 TO IB+50 LT
~~~~
ROCK CROSS PANE
SEE OEIAII M
CLASS I A1P RAP
STR 1AY ITEM
DETAIEK DETAIL L
LATERAL BASE DITCH SPECIAL BASE DITCH
I NOi to ScOxM INOi $ebl¢I
Fill
round Slooe N¢tural ( FIII
3., 3'0 '/Fr. Lroua ;/ A?ejy¢r Sope
D $~p
~ Nin. D = La F+. LB.I
8 = 2.0 Ft, MIn.D = I.0 Ft,
Type of Liner = PSRM D = 5.0 Fi. TYDe of Liner = PSRN B = 2.0 Ft.
1- STA ZO+92 TO STA. ZI+50 LT 1- STA 21+50 TO 23+00 LT
1- AA 20+87 TO 23+00 RT
DETAIL N
DISSIPATOR PAD
not rb scmel
~b~
IN2
0
STA. 20,75 Li
STA. 1930 Li $TA, 2015 RT
WI= 12.0' WI: 6.0'
w2: 28.0' w2= M.0'
LD= 24.0' La: 12.0'
iH= L5' TH: L5'
EST. 35 TONS E5T.9 TONS
CLASS B RIP AAP CLA55 8 RIP RAP
EST. 56 Sv FF EST. 14 Sr FF
o1Ta
RTEP GAERIC
n lv+Tn rt
1- STA 20+TS LT
1- STA 20+75 RF
~MULKEY
,. ~exw~.....
VAAIES 0' - II'
H
2:1 ~~ 2:1
2 FT.T
MAIN CHANNEL VAAES
INLET iYPKAI
i0 SUIf
Dog= <oo cr
1YP.0 TO SO' UPSTREAM 3 fT
2d VAAIES 0'- 7" I-
R• 'I 2:1
LS Fi. ~ ~ CLASS 'I' RIP RAP
1p FT ILS Fi. w7 FILTER FABRIC
MAIN CHANNEL VAAIES
DurocEr TTPkaL
¢ SGLE
DOB 6S0 CY
EST. 420 TONS CLA55 'T'RIP AAP
IYP.O TO rc95~'OOWNSTAEAM - -

O
ANDREW P, &
',~ ODESSa A. BROADIE
® DENOTES IMPACTS

~ IN SURFACE WATER

,
Ta DENOTES TEMPORARY
wE , ® IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
,/wE -
~
` V ~ DENOTES CHANNEL '
iB ` EXCAVATION
~,
r ~~ ~
3:
F
.
y
~, E ~

r ~ OISSIPATOR PAD E
Sff DEFAIL N
SPECUL BASE DRCH
I EST.9 TONS RIP MP \
SEE DETAIL L
i^
~
V
~/ EST. U SY FIL FAB
UTEML BASE DRCM E
E
~
iO ~ ,~..-}
444 SEE DEEAIL K
`EST. 10 CY DDE \
~ i - - -~
t' - x5;.71
-, F
wn-es
PROIECi REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
B-4300 4
RW SNt£T NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN MYDRAINCi
ENGBVEE0. ENGINEER

PRELIMIN RY PL 4NS
DD NOT USE CONSTAVCTION
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
Perms prav~'ing
Shee Of ~
~NG1L~~1~
O
O

to
N
A t 1

r
I ^
NORMA C. LEWIS
POWERS TRUSTEE
,\ ~ ~

• ~ I

~'~L ~ -_
__

„ ^s - •.:
_;

~
,
,,,;.
Fe D
e
~D
~
~
7f .,,F
ROADWAY DITCH
SEE DETAIL G ,x 1
~ ,,_ ~-
WESLEY B
S
6T.90 TONS RIP RAP ( G ': ']
~ .
OLIVIA L. ADAMS
67.300 SY FIL FAB ~ 1~
I
_`
-
~:.
® ~~
%
~
-
- Q

-1- RETAkI
._-..
--- - `- ~ ~raN __
t , :::~
__ _::, r ~ • SPECUZ BASE DDCH ~
F _,-~_-~ SEE DETAI' -~~ ` _ - -
.N .. E .. E---•--
B2
Q ! ~
sr
1
\ XE :\
,~~~~~
~1 DISSIPATOR PAD
¢- SEE DETpI N
i8;._ EST 9 TONS AIP RAP 5
7B ~ . EST. 14 $Y fll FAB
VALLEY WOODS MOBILE ESTATES
S~
I DETAIL J
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
I not t¢ scael
I.5'
1' /~
/ "~~ E+serc ,,,

.. \ _~-

\ I
/ I

_L_
Type Ot Liner = CID55 B Rip-ROD
1- STA 19+00 TO 19+95 0.T

P
P
m
ROCK-CROSS VANE
0 SCUD
DETAIL M
E: p&~ wvFD~'
i~~ifLf~inf l.F REi4wSxOBLM4 nix
~un n.u~~ LLL «..., usw.u
SECTION a-A
oe way
n.~KS siwiW eco~
F1ow~ FoorSw wax
ewnru
tttfw f~EU[
SECTION g-g
_L_
B
sn Q
~~
Z Z.
DETAIL N
DISSIPA TOR PAD
nD. +D xme,
r-w-'+
0
a w2
0
wl
AA, 2075 Li
siA.~9.3o Lr $rA.mas Rr
wm IT.a~ wm 6.D'
w2= 2B.0' w2. w.0'
L°= 29.0' La= 12.0'
iX= L5' iH= LS'
EST. 35 IONS ESi.9 IONS
CLAS$ B RIP FAP CLAS$ B AIP Rpp
EST. 56 Sr fF E$i, 14 $r FF
o1rcR
0
FILTER FwORIC
L- STA IC+M li
t-MULKEY
w . e,..~~..,~,.
VARIES 0'- II'~
H
2a -~ 2:1
2 Fi.T
MAIN CHANNEL vARES
INLEr rrPlcpL
[uE
ao~=tuoo cr
1YP.0 i0 SO'IPSTAEAN 3 FI
2:1 VARIES 0' - 1'
IR' 2:I
LS FT.~ _~ CLA$$'I'PoP AAP
-~7. jLS FT. N/ FILTER FABRIC
NAIN CHANNEL VARES
OUTLET TYPICAL
-L- STA 20+75 LT ror m scru
-L- STA 20+75 0.T DOE= 650 CY
P0.01ECT REFEIIEtwCE NO. ~ SHEET N0.
Rw sEIEEr ND.
ROADWAY DESIGN XTOwAU11C5
ENGINEER ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT V56 CONSTAUCMN
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
Perm Draarirtg
Sllee ,_
lENG1L~~1~
p17~ ~ lT-y e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EST. a20 10NS CLASS 'I' PoP RAP
. 1111'1 J llr-,IA' d, /~1\\~ ~~l ESi.560 SY Ff.
TYPO r0 95'OOWNSIAEAN E`~'
N
O ~ -
,..

... ~ -.. -
,. ,
.
~ -.
-;..
f s. _
'
p
' - T /
--~ '.. ~ .. , O O O
- ti :, ~~~ '~~~ EUGENE 8-JANEI EANNB N
_- I
I -~^~
t , ANDREW P, d
00ESSA R
BROADIE
,
Y
'~ ~-~ ~~_
',EUGENE & JANET BANNS

'
~
~
'
s ~ -, .:,. t
' DLSSIPATOR PAD -

'y - DENOTES IMPACTS
® - -
71
t TONS ~ ~
EST 35 ~, IN SURFACE WATER
~ 0
' j
r
~~ ~ ~ t
E5T:56 SY
_ FlL FN - - ?eV -
DENOTES iEMPOR
B ~
_

.

' "`
;
-
, ~

1 -CL4551RR AAl -

N ®
a
r
vF. IMPACTS 1N SURFACE WATER NOAMa G. LEN14
POWERS TRUSTEE .'

y
~ - I t ;r,: I
STE PAY RFM
I ';t I
, OENDTES CHANNEL
I
~ - - y ~,
f

I , . I ' _ _
.
erg E%CA VA TION CL• '. . ..
~ ~
1
~ c . u UFfAB~ DRCN ~
i
at 9E

°5J I
. ' 1 ~~
_-
~ -
~
.. ~

~:
ESL: IOCY DDE
_ EST
70 TONS AY
IC
'I ~ §.. ~
~ ~
~'
- _

.
1 ~ . .
... } .
RAP
EST
170 SY RL EIB ' '
: _
I
i
_.
., ` __

~ ,.,
- - _
.
t L -

'r- .
~-

': .0ti

4 en„Gn.

7 a ,l`

I
I_

_ i / 1
~
E-
)

RALEIGH RUGBY
I
1
r:. "
.'I: ~ -. y
~
~ ~ ,,
~
,. -
• : ~
i
D © i _
-.
FODiBALL CLUB INC 1 .
~
'
~. "~~f'~ E
/ 1 qi
I
SEE N f - SPECLd1 845E DRCN
x
~ SO SAY DRCH t i '~i

.. .
,..
~.., r ``~

~,
;
~ SPECIAL RASE DRC11 -

; 'SEE, OETAIk H _
. {ST_IIOiON All AAP
! ERL.AaS.ty a Fww ~ a
'

~
~

-

~
t E
- l'

E/ -_--
~

-`,~. S..
s
F!

i

.
~
EST.9 TONS RIP RAP
~ SEE DEEM L
! .y: ~ESi. 14 SY FIL E,11 f~
~ '.
i ~ ~ lA1ERAL 845E ORCH : !~~'
EE AX G
EST. 90 TONS RR' It~P
EST..300 SY AL FId
,' ,I
~

~ ~ `
~.

? D ES I
I
c .
$. WESLEY &
IVIA L NS

OL ADA /
.
o ~'DE1A1L G - -
RaaownY Dlr::a
_ - rtioi-osc"ae,
o _ Df-.. Fronr..
furm A` ye Dlycn
E - fir0Un4 .! ~6f .. '..SOD4
~ D 0
a ~ -
FoAe. Nn.0 =e0R.
2
~ .. F°Dri° ~ Maw. a = l.o Fr.
B tYDe of Lner_= CCASS B.RIP RAP
m 1-STA 19+08 TO ~25+00 LT
~ ..
i
E
w
0
a
U
u
DETAIL I
LATERAL BASE DITCH
I Nor ro sml I o
1 el - i FA
° 1
Ground Y D r/Ft 5looe
Filter
Fcor~c uin. D ~,0 Fr.
Alai. d = 1.0 F.
B = 2.0 Fr,
o = 5.0 Fi,.
TYDe of Liner =CLAS$ 8 RIP RAP
!_ S71 1A+TO Tl1 tO+fO iT
DETAIL H
- ESPECIAL BASEDITCH -
lNDi rD $cclel
Croung. 2,7 ~ A tt ef. oiicn~
D F~° 5noe
~Fi»er FDDric ~u __..
M'n. o - Lo Er.
M°w. a Lo Fr.
B = 4.0 Fr.
,Type of Llnef = CLAS$ B RIP RAP
ROCI! CROSS VANE
SEE DETAII AL
cuss I wl RAP
ST0. fAY. REM -
1~STA 14+50 TO.IR+50 LT
DETAILx DETAIL L
LATER} BASC~pITCH SPECIAL BASE DITCH
D rxa. ro SDDIe) '
N r ~_ fill
rOUnD j'1 I'/F1. 51oce NaNr~l i f f Lil
J' D Gro~na 0 A,oise SIDDe
/ F
B NIn,D = I.0 Fi. U
B = 2.0 Ft, uin.D = I.C Fi.
TYDe of L',ner = DSRM U 50 Fi TyDe of liner = PSRrn B = 2.0 Fr.
-l- STA 20+91 TO STA 11+50 LT 1- S1A 11+50 TO 17+00 LT
1- STA 20+R7 i0 21+00 RT
type Df Liner =Class 8 RiD-RaD
~- STA 19+00 TO 19+95 RT

Z
0
S
c
i ~ ~ I` /
\\ ti.
BENCH VARIES 0 TO 6'J ~AAIES
INLET TYPI[AL
xpl i° SC4E
ES1.OOE= AS Cr
iYP. 0 10 25' UPSTREAM
_ ~~ /,
B
CLASS 'T'RIP AAP
wi FlLIEA faBAK ~;~
LS ft,"~ ~l5 ft.
BENCH PARES 0 10 6' BENCH VARIES 0 i0 B'
VAAES
OUT~LETp uLLPICAI
ES1 OOE ~ 65 Cr
EST 75 IONS CLASS 'L'AW RAP
EST 50 SY f.F.
iYP 0'i0 70'OOwxSIAEAII
lh
CD 01:
ZZ
t-MULKEY
S°~[°1E~lEA1~'1I ~
~I~°~°1[a~1~T~ ~l~[I~~~C°~°~
O
ANDREW P. &
ODESSA R. BR04DIE

..._ _?, ..
-- ~ ~... J
- O
~~
,
- - EUGENE B JANET BANKS
'~~
- ~~~~ ~ -
'--EUGENE 8 JaefT BANKS
' YEtlAI BASE wrcN
.... _
-
. SEE DFTAB. C
EST. 25 TONS dr RAP ~'.

'

#lo - ,::. ....EST. 70 SY RL FAB
.._ __ _ ...
' _...
CLASS B A!P RAP- r .~.,

wE
I .EST.S TONS
E5T.11 SY FF wE ,_
DETAIL A

0 SPECIAL BASE DITCN
Ix°r ro Scdei
'
n Front
rv ~ r /
f
tter Owoe
crouna
,o
D
u
r Min.O = I.0 Ft.
a B=2.0 Ft.
m
a
D -OET- STA 15+00 TO 17+5B LT
DETAIL B
SPECIAL BaSE DITCN
I NOt io Scdel
NrounG 2y A'~pitef FIII
p Fop Slane
d
Finer Faor;c 9
MIn.O = LO Ft.
Max, d = L0 ft.
8=2.0 ft,
TYDe pf Liner= Gloss B Rip-Rpp

DETAIL C
SPECIAL BASE DITCN
I x°r ro Scae~
uo r
r ua 2;, D f\osset slope
a
rner Fporic B '..
Min. 0 = I.0 Ft. '~
Max, d = I.0 Fi. I.
8 = 10.0 Ft.!,
Type of Liner= [Id55 0 Ai0-Rap
a ui- mw a+B3 ra 19+7I a -0ET_ 30.19+31 TO 19+56 LT
E
° DETAIL D DETAIL E
a DETAIL F
i TOE PROTECTION LATERAL BASE DITCN SPECIAL BASE DITCH
~ Ix°r to Scole~ <x°+ tc Scalel
^ p IH°t to $cokl
a 2 ~ f'II
j NattKal ti.)`TEN `Sbve r I SkpB NOtird n(j ~ fIl
w°una fa,P Duna 7y p p,.~ . rr. Gounc Ad x e S1oPe
u c 0 F.o
rater ~ Nln.p : LO ft. U
o'a a= I.0 Ft. raorlc o = 2.D Ft. Min,D = I.o Fr.
nr~ D = 5.0 FT, B : 2.0 Ft.
Ni~ Type pt Liner= Class B Aip-Rap -1)ET-STA 21+20 TO 72+25 LT -OET-STA 22+25 TO 27+60 lT
n~.~. -0E7- S1A 70+t0 TO 22+00 RT
TB
h0/ /TEMPO %

+ '\
~ \ v
DETAIL G
ROA WAY I CH
I NOt ro SCUeI riH
Natural rvl Ol18I SIODa
crouna ~~ p ~
a
rater Faorlc Min.O = I.0 Fr,
Mpx. C ~ I.0 F t.
type of Liner- Class B PiC-Rap
-0ET- 5TA 22+60 10 25+42 LT
cuss B RIr RAP
EST. s ToNs
E5T.1~ SY Ff
SPECUL BASE ORCN
SEE DETAIL F -
urEEU BASE DIrcN
SEE DETAIL E
EST. 15 CY DOE
E~
~ F~ \~C~
t"\6 J
17 \
WE
wE '
TB
PROTECT REFERENCE NO. SHFFT N0.
B-4300 2-B
ww sxEFr No.
;OADWAY DESIGN XYORAlIUC3
ENGINEER ENGINEER

PREL[MIN RY PLANS
0o Nor use roNS7reurnoN
FOR -OET- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
IENG~,I~H Permit Drawing
sr~t R orb
® TEMPORARY IMPACTS IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES CNANNEL
EYLAVATION
oE. n ivru Nr iuv
6T. ,700 SY Rl FAB
0
VALLEY WOODS MOBILE ESTATES

m ~~
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sleets
See Sleet i-B For Conventional Symbols
/
~3 - -~~
BYPASS
~
~
q e. u
t
~ ,sN
II ~ -
Lt q ~ :<n B ASS
~
AND _
d PAOJAGT
t
.m

~, 1
_
-

I PRO>t~ I,1
-
-
- ~,-
3 ~,
VICINITY MA P
0
0
U
W
'~1
~~~ ll 1L ®~ LEI ®~~~ ~~~®~~LV
~I~VI~I®1~ ©~ ~[I~~[~A~Y~
WAKE COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.29 OVER CLARKS CREEK ON SR 1007
TYPE OF WORK• PAVING, GRADING, DRAINAGE AND CULVERT
SUFFER INI1~.~C'T~
BI!~GT CI2//W,~,IEt~
Sh88t t(/ Gf ~ PRELIMINARY PL.: NS
m Not usE roa caNSTitucnoN
1.15+00.00 -L- BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
1.15+00.00 -DET-
STA. 25+50.00 -L- END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 25+61.55 -DET-
CLARKS CREEK t0 p
Q
V
BEGIN CULVERT (~~ s~TE ' END CULVERT y2
-L- STA. 19+94.00 3 @ 84" CSP~~ -L- STA. 20+14.00
~~ ~_
E TO RALEIGH
2 @ 10' X 11' CBC 11 POOLE RD, SR 1007
t
t
E
L
a
a
T
L
O
O
n
Q
n
t
E
L
m
0
0
a
U
1- o~
o;.Q
oo_
n, >c
~_..
NAM
~~_
I!-F-MULKEY
ENHINEE0.8 i CONHIILTANTe
~" 99i 3312'!
0.At[gN, N. C. 27939
19 1 91 951-1 91 2
191 91 9 91-1 919 (iA%1
www.NUUU:TINC.coN
STA.I
TO KNIGHTDALE
8-4300
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
GRAPHIC SCALES

so 2s o so 10o
~ DESIGN DATA

ADT 2008 = 8,900 PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4300 = .148 MILES Preporee m tre orrrce of:
•
MULKEY
encroeenH i canauLrnnra HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

F a°pT

ADT 2030
1

LENGTH STRUCT
FOR THE NORIN CAROLINA DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION `f °
N c'

PLANS =
9,500 URE TIP PROJECT 8-4300 = .004 MILES 1wss,,+,,ID,~RD sPACffranoxs ~ '%

50 25 0 50 100 DHV = 10 %p/
D = 15 /9 TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4300 = .152 MILES
TIM JORDAN
PE
PE
°
JuGJIT OF WAY DATE: , scruruRA: a

PROFI T = b %'

V = 60 MPH
AUGUST 17. 2007 ROADWAY PROJACf ENCRJPF°
ROADWAY DESIGN
`fNl °«°
°,
5P
LE )HORIZONTAL) ` JEFF RECK, PE ENGINEER T9A9
l0 5 0 10 20 TTST 1% DUAL 5°/9 -FTTING DA'-T'. 1}D"""L'c rxolACr FNGA9FC9

AUGUST 19.2008
DOUG TAYLOR
PE 1
PROFILE (VERTICAL) ,
Y Rawwer DASrcN PROn:cr ANC PE PE
S1GNA7'[IRE S7A7A H7GRWAY DESIGN FNGfNPER

h
U
O
V

4
i
0
W
ae
ROCK CROSS VANE
0 S[xlF~
DETAIL M
9 ,
xpfE:S p 9gfp~. y~F~ Yp
~S~~rIELI irfl. ii~tEn41xOBLGW nix
r~A~.~~.~.a.,.
sECilON q-A
my AaA
rtww.<t S*Afw of
nm~ taro AacA
BApttl
Fh*FA FAwM
SECTION B-B
-t- Por sro.
O
O

N
,,,

1

:

~~~'
~_"'
_
J:
. _. i p, ~
_
--
~-
_ _
~
¢-t ~'~ ~
t'
- -~ EUGENE & JANET BANKS --

-
j I~ j
f
- "'
i
% i

t -
~ ~iEUGENE 8 JANET BANK$

~ r

~ DISSIPATOA PAD
•~ '
~
~ Sff DETAIL N

i
~
. I ~ / A .
;
. EST. 56 5~ NL FAE
I __
~ t
~
~~
` - ~ ~._
~L,.
(

Y uiEliAi BASE DRCN
N
S

-

`'L ~
t

~ \ '

~.._ •

~ EST. io n oDE

EST. 70 TONS RIP AN
-
I i ~ ,
I~ EST. I70 SY RL EA0.~
~

y;..
~
S Y
?,
~" _

` RALEIGH RUGBY
I : ~
"~~ 1
~
~

0.1n-
`~~
. FOOTBALL CLUB INC - I
"
, ~~
I - '~ .
/E
SPECLII BI SE DRO4; l
E
sff DETAIL N
-. ' lST.I70 TON AF AN '
' S , I I , i/
E w .L
..,:" ~'
" EST.191 SY F6 FAB -' v ~
.....
-.. ~E ~
~ f
~ t
_r
s
-
. _
:,~ _ ~_.
J
s
s
-, _ CLASS a qP AAF
nuncAelH IMPACTS zaNE I SEE DErut J
. ~ _ - . EST. 60 TONS
r ~ - ~ - BZ I EST. 190 SY RE FAH
R1
x...r f ~ ~' ~ ,. ,Jr:
_ff 1 BZ 3
GEORGE H, TURNER JR.
ANNA H. CARUN
MARY O. MCDONALD
v
DETAIL G
ROADWAY DITCH
rvo ro scae,

rN+ura n'
oixoY Fron+
Siooe
\
Grouna •/ 0
0
Fuser NIn. O = IA Ft.
GWrtc Npx. J :IA FT..
~
Type of Liner =CLAS$ 8 RW RAP I
{- SfA 23+00 TO 15+00 LT
n'
E
a
ti
c
m
0
rt
D
w
i
m
a
i
a
Q
u
n
U
DETAIL I
LATERAL BASE DITCH
iNOt to $cale~~
~oun Fln
'l D ~~ PiFr. Rope
a
Liner
Fppric Min.D = I.~ ft.
Mpx.O = I.0 FT.
B = R.0 Ft..
D = 5.0 FT.
Type pf Liner = CLAS$ B PIP flAP
1- STL IB+50 TO IvaTn Ir
DETAIL H
SPECIAL RASE DITCH
I NOr to scclel
rvrauna 2A, D Fro rec piico
0 Slope
Firer Pppr'm B
Mln. D = LD Fi.
Max, d = 1.0 Ft.
B = 4.0 F t,
Type of Liner = CLASS B RIP RAP
L STA I5+50 TO 18+50 LT
ROCK CRO55 VANE
SEE DETAIL M
CI/SS 1 DP RAP_
SIR PAY REM
DETAILK DETAIL L
LATERAL RASE DITCH SPECIAL BASE DITCH
I NOr }0 SCOIBI tXpt 10 Scplel
r ~ FII
rpupa 3,x 0 3:x lyFr. 9ooe coma A?p4s~ Siooe
L=J M1n. () = I.0 Ft. L~.J
B = 2.0 Ft. Nin,O = L0 Ft.
TYDe pt Liner = PSRM p 5.0 fi. TYDe of Liner = PSRN B = 2.0 Fi.
{- STA 10+91 TO STA 11+50 LT {_ STA 11+SO TO 13+00 LT
{- STA 2D+87 70 13+00 RT
~~~'E ~
Mp
~~
zz
DETAIL N
DISSIPATOR PAD
I NOr rp scae,
r-b-+
0
o w2
STA. 2075 LT
STA. 1930 Li $TA, 20«75 Ri
W1= 12.0' W1= 6.0"
w2= 28.0' W2= 14.0'
La= 24.0' La= R.0'
iH= LS' iH= I.5'
EST. 35 TONS EST.9 TONS
CL45S 8 AIP AAP CLASS 0 AIP RAP
EST. 56 SY FF EST. l4 SY FF
olT(x
FILTER F48R1(
u town rt
{- STA 10+TS U
~MULKEY
,.an,.~.,.«r.
'
'
vARIES 0
~ F
_ ~- --~
2E ~ 21
2 Fr.T
VARIES
NAN CHANNEL
INLET irPICAL
f
.
xpt to u
l
ODE= 400 CY
TYPO TO SO' DPSTAEAN 3 F1
2:1 VARIES 0' - T
`~
18. 2d
~ '
'
/
l.$ FT. _ CLA$$
I
AIP RAP
W/ FILTEA FAERIC
~1 IL$ fT,
NAIN CHANNEL VAAES
Ol11LEi TYPICAL
WI t0 S[4E
ODE- 6S0 CY
EST. 420 i0N$ CLASS 'T'RIP RAP
TTT~~~ ~7 ES1. 560 SY f,F.
I1 I) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T~}~ ,f~ /% q ~ r(~ FYP.O TO 95' OONNSTREAN :''F
I~~f VVV IyE_/J A/[~\J\.\i (\`ElL/. ,~`\1J1 -,~ .-...._.
1 re ,
r..: ,
~~ ~
.~ ~~ x
i ,~
1 ~ y.:
E ,
N 1E
N
r Dl
i
SEE

( ~ 6T.
~ ~ Y. EST.
O
0
4 +

N
ANDREW P. &
ODESSA R, BROADIE
,
® MITIGIDLE IMPACTS ZONE
I' 6
O

MNIGIBLE IMPACTS ZONE 2 ! NORMA G. LEWIS
POWERS TRUSTEE
,
DENOTES CHANNEL
EXCAVATION
PA~
DEfA6 N F
\
SPECLLL 615E DRCH ROADWAY DRCM
Sff DETA6 G
I~T~ R pF~IAP E SEE DETAII L EST, 90 TONS AM AAP
FSi. 700 SY FIL FAA
UTFAAL BASE ORCN E
~sff DEruL K
EST. 10 CY DDE
~_
'
E
~ F,
C
~ _

yp~:
f
~ ® ~~ ~ ~~
~--
c
-L-
91'07_Q7.6'~__ _
/E
SPECLLL BASE ORCN / •
Sff DETAIL l- _ ~J ~~ _
= /
~- ~-

~
' - _
~E
.N .: E s
~ E .. 59
, E
7
WE \
wE~
,i ~ . _
' DISSIPATO0. PAD
SEE DETNL N 0
Tom' EST. U~FIL FAA 5
T
' VALLEY W0005 MOBILE ESTATES
T
I ~
1 \\
DETAIL J
R]P RAP AT EMBANKMENT
~Npt to Scalel
~ /l~5' ~
1
~/
Type of Liner = Llcss 8 Rlp-Rap
{- STA 19+00 TO 19+95 RT
PAOIECT AEF&B4CE NO. SNEET N0.
B-4300 4
RAY SNffT N0.
ROADWAY DESIGN NYDAADDCS
ENGINEER BIGINEEA

PREL[MIN RY PLANS
0o rmr use ro CUNATRUCTION
FOR -L- PROFILE, SEE SHEET 5
Bu#fer D erg
Shset ~,,, of _.~,.
ENG-,ISIE-~
1 A i
t T.
' I

I 1
I
rr
,~,
~ uc ~ ~,.- ,<.
_.
~
• I <}2
v
I - ---
•^ - ,,..

D~~O~S' ~
•,
It OLIVIA L. ADAMS
• ~-^ -_..._
I
`
~' - - f
' ATTAIN `~.. ... _AF_ihlN_
I ,.:. I
~..
Ti'"E-A ~a~ .... y.x~
., iii ~;: ~:; ...

`' ..
i
i
,....'

}

/ ~
/ I
-

Y
- ~ j ~~~
i \ ~~ ~ J
/~ \ /~
N \ ti' ` AI
~ A/AfILTER PFABAIC
I~-{I ti
BENCH VAAES 0 i0 6'J ~AAIES LS fr.L ~'l5 ft.
116ET TrnDAL BENCx vAAES p ro 6' _ A~n~ol YApES o rp a'
N9I tp SC4E VAAIE
EST, DOE= 95 CY OUTLET TYPICAL
TYPO f0 25' UPSTREAM ES Noi ~ s~E
EST 7S iaNS~ttASS S'I•CI~ AAP
ESi 50 SY Ff.
iYP 0'i0 30'DOwNSTREMI
.,
1 -. , -
0
~~
n
V
au
zz
1I~
~J ~~~~
' '~
-` n: ; : _s
r :..._ ~0
_ _ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ r "! EUGENE & JANET BnNRS `-,
.' L
_ ~ .EUGEt•~ 6 JANET BANKS SPENL BASE DRCH
~ . " 1 Y ESi. Y5 TONS pF RIP _
_ __ / EST. TO SY FL FAB _ T
~' .
w_ ,
,_., ,., ', I I _ ...
_._------
I
-.,. CIA55 B NP AAP
"
EST
S TONS
~'t
~ ,,
'1
..,. ', _ ~ ,.- .
.
EST. 11 SY FF NE'. »

-
- ~ ~ SPECIAL BASE DRCH
~ +~ SEE DETAIL B

_ ~
~ _
6T. 85 TONS pP AM -
EST. 255 SY RL FAB
::
_ ~ - ~- -
~ - b I a .C~P:
~ ~.
~-
RALEIGH RUGBY ~ ~
`'
.
.
~
.
~
r
,V.,
,~ FDOTBALL CLUB INC
~
,~
,
"' iy
E
_~ 1
'
1 O
E
/
s I ,
AA DITCH
~~MSEE DETA0. 1 E~
j~
~
..
.
' ~ ~ -4 ~ s
' '~
_.

-

E
. , .._
-.:
R _ ..
~ _...
CI .. ., .
~ '
.._.._ .-..._
_._. ._.._
_.._-.... . _.' __.
=~REMOYE ASS IpP RAP
STR PAY REM ~.-
'
~C--
.

_ _- .n
~_
OETAIE a
SPECIAL BASE DI1CH
INOrt kdel

Tura
F.1 10
Drouna ~~
ot Y Froni

slip a
0 g
u
Min. O = L0 Ft.
B=2.0 Ft,
-DET- STA I5+00 TO 17+58 LT
DEraIL e
SPECIAL 80.5E DITCH
I NOf }0 $<Dbl
t
rpunO 2y 4'1 iSOY Fll
0 Po slope
Fnrer Feerlc g
Min, D = I.0 Ft.
Max. o = I.0 Ft,
B = 2.0 Ft.
Type of Liner= Gloss 0 RID-Rap
-0ET- STA II+B7 TO 19+11 LT
DEraiL c
SPECIAL BASE DITCH
1 Npt f0 $COlel
x oun0 Zy 0..1 tloi FIY I
D 41° slo4e ~,
Flier FpDflc B
M1n.0 = I,0 Ft,
Moz. o = I.0 Ft,
8 = 10.0 Ft.
DETAIL 0
TOE PROTECTION
1 nor ra ktla
Nam . e~ R Flo
Cr a ~,P Sbpe
a
Fnr r
C= I.0 Ft, ia0rl<
i yDe of Uner= Gloss B RiD-Rap
-0Ei- STA )0+10 io 7)afMl QT
-,E ....._ ~ .i_ - ..
of Uner= Gloss 8
STA 19+O1 TO 19+56
DETAIL E DETAIL F
LATERAL BASE DITCH SPECIAL BASE DITCH
(Nor fo 5<cbl INOt ro 5<obl
xar "
I- I
snw xN
iie :/ T1 rat. O~ -r nJo fo/ siooe
1=1 Min.O = LO Ft. 1=J
8 = 2.0 Ft. MIn.O = I.0 Ft.
o = 5.0 Ft. B = 2.0 Ft.
-OFT- STA 21+20 TO 22+25 LT -0ET- STA 22+25 TO 23+60 LT
O
ANDREW P. &
OOESSA R. BROAOIE
CLt9S B pP AAP
EST. S TONS
s EST.1/ SY FF
.. t SPECIAL BASE DRCN
5~ DETAIL F
UTERIn USE ORCH
SEF OETAN,E
6T./S CY DDE
f\
-~ - E
_ ~ Fj ~~~
~~ ~\I
....-__- _I. .. _,-_ .__.. -_ _...._

B2 1~
er : 1
BZ 2 ,\ `
•a $~
DETAIL G
A WAY I CH
(Not to $cab~ FII
xa.~rm aldteY sboe
crane ) 0 ~o
a
Fllrer FoprlcJ Mln. p = Lp Ft.
Moz, 0 = I.0 Fi.
YyDB of LInBr= CID$s B RID'ROp
-0ET- RA 27+60 TO 25+62 LT
PRDTErnoH
DETAIL 0
60 TONS pP AAP
170 SY fll FAB
- i~-MULKEY
~~~~~~~
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DD NOT USl CDNSI4VCTION
FOR -DE7- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
f uffer Drawing
~NGI,ISH Sheet S of,,,~
ALLOwdBLE IMPACTS ZONE I
® ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZDNE 2
_. ,
.. _:.
® ~
-\. _....
_-
O
vaLLEY w0005 MOBILE ESTATES
'B; ~.

O _
NORMA G. LEWIS _ -~ I
POWERS TRUSTEE
I

,.. i ,~-.
ROADWAY DRCH I - "-. ...
SEE DETAIL G i ~ S. WESLEY &
EST. 95 TONS pP AAP ~ ~~ - OLIYIA L. 40AM5
EST.300 SY fll FAB I -.,
PROJECT AEFBBACE N0. SHEET N0.
RAV WEFT ND.
ROADWAY DESIGN NYDRAUUCS
ENGWEE0. ENGINE9t

a
L
T
D
l
O
0
a
a2
r 3a
ODN
OQ~
NQ..
~~~
N~o
~~N
0
0
••
V
W
0

See Sleet !-A For InOex of Sf~eJs
See SI~eJ 7-B For Conventional Symbols

~°~°A»[°lE ®][~ 1~~©1[~~II~'1HI ~'~,1ll~l()1(.,h N A\
WAKE COUlYTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.29 OVER CLARKS CREEK ON SR 1007
TYPE OF WORK PAVING, GRADING, DRAINAGE AND CULVERT
VICINITI' MAP
15±00.00 -L- BEGIN. CONSTRUCTION
15+00.00 -DET-
STA. 25+50.00 -L- END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 25+61.55 -DET-
CLARKS CREEK,
[~i
U
O
V
-~MULKEY
E TO RALEIGH
ENa1NEERq i CONaULTANT9
PO a9; 33117
RAla9w. H.C. E'16]B
19191 a51-191 ]
(91 91 89 1-1 91 a IfAXI
W W W.NULK[YINC.CON
BEGIN CULVERT 11 END CULVERT_
-L- STA. 19+94.00 -L- STA. 20+14.00
3 @ 84" CSC
-DET-
r 2 @ 10` X 11' RCBC jl POOLE RD. SR 1007
oo.oo -L-
TIP
L
~~
0Q
Zti
4
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W N91' V98 19R C°NST]VCTI9N
TO KNIGHTDALE
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO THE UMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
GRAPHIC SCALES

sp 2s o so ]oo DESIGN DATA

ADT 2008 = 8,900 PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4300 = .148 MILES Prerored ~~ rre of(!ce or:
•
MULKEY
ENOINEEnq s canauLTANra HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DIVISION OF HIGHR'AYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

MOO
ADT 2030 = 19
500 LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PRO FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION N C,
~ °f

PLANS
,
JECT B-4300 = .004 MILES
Z°°6 SrA7mMD SPECffIf.AIIONS *
t

50 25 0 50 ]Op DHV = 10 %
D 75 % TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4300 = .152 MILES
TIM JORDAN
PE
°~
9
RIGHT OF WAY DATE , srcnuruRE

PROFILE
HORIZO T = 6 %'

V = 60 MPH :
AUGUST 17.2007 RoADwer rROIECr ENGAtEFR
ROADIVAY DESIGN
~`'rr °.`~
T
°
(
NTAL) °
' JEFF RECK, PE ENGINEER F I9AMS
]0 5 0 ]0 E0 TTST 1
h DUAL 5% LETI7NG DATE: NrDRArnIC PROIECr ENGDRiEER
AUGUST 19.2008 DOUG TAYLOR
PE
PROFILE (VERTICAL) ,
ROADWAY DESIGN PRDJECf ENGIN PE per,
SIGNASURE: S1AEE ffiGEDVAY DESIGN ENGINEER

ml Note: Not to Scale
~,
P
D
L
T
L
0
0
n
0
a
0
~ 3~
ooa
0 00
N Q ..
~~~
U1/O
~~N
*S.UE. = Subsurface Utility Engineering
~°°fl°'.~°Y°lE ~F N~d$'1[°~Y C.~R~]LYN.~
IIDIVI~I~N ~~ ~-dg~]HW,~~~
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY
State Une
-_____.____
County Line -_,.___-
Township Une -____
City Une
-_-_-
Reservation Une -- .
Properly Une

Existing Iron Pin 0
Ef
Property Comer
_,
Property Monument ^
EC.
Parcel/Sequence Number ~z3
Existing Fence Une -x--x-x_
Proposed Woven Wire Fence e
Proposed Chain Unk Fence
-----~-
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence --~---
Existing Wetland Boundary - - - -.,,- _ _ _
Proposed Wetland Bounda
ry -Re-
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary -Eb---
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary -EFe--
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.•
Gas Pump Vent or USG Tonk Cap ~
Si
n
g p
s
wen
a
Small Mine x
Foundation
Area Outline ~~
Cemetery
Building ~
School L
_
Church

Dam
HYDROLOGY.•
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir
Jurisdictional Stream
Buffer Zone 1
Buffer Zone 2
Flow Arow
Disappearing Stream
Spring
Wetland
Proposed lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
False Sump
_~
m
RAILROADS•
Standard Gouge
csx rn,wsrwraww
RR Signal Milepost o
VII£PoSr JS
Switch 0
Ax?CH
RR Abandoned _~ ~ _,_
RR Dismantled ________
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker ~
Existing Right of Wa
Line
y
- - _
Proposed Right of Way Line -.~-
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Concrete or Granite Marker ~
Existing Confrol of Access
-
- A=

Proposed Confrol of Access --
~_
Existing Easemenlline - -E__
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement - -E
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -TDE-
Proposed PermanentDroinoge Easement- - -ppE_
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement - mE
ROADS AND RF,I.~4TED FEATURES.•
Existing Edge of Pavement -
Existing Curb -_
Proposed Slope Stokes Cut - - - ~ _ _
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill - - - F _ _ _
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp Curb Cut -
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp - ccre
Existing Metal Guardrail -

Proposed Guardrail r
Existing Cable Guiderail
Proposed Cable Guiderail ^ ^
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
I~EGETATION.•
Single Tree ~
Single Shrub o
Hedge ~,~,.,!
Woods Une ~^~,~.,,
Orchard t1 (} fl 4
Vineyard ~;ney°r°
EXISTING STRUCTURES.•
MAOR:
Brid
ge, Tunnel or Box Culvert co„c
Bridge Wing Woll, Head Wall and End Wall - ~ co„c ~~
MINOR:
Head and End Wall Lo„c „.
Pipe Cuhert
Footbridge ~________~
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or 18 ~ce
Paved Ditch Gutter ----_
Storm Sewer Manhole Q
Storm Sewer s
UTILITIES.•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole j
Proposed Power Pole b
Existing Joint Use Pole -l-
Proposed Joint Use Pole -~
Power Manhole
Power Une Tower
Power Transformer ~
WG Power Cable Hand Hole
H-Frame Pole
Recorded lJ•f Power Line
Designated L!'G Power Une (S.U.E.')
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole +
Proposed Telephone Pole -0-
Telephone Manhole p
Telephone Booth ~
Telephone Pedestal ~
Telephone Cell Tower ~,
lYG Telephone Cable Hand Hole „„
Recorded USG Telephone Cable
Designated L40 Telephone Cable (S.U.E.') - - - - - ~ - - - -
Recorded USG Telephone Conduit ~~-
Designated L6G Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.'j- - - - -~x- - -
Recorded USG Fiber Optiu Cable <<°-
Designated UKi Fiber Optia Cable (S.U.E.y- - - - -~ E^- - -
WATER:
Water Manhole ~
Water Meter o
Water Valve
Water Hydrant ~
Recorded lYG Water Line
Designated LYG Water Line (S.U.E.')--- - - - - -•- - - -
Above Ground Water Une x/L „°rer
N:
N Satellite Dish ~
N Pedestal
N Tower
lbG N Cable Hand Hole „„
Recorded l4G N Cable
Designated l4G N Cable (S.U.E.')
Recorded U•G Fiber Optic Cable
Designated U~G Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.'~
GAS:
Gas Valve ~
Gas Meier
Recorded U-G Gas Line
Designated l4G Gas Line (S.U.E.') - - - -_- - - -
Above Ground Gas Line °'° L°~
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout ~
LVG Sanitary Sewer line ~s
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer 4/L 5on11ary Sever
Recorded SS Forced Main Line ,~,_
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.') - - - _ _s,_ _ _
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole ~
Utility Pole with Base ~
Utility Located Object o
Utility Traffic Signal Box
Ulility Unknown UG Line _„n_
lbG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
AEG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
U~G Test Hole (S.U.E.') ~
Abandoned According fo Utility Records AATUR
End of Information E.0.1.
r------~
-15- -
-BZI-
-BZ 7-

PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
(FINAL PAVEMENT OESlGNJ
C1 PROP. APPROX. 1Lg" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE S9.SB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 168 LBS. PEA SD. YD.
C•2 PROP. APPROX. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE S9.5B,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE Of 168 LBS, PER S0. YD. IN EACH OF TWO LAYERS.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE S9.5B,
C3 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 112 LBS. PER SD. YD. PER 1" DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 11+x" IN DEPTH OR GREATER
THAN 2" IN DEPTH.
D1 PROP. APPROX. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE, TYPE I19.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 342 LBS. PER SD. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE, TYPE I19.OB,
D2 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER S0, YD. PER 1" DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 21p" IN DEPTH OR GREATER
THAN 4" IN DEPTH.
E 1 PROP. APPROX. 41¢" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 513 IBS. PER SD. YD.
EZ PROP. APPROX. 51~" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 627 LBS. PER SD. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 825.08,
E 3 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER S0. Y0. PER i" DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 4" IN DEPTH OR GREATER
THAN 51g" IN DEPTH.
T EARTH MATERIAL.
U EXISTING PAVEMENT.
w VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE STANDARD WEDGING DETAIL)
NOTE: PAVEMENT EDGE SLDPES ARE 1:1 UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.
~ , 30'
VAR• 2:1~
a
m
m
0
~MULKEY
D1
D2
CL -L-
C3 C1
E3
PROTECT REFERBKE NO. 4igT N0.
8-4300
Ww snE£T No.
Eo~nw~r oESicPi nrow,uua
e+~~ ENGINEE#
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ro Nor use coxi-rwurnav
44 1MN.~ MN. ~ U ~ MN.~4
DETAIL SHOWING METHOD OF WEDGING
USE IN CONIUCTION WITH TYPICAL SECTION NO. l
NOTE: AFTER DETOUR REMOVAL, OVERLAY EXISTING PAVEMENT WITH C1 FROM
-L- STA. 15+00.00 TO STA. 17+50.00
-L- STA. 24+50.00 TO STA. 25+50.00
-L-
8' 12' 12' g'
11' WiGR 11' WiGR
4~ ~ ~
20 ,
4
0 FDPS GRADE FDPS
~ POINT
C2 n
0.08 I I .0.02 0-~ ~ ~ ~ 0.08
11.5" ~ 11.5"
~- GRADE TO ~
THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS
TRANSITION FROM EXISTING TO T.S. N0.1 FROM
-l- STA 17+00.00 TO STA. 17+50.00
-L- 5TA.17+50.00 TO STA. 19+60.00
-L- STA. 23+75.00 TO STA. 24+50.00
TRANSITION FROM T.S. NO. l TO EXISTING
-L- STA 24+50.00 TO STA. 25+00.00
6:1
A'
~/,~/.~~
~'/~/,~~
18' ~ b' ~ Tn~

° -L-
PI SIa 13+1919
m o = ro4'!22'rcn
D = z22' 2slx
w L = 297.86'
T = !9912'
R = 2.413.84'
4
e
m
'n
0
o_
i
ROCK CROSS VANE
~xor rD uuu
DETAIL M
_.~ ~
I
- :~
i ,.- ~ _ E .. ..._..,
' ~ `` +00.00 O'TAPE .0.00
.: ~ ,~ ~~.. ... ..- X.A/W 40.00
/ ~~ a ~ ~ 2 u•o~,
-- '---.-_- -A22
GEORGE H. TURNER ,At.
ANNA H, CARLIN
MARY D. MCDONALO
DB z72 PG -E-
DETAIL G
RoaowaY DIrcH
xar rD scale!
front
urDl qp°t~eF Ottcn
Ground v ~D Slooe
a G
Filter Min. D ' I.O Ft.
FaDrID Max. d = I,0 Ft.
Type Df liner = CLA59 B AIP RpP
v 1- STA 23+00 TO 25+00 lT
e
0
DETAIL 1
LatERAL BASE DITGR
~NOr ro Scde~ b
r rd r~ Fill
Daunt D Ft. SbDe
a
B Fn+er
FDDr IC Mn.D = I.0 Fr.
Mex.a LO Fr.
B = 12.0 Fr.
o = S.o Fr,
iyDe of Liner = CLA55 B RIP RAP
A- S1A 78+50 TO 19+20 LT
DETAIL H
SPECIAL BASE DITCH
I NOr ro Scale!
Grau~a 2y A`~ptper oi+cn
0 fry SDOe
Fiber FDD(IC B
Min. o = I.o Fr.
Max,d.I.O Fr.
8 = 4.0 f T.
Type pf Liner = CLASS B RIP RAP
J_ ST1 I5+50 TD 1R+50 LT
1
x~~
i5
RL fAB
BI 1
«BS.UO
.X. /W
40.00 8L-103 PINC l2+99.88
50.00
r-L- r9+69.71 r8.32' RTl
ROCK CRO55 VANE
SEE DFTAR M
C1A55 I RIP AAP
ST0. PAY RFM -
DETAILK DETAIL L
LATE xo, EASE~DITCH SPECIAL BASE DITCH
I.-D~ INar re Sctlel
I ' FiA
GrDinol J. I ~ SIDDe NDiurd ( Fit
,, 0 ~5-> vF~' Orouna 0 adaotje< SlDOe
f
L B.I Min,O = 40 Fr, u
B = 2.0 Fr. Min.G = LO Fr.~
Type of Liner = PSRM D = 5.0 fr, Type Of Liner = P$RM B = 2.0 fr,
1- SA 20+92 TO STA 21+50 lT k SiA 21+SO TO 23+00 LT
1- STA 20+87 TO 23+00 Ri
DETAIL N
DISSIPATOR PAD
I NOr ra Sctlel
I-~La~T
II ~ 1r2
0
Sia. 20.75 LT
Si A. 1970 li $TA. 20«75 RY
nl= 12.0' W= 6.0'
wr ze.G' w2= w.o'
La= 24.0' La= 12.0'
TH= LS' iH= L5'
ESi, 35 10x9 ESi.9 ioNG
CLASS 8 RIP RAP CLASS B RIP AAP
EST. 56 SY FF E9T.14 SY FF
Oli[x
0
0
FAFEA FIBNI(
~- STA 79+70 lT
1- STA 20+TS lT
~- STA 20+75 RT
O
O
N
i'I,
T ..:•-
~'
' WE'..,- nE
I
O
ANDREW P. &
OOESSA R. BROAOIE
DB 1285 PG 224
BN 19fi9 PG 92
TB k,
0 s
} +40.00
i ' I .00
E.- E
x }. DISSIPATOR PAD E\
~ - : SEE DETAII N
61.9 TONS AV RAP
~~., EST. Il SY FIL FAD
LITERAL A/SE DRCH
.-. ~F. ~~~, ~., r;L SEE DETAIL K «OL
EST. 10 CY DDE 0
LET..
C _
i.
E HW w._
Ic- F

'
' t-MULKEY
a.4.aoe.N....~..
VARIES O
~
- u
r ~
2U ~ ~ 29
2 FT.T
M0.1N CHANdEi VARIES
INLET TYPICAL
8
x0i ID 5[4
DoE= aoa cr
iYP.O i0 50 UPSiAEAM } FT
2:1 VARIES 0' - T
IB, F~ 2d
L5 Fi.~ __ ~ CLASS 'i'HN AAP
T FT Z LS Fi, N/ FILTER FABRK
MAIN CHANNEL VARIES
GunEr TrPILAi
MI t0 SGIf
ODE= 6S0 CY
ESL 420 TONS CLASS 'f AIP AAP
ESi, 560 SY f.F.
iYP,O i0 95'DOWN6TREAM L'~'
SPECIAL BASE DRCH
SEE DETAIL L
E~
350
SPECAL BASE DRCH
SEE DESAIL L ~'
_: ~_-i
i
4 t .s E el ,0 00
~ 70.00
E
" .;.'r.:
~,~V ;
X20. \ DISSIPATOR PAD
150.00 1 sEE DEruL N
'1 M TB-_. EST. 9 TONS AIP RAP
IB ~ - EST. U SY RL FAB
`'+, ~ '.
`~
i.
•
O
O
N
0
NORMA G. IEWIS
POWERS TRUSTEE
OB 907 PG 1377
ROADWAY DRCH
n nn SEE DETAIL G
-E
~'' ®a~~r...o„
;R - -- C
E E
BM •BI
- 570.14+gpJ9
j95r1tiGHt BL-r5 PINC 16
e~EV.l9sJ4• Ncoor cPS M
(-L- 22+9151
O
VALLEY WOODS MOBILE ESTATES
OB 3086 PG 569
DETAIL J
RIP RAP AT EMHANNMEN7
I NOr 10 $c Dlel
~® ~LS
~/
rYDe DY Liner = CIp55 B Rip-pop
1-SA 19+00 i0 19+95 RT
PAOIER REFEREI4CE NO. SHEET N0.
8-4300 4
M/! SHEET N0.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER HYOAAWCS
ENGMEE0.
PRELIMIN
DO NOT USw RY PLANS
CONSTRUCf10N
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
1::. ~%.R/W '4
.: 50.00 .. ~ _. ..,

PI Sra 16+23.76 Pr Sra 18+69.82 uc 1 -PI Sro 21+93J9 PI Sro 24+3925
m p= f5'13'29.4'fLrl p= 15'13'29.4'fRrl p= IS'13'29.4'fRrl p= 15'13'29.4'87)
- 0 = 6'!Y 14,8' D = Ell' 146' D = 611' 14.8' D = 6' 11' 14.8"
- L = 246.06' L = 246.06' L = 246.06' L = 246D6'
- r = x23.76' r = x23.76' r = 123.76' r = 123.76'
R = 926.00' R = 926.00' R = 926.00' R = 926.00'
SE = 04 SE = 04 SE = 04 SE = 04
RO = 96' ~ RO = 96' RO = 96' RO = 96'
le~
~ -~- NiAF LTERA~ABAC .' ~ ri;
BENCH VAAIES 0 10 6~ CvAAIES L5 fr.-~ ~-I,S fr.
INLET i7PIG0.L BENCH VAAIES 0 i0i0 6' BENwAPoES 0 10 8'
mr ~a scut VAAIES
fST. DOE= 95 CY OUT~E o 1YPICAL
TrP.a ro 2s IESTaEAM ,ELF
ESt ODE ~ 65 Ci
ESi 3S IONS GLASS 'Y RIP RAP
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION B-4300 1rP okra ic~ooxesia6AM
-L- POT SroJ5+00.00
-DEr- PC Sta.15+00.00
_ncr_ 001` cF„ nine nc
h
- =`------ DB 2960 PL 279
uT ~ ~ BM 1981 PG B19
Z
~ EUGErvE & JANET RArvRS - SPECUt BASE DrtCH
1° -- ~ ~ 08 4866 PG 303 '~ - SEE OETAILC
BN 1981 PG BIS ` EST. 25 TONS AIP RIP
1 EST. 70 SY FIL FAB r - t
#0 _.-. _.. __. _.... CfA55 B DP RAP
. EST. 5 TONS wE ,..wE
ESi.I/ SY FF
... .... '. _ _ _._ .___. __ ...: IB
9 ECD~ETAIL~ a7cH _
... / _l,.
" ' ~ EST. 85 TONS NP RAP
EST. 255 SY FIL FAB
DETAIL A
SPECIAL RASE DITCH
I xa. ro scael
Fronr
aawa D 4~p+te~ Siaoe
LBI
Min, D = I.0 Ft.
~ 0=2.0 Ft,
~ -0ET- STA 15+00 TO 17+58 LT
N
m
L
6
a DETAIL D
n TOE PROTECTION
~ Ina* *o Scald
D G~o~na `p~r~P Sioae
a tl 4
r- O Fxrer
o d= I.0 Fr. Fabric
a~
~~' Type of Liner- CI055 8 Aip-Rep
~~ -OET- STA 30+/0 TO 22+00 RT
DETAIL B
SPECIAL BASE DITCH
I xor ro Scalei
Nrouna $, D GVp~x~ 91ope
d
Fllier Foeric 9
Min.O = I.0 Fr.
MUX. tl = IA f t.
8 = 2.0 Fr.
Type of Liner= Class B Rlp-Rap
-0ET- STA 17+BO TO 19+31 LT
DETAIL C
SPECIAL BASE DITCH
t NOt ro Scalei
G Dena 7., 0 AFB +{0 Siope
d
Filer Fabric B
Min.D = I.0 Ft.
Max. d = L0 Fr,
B = 10.0 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class 8 Rip-RaD
-OET- SPA 19+71 TO 19+5A LT
DETAIL E DETAIL f
LATERAL BASE DITCH SPEGAL BASE DITCH
~NOr ro Scalel (xor ro Scde~
I' b '~ ['I
croc~a 2a p T` I • Ft I s~pe c o~~a :r o.l pt~et sooe
D F~a
J Min. D = LO Fr. U
B = 2.0 Fr. Min.O = LO Ft.
D = 5.0 Ft. B = 2.0 Fr.
-0EF-STA 21+20 TO 22+2517 -0ET-STA 22+25 TO 27+6017

0
~~
O~
ZZ
- PC Sra.
0
ANDREW P, 8
OOESSA R. BROADIE
OB 1285 PG 22x
BN 1969 PG 92
~qq,, Bj
Y ~
wE '\
,~"wE
re.
re
DETAIL G
R A WAY I CH
~Nar ra Scaled Flli
ixrd xAeit O( SIOae
G~a~a 2.~ D ~a
a
Farer Faorlc Min. D = LO Ft,
Mex.4 = IA Fr,
Type of Liner= Class BAip-Aep
-0Ei- STA 17+60 TO 25+A2 LT
~~'' PROTECT REFERENCE N0. SHFET N0.
t-MULKEY
,. ..w.,,... 8-4300 2-B
819 SHEEP N0.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGMIEEA HYDRAlRJCS
ENGWEER
PRELIMINe~RY PLANS
W NOT USE Po CONSTRUCTION
FOR -DE7- PROFrLE SEE SHEET 5
B RM AAP
TONS
SY FF
SPECUL BASE DRCH
SEE DETAIL F
uTHAU BASE Drta
SEE DETUt E
EST. tS CY DDE
~~~_
B4 •51
=eL- srala+ao~s ENO CONSTRUCTION B-4
355+'a1Gnr BL-l5 PiNC r6+21.89
Eltv.r95ia NCDOT CPS MON R2547B8-15 -L- POr Sra.25+50.00
l-L- 22+9L50 30.45'8x1 -DEr- Pr Sra.25+6155
O
VALLEY w00D5 M081LE ESTATES
DB 3086 PG 569

CULVERT HYDRAULIC DATA CULVERT HYDRAULIC DATA
59" RCP fWEST) 54" RCP fEASTJ
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 95 CFS DESIGN DrSCHARGE = 95 cF5
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 50 YRS DESIGN FREQUENCY = 50 YRS
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 196.2 FT DESIGN htiY ELEVATION = 1962 FT
BASE DISCHARGE = 104 CFS BASE DISCHARGE = 104 CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = 100 YRS BASE FREQUENCY = 100 YRS
BASE HW ELEVATION = I%.4 FT BASE hW ELEVATION = 196.4 FT
OVER70PP1NG DISCHARGE = 165 CFS OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 165 CFS
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY= 100 + YRS 0/ERTOPPING FREQUENCY= 100 + YRS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 198.3 FT OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 198.3 FT
-L-
FOR -L- PLAN vrEw SEE SHEET 4
BM 'S1
RNLROAD SPIKE rN (6' P!N OAK
-BL- S7A 14+q0 40'RIGHT
EL = J95J4'
-L- STA 21+08.43 63J9'RIGHT
'''' PROTECT AEfERENCE N0. SHEE7 N0.
~MULKEY B-4300 5
ROADWAY OFSIGN
ENGINEER xxoRwucs
ENGINEER

PRELIM[N RY PLANS
DO NOT USE CONSTRUCTION
CULVERT HYDRAULIC DATA
2 C !0x11
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 1600 CFS
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 50 YRS
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 196.2 FT
BASE DISCHARGE = 000 CF5
BASE FREQUENCY = I00 YRS
BASE HW ELEVATION = 196.4 FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 2400 CF5
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY= 100 + YRS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 198
3 FT
.

1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 25 26 27

CULVERT HYDRAULIC DATA
3 @ 84" CSP
-D ET- DESIGN DISCHARGE = 750 CFS
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 5 YRS
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 195.0 FT
BASE DISCHARGE = CFS
FOR -DET- PLAN vrEw SEE SHEET 2-B BASE FREQUENCY = rRs
BASE Hw ELEVATION = FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 950 CFS
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY= !0+ YRS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 196b FT

m
a

n
m
m
`
n
0
a
i
0
w
v°
o'
^~~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

m pp }~T ~° g~iq-~~y~gy p ~Y
~, ~~~ll~~®1V ®ll lI1LA'l-lll Y'N Cil ll
a Nate: Approximafe quantities only. Unclassif ied C'zcavation, ~~~~~ ®~ ~®~~~ ~~~®~~~~
Fiee Grading, Clearing and Grukkin;, Breaking
of Existing Pavement and Removal of Ezisking Pavemenk .rill ke
paid Ior at Eke confrack Special Provision price for v~ireding". CROSS SECTI011~ SUI~TMARY
NOTE: EMBANKMENT COLUMN DOES NOT INCLUDE BACKFILL FOR UNDERCUT. IN CUBIC YARDS
UNCLASSIFIED
LOCATION IXGVATION ~~~"IEM
oI
UNCLASSIFIED
LOCATION EXCAVATION EMBANKMENT
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o Nor vsR roa coNSrnvrnoN
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DD NOT U% roR R/M nCOVnIT1ON
LOCATION UNCIASSIFIED ~KMENT
EXCAVATION ~I EEMMBBAANN
c
u

11/5/2007

~. t
Wake County
Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 (Poole Road)
Over Clarks Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1007(8)
State Project No. 8.2409201
WBS No. 33G37.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4300
080313
Categorical Exclusion
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Approved:
C7( 3r ~ ~o
Date
Q!' i QG
at
~ ~'~~~~
Gregory J. orpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
i~~'L~- i
John F. Sullivan, III,
~Y Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Wake County
Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 (Poole Road)
Over Clarks Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1007(8)
State Project No. 8.2409201
WBS No. 33637.1.1
T.LP. No. B-4300
Categorical Exclusion
January 2006
Document Prepared by:
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
Caiy, North Carolina
~-tea - ~ ./
Date . A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Vice President
~` 30 -lea ~,~~
Date Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
~~ '~~~ao~noo ~~4'~P"~C
s ~` '~~ ~~
~aa42
~ ~7~ OOOGI000000 ~ ~~ OVA
r~ ~ C
°°eoee'~088061'~~0~0„0 ~o
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Date Theresa Ellerby
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Group

Project Commitments
Wake County
Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 (Poole Road)
Over Clarks Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1007(8)
State Project No. 8.2409201
WBS No. 33637.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4300
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Erosion
and Sediment Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, General Certification Conditions, and
Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT:
Division Engineer
The project will adhere to Stream Crossing Guidelines forAnadromous Fish Passage. A moratorium on in-
water work will be in place from February 15 to June 15 for the American shad.
Hydraulics Unit
All concentrated flows u~ll be discharged outside of Neuse River Riparian Buffers. Concentrated
flows will be diffused prior to entering Zone 2 of the riparian buffer.
January 2006
Categorical Exclusion
Green Sheet

Wake County
Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 (Poole Road)
Over Clarks Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1007(8)
State Project No. 8.2409201
WBS No. 33637.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Introduction: The replacement of Bridge No. 29 is included in the 2006-2012 I~Torth Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. Purpose and Need Statement
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 29 has a sufficiency rating of 7.0 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer, more efficient traffic
operations.
II. Existing Conditions
Bridge No. 29 is located on SR 1007 (Poole Road) in Wake County, North Carolina. SR 1007 is
classified as a Rural Major Collector by the statewide functional classification system. In the Capital
Area MPO 2030 Long Lange Transportation Plan Update (SeptemUer 2004 TAC adoption) SR 1007 was
identified as a priority project to be widened to a four-lane facility. The CapitalArea Greenway Master
Plan (Figure 6) shows a proposed greenway corridor along Clarks Creek up to Bridge No. 29.
Land use in the project area includes a mixture of wooded areas and residential. The project site is in
the immediate area of the proposed Eastern Wake Expressway (I-540) corridor.
The 2006 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 14,900 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected 2030 ADT is 30,200 vpd in the design year. The percentages of truck traffic are 3 percent
dual tired vehicles (DUAL) and 1 percent truck-tractor semi trailer (ITST). The posted speed limit
on SR 1007 is 55 miles per hour (mph) east of the bridge and 45 mph west of the bridge.
Bridge No. 29 was built in 1961. It is a two-lane facility with a clear roadway width of 29.3 feet. The
bridge has two spans and totals 61 feet in length. The deck is composed of prestressed concrete
channels and metal railings. The substructure consists of prestressed concrete caps on timber piles.
The height from crown to stream bed is 10 feet. Bridge No. 29 is posted at 20 tons for single vehicle
and 25 tons for TTST.
SR 1007 is approximately 20-foot in width with 5-foot grass shoulders on both sides. The bridge is
located in a sag vertical curve.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 1

Overhead telephone utility lines are located along the north side of the bridge. Overhead power lines
are located along the south side of SR 1007. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There are approximately 46 school bus crossings on Bridge No. 29 each day.
Fourteen accidents were reported in the project area during the period from September 2001 to
August 2004. There were ten property damage only crashes and four non-fatal injury crashes.
SR 1007 at Bridge No. 29 is part of a designated bicycling route in accordance with the City of
Raleigh's Bi~~cle and Pedestrian Playa (TACAdopted March 79, 2003) (Figure 7). This route is designated
in the Ciry ~X1ide Transportation Network as a Long Term Corridor. Long Term Corridor routes
require major improvements over a period of five to thirty years.
III. Alternatives
A. Project Description
Based on preliminary hydraulic analysis the existing bridge will be replaced on the existing alignment
with a double barrel 10-foot by 8-foot reinforced concrete box culvert, approximately 60 feet in
length, buried to a depth of one foot. The length and opening size of the proposed culvert may
increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by a more detailed
hydraulic analysis to be performed during the design phase of the project.
The approach roadway will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders, including four-
foot paved shoulders (Figure 3A). The A design speed of 60 mph will be provided.
During construction, traffic will be maintained on-site by a temporary detour. Three 78-inch pipes
approximately 60 feet in length will be utilized for the detour. The detour roadway will provide two
12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders including two foot paved (Figure 3B), and a design speed
of 50 mph.
B. Build Alternatives
Two build alternatives were studied for this project. They are described below.
Alternative A (preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic
will be maintained by an on-site detour north of the existing bridge.
Alternative B replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by an on-site detour south of the existing bridge. This alternative is not recommended
because the on-site detour would impact approximately 450 linear feet of an unnamed tributary
south of SR 1007.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Replacing the bridge on a new alignment ~>as not considered because additional horizontal curves
are not desirable in the existing tangent section of roadway.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 2

Replacing the existing bridge with a neu- bridge u~as evaluated. Based on preliminary hydraulic
analysis the proposed bridge would be approximately 75 feet in length. The minimum clear roadway
width would be 40 feet and would provide two 12-foot travel lanes ~~ith eight-foot lateral clearance.
Replacing the bridge with a culvert is preferred because it is more economical.
An alternative u>ith an off-site detour route along SR 1007, SR 2516, SR 2515, and SR 2601 was
evaluated. The detour length is approximately 3.6 miles and has a road user cost of approximately
X23,400 per day. Tlvs alternative was eliminated because of the high traffic volumes that would be
detoured and the high road user cost associated with the off-site detour.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not desirable
because of the traffic sei-~rice provided by SR 1007 and Bridge No. 29.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT's Bridge h'Iaintenance Unit indicates that
"rehabilitation" of this bridge is not feasible because of its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative A, replacing the bridge at the existing location using an on-site detour north of the
existing bridge during construction, is the preferred alternative. Alternative A was selected because it
minimizes stream and wetland impacts and is more economical .
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
E. Design Exception
No design exceptions are anticipated.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 3

IV. Estimated Cost
Table 1 shows estimated costs based on current prices.
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Alternative A
(preferred) Alternative B
Structure Removal (E~isting) ~ 27,000 ~ 27,600
Proposed Structure 100,700 100,700
Roadway Approaches 218,300 218,300
Temporary Detour Pipes 63,000 73,500
Detour Approaches 206,000 228,900
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 225,000 232,000
Engineering Contingencies 135,000 144,000
ROW/Costt. Easements/Utilities 96,000 89,800
Total X1,071,000 X1,114,800
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program
is X1,145,000, including X95,000 for right-of--way, X200,000 in prior years, and X850,000 for
construction.
V. Natural Resources
A. Methodology
Field investigations along the study area were conducted by qualified biologists in January 2004.
Field survey s were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and to document natural
communities, wildlife, Waters of the U.S., and the presence of protected species or their habitats.
Published information about the study area and region, water resources, and protected species was
derived from a number of resources including:
• National Wetlands Inventory (I~TWI) maps
• USGS 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle maps (Knightdale and Raleigh East, North
Carolina)
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey maps of Wake County
• North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina; Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan; NC Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report;
NCDWQ's Fish Community Database; Neuse River Buffer Rules
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 4

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species
• North Carolina I~Tatural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats
• NCDOT aerial photography and Geographic Information Systems Data/ l~Zaps Distribution
Dominant plant species were identified in each stratum of all natural communities encountered.
Plant community descriptions are based on those classified in Schafale and ~Xleakley (1990), where
applicable. I~Tames and descriptions of plant species generally follow Radford et al. (1968), unless
more current information is available. Animal names and descriptions follow Rohde et al. (1994),
USFWS (2003), Martof et al.(1980), Parmalee and Bogan (1998), Webster et al.(1985), Russo (2000),
and Stokes and Stokes (1996). Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each plant and animal listed. Subsequent references to the same organism include the
common name onl}'.
During field surveys, wildlife identification involved a variety of observation techniques, which
included active searching and capture, visual observations (both with and without the use of
binoculars), and obser~-ing the characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows).
Any organisms that may have been captured during these searches were identified and released
without injury. Quantitative aquatic sampling was not undertaken.
Jurisdictional wetland delineations were performed using the three-parameter approach as prescribed
in the Corps of Engineers lYletlands Delineation 1l7anual. Supplementary technical literature describing the
parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrological indicators were also utilized.
Wetland functions were evaluated according to the NCDWQ's rating system, fourth version.
Surface waters in the study area were evaluated based on the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet and the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project lies in Wake County, which is situated in the east-central portion of North Carolina and
is primarily located in the lower Piedmont ecoregion. The geography of the county consists
predominantly of rolling to gently sloping terrain. Floodplains occur in nearly level bands along most
of the streams in the area and larger streams have wide terracing floodplains. Wake County is
densely populated, with a large portion of the county in commercial or residential development.
Elevations in the study area range from approximately 224 feet above mean sea level (msl) at Clarks
Creek north of Bridge No. 29 to approximately 240 feet above msl at the western end of the study
area south of Poole Road.
The study area lies within the Raleigh Belt geological region. This section of the Raleigh Belt is
comprised of foliated to massive granitic rock. It commonly contains Rolesvile suite, Wise, and
Lemon Springs intrusives. The soils in the study area developed from the felsic crystalline system
that is part of the Piedmont soil region.
The local soil mapping units in the study area include the following series: Appling, Wedowee, and
Wehadkee. Appling soil is the most abundant series mapped in the study area.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 5

Appling sandy loam soils are well drained with a moderate permeabilit<- and are strongly
acidic. Cobblestones and gravel are common within the top 36 inches of the soil solum. This
association is found in the uplands and is dissected by many streams that form a dendritic
drainage pattern. Well-drained, deep Appling soils occupy about 70 percent of the
association, while the rest of the association is made up of Durham, Wedov~ee, Vance,
Louisburg, Colfax, Worsham, Mantachie, Congaree, Chewacla, Wehadkee, and Bibb series.
Wedowee unit consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils formed iri
Piedmont uplands. They occur on narrow ridges and side slopes of uplands, with slopes
ranging from 0 to 60 percent though dominantly between 6 and 25 percent. Depth to rock
is more than 60 inches. Wedowee soils were formerly mapped as thin solum phases of the
Appling series.
^ Wehadkee silt loam consists of nearly level, poorly drained soils with moderate to
moderately-rapid permeability. These soils occur throughout the county on floodplains and
streams. Wehadkee soils are considered hydric within Wake CountS~.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic vegetation. Soils referred to as "Hydric A" are generally completely hydric throughout
the mapped soil unit. "Hydric B" soils are non-hydric soils that contain inclusions of hydric soils,
usually in depressional areas or along the border with other soil units. Based on the Wake County
soil survey, one Hydric A soil map unit occurs in the study area: Wehadkee silt loam.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project is located within the Neuse River Basin. The project study area is located within Neuse
River subbasin 03-04-02 and USGS hydrologic unit 03020201.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Clarks Creek, an unnamed tributary (UT) to Clarks Creek, and three areas of riparian wetlands make
up the Waters of the United States in the study area. The drainage area at Bridge No. 29 is 2.2 square
miles. Clarks Creek is a perennial stream that converges with the Neuse River approximately two
miles downstream of the project site.
The Clarks Creek UT is not shown on the USGS quad map but is shown on the USGS Wake
County soils map. The stream was determined to be intermittent through NCDWQ's stream
classification form. It has been channelized for approximately 300 feet upstream of the project site.
This portion of the stream is very entrenched, with up to 8-foot tall banks approaching its
confluence with Clarks Creek. Clarks Creek UT received a score of 48 on the USACE Stream
Quality Assessment Worksheet, and a 22.5 on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (Appendix).
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 6

Clarks Creek is clear and moderate-flowing, with asand-silt-clay substrate. The creek received a
score of 77 out of 100 on the USACE Stream Qualit}' Assessment Worksheet (Appendix).
A classification system for stream channels based on fluvial geomorphologic principles and
landscape position was used for stream analysis. Based on this classification method and field
observations during the site ~-isit, Clarks Creek appears to be a Type C5 channel that is slightly
entrenched but stable. Clarks Creek UT is highly eroded and appears to be a Type G channel.
Characteristics of both streams are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Stream Dimensions
Stream Feature Clarks Creek Clarks Creek UT
Bankfull width 30 feet 3 feet
Channel width 25 feet 1 to 2 feet
Water depth 6 inches to 2 feet 1 to 6 inches
Bank height 15 feet 1 to 5 feet
The I~TCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses. Clarks Creek is
currently unclassified; however Mango Creek (upstream of the project and east of Neuse River) and
Poplar Creek (downstream of the project and east of the Neuse River) are both classified as "C
NSW." Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) are waters needing additional protections because they are
subject to excessive microscopic and macroscopic vegetation growth. Class "C" waters are protected
in accordance v~ith their usage for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture.
Neither high quality waters (HQ~X~, outstanding resource waters (OR~x~, trout waters (Tr), 303(d)
waters, nor water supply watershed waters (WS-I, ~X1S-II, WS-III, or WS-I~ occur within one mile
of the study area. A review of map data available for anadromous fish spawning areas indicates the
project site is located within protected waters for the American shad (Alo.ca .rapidi.rcima). NCDOT
will follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, and an in-water work
moratorium from February 15 to June 15 to protect the American shad.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-quality
monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water-quality
data. AMS monitoring site A-15 is located on the Neuse River, approximately 1,500 feet
downstream of where Clarks Creek enters the river.
The nearest benthic macroinvertebrate sampling site to the study area is located at the mouth of
Walnut Creek (B-10), approximately two miles upstream of the mouth of Clarks Creek on the Neuse
River. This site was last sampled in 2000, and given a bioclassification rating of "good-fair." The
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is used to assess the biological integrity of streams
by examining the structure and health of the fish community. As of Apri12000, Clarks Creek had
not been given a I\TCIBI rating.
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to register for a
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 7

permit. There are 52 permitted dischargers in this subbasin of the 1~Teuse River. TvTo mobile home
parks located on Clarks Creek hold minor NPDES discharge permits.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a. General Impacts
Short-term impacts to water quality from construction-related activities include loss of aesthetic
values, increased sedimentation, and turbidity. Loner term construction related impacts to water
resources include substrate destabilization, bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow rates, and
possible temperature fluctuations within the channel due to removal of streamside vegetation.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources from runoff and erosion in the
study area.
b. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
Bridge No. 29 has steel bridge rails, which can be removed without dropping them into Waters of
the U.S. There is potential for components of the concrete deck and concrete caps to be dropped
into Waters of the U.S. during demolition. The resulting temporary- fill associated with the concrete
deck and concrete pile caps is approximately 48 cubic yards.
D. Biotic Resources
Plant Communities
Three plant communities were observed in the project study area: mixed pine-hardwood forest,
bottomland hardwood forest, and man-dominated community. Descriptions are provided below.
a. Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
Mixed pine-hardwood forest community is present in the upland area of the site and is typically
characterized by a variety of hardwood species in the canopy, a moderate understory, and a sparse
herbaceous layer. This forested community is best classified as a variation of Schafale and Weakley's
Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. The Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest community is dominated by a
mixture of oak ~Ouercus spp.) and hickory (Car~~a spp.) species. In the study area, dominant canopy
species are loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sa~eetgum (Liquidambar st~~raciflua), tulip poplar (I~~~zodendron
tulipifera), red maple, northern red oak ~O. rzrbra), southern red oak (O. falcata) and white oak (Q. alba).
Understory species include dogwood (Co~rrus florida), hickory saplings, American holly (Ilex opaca),
black cherry (P~z~nus serotina), beech saplings (Fagusgrandifolia), and sourwood (Oxydendrum a~horeum).
The shrub and vine layer includes blackberry (KuGus argutus), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), poison
ivy (To~~zcodendron radians), and Japanese honeysuckle (L,onicera japonica). Dominant herbaceous
species include Christmas fern (Po~~sticbum acrosticoides), crane fly orchid (Tipularia discolor, and wild
ginger (Asarum canadense).
b. Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The bottomland forest community is situated along the banks and adjacent floodplain of Clarks
Creek and the UT to Clarks Creek. This forested community is best classified as a variation of a
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 8

Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest (Schafale and Weakley). It is characterized by plant species,
which are tolerant of occasional flooding and often contains a dense understory and herbaceous
layer. Dominant species obser~=ed in the mature canopy were red maple and s~ueetgum. The
understory tree, shrub, and vine layer includes sweetgum and red maple saplings, southern
arrowwood (Vivu~7zarm dentatuTrz), Chinese privet (Ligustr~unr sinense), multiflora rose (Kola naultiflora),
greenbriar, Japanese honey suckle, crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), and poison ivy (Toa~zcodendron
radians). The herbaceous community includes Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), giant cane
(Arundinariagigarztea), and various grasses (family Poaceae).
c. Man-Dominated Community
The man-dominated community represents areas that are periodically maintained by human
influences, such as roadside and power line rights-of--way, regularly mowed lawns, fields, and open
areas. Man-dominated areas comprise a majority of the study area including roadside maintained
areas, and residential lawns. The man-dominated roadside areas are primarily covered with
herbaceous vegetation that includes various t<Pes of grasses and common weedy species such as
plantain (Plantago spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capill foliuna), chickweed (Cerastium spp.), and Indian
strawberry (Duchesnea iradica). Various grasses and ornamental shrubs are the dominant vegetation in
the residential and commercial lawns, including Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and planted
loblolly pine and red maple.
2. Wildlife
The project area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The mixed pine-
hardwood forest and man-dominated community offer a moderate diversity of foraging, nesting,
and cover habitat for many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Species that may be
associated with these ta=pes of communities are described below. An asterisk (*) indicates the species
that were directly observed or that evidence u=as noted during field reconnaissance.
Reptile species associated with the study area are likely to include the Eastern box turtle (Terrapene
Carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rough green snake (Opheod~s aestivus), Eastern milk snake
(Lampropeltis trzangulum triangulum), black racer (Coluber const~zctoJ), and brown snake (Storeria dekayz).
These reptiles inhabit fields, woodlands, streams, wood piles, and old buildings of the Piedmont and
lower mountains in North Carolina.
Many bird species may inhabit or migrate through the study area. Common inhabitants include red-
bellied woodpecker (Melane~~e.r carolinus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), downy woodpecker (P.
puUescens), blue jay (Cyanocitta crzstata), Carolina chickadee (Faros carolinensis), tufted titmouse
(Baeoloj~hus bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Northern mockingbird (Mimus po~glottos), house finch
(Carpodacus mea~zcanus), Carolina wren (Thryotborzrs ludovicianus), dark-eyed junco (junco lyemalis),
American goldfinch (Carduelis trzstis), American crow* (CorUUS brachyrhynchos), and brown-headed
cowbird (Molothrus titer). Predatory species may include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Eastern
screech owl (Otus asio), and barred owl (Stria varia). A common wetland species likely to frequent the
area is the great blue heron (Ardea I~erodias).
A wide variety of mammals are expected to inhabit the study area and surrounding landscape.
Virginia opossum (Didedphis virginiana), woodchuck (Marmota monax), gray squirrel* (Sciurzrs
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 9

carolinensis), Eastern harvest mouse (IZeithrodontomys bumulis), beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat
(Ondatra .~zbethicus), raccoon* (Proc~~on loto~), and white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus zztainianus) are species
most likely to be found. In addition, bats such as the Eastern red (Lasiunu borealis), little brown bat
(lt7yotis lucif~gur), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fi~scus) may also be present in the project study area.
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic habitat of Clarks Creek is expected to be fair based on observed conditions during the
field visits. A beaver dam is located under Bridge No. 29 on the upstream side. Clarks Creek has a
stream bed of sand, silt, and small pebbles beneficial to macrobenthic invertebrates.
The study area likely exhibits an amphibian population of frogs and toads. Spring peepers (Hyla
c~zrcifer), pickerel frogs (kana palust~is), and green frogs (K. clamitans) are most likely to be present in
the study area. No frog or toad species were obser~-ed during the field investigations.
Reptiles that spend the vast majority of their lives in aquatic communities and are somewhat
common throughout this portion of North Carolina include the snapping turtle (Chelydra ser~entina),
eastern musk turtle (Steritotberus odoratus), yellowbelly slider (Chsysen~~s scripta), and northern water
snake (1~Terodia sipedon).
Fish that are likely to utilize Clarks Creek include yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), largemouth bass
(ll7icropterus salmoides), American eel (Anguilla roshata), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), American
shad, and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus). These fish thrive in slow moving, soft substrate waters
like those present within the project area. The overhanging vegetation provides good locale for
foraging on vegetation and benthic organisms, and hiding from predators.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a. Terrestrial Communities
Potential impacts to plant communities are based on the approximate area of each plant community
within the proposed right of way and temporary construction easements. Table 3 depicts impacts to
terrestrial biotic communities for the two alternatives.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts for Alternatives
Vegetative Community Alternative A Alternative B
Pcrmane~t Tem~~rary Permanent Temporary...
Bottomland Forest 0.52 acres 0.35 acres 0.52 acres 0.80 acres
Mined Pine and Hardwood

Forest 0.20 acres 0.41 acres 0.20 acres <0.01 acres
Urban/Disturbed Land 1.01 acres 0.92 acres 1.Olacres 0.75 acres
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 10

b. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from construction
activities. Appropriate measures uTill be taken to avoid spillage and control runoff. Such measures
will include an erosion and sedimentation control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage,
stormwater management measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. NCDOT's Bect
Management Practicer for Protection of S~~rsface 1Vate~:c (BMPs - PSW) and Sedimentation Control guidelines
will be strictly enforced during the construction stages of the project. Long-term impacts to water
resources may include permanent changes to the stream banks and temperature increases caused by
the removal of stream-side vegetation.
The removal of stream-side vegetation and placement of fill material during construction contributes
to erosion and possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these areas reduces impacts by
supporting the underlying soils. Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds, trash,
and other materials into the aquatic communities at the construction site. As a result, sand bars may
be formed both at the site and downstream.
Impacts usually associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization and
scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the substrate and impacts adjacent stream-
side vegetation. Such disturbances within the substrate lead to increased siltation, which can clog the
gills and feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species.
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States:" Jurisdictional Issues
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the
United States." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal administrative
agency of the Clean Water Act; however, the USACE has the responsibility for implementation,
permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is
defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act grants authority to individual states for regulation of discharges
into "Waters of the United States." Under North Carolina General Statutes, 113A "Pollution
Control and Environment" and codified in NCAC 15A, the NCDWQ has the responsibility for
implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the CWA.
Clarks Creek is identified as a perennial stream and the unnamed tributary to Clarks Creek is an
intermittent stream. Perennial and intermittent streams are jurisdictional under Sections 401 and 404
of the Clean Water Act.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetland
delineations for the project study area were conducted in January 2004. A general description of the
wetlands located within the project study area is presented below. Wetland data forms and NCDWQ
ratings are presented in the Appendix. All areas are classified as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved
deciduous, temporarily flooded (I'FO1A) wetlands.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 11

Wetland A is situated between the unnamed tributary of Clarks Creek and a steep slope. The
vegetation consists primarily of red maple, sweetgum, Japanese honeysuckle, and giant cane. It
received a rating of 43 out of a possible 100 on the NCDWQ ~X~etland Rating Form.
Wetland B is located upstream of ~~Jetland A, contiguous to the unnamed tributar}% of Clarks Creek.
The vegetation consists primarily of red maple, tulip poplar, sweetgum, Chinese privet, giant cane,
Virginia chainfern (i~ood~a~a~dia vi~binica), Japanese honeysuckle, and muscadine grape (Viti.r
rotutzdifolia). This wetland received a rating of 43 out of a possible 100 on the NCDWQ Wetland
Rating Form.
Wetland C is located in the northeast quadrant of the project corridor, adjacent to Clarks Creek.
The vegetation consists primarily of red maple, sweetgum, and Chinese privet. Wetland C received a
rating of 77 out of a possible 100 on the NCDWQ Wetland Rating Form.
Impacts to wetlands will take place depending on the final design of the bridge replacement. Table 4
depicts the estimated impacts to Waters of the United States for the proposed alternatives. Stream
impacts to the UT of Clarks Creek resulting from widening the approach roadway to the proposed
culvert are permanent and will likely require mitigation. Wetland impacts resulting from the detour
will likely be considered temporary due to the soil being mineral, not organic. Mechanized clearing is
generally considered a temporary impact.
Table 4. Estimated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Proposed Wetland Wetland Total "Fill in Stream
' Mechanized
Alternatives (acre) in Buffer Wetland Stream (linear Clearing
(acre) (acre) (acre) feet) (acre)
Alternative A or B 0 0 0 0.02 0
(100*)
Alternative A 64

(preferred) detour 0.007 <0.001 0.007 0.02
(0.0*) 0.01
Alternative B detour 0 0 0 0.02 0
(360*)
* Impactr to Clarks Creek UT
2. Permits
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." The USACE issues two types of permits
for these activities. A general permit may be issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category
or categories of activities when: those activities are substantially similar in nature and cause only
minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts, or when the general permit would result in
avoiding unnecessary duplication or regulatory control exercised by another Federal, state or local
agency provided that the environmental consequences of the action are individually and
cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not appropriate for a particular activity, then an
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 12

individual permit must be utilized. India=idual permits are authorized on a case-by-case evaluation of
a specific project involving the proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a tt=pe of general
permit. I~Tationwide Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions. Tllis permit
authorizes an}= actin=ides, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency. Also, the actin-ity is "categorically excluded"
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a slbmiificant effect on the environment. Activities authorized
under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular permit. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACE.
Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) - A Section 401 General Water Quality
Certification is necessary for projects that require Section 404 permits. The state has General
Certifications wlvch will match the permit t5=pe authorized by the USACE. The NCDWQ must issue
the 401 Certification before the USACE will issue the 404 Permit. Compensatory mitigation may be
required when more than 150 linear feet of stream and/or more than one acre of wetland impacts
occur. ~~ilritten concurrence from the NCD~x1Q is not required.
Bridge Demolition and Removal -Bridge No. 29 has steel bridge rails, which can be removed
without dropping them into Waters of the U.S. There is potential for components of the concrete
deck and substructure to be dropped into Waters of the U.S. during demolition. The resulting
temporary fill associated with the concrete deck and concrete pile caps is approximately 48 cubic
yards.
3. Buffer Rules
The Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule applies to 50-foot u=ide riparian buffers directly adjacent to
perennial and intermittent surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. This rule does not apply to
portions of the riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers (15 A NCAC 2B
.0233) provides a designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse Basin.
The buffer is divided into two areas. Zone 1 includes the first 30 feet out from the water and
essentially must remain undisturbed. Zone 2 consists of the landward 20 feet which must be
vegetated, but allows for certain land uses. Grading and replanting in Zone 2 is allowed provided
that the health of the vegetation in Zone 1 is not compromised.
Simple perpendicular bridge crossings are designated Allowable within the riparian buffer. The
Allowable designation means that the intended uses may proceed within the riparian buffer
provided that there are no practical alternatives, and that written authorization from the Division of
Water Quality is obtained prior to project development. Allowable with Mitigation buffer impacts
for bridge replacement projects are addressed when parallel impacts to jurisdictional water occur.
Allowable with Mitigation buffer impacts require written authorization from NCDWQ prior to
project development. Table 5 depicts estimated impacts to the riparian buffer for Clark Creek and
Table 6 for the UT.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 13

Table 5. Estimated Buffer Impacts to Clark Creek
Buffers

Proposed Alternatic c ~
Allowable with I~tit7Qation s . ft; Total
',
Zone 1 Zone 2 :~~-1. ft.;
Alternative A or B

( ermanent) 4,505 1,604 6,109
Alternative A detour

tem orarv referred 4,641 2,672 7,313
Alternative B detour

(tem orar<~) 4,830 3,114 7,944
Table 6. Estimated Buffer Impacts to UT
j
Buffers
--
I?r7lx>sed Alr~rnatire~ ?'~owahle~,z-ithMitigadori !~q. Tvt~]
ft. ~;~q. ft i
Zone 1 Zone 2
Alternative A or B
5,310 0 5,310
ermanent
Alternative A detour

(tem ora ~) referred 0 0 0
Alternative B detour

(tem orar<~ 7,841 6,600 14,441
Alternatives A and B ~~ill impact buffers associated with Clarks Creek. Vegetation will be replanted
after the on-site detour is removed.
4. Mitigation
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the Council on Environmental Quality to include
avoidance, minimization, and compensation. These activities must be considered in sequential order.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the U.S. It is not feasible for this roadway to completely avoid Waters of the U.S. because it
traverses Clarks Creek and because of the need for a temporary on-site detour during construction.
The on-site detour is necessary because of the amount of traffic on SR 1007.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to Waters of the U.S. Wetlands can be bridged to minimize temporary impacts, however,
this is not highly advocated due to the low quality of Wetland C.
Compensatory mitigation includes restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation of wetland
and stream functions and values that are lost when these systems are converted to other uses. The
USACE usually requires compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act when unavoidable impacts total more than 0.10 acre of wetlands or 150 linear feet
of perennial or intermittent streams. The NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for
activities authorized under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for unavoidable impacts to more
than 1.0 acre of wetlands or more than 150 linear feet of perennial or intermittent streams.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 14

Compensatory wetland mitigation will not be required for either alternative since jurisdictional
wetlands since wetland impacts are less than 0.01 acre. The wetland impacted by Alternative A's
detour will be restored by removing the temporary fill material and replanting.
Compensatot-~~ stream nutigation will likely be required since there are impacts to Clarks Creek UT
caused by the widening SR 1007 in the project area.
F. Rare and Protected Species
Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any federal action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be
subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate
laws. The latest USFWS species list dated February 25, 2003 was review January 2006 for Wake
Count~~ species. It listed one Federally Threatened (T), and three Federally Endangered (E) species.
1. Federally Protected Species
A field survey was conducted in January 2004 to determine if suitable habitat is available at the
project site for the federally protected species listed in Table 7. Species descriptions and biological
conclusions are provided on the next page.
Table 7. Threatened & Endangered Species Listed for Wake County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Listing Biological::.
Conclusion
Threatened (Proposed No Effect
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucoce~ihalus for delisting)
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered No Effect
woodpecker
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered No Effect
Michaux's sumac Khus michauxii Endangered No Effect
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Federal Status: Threatened (Proposed for delisting)
State Status: Threatened
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large raptor that ranges in size from 32 to 43 inches tall and has a wingspan
averaging 6 feet. These predators weigh an average of 10 to 12 pounds. Adult body plumage is dark
brown to chocolate brown with a white head and tail, while juveniles are brown and irregularly
marked with white until their fourth year. They are primarily associated with large bodies of water
where food is plentiful. Suitable nesting sites are typically found within 0.5 mile of the water. Nests
are made in the largest living tree within the area, with an open view of surrounding land and a clear
flight path to water. Nests can be as large as 6 feet across. and are made of sticks and vegetation.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 15

These platform nests map be used by the same breeding pair for many years. Breeding begins in
December or January and the young remain in the nest at least ten weeks after hatching. Bald eagles
eat mostly fish robbed from ospreys or picked up dead along shorelines or other carrion. They may
also capture small animals such as rabbits, some birds, and wounded ducks.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bald eagles are year-round but transient species in I~TOrth Carolina. Suitable habitat for the bald eagle
is not present in the study area. Clarks Creek is too small to support and sustain a family of bald
eagles. Based upon this, the project will have NO EFFECT on the bald eagle.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
This bird is a small, seven to eight-inch tall woodpecker with a black and white barred back and
conspicuous large white cheek surrounded by a black cap, nape, and throat. Males have a very small
red mark at the upper edge of the white cheek and just behind the eye. The red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) is found in open pine forests in the southeastern United States. The RCW uses
open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palust~zs), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand optimally should contain at least 50 percent pine and lack a thick
understory. The RCW is unique among woodpeckers because it nests exclusively in living pine trees.
These birds excavate nests in pines greater than 60 years old that are contiguous with open, pine
dominated foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW may extend 500 acres and must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
Living pines infected with red-heart disease (Fo~~zes pipsz) are often selected for cavity excavation.
Cavities are located from 12 to 100 feet above ground level and below live branches. These trees can
be identified by "candles," a large encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. Colonies
consist of one to many of these candle trees. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs
hatch approximately 10 to 12 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for RCW does not exist v=ithin the study area. The quantity of pine within the study
area is not suitable for sustaining the RCW for nesting or foraging. Based upon this, the project will
have NO EFFECT on the RCW.
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
Date Listed: March 14, 1990
The dwarf wedge mussel is small, rarely exceeding 1.5 inches in length. The shell's outer surface
(periostracum) is usually olive brown or yellowish brown in color, with light green rays that are more
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 16

noticeable in juveniles. The nacre (inner shell surface) is bluish to silvery white. The shell shape is
subtrapezoidal. A unique characteristic of this mussel is its dentition pattern; the right vah>e
possesses two lateral teeth, while the left valve has only one. This trait is opposite of all other North
American species having lateral teeth. Three potential fish host species for the glochidia of the
dwarf--wedge mussel are the tessellated darter (Etheostonza olnzrtedz), Johnny darter (EtLeo.ctozzza nigz~~zzz),
and mottled sculpin (Cottzr.r baizdz).
The dwarf wedge mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to moderate current and a sandy,
gravelly, or muddy bottom. In North Carolina, this mussel is documented in the Neuse and Tar
River systems. The dwarf wedge mussel population declines are attributed to industrial, domestic,
and agricultural pollution. Loss of habitat due to siltation of streams and chemical pollution,
especially in the highly developed Wake County sites, threaten the survival of this mussel.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A sunTey for the dwarf wedge mussel was conducted on May 28, 2004 by qualified biologists. No
dwarf wedge mussels were found and it was concluded that the species does not occur in the project
footprint. The absence of the dwarf wedge mussel was reportedly due to the combination of Asian
clam presence and the urbanized nature of the stream. Based upon this, the project will have NO
EFFECT on the dwarf wedge mussel.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxrr)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered -Special Concern
Date Listed: September 28, 1989
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from 1 to 3 feet in height.
The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate leaflets. Most plants
are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants with both male and female
flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal, erect, dense cluster, and colored
greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from June to July; while the fruit, a red drupe, is
produced through the months of August to October. Only 36 extant populations are known, with
31 in North Carolina, three in Virginia, and two populations in Georgia.
l~Iichaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. It spreads by
producing cloning shoots from the roots of mature plants. Apparently, this plant survives best in
areas where some form of periodic disturbance provides open areas. At least 12 of the plant's
populations in North Carolina are on highway rights-of--way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially
maintained clearings.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is not present in the project area. Disturbed areas that may
have provided habitat at one time are maintained as residential and commercial lawns. Based upon
this, the project will have NO EFFECT on Michaux's sumac.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 17

2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 25, 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal Species
of Concern" (FSC).
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and
are not subject to any of its prop=isions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa, which may or may not
be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. FSCs, their
state status, and the existence of suitable habitat within the study area are shown in Table 8. Some of
these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP list of rare
plant and animal species and are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act
of 1987 and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 8. Federal Species of Concern, State Status, and Potential Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name State Status Potential
Habitat
Southeastern myotis Myotis austro~zparius SC Yes
Bachman's sparrow Aisnophila aestivalis SC No
Southern hognose snake* Heterodon simus SC No
Carolina darter Etl~eostoma Collis lepidinion SC No
Neuse madtom Noturus furiosus SC(PT) No
Pineuroods shiner L~~tl~rurus matutinus SR Yes
Diana fritillary* Speyeria diana SR No
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E Yes
Green floater Lasmigona suUviridis E Yes
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolrrta E Yes
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea E No
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum E No
Flatrock panic grass Panicum lithophilus None No
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata SR-T No
Notes:
SC-Special Concern, PT-Proposed Threatened, SR-Sijmiificand}~ Rare, E-Endangered, -T-Throughout, *-Historic Record
No FSC species were observed during the site visit. The review of the NCNHP maps determined
that two Endangered species occur within atwo-mile radius of the project site. The dwarf wedge
mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) is located approximately 1.3 miles west of the project site in the Neuse
River. Michaux's sumac (Khus michau.~zz) is located 1.5 miles west of the project site, adjacent to a
mobile home park along SR 2551.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 18

VI. Cultural Resources
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance ~~ith Section 106 of the National Historic Presei~ration Act of
1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies to
take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on
properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on July 28, 2003. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by NCDOT architectural historians and staff
at the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated October 14, 2003,
NCDOT, HPO, and FHWA concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed
in or eligible for listing in the I\Tational Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the
concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated March 4, 2004 recommended that "no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is
included in the Appendix.
VII. Environmental Effects
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the structurally deficient
and functionally obsolete bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No substantial
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of--way acquisition will be
limited. No relocations of residents or businesses are expected with implementation of the
proposed alternative.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 19

This project is in compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority- Populations and Lo~v Income Populations) since there are no
relocations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local s b~nificance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider
the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction
projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS). Since the proposed bridge will be replaced at the existing location the Farmland
Protection Policy does not apply.
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
nonattainment area for ozone (03) and the Raleigh Durham nonattainment area for carbon
monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated
these areas as moderate nonattainment areas for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data,
these areas were redesignated as maintenance for CO on September 18, 1995. The area was
designated nonattalnment for 03 under the new eight-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004.
Section 176 (c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to
the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures for ~X1ake County. The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (iVIPO), 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and the 2006-2012
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) has been determined to conform to
the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conformity determination of the LRTP on 6/15/2005
and the MTIP on 6/15/2005. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final
conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There have been no significant changes in the
project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors
located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990
CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Division of
Solid Waste Management revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area. Based upon a field
reconnaissance survey, no impacts to underground storage tanks (USTs) are anticipated. If any
unregulated USTs or any potential source of contamination is discovered during right-of--way initial
contacts with impacted property owners, then an assessment will be conducted to determine the
extent of any contamination at that time.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 20

The drainage area of Clarks Creek at the proposed crossing is 2.2 square miles. Wake CountS~ is
currentl}T participating in the I~lational Flood Insurance Program. This crossing of Clarks Creek is
located in Zone AE, a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone. A Flood Insurance Rate Map is provided
in Figure 5. It is not anticipated that a floodway modification will be required. The proposed
replacement structure will be similar in waterway opening size, and it is not anticipated that this
project will hay>e any substantial impact on the existing floodplain or floodwa}-.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. Public Involvement
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in
the project development with scoping letters. Scoping letters were also sent to various agencies. A
newsletter (Appendix) was mailed in February 2005 to area residents and appropriate officials. No
responses were received from the newsletter.
T.I.P. No. B-4300
Page 21

~,
New Bem Ave.

~D
Nei'
Raleigh
G.C. ~
~P!lW'P
Sch. ~ .._._..._
Elem." o ~ _
~/p zexe
0 A
._. ~ zeu ~ ~'~ Rd.
I I zs~x \\
1, 5 i~ - --%~~~ ",.~• k~~~~qy_----.r~ Et~e~
1 , ~ sie/ ~ % \ ~~
i ..
-~- , Hodge Rd. L 36
~ ~ ~ Elem. Sch. 5~ °'
g - ~
• pip ~ _.. __.._.-_,~-
'w..i/:
~-ljl ~~ .-~._-~.~, mss- ~ ~26i6
I~---_--" ~ / Cy ~s
BRIDGE- iG~6ew ~A
K He
i
~, Oakes tti
~, w~ d J. Plantation ~
® r. I
Poole Rd. ~~
t i'
-l .12 1.00 ~-' ~~ ~ '41Poole
,~ ~~ 9sz Rd.
Greek \~\ - ~ ~ `, x %~ =
\ ~ti ~ ~~"
/~ 0ti
e`~d. 3 11 xsss 1
C~ 2 I -
1p J' . .. % ~ -----~ /~~~~~`d9 III _
~'42 ! / f / \'. 151 I,.
~ ~ -
I N\ ~\ i
96 ~ .i
~~
DETOUR ROUTE
C .I
4

FS.LI
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Malysis
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 29 ON SR 1007
OVER CLARKS CREEK
8-4300
FIGURE 1

View of west approach from Bridge No. 29.
View of east approach from Bridge No. 29.
Bridge No. 29 side view.
B-4300 Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 over Clarks Creek
Figure 2

TO 2:1
V AR• 6:1
_ Y/n~Yil,~v/n`
* 11 ft. WITH GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED
8 ft.* 12 ft. ~ 12 ft. 8 ft
4 ft. 4 ft.
p ~ ~ ~ PS
1
.0 _0.02 ' 0.02 _ 0
GRADE POINT
TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION
(PROPOSED)
12 ft.
ft. , 10 ft.
;~/,~
~ VARIABLE
SLOPES
:1
TRAFFIC DATA
2006 ADT = 14,900
2030 ADT = 30,200
DUAL 3%
TTST 1%
EXISTING BRIDGE LENGTH = 61 ft.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
MAJOR COLLECTOR -RURAL
BRIDGE TO BE REPLACED WITH
DOUBLE BARRELL 10' x 8'
REINFORCED CONRETE BOX CULVERT
6:~

8ft* 12ft ~ 12ft 8 ft. aft.

2 ~,
--~~~-
1 ~O
2,1 4.1 R 4.
VA
•1 TO
6
~A
----------- GRADE POINT '
~~~~~~
TYPICAL APPROACH SECTI ON
(DETOUR)
* 10 ft. WHEN GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED
TRAFFIC DATA
2006 ADT = 14,900 Noah Carolina Department
2030 ADT = 30,200 ofTransportahon
DUAL 3% Project Development f7
TTST 1 % Environmental Analysis
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 29 ON SR 1007
(POOLE RD)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OVER CLARKS CREEK
MAJOR COLLECTOR -RURAL TIP NO: B-4300
FIGURE 3B

PS i PS~

0.08 i
0.02 ~ 0.02
0.08

1--
i'y;~' '° ?o~
~~;~
~~'~ .205
203
ZONE X
~~~~~ zo1
} -Basin I5, Stream 7
/r
~:f
'w~9
,~ B-4300
`~~~ / Bridge No. 29
rr>I
193
F
~/i'~ 191
,,'tk X89
`,.
^ ;
7g) ~ ~,
ZONE AE - __~ "~.~,~
y r~
-' 185
~'
C
~ o ,1-83 ~-~.
~ ;.
18~ f~~.
APPROXIMATE SCALE
800 0 800 FEET
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
F~~
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WAKE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA AND-
INCORPORATED AREA'S
PANEL 560 OF 810
(SEE MAF INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
CONTAINS:
COMHUNITT UN MREA PANEL SUFFIX
NNIGHTDALE, TOWN OF 370241 0560 F
RALEIGH, CITY OF 370213 0560 F
UNINCORPORATED AREAS 370368 0560 F
~ NYawTYuYYrti.MI1PNUMSFAYhownwlow Nquk LYU.tl
U) M'hM IaYNYO m.p wd.n: NY COMMUNITY NUNI9E3 NYwn
o Yee.Y.neum by u.ee an wu~aYeseonneeaans tY.m. YYeI.YI
J tommYYny,
E
71
F
3
83C0560

~ MAP REVISED:
DECEMBER 19, 1997
>%~~I"~ ~g0
\ `~J
Federal Emergency Management Agency
~~g
This is an oficial copy of a portion of the above referenced Bood map. It
~f
LONE v
ZONE y j ~/.'~ n
n was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at vwuw.msc.fem a.gov
Figure 5

cn
0
A
iZ1
N
fD
(O
S
C7
O
U
(D
CD
7
G~
(D
0
B-4300
B-4301
_ , s~
....
~= ~
C..
ti.::: + _
r t~Ur a
~,
a
d
~'
~,
N

rn
Greenway Corridors, Parks & Park Search Areas -Southeast District
Q NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
®NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SEARCH AREA METRO PARKS
'* COMMUNITY PARKS
® ®COMMUNITY PARK SEARCH AREA ~ DISTRICT
~~~~taGREENWAY CORRIDOR CONNECTORS
~ METRO PARK SEARCH AREA
~ GREENWAY CORRIDORS
..=::

3,800 1,900 0 3 800
Feet
0
FIGURE 6

~ . ~ E~s~ r _, ~ + z
r~.,., ,~ ~, ~ ~' ''
°p~ '~ Partial map from CAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian
~,
.,r, y
~~:~~ 3 ~ ~ ~' Plan (Adopted by the Capital Area MPO on
1 ,,~•~ ~ ~-" ~`~-
- ~ ~ ~~~.` ~` ° ~ ~~~~~ March 19, 2003)
`l 4 Ly ~~-~...m.
Al , ~.~~! h ~ ~ ~'~.: _,,,F',~
1 5. .ate tL ~' ~ `~ ~Y` ~ J' :r 1M'
°~
' ~~ .~
a °~' ~
6 FIGURE 7

Current Bike Conditions & Routes
09
- ,r
A ~~"~,
Priority Corridors of Lesser Needs
5~ ~~ B,5 Priority Corridors of Greater Need
~) ti US Highways with Bicycle Needs
o ~ 867 . ^'. ~....
ms ~ .~ ~~ ~ _ ~' •~,,
~
State Bike Routes
,
° ~ Cary Bike Routes
I
Raleigh Bike Routes

~~
P
~
- ~ , ~+ Municipal & Corridor Bike Plans
..~
o

Apex Bike Plan
;~
~,'°' Planned I-540 MUP
- ,~'" Garner Bike Plan
r~ ~
' ~
~.
k
t Bik
W
F
Pl
''~
~~+~ ~ ~ B-4301

~ a
e
ores
e
an
y
~
~~~
~ , ,.~..~..~~,~-°T Zebulon Bike-Plan
,
..e
~ •r~, ~~~ ~, ~ B-4300 Wake Co. Centerlines
•~~
+ `-
7
~
~
70
~
a= - Water
_ ,,
~ Wake Boundary

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Fitld Office
Post Office Boz 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
February 18, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Senjir_e Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
m .o
sip
~~~~'s
FES ~~
~... 200
~, ar~>~`Hi°~ °~
~`~~ELOFtd1~~s0~
~~ ~N~~~S
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
ten bridges:
• B-4002, Alamance County, Bridge No. 96 on SR 2116 over Meadow Creek
• ~ B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 on NC 902 over Sandy Branch
• B-4109, Durham County, Bridge No. 120 on SR 1303 over Mud Creek
• B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 on SR 1002 over Strouds Creek
• B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 over Clarks Creek
• B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 on SR 1007 over Poplar Creek.
• B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 on SR 1301 over Terrible Creek
• B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 on SR 1844 over Lower Bartons Creek
• B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 on SR 2217 over Beaver Dam Creek
• B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 over Eno River
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions ofthe Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities

to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detouu in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation, including
trees if necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; --
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough
to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
8. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the streani;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected area.
A list of federally protected species for each county in North Carolina can be found at httn://nc-
es.fws.~ov/es/coon r.html . Additional information about the habitats in which each species is
often found can also be found at http://endangered.fws.gov . Please note, the use of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if
suitable habitat occurs near the project site. If suitable habitat exists in the project area, we
recommend that biological surveys for the listed species be conducted and submitted to us for
review. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies and results.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for these projects, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in

the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we reconunend that the
environmental documentation for these projects include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that maybe directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat and waters of the US;
7. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the.progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
~,~,,, "' L~Ci~
f Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor

cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Thomas, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

Federal Aid # BRSTP-1007(8) TIP # B-4300 County: Wake
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 over Clarks Creek
On 10/14/2003, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
^ Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
^ Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
^ There are properties over fifty yeazs old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
is considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed: ~~,,rr ~~
. ~ ' Zt~C/
Representati e, NCD T Date
FHWA, for the Division A 'strator, or other Federal Agency ate
Representative, HPO D to
__ 4-~1't~ ~D l ~ C~
State Historic Preservation Officer ate
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

+.cSWFo
~~6 r.' ~
"~.,n- ~~
•@ Gwa.~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 4, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacey Baldwin
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ~~"~'' ~. 1.1L~,F..-~ f.~'~ ~~- ~ ~~,1
Il
SUBJECT: Request for commerltts on Bridge Replacement projects
B-4002, Alamance County
B-4063, Chatham CountS~
B-4109, Durham County
B-4216, Orange County
B-4300, Wake County
B-4301, Wake County
B-4.302, Wake County
B-4303, Wake County
B-4304, Wake County
B-4592, Orange County
ER0.3-0389 through ER03-0398
Thank you for your letters of February 5, 2004, concerning the above projects.
Division of Historical Resources
David L. S. Brook, Director
We axe unable to comment on the potential effect of these projects on historic resources until we receive further
information.
Please forward a labeled 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map for each of the above projects clearly indicating the
project vicinity, location, and termini. In addition, please include the name of the quadrangle map.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the area, it
is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 C,FR
Part 800.
www.hpo.d ccstate.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].715-4801
_ ._ _ - - _ _ .._ --.-- .~.~ ....... ~.... •..in _.r~e •Dltl

I~'farch 4, ?00~
Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication
concerting this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: A2ary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT

North Carolina
Michael F. Easley, Governor
~r+ ; ~ ~
~~ ~~
NCDENR
Department of Environment and
February 27, 2004
William G. Rass Jr., Secretary
. -.~
~ C~•p f ~ . . -:r
.~
.. ~s
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe <<
N.C. Department of Transportation '. = ,~ q
Project Development and Environmental Analysis - ~ _ ' ° `'~`~' k~~
GQ\~•~~
1548 MSC :~- -,.~~ ~ ;~P~y~
:.,,~
Raleigh, NC 27699-1 S48 ~~"- ' ~ ~,?~:'''
Subject: Replacement of Bridges in Alamance, Chatham, Durham, Orange, and Wake counties
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area, for the projects listed below:
B-4002, Alamance County, Bridge No. 96 over Meadow Creek on SR 2116 (Preacher Holmes
Road)
B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 over Sandy Branch on NC 902
B-4109, Durham County, Bridge No. 120 over Mud Creek on SR 1303 (Pickett Road)
B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 over Clarks Creek on SR 1007 (Poole Road)
B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 over Poplar Creek on SR 1007 (Poole Road)
B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 over Terrible Creek on SR 1301 (Sunset Lake Road).
Our Program does have records of rare species, significant natural communities, or priority
natural areas at the site or within a mile of the project area, for the projects listed below:
B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 aver Strouds Creek on SR 1002 (St. Marys Road). This
site lies just upstream of the Eno River, where there are numerous rare aquatic animal species.
Species recorded at the confluence of Strouds Creek and the river (at Lawrence Road) are --
yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), State Endangered and Federal Species of
Concern
eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata), State Threatened
notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), State Special Concern
Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi), State Special Concern
One
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 NorthCarolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: vrww.enr.state.nc.uslENR/ ~atut+a'llt~
. _ ~_.._~ ..___~.....,.. ~ ~ ra....,~;,.e h,.~;,,,, c..,,,;„~or . 5n °~ Rervcfed 1'0'o Post Consumer Paper U
Natural Resources

B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 over Lower Bartons Creek on SR 1844 (Mt. Vernon
Church Road). The Lower Barton Creek Ultramafic Slopes natural area lies on the south side of
the road; this is an unprotected site of Local significance. Just downstream of the bridge is the
following -
Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi), State Significantly Rare
B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2217 (Old Milburnie
Road). There is a vague, historic record of the following, just downstream -
veined skullcap (Scutellaria nervosa), State Significantly Rare
B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 over the Eno River on SR 1561 (Lawrence Road). See
comments for project B-4216. This site is a few miles above Eno River State Park. Also, a tract
just upstream of the bridge has been recently acquired, or is in the process of being acquired. In
addition, the section of the Eno River from Hillsborough to the confluence with the Neuse River
is a Nationally significant aquatic habitat, for many additional rare species than those listed
above.
Our program recommends that NC DOT enact strong sedimentation controls to ensure that
populations of these rare species, and particularly the water quality of the Eno River, not be
impacted during the bridge replacements. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not
be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for
rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<«tivw ncsparks net/nl~/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
7~~- ~ C L-~~'r~-l )'1.
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zo/ologist
Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
cc: Brian Strong, Division of Parks and Recreation, Resource Management Program
David Cook, Superintendent, Eno River State Park

~~~
® North Carolina Wildlif e Resources ~on~~ni~sion
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director rt„' -o
~~~o GlvfSh~it tiF •~
';:~~?y~~~C' l~1G~i!'Y~YS ~ ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator -. '<;/• --•-
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 27, 2004
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Alamance, Chatham, Durham, Orange, and
Wake counties. TIP Nos. B-4002, B-4063, B-4109, B-4216, B-4300, B-4301, B-
4302, B-4303, B-4304, and B-4592.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC ?7699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]

Bridge Memo
Februar}~ 27, 2004
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Hal
Bain should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
infornzation on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. I.n streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:

Bridge Memo
February 27, 2004
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This maybe accomplished by
utilizing sins on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 11 by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during norn7al flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-4002, Alamance County, Bridge No. 96 over Meadow Creek on SR 2116. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
2. B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 over Sandy Branch on NC 902. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-4109, Durham County, Bridge No. 120 over Mud Creek on SR 1303. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.

Bridge Memo 4 February 27, 2004
4. B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 over Strouds Creek on SR 1002. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Due to the close proximity of the Eno River we
request conducting a survey for the following state endangered and federal species of
concern mussels: Yellow lampmussel and Atlantic pigtoe. Also, a significant fishery for
sunfish exists at this site, therefore we request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish
from April 1 to June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 over Clarks Creek on SR 1007. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June 15. Standard reconunendations apply.
6. B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 over Poplar Creek on SR 1007. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 over Terrible Creek on SR 1301. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
8. B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 aver Lower Bartons Creek on SR 1844. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
9. B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2217. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
10. B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 over the Eno River on SR 1561. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. We request conducting a survey for the following
state endangered and federal species of concern mussels: Yellow lampmussel and
Atlantic pigtoe. Also, a significant fishery for sunfish exists at this site, therefore we
request an in-water work moratorium far sunfish from April 1 to June 30. Standard
recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely mininuze adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

~OF WATFR~
p ~G
~ ~
~I
o `~
February 25,
'` ,~,,:
MEMORANDUM
R3~iR J 0 ?rlis
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Director ;r ,~
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ~yf~'o L~NlS!Otd ~~
~ r ": ~ '
Robert Ridin ech., DWQ 401 Unit ;°_ 't~,~ x~.^ ~ayfc` ~ ~ ~'~~~'
FROM: gs, Env. T .. ~ ~ ~ ~,,.-' ~ Ei. ~ ~ ~~,.
THROUGH: John Hennessy, Supervisor, DWQ 401 Transportation Unit~11(1,,~
UBJECT: Sco in Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement p>~ ' ts: B-4002, B-4109, B-4063,
S P g
B-4216, B-4300, B-4301, B-4302, B-4303, B-4304, B~592, and B-3528
In reply to your correspondence dated February 5, 2004 (received February 11, 2004) to John Hennessy, in which
you requested comments for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following
comments:
I General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Proiects
1. If corrugated metal pipe arches, rernforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace the
bridge, then DWQ recommends the use of Nationwide Permit No. 14 rather than Nationwide Permit 23.
2. Bridge demolition should be performed rising Best Management Practices developed by NCDOT.
3. DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within the stream and do
not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for
human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation b~
canoeists and boaters.
4. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream; stormwater should be directed across the
bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated
buffers, etc.) before entering the stream Please refer to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters
5. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream. Concrete is mostly
made up of lime {calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium carbonate is very
soluble in water and has a pH of approzunately 12. In an unhardened state concrete or cement will change the
pH of fresh water to very basic and will cause fish and other macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
7.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 40l Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (httr•/ht2n enr state nc us/ncwetlands)
.. ___ u. + vT cl4 C9A4
If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original ground
elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to
stabilize the soil and native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10' x 10' . If
possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with
chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact,
allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
Michael t'. lrasiey, l iovernor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H, Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of w.+aaliry
l

8. A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath the
bridge.
9. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented prior
to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly, especially following rainfall
events.
10. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent sedimentation
of water resources.
11. All work in or ad}acent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, rock berms,
cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent excavation in flowing
water.
12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment should
be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
II General Comments if Replacing the Bride with a Culvert
l . The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the culvert or pipe invert
should be buried at ]east 1 foot below the natural streambed (measured from the natural thalweg depth). If
multiple barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream
bankfull or floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the upstream end to restrict
or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silted barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause noxious
or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low
flows to accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-SO linear feet, alternating or notched
baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life
passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by
providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide
a continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during normal
flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever possible to avoid channel
realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet
end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be professionally designed,
sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure. If road
closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the
need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should
be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed was previously
wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation
for the subject project or other projects in the watershed.

III. Protect-Specific Cornments
B-4002 Bride 96 Varnals Creek, Alamance County
Varnals Creek is classified as C NSW and is m the Cape Fear River Basin. DWQ does not have any special
concerns. Please refer to general recommendations listed above.
B-4109, Bride 120 Mud Creek, Durham County
Mud Creek is classified as C NSW and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. DWQ does not have any special
concems. Please refer to general recommendations listed above.
B-4063 Bridge 20, Sandy Branch, Chatham County
Sandy Branch is classified as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. DWQ does not have any special concerns.
Please refer to general recommendations listed above.
B-4216 Bride 66 Strouds Creek, Oran.Qe County
Strouds Creek is classified as C NSW and is in the Neuse River Basin. Please follow guidelines for avoiding and
minimizing impacts to the riparian buffers as required under the state's Neuse Buffer Rules.
B-4300 Bridge 29 Clark's Creek, Wake County
Clark.'s Creek is not in DWQ records. Mango Creek, upstream of this project, and Poplar Creek, downstream
from this project, are both classified as C NSW. This project is in the Neuse River Basin. Please follow
guidelines for avoiding and minimizing impacts to the riparian buffers as required under the state's Neuse Buffer
Rules.
B-4301 Bride 229 Poplar Creek, Wake County
Poplar Creek is classified as C NSW and is in the Neuse River Basin. Please follow guidelines for avoiding and
minimizing impacts to the riparian buffers as required under the state's Neuse Buffer Rules.
B-4302 Bride 336 Terrible Creek, tii'ake County
Terrible Creek is classified as B NSW and is in the Neuse River Basin. Please follow guidelines for avoiding and
minimizing impacts to the riparian buffers as required under the state's Neuse Buffer Rules.
B-4303, Bridge 102 Lower Bartons Creek, Wake County
Lower Bartons Creek. is classified as WS-IV NSW. There are 30-foot vegetated buffer requirements in WS
waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A
NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G). This project is also in the Neuse River Basin. Please follow guidelines for
avoiding and minimizing impacts to the riparian buffers as required under the state's Neuse Buffer Rules.
B-4304, Bride 143 Beaverdam Creek, Wake County
Beaverdam Creek is classified as C NSW and is in the Neuse River Basin. Please follow guidelines for avoiding
and minimizing impacts to the riparian buffers as required under the state's Neuse Buffer Rules. This creek is also
on the 303(d) waters list. NCDOT shall maximize the use of Best Management Practices for aIl work crossing or
draining to the Critical Area of the Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall
strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4592, Bride 64, Eno River, Orange County
Eno River is classified as WS-NB, NSW. There are 30-foot vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in
addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B
.021.6(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G). This project is also in the Neuse River Basin. Please follow guidelines for avoiding
and minimizing impacts to the riparian buffers as required under the state's Neuse Buffer Rules.

B-3528, Bridge 429, Sycamore Creek, Wake/Durham Counties
Sycamore Creek is classified as B NSW and is in the Neuse River Basin. Please follow guidelines for av~
and minimizing impacts to the riparian buffers as required under the state's Neuse Buffer Rules.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 40I Water Qual
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are me
designated uses are not degraded or Lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, ple
contact Robert Ridings at (919} 733-9817 or John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: USAGE Raleigh Field Office
File Copy

WAKE COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
March 3, 2004
~E~vEa
e~
r, ~~:
t~~o,.<
r `~~
;1 ~ a~'t~
~` ~ ,
~fc. Z
~f~~%fElVT~AI< ~,~P
oy
T
~~
Gregory Thorpe
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 .
Dear Mx. Thorpe:
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Ijji RUCK LGAARY ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA x7670
PHONE: 9i9.8j6.8050
Fax: g79.8j6.7773
Outlined below are school bus bridge crossings and projected impact Bridge Replacement
Projects will have on our ability to transport children to required destinations.
B-4300 to replace Bridge#29: 46 daily school bus crossings which will severely impact school
bus routing.
B- 4301 to replace Bridge#229: 46 daily school bus crossings which will severely impact school
bus routing.
B-4302 to replace Bridge #336: 52 daily school bus crossings which will severely impact school
bus routing.
B-4303 to replace Bridge #102: 16 daily school bus crossing which will moderately impact
school bus routing.
B-3528 to replace Bridge #429: 6 daily school bus crossings which will minimally impact school
bus routing.
Thanks you for soliciting our input.
Sincerel
_..~-
iGy \
Vernon W. Hatley
VWH/as
w~r.nctmo. w)tNwl •vl l~TCC AT L`T

Contact Infoz oration
NCDOT Proposes Replacement of
Bridge No. 2 9 on
SR 100 7 (Poole Road) over
Clarks Creek,
Walce County, NC
TIP No. B-4300
February 2005
v
C
W
..,
y.
Q s
~~
c~
spa ~c
O '-'
a. v
E~ ° :~
o ~~
GW
~ -b ~., ~,
~~~
L ~ :~
~,wvU o
w Q n.. ~ -a
;~vv~
o ay, cn o
~~Qz~
~~ v~.~
~zw"~~ ,
If you have questions or coininents
regarduig anything in taus newsletter,
you inay call, write, or e-snail one of
the contacts provided below.
Theresa 1•Jllerby
NCDOT-PDI/A
1548 Nlail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
919-733-7844 ext. 266
tellerby@do t.state.nc.us
Pam Williams
IVlulliey IJnguieers & Consultants
PO Box 33127
Raleigh, NC 27636-3127
919-858-1908
pwilliams @mull~eyuic. c om
We're on the Web!
www. ncdot. org

Project Introduction
The North. Carolina Department of Transpor-
tation (NCDOT) is pxoposiig to replace
Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 (Poole Road) over
Clarks Creek. The new bridge will provide
safer, snore efficient traffic operations.
Data has been collected on die existng
human and natural environments, alternatives
have been developed, and die impacts of each
alternative have been analyzed. NCDOT
realizes drat citizens and busiiess owners in
die vicinity of die bridge want to be iiformed
of die potential impacts drat dus project may
have on their homes and businesses. Tins
newsletter is part of die public iivolvement
process to provide this information.
Proposed Replacement Structure and
Preferred Alternative
NCDOT recoinrnends replacing Bridge
No. 29 on die existing alignment wide a
double. barrel 10-foot by 8-foot reiiforced
concrete box culvert. During construction,
traffic will be maiitailed by an on-site detour.
T~vo alternatives were studied for the bridge
replacement.
Alternative A replaces the bridge ii place
with an on-site detour north of die existug
structure. Alternative B replaces die bridge it
place with an on-site detour south of die
existing bridge.
Alternative A vas selected as die preferred
alternative because it ininirnizes stream and
wetland impacts more dean Alternative B.
Additional Information
Public iivolvement is an inportant part of die
planning process. The NCDOT encourages
citizen involvement on transportation
projects, and will consider your suggestions
and address all concerns. Please send your
comments to one of die contacts listed in dais
newsletter. Tour Op1r11o11S aYC lrllpOrtallt t0 USI
Step 4
Selection of Prefeued Alternative
Step 5 of We are here.
Citizens Informational Newsletter
Step 6
Complete Environmental Document
Construction &. Right-of-Way Cost
Preliminary Cost Estimate
:921,000
Schedule
Right-of--way in fiscal year 2006
Construction in fiscal year 2007
If you have transportation questions on oilier
projects, call our Customer Service Center toll
free at 1-877-DOT-4YOU, or visit die
NCDOT ~vebsite at ~v~v~v.ncdot.oxg.

DATA FORM ~f~ ~
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: B-4300 Date: / - f6 ""~$~
Applicant 1 Owner: 'C D4 T' County: Wake
Investigator: ~. ~. Tc1~'~!t! ~' uL1{~~ f State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: FFOl
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID: Sr~e. A
is the area a potential problem area? Yes No_X Plot ID: Wetland A
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1, ACer rubrd~ T, 5 ,~/~ FAC
---~ 9.
2,~r~urd~vn6Ars{~rr,~~up- T, Sh FfiC~" 10.
3. f~truN~iNArjR 9iggnfeA. ~_ FACIq/ 11.
4, Layice~'.g J~9~ rc•9 lr ~~ C ~ 12.
5. 13.
6. ~
~ 14.
7. 15.
8.~ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW; or FAC excluding FAC-). /fin l
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species ar /are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): V(let{and Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ I ndated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations; ,Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: ~ (in.) Seconds Indicators:
~
xidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: // lin.) Water-Stained Leaves
L ca{ Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~ (in.) ~C-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name // P~~^I~
(Series and Phase):lyehAdk~~ ~~~ [~J~~ Drainage Class: ~-
Taxonomy (Subgroup): l~Ul/ ~~ C~ /e(!~ Lt' Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No_~
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Iinches) Horizon (Munsell Moist! (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
~~ -~- O r f~f 4' ~t ~~'
r
~ %~ `` A . I U}~ ~ r IO`J'~ S ~ ~~"~ C~~e sir
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
~stic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
~Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
,_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ~ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ~ No Within a Wetland? Yes o
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ~o .
Remarks: Location (describe~'3Yis not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

DATA FORM ~~~'~
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: B-4300 Date: ~-~~ ~ ~~
Applicant l Owner: NCpO~ _ County: Wake
Investigator: m• • 7~uic~tSF1~= y1.d~~J State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: ~~l-
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: Wetland .A
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1, Q tlerca.~ aCb ~ T ~ U 9 ~

2l~gu+d~+n6~ Sr`yr'RC~ Cu/t T S FfiG~- _
10.
3.OXyr~endr'd~'! 2I^bor~urn ~ 11.
_
4. Fa9us ~ r~r7 Ctft T S AG(I 12.

5. Arrrnd~ndr~.4- 9+9 d~~ea ~ ~ _
13. _
s. P~asf~~um dcrostrcho~ /f ~G 14.
7._ -~ 15.
8._ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW; or FAC excluding FAC-). Q
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Grirater than 50% of the Plant Species are are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available .~ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: ~ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (-n•) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~Pr;n.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
_Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: _~~ (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
- Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ~i4'( V"LGt ~-y~Ze~ ~c2~rY7py~ ~' ~!~G-~-40-7L ~~

_ _ _ _ _ _ __
SOILS
Map Unit Name ~ ~ r m~ ~~G"~, _
(series and Phase): ~~Xe ,, ~ ~ ~~Go .5~~_Drainage Class:~~ 'L~7~-~~
Taxonomy (Subgroup}: ,~ I f-h !G L~Q~i~?SC(.~ °/,~°,~(7~~S~' Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
,(inches Horizon Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast S±ructure, etc.
--~~ ~~~~
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol ~ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
~Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERIVIINATJON
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ~ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ~ ~ Within a Wetland? Yes_ No_(C
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
z
Remarks: Location (describe) is s no classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Asmy Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

DATA FORM ~~~
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project t Site: B-4300 Date: ~'~~''~
Applicant 1 Owner: ~G~O T County: Wake
Investigator: ~ ~i ~ TLie/U~,2 Cl1JtJ~-fe~) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: PF01
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: Wetland
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species _ Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Ater rv6rum 7; s ~'AC" g, _~
2 ~ r~i ct~iGt v~/T/ tuG,~t{-e.^~ 7' ~ 10.
3. Lrc~v rd~i~'16arS{~/yCi~'~cs4 T, 5 11.
4. ~ r4 tLsfr-uA7 Si~C'Ns~ Sf7 ~
f}G 12.
5. A I'cJ/7a(incY'iR g ~9~t~fe~- ~ ~ 13.
6. uf~/LV~}/~14.~fr7 ir}~C _
i-~ OBL 14.
7. LorJiC~J2A J/3r~ ~~ l/' Ff}C _ 15. _
8. V i t~ ~fcxa~i ~°G a.., _~_ ~! C 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW', or FAC excluding FAC-). /~~ lD
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Specie ar are not ,
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks}: !Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other nundated
~
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Fie{d Observations: _, Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: ~ (in.) Seconds Indicators:
~
xidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~/~ (in.) _Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: __~(in.) L cal Soil Survey Data
~C-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name ~/.
(Series and Phase): ~/J'(/~ Drainage Class: ~U~(r~
i
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~jvv~~l:~ 1~~a~(s~o~~r_ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No~~
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches} Horizon (Munsell Moist} (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
i %, Jay ~ ~
~ Q~ -o ~~~ goy s ~ ~ ~ s , ~~~
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
~~stic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
V Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
,~Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ~ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~/ No ~ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes /~,AIo _, Within a Wetland? Yes~o
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ~ No
Remarks: Location (describ is snot classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Coops of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

v ~-~+
S~~~r
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project f Site: B-4300 Date: ~'~~ ~ O~
Applicant 1 Owner: /VGp07-' County: Wake
Investigator: m• • Tu~'cnsF~- cJ1.d~~_ State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: ~~-1
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? ~ Yes No X Plot ID: Wetland ~
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant 5oecies Stratum Indicator _
1, QUer"r;,~, aCba T ~ g
2[,+guto~76R- Styr'R~C~Ctu~ T S F'fiG~ 10.
3.oxyalendrdir'I arboreurn ~ 11.
_
4. Fb4us 9 r~ r lr/} T 5
~~tJ
12.
5, rdnd~ndr~.4- 9 ~9 d~1~ed ~ ~HC W 13.
6. P~•! s f r~~4~.n dcrastKtw~ ~ ~f}G 14.
7. 15.
$• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are 08L, FACW~, or FAC excluding FAC-). Q l
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present B ased Upon Greater than ~0% of the Plant Species are are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): dVetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: ~ (in•) Secondary (ndicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~° ~ (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: ~(in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
~ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
,(
Remarks: F~'i' ~L~ '~'t~~JZC~11 ~(IL~/1Y1pY(~ ~/~~G~-r.~V / (~~

SOILS
Map Unit Name ,, ~~ rr cc~-~ >> ° ~ `:'..' ,'~_ ! `'.>/!'_~":~-f
(Series and Phase): VVQ'~~°,, oG ~~ L~Go SDrainage Class: ~----- '~ '~
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~ I1`-h !G U'd ~~SCLrh ,. Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Mu
el
on
l Moist)
(inches) Horiz
ns (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, e
tc.
a
`/~
~
~
~
~ __ ~L__~~(,~
--::yam----- J
-- ~ _S~~il~f ~~
pp
/
!~ ~ ~01~7
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
~
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ,
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ~ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ~ ~ Within a Wetland? Yes_ No_~
Hydric Soils Present? Yes _~ No
Remarks: Location (describe) is s no classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
~-
~~
~~'j~ti`
s~~~~
Project /Site: B-4300 Date: ~`~6 'o 44
Applicant /Owner: NC1]~T County: Wake
Investigator: n'1 • R •TV2w~e U17~~ey) State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: PFOI
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID:__ Wetlands ~
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.~~8u~d,~rn6Rrs{~r~c~~lr~g -T" ~~C t- 9.
2.L1 ri ~ ~ ~`~ ~~,b~ts~- T FAC 10.
3./~Ce~~U6fd/!7 T Rc 11.
4.L~9c~rdin si~erzse Sh F'~G 12.
5. RoSA SP • 5h 13.

7. Lo~I~~,4-J~,AOtir4g V ~ 15.
8,~o~y.5 ~pt'.yrcrd~t~1/~9 T ~/~' C U 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW; or FAC excluding FAC-). ~ ~ ~~
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present B ased Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of-Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Shetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary~dicators:
Other V Inundated
_ aturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available ~ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: ~~ ~J (in.) Seconda~ Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: .2 '~ (in.) V Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
____ Water-Stained Leaves

D
h
S
~ ~ocal Soil Survey Data
ept
to
aturated Soil:
(in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name / ~~~r'(ti
(Series and Phase): ~~~~~~ ~/~~C~')7 Drainage Class: ~"- ~~
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~1U(fP < f7S4-~ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No ~
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches _ H(or~lizon ~ (Munsell Moistl Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Str/uctu/re//etc.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Hi 'c Epipedon ~_ Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_~If~idic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
~uic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
eyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ~ Is the Sampling Point - /
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ~ o Within a Wetland? Yes v No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes !~ No
Remarks: Location (describe is is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands elineation Manual.
I

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
~,
</~C1
S ~>~~ ~
Project! Site: B-4;00 Date: ~-~~ ~d5'c
Applicant /Owner: n/'c..c~oT_ County: .Wake
Investigator: ~ • R~ 7'i~,e~lJ~ State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: ~~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot 1D:_ Wetland ~ ~
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum lndicator
1. F~`J ~s J NRNd~{z~if} T F~ U 9.
2.4q~rd~9~7d4P'.S7`y~'fi~f~{u.} L - Ct' 10.
3, A~ r'~6~~~n •
_
T i4 C 11.

5. C~"nlss ~'~~i 9 5 FAC U 13.
g, L~vm s~i}ee.£~ Sh SAC 14.

7. Hru~r/3y/YT! 9 ~y ~i7~-~
~
~~U _
15.
8.ToXico~~ron1 fydicAtiCS _
~- ~ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW; or FAC excluding FAC-). ~yaZ S
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are/are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): 1fVetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other ~ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
,~ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: _~(in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Win.) Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name ~
d Ph
(/(If~
i
~~~S~
~ S~""'~,~!`'''~" ~'~~~ ~;,r'
~~
ase}:
o
es an
(Ser
r
~ r ~Drainage Class:
G
Taxonomy (Subgroup):.~(~1« U4~/~ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes Nom/
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munseil Moist- (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
~2 ~ ~ 4~4~4/~G. ~~
~_ ~ ~ t° S~
_ _,~ ~ ~ 7
Hydric Soil indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (/ ~ )s the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ~~ Within a Wetland? Yes_ No ~
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ~~
Remarks: Location (describe) is s no classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Cops of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

vv~7-
DATA FORM ~~ ~
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project 1 Site: B-4300 Date: ~ `l~ "~~
Applicant 1 Owner: ~C OT County: Wake
~eT
_
Investigator: /~• R• ~c.,fl~NE~ ~f~7cJ State: NC
_
J
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: PFO1
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes__ No X Transect ID:
Is the area a Potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: Wetland ~
(explain on reverse if needed}
VEGETATION
Dominant Pant Species Stratum Indicator_ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. ~-rtoc>~i1c'ro~ fvG~r~erR- ~ r~C g, .Smi~FT'x ro~~%~l~.~- t,/'

3.L~'9,UidA/1J6fr~.S7`~/nCi{~vfr '~"',.S~j F~l C-~' 11.
4.CA-nus amorrrvin ~! ~ r-~cw~- 12.
5. L r ~c.15 {7u/ri S//I~.LS~- ~ F~ c 13.
6. Sam bucr~s C4//~9o~-,c.1.5 ~~ ~ ~ - 14.

8. La/l,i~rR ~ F~{~o~tt/cwt- l/ FA ~ _ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW; or FAC excluding FAC-). ~
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Specie ar 'are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): 1fVetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other 1 undated
~turated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: ~ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: ~ (in.) Seconds Indicators:
~
xidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~3 r;n.) _Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 5- ~ (in.) ~ F C-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
J
(Series and Phase): ~e~iG~t`~°L S! l?LG~TI~ Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): l~~lJl~1~IG Cliff-o'7~LU~ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No ~
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
fMunsell Moist)
inches _ Horizon (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
nn
/~_ ~V ~-3~-- ~~~~t L G

~ ~ U~~~ ~o / ~y ~~"~
~ Z ,~ ~ ~~y~ ~ ~ ~l ~ ~o~
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
stic Epipedon
~ _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
ulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ ducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors !Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ~ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes~~No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ~ No
Remarks: Location (describ is/snot classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands elineation Manual.

r
~~~ ~
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: B-4300 Date: ~'r~'~~
Applicant I Owner: iVc,6~o 7' County: Wake
Investigator: ~•R• 'Ty~/~~.E _ State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID: P~0.1
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Transect ID:

Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X _
Plot ID: Wetland ~
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2. A~ t^u6~~m i FA ~- 10.

S.Rryr~d<n~~'~~ 9~9~~-~ ~igCUtf 13.
6. iQcisf3- .s~o. Sh 14.
7. L~iC~rf3-c.l ~oon~cfl- _~ ~'AC - 15. _
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW', or FAC excluding FAC-). ~~ !9
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are/are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Slfetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
_5aturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: ~ (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: in
i. ) Water-Stained Leaves

' _ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to 5aturated So
tl: ~(in.) FAC-Neutral Test
- Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name ~~~Je~ ~L~II
(Series and Phase): ~~ Drainage Class: ~~91-
Taxonomy (Subgroup):~~ ~~ ~,9, c~U~u~f~ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ Nof~
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon fMunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
~ ~: IoY~ 31i
1 ,~~ ~ ~~e.~
..
~5 A ~oy~ ~/~ _ ~~~
~ ~by~ ~ -mss hem
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surtace Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Sorts List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: '
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No r Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ~ Within a Wetland? Yes_ No~~
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ~~
Remarks: Location (describe) is s no classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

WETLAND RATII~TG WORKSHEET (4th ~-'ERSIOl~
Project Name: B-9300 County: Wake
Nearest Road: Poole Rd. Date: (/6/2004
Vdetland Area (ac): <.5 Wetland Width (fr):
I Name of Evaluator(s): J. Gibson YT'etland A,B
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or ]ake
on perennial steam
x on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
ADJACENT LAND USE:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
x forested/natural vegetation 75
agricultural/ urbanized 10
x impervious surface 1~
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
SOILS: DO)!'IINANT VEGETATION:
Soil Series: Td'ehadkee 1 Rubus arQuius
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat) 2 Lonicera japonica
x predominantly mineral (non-sandy) 3 Sambucus canidensis
predominantly sandy 4 Rosa ntultinora
HYDRAULIC FACTORS: FLOODING AND WETNESS:
x freshwater semipermanently to permenently flooded or inundated
brackish seasonally flooded or inundated
steep topography x intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
ditched or channelized no evidence of flooding or surface water
total wetland width >_ ] 00 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest x Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION
POLLUTANT REMOVAL
WILDLIFE HABITAT
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT
RECREATION/EDUCATION
X 4.00 = 4
4 X 4.00 = 16
3 * X 5.00 = 15
2 X 2.00 = 4
X 4.00 = 4
0 X 1.00 = 0
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE = 43
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.

WETLAND RATING ~~'ORK;;HEET (4th VERSION)
ProjectName; 8-4300 County: Wake
Nearest Road: Poole Rd. Date: 1/6/2004
Wetland Area (ac): <.5 Wetland Width (8):
Name of Evaluator(s): J. Gibson id~etland C
V4'ETL.AND LOCATION: ADJACENT LAND USE:
(within 1 /2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake x forested/natural vegetation 75
x on perennial stearn agricultural/ urbanized 10
on intermittent stream x impervious surface 15
within interstream divide Adjacent Specia] Natural Areas
other
SOILS: DOMINANT VEGETATION:
Soil Series: R~ehadl,ee 1 Acer rubrum
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat) 2 Lonicera japo~:ica
x predominantly mineral (non-sandy) 3 Ligustrum sinense
predominantly sandy 4 _
HYDRAULIC FACTORS: FLOODING AND R'ETNESS:
x freshwater semipermanently to permenently flooded ar inundated
brackish seasonally flooded or inundated
steep topography x internvttently flooded or temporary surface water
ditched or channelized no evidence of flooding or surface water
total wetland width >= 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
x Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE 2 X 4.00 = 8
BANK., SHORELINE STABILIZATION 5 X 4.00 = 20
POLLUTANT REMOVAL 4 * X 5.00 = 20
WILDLIFE HABITAT 4 X 2.00 = 8
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT 5 X 4.00 = 20
RECREATION/EDUCATION 1 X 1.00 = I
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE = 77
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >]0% nonpoint disturbance within ]/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.

~ ~ ~ l~r k s C:F-~-~=-
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
~ ty.
Project Name: ( , ~v River Basin: U •'L. Coun tl. Evaluator: J f~..~C.G~~.~~n
~ 7 N~ w~~
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: C~{~~•Crta;~ Latitude: Signature: ~=~~--c.
Date: ~- 6' ~ ~ USGS QUAD: ~,le;~(a ~ Longitude: Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: Ijevaluator and fa-~downer agree that the jecrture is a man-made ditch, then use ojtlris jorrn is not necessary.
Also, if in the best professional jtedgemer:l of the evaluator, the jerrture is a mnn-made ditch and no! a modified natural stream-this
raring s~~stem s/iould not be used'
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
?) Is The USDA Texture In Stream bed
~) Is.There An Active (Or Relic)
re
9) is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0~ 1 2 (,
f`NOTE: /f Bed & Baxk Caused By Ditchine.4nd N?THOUT Sim~osity Tlren Sca a=l)')
10) [s a 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated /~~
PRI111AR Y GEOMORPHOL OGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hvdroloav
1) Is There A Groundwater
Weak
PRIII~IAR Y HYDROL OGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 1 ~-
k
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR PO
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A _
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1/ _ 1 5
SECONDARYGEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ~_
II. HvdroloQv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter /'~

4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? `NOTE: I Ditch lndicnted In ~9 Abore Ski This Steo And #S~low+
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 ~ I ~ I.5
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
I) Are Fish Present?
Weak Moderate Stroi
.~ I 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV ~"`Nlostly OBL lV[ostly FAC~V Mostly FaC NIostly FACU
Mostly LIPL
(`NOTE: IjTorul.9bsence OjAli Plants !n Strenmbed 2 1 .7J .5 0 ~
As Noted Abore .Skin This 5reo UNLESS 5AV PresenPl.
SECOIVDARYB.IOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ~
TOTAL POINTS (Priman~ + Secondary) _ ~a , s (If Greater Than Or Equn! Tn 19 Puitrtc The
Streunr !s ,4t Lust Irri~>rnrittent)
Notes:
~Vl-~rVU~~~ 5-f-~~~wt

~- /
USAGE AlD#
' ---
prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSIYTENT WORKSHEET ''~:
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: ~ ~`
1. Applicant's name: N~ ~~~ 2. Evaluator's name: ~~ ~ i ~~1
3. Date of evaluation: ~ ~ " 6~ 4. Time of evaluation:. 't ~ I ~l ~~
S. Name of stream: CI GZY ~:' ~ Cr~~ ~ 6. River basin: ~ U~
7. Approximate drainage area: i ., ~: ~,~° 5 8. Stream order:
4. Length of reach evaluated: ~~ 10. County:
` ~l a
11. Site coordinates (if known)
Latitude (ex. 34 872312):
Method location determined (circle):
13. Location of reach under evalt
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of v
~.ongitude (ex. -77.55661 I ):_
GPS ~ Topo Sheet Ort}io (Aerial) Photo/GIS • Other GIS
to~ n ~-nea - oads and-landmark"s"and attach map id
r~'14.1 ('e tn, Ol'nA: C•Cr d~~ U"~~~~1~
DWQ #,
c,> f fl ~
.;!
Other
tifying stre (s) location):
/~v - a~
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters :Outstanding Resource Waters ~ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES O
' 21. Estimated watershed land use: ~ ~%Residential ~/° Commercial ~% Industrial _% Agricultural
r ~f ~ ~-'~~ % Forested ~% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: IJ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): / ~ - 3~ r
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep {>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every character4stic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest),.the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Commen
Evaluator's Signature c Date ~ ~- ~ 1
This channel evaluation form s intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 36.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

C$ARACTERISTICS =1 ECOREGION POIN T RA~iGE' - '~ '•

`~' -
CoasfaG :;Piedmont'-.~
''-~'11!founta'-i: ~SC.ORE
~
_
- Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
- .., .. ;
_
. 1 -
•~ (no flow or saturation = 0; strop -flow = rnax points).
~ - $ ~ ~ 0 - 4 -
, ~:,
-0 5-
~ , ~ Evidence of past human alterat-on
•
•
•
~
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
. ~ 0 - 6 ; 0 = a 0 ~ -•~
3 ; - Riparian zone - -
_
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer max points ~ ~.. _ ; :,
_~ -• 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges ; -
` -
- f -
-
• :,: _ -
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = mae points) ' '
" 0 5 0 = 4: , _, 0 4

~ 5 ~~ Groundwater discharge ;: _ • -
`
~'' :
` ° (no discharge = 0; s rip s
seeps
wetlands
etc
max
i
t
) 0 3 .
0 4 ~ 0 4
. ,
,
,
.
po
n
s ,
,
6 - ~ Presence of adjacent floodplain: ~.~ '
0 4 '
`
•~„i (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) :. -
`~ 0 _ 4 = 0 2
w ' .~-;, ~ ~ _ : ~ - , Entrenchment / floodplain access ••::
,..r (deepl entrenched = 0; frequent floodin = rriax points) _.
13 :., , :_ Preseuce of adjacent wetlands -~ _
(no wetlands = 0
l
d
a
w -
0 6
-~0 4 _
0 ~ r-.
;
ar a a
j
cent
etlands max points) ~ .
- ~
_ -
_ ~

9
Channel sinuosity=:.: •.
-
~
:
5 :~
- .

(extensive
channelization = 0
natu
l m
a
d
=
n 0 -
0 4 0 3_
;
ra
e
n
er.
max poi
ts)
lD': ~'•-- _._ Sediment input:.
,. ~
- `
`

~--
(extensive deposition= 0; little or n
s
di
e
t
ax
i
t

5
''.- 0 ,

0 .4

0 4

3
o
e
m
n
. ni
po
n
s)
'' 11 ' ° ~ Size c4[ diversity of channel bed substrate ~
(fine, homo Ven
s
0; la
di
- a-~A* ~ 0 4 0 5
ou
-
r a
verse siies max
points) ~ a.~~s,. ~
,...:; - _

`"
12
.~ ~ 'Evidence: of channel mcision•or-.widening , _
-
~+ . _
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed &.. banks = max points) -` -D 5
~ '0 4 _ s s 1
p 3
'`'
;a 13 - ^~~ .P-esenceofma~orbankfailures =
(severe erosion = 0; no erasion stable bank
m _
0 5 - ~D 5;'"
i ~~<~ Y5
s
az points) ~ r
-'~ 14 _ ' Root `depth itnd densi-ty on banks L• ~
~ - _- ~-.
4
0 , _ _
E,,., ~ . =. (no vtsible.roots
=.0, dense.coots hrou~haut: -maX onits)`• i J=
=
5
~? 1 Impact by, agriculture, livestock;_or timber production } ~•-~
}
(substantial impact O;.no evidence =~max points) - S
- 0 4 ~_
- 0 5 ~'' =_
K 16 , ;; Presence ~f riffle-pogl/ripple pool complexes ~ `"
0 3
0 5 -
:-
~
~
(no
iiffleslripples. or pools = 0
well=de-veloped
`max
o
ts) D 6 r -
~

..- •
,
.
p
in
' _ :~,r,, -_ -
.:,Q' 17 ,~`
..; :Habitat complexity. t

p
(Lttle or no habitat = 0, frequent, varied habitats max points) .,0 6 0 6 ~ 0 6
. 18 - , }. Canopy coverage over streambed ;:
:,,. _: _.

0 5 - x

'.
(no shadm vegetation = 0; continuous cano -'
max o~nts~
~ D 5 0 5
~

,
-~~ _.

i9 . -

,: .
~ Substrate embeddedness -
'
(deeply embedded= 0 l
s-e
r•
~~
m

NA* T

4

4 ` y

y
' ~ .
oo
structu
e
ax)
' ~
•~ 20
~ - ;: Presence of stream invertebrates"(see page
4) -
-' ~ r _
,
(no evidence = D; common, numerous •. pes - inax points) ~- ~ -
E.7-
,
_O 21 ~; • `Presence of amphibians "
(no evidence 0 common
numerous - ~
pes max
oints)
0 4_
1 0 4 ^
0 ~l ~ _;
2
~ ,
p
.
.O
`~--~ ~Z ;

~ . '-Presence of fish _ ~
(no evidence 0
common
nu
ero
e
x
:
D 4 -'=
~ 0 4
0 4 `

2
~_ ,
;
m
us p
s.= ma
points):
_
' ,Evidence of.wildlife use ;;~ -
l) 6
0 5
0 5
L(
• (no evidence = 0~ abundant evidence ..max points)
~: :- /
- -
~ 2S. ~ ~ ~ ~ !. ,,, J 11
Total Points
<
Possible r`` ,~ r -
'~5 !^ ~.1
z
DO Yom. ~ L ~.c

fl
0
~ ~ ~ S ~ 7n4
~'
,
'"" '1 F 1'S i'.
.
'C'
S
_~ ~
- •
:
~
.~ -..
4 d
` ,, ~
:,~
~
~
+2
~ ~
DO
,
1
` ~ ~
,~ .,
F
.
' .
.
- ~ ' .l
.._.
ri 2J
.
.
-•
~ ~ ~'::
,> n. r
t ti7 - a J
-...
''t :, ~ ~ " .. ~ ~ TOTAL SCORE: -'also enter on~fixst •a e - ~ r,4
1. r
~~ ~:; Y Jl3~
~~-""- ~~~~- ~"'
Z •ti

~~
--.. .. .. '-. it .. .L .:
,. ...... ... is 1:.i~' =; n~ \
...... .:. 1 S} , L ~ i"
Ja
:
_
-
rt TL,o~o ..4,~.....re.:,.~:......-_ ~ .. r .
..mac. .... -,....:..
_ -.__- -.._--.-. .,,.. ~., ... ....v. wJ~.JJ1.U 111 ~.V0.llG1 ill GGl I1S.

~~^'ii
~.
1~
7

USACE AIDS DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
~~ :~
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Nc. DDS
3. Date of evaluation: ~ - ~ ' D~
5. Name of stream: 1 ~ cf C~Q r~'S Ct~.~
7. Approximate drainage area: ~, ~~ 1'~d-
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~~2~rc~~ ~r~ ~ ~ip,X~ t
V
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
2. Evaluator's name: J ~-e ~s'~UScYI
4. Time of evaluation: ~(~ a+~
6. River basin: ~P(/ S~
8. Stream order: ~
10. County: WC(r"l.
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): ~~GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GI5 Other Sd ~7< /?.rc~ /%
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and atta`~h map identifying stream(s) location):
ad I u-ce~ -+~- P~~~ 12~~ , ~Otir 1 n. Rr~;~ur ~ ~4 r~„~ ; .. l/r:.G
14. Proposed channel work (if any):,
P;~
15. Recent weather conditions: G~~ca~ "',~(a~~t
16. Site conditions at time of visit: {~D~lil4kt
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters ~ Nutrient Sensi i~s ater -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES f yes, estimate the water surface area:
I9. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 10 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 2 y % Residential % Commercia~~ _% Industrial _% Agricultural
,~.~~' % Forested 56 °/ Cleared n Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3 ~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):- ( - S '
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%)Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight ~ Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
~~
Total Score (from reverse): ^T O Comments: U~ Da~ueti~dtiC {n 17t'aiPc~' ~'~1-fit +~.~,C'~ ~~ I"~z1C'
s v
Evaluator's Signature ~ Date ~ ~(gc r~ /
This channel evaluation form is i ended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by t e United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion oC this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca119I9-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSnZENT W®RKSHEET
~~~
' Yc'~?` _S. l /+. .4M I ..)~/ ..le'"+r,3'~.,~r'_~ l ~~.r~~ rt'` 1
Ir'` -._'.
1 -~ ~~ ~~""' ~~` Trr t ;~~~ ~; -{"
y'~ ECOREG
ION POIN I 9~
T'RANG~ ~ L]f-r' f .31~5'i:

.~..=
" ':~,
.__

7 ,.q;}
?. x_ . ~
r , r,, 'CHARACTERISTICS x~,,~- ~ ~t-,,~~,
~~ it ~, •, ~ ,- f r~ y g ~ L - - ,~
........,^ ~+~'~'F-,.~L'sn,k i~_.Ttf.~t~ , v?...s>;~ _. Y'~n:i~~'."'~'y.~~, ... ra'~'4,•~•r~s+.+.,~'~rM r. L
-~ Coastal'''
~r~ v....r.. a...ya'`st'N
~- i

_ P edmoni',~
f. _ _
~`-1V1
r'7.s'. o.llntalll ~ :
~.
~~
'~~O~y~
.....
-~~`•.I~
Presence of flow /persistent Dols in stream
r
-
.?,
.
~•+ >, ,
_
~
`{no flow or saturation= O
stro
= m
~ fl
-
nt
•~ •` ?"
' ~
~~ ~
5
~
:~;~ ,
ow
n
ax
o~
s _ I ~
` '' - , ~ r ..Evidence of past human alteration " ~
~ e ~ ~ f ~>•

. L 1
• (extensive alteration = 0
no alteration = max Dints)
0 6 0
~
u~~ ~. ~. ~
}k:
~
.
~ ~ .
_ t ~ ,

w it
i. ~ ~,..,N . - ~. Ltl avian zone ..
: a _
'
~
~r'a ~
'~. y,
,.i j ~ f ~rt~y'.

0
S
~' •
'
~ (no
buffer - 0; Conti ous
w
d
•buff
t
' ~ `
~ 'S
~
~'
.•~sr :. .. :,
.
,
i
e
er -max Din
s) _ ~
, ~
~,r
,
,
.~~ ~
4 ~; `+ ; _ .:Evidence of nutrient or chemical,discharges ~-
._.. .. •.. ~ ~...:.~.:..: _ _,.
:.. ~q ? J w ~., ~
~ 0 5 ; ~fr~ 4 -' vti
0 4 ~' ,f ~;E
`~~ p i
r /1
-
~:+i
•~ ~.;. _
~-
•-.(extensive discha. es = 0; no discliar~es = max oints~ .-
.
.
.
.
. ,
_ w
,
IS
, ~_
~
~~
. ~
,,
4 ~.
x,
_ j
~,
5-. . .
, .
.
.
..
, ,
,
.;
... _
.
._
Ka

'` ~'
5 ~rr Groundwater discharge ~ _ y,~ ~,..t

0
3 y ~~,; ~ f,e•
W
0 4
; }w~,.~~, ~E~=.
r
0
4
-~ no dischar a O; s nn s `see s; wetlands
etc maz omts) ,~
.r ~ 1
s ;,
~V
` , T
!~,.i
'`~ 6 ,, ,Presence of adjacent floodplain ~•., ,~.' I
,
~~ f
od
n
n ,,
~' ~
4
'`' ~ x t ~ R_
~
~3~-0 4 {~< 9~"'
~
? ~ "
~, ~ ,
no flo
lai
= 0 extensive flood lain
maz poi
ts) s.
~ ~ ?~
~
'
`
' '
'~,.~, :~
; Enlrenchmenf /flood lain access '•.~' L ~4`~i~ I ~
.~
i
.s K '`'~
.
. •....
de
l
h
'
~
:;;v,.
, ..:: _:.__ (
ep
entrenc
ed 0; `fre uent floodin
= maz
Dints) ~ t=; - .- a •" .r~ ~ ~ ._~ ~~S-x-t._;.-~.~i;~
:; ,::,
~y,..
=-=~
,~:
:s .:x .46.:: :r.
•• r z^ 'Presence of add scent wetlands ., +
-
_
n
-
~
~

.
~a
k
4 ~r+
~
~~ ~
.
:ar~s~; 8 ;
l
~
Vi
x
~, - : -.; _, .~-~.~ ~r.
! (na wetlands 0; lar ~ e'adjacent wetlands =
Dints
) r ~ o
6
'
~ '•;4'' ~ 4n fl
r.~'k
~ -
' E k~
~
~-'~
_;t 0 -n? Ff
r max
p
.. •
_ :r,.1
r
f,
t4 ~~
.
.:
I1'~Y 9 -.
z
w ~, 9 Channel sinuosity ~-~ 1 : , T , ra , , i ~ , ~ , X44 ~t , t ^
s
, ~ (extensive channelization =>O; natural meander = iriax
oints) ~
_ ^t'~ ~ '-
:
-~
~~
r.
,, p
. ~
, : ~:;:. - :~..,. .
u ~
~
,~ : J
,;,~'~ - "t' ~',M> t `~~ Sediment input ~- ~ ~ .~ ~ f,
ti~ ~ ,4
~
4 !j ~.<< .~ ti

~ i~
.,,•~ (extensive de osidon 0 tittle or no sediment .max Dints) ~
r Y =
~-~,t
- ~' ~~ f
T1 t4 ~, 4 ~~ u
~~ .
,
'
` `
K 11~ ~ S-ze & diversity of channel bed substrate ~
~~ ~ - -: ..s )
'1
~
•'t
;
~ ,,;'~;
*'` 'r, d ~rFr3x
s
-
'°;! 0
'~ + ~J'Frrf6 SY~Ms
'' 0 -
5 ~4~
~

,
.f
I,.....-.
,.
. .. .:
a
:- fine
hoiiio
enous
O,~lai• e
di
erse s
ze
'
rii'ai
"
i
t
)
-gyn.
~e+
+
~
~~
y
Y. .
e
~
fi
t ~ ~
,~y
,
e,
'
f
'
~ O
. . ,
_
,
v
i
s
:
c
D
n
s :
~„
~~ r.
; ~ sy,,!y~
~~
-
*;;{ 12; j, Evidence of channel incision or mdening ~,h;~ ~.~,..,,f
'
'
'
~
"` ~. ~ ~~'
0- G Sr~~.~ ,~-rf ~.~Rva,,fl°t
;r 0
'
~~'~
` °° r.. --~ ,~'~.
~'0
~
;~~;<

r ::
r t..: jdee*ly
incisecl
= 0• sfable bed
8c:banks
maz
oints)_~ k'
,
~ ,~
..,: It
~'
~iro r
r
~
~
,
t 7 ~~t

1
-
'r~ 13
. ' % ~ax~',Presence of mayor bank failures ~' -1>~ , ~-''
a..
~L.
I }`
1
: " . ~ ~
.
1 .
Y
•~''-f~'0-',,~ `"`~~
t_~
~ T ~ ~"-~~" ?`?C~~
..d T
O ~~~~`~`'l~ ~a~~
9..._,Y.Lat
`
I. . ....;
_a .
,..
..
,.
) 4
f ....
r1~
(severe'erosion=D,no,erosion,'stable.banks-..max- Dints ,:, j
L
L ~~
r.F. r'.>~.~•'•~,> 4
.1 f.~
R ~
~y'ZJ
~,,,~,.~...~, ,,, 1 -n
ca i[i$~i~ln'~
, ~: ,:~,~_K.:
14 h'E * ;; Root depth and density on banks ;<~` ,-~~
~•
. -~~'ti~ ~•~1
~ ~" ~,~,~ ,~y~'
ue" r ~a~ ~,>;.,,,r.

.
~., ~, -,, a~ s .: ., ~«
IL. r q~5 v
' v
t
4
s
bl
~ 0
d
ots
i h
hr
u
ma
.~ < 0 3-,~-
~
'
0 4 ~
s
~
mo
~
~.iF 0 5 f~-
4~
~ I
. no
i
i
e roo
s
,
ense ro
t
oi
o
t-
x Dints :..,_
; ,d .
, ,k~
t. ,
. ..,,, ~
:~
q ~::M
f~ Impact by.agnculture 'hvestock,lor timber. production '~ o ~ ~Ft ` ?..,,.,v-, . ~ F, -~' `'~' yy ~'~' any
~ ~'sub'sfanhal
^ i
act
=0
o
d
n
e"= m
~ ~~
X
o
ts '
~ "~ 5 ~
' ~
x;~. :
:..
imp
-
; n
evi
e
c
a
~
p
in
) _ ~;>5 +
~~•~ °
„ = ,r~
„~;_,,~ •a~~_.,
~;:~;;~;
~~,
u ~
16 ~' Presence of riffle pool/ripple pool. complexes ~ ,~
~ ~ ~ ~~,
3 s: t ~ L~rt., ~; '
`~'~~.•
'•, {no nffles7np les or pools = 0 well-develo
ed max points) ' ~;..~
--~ ~` ~ `~- ~ ''~ ~ ~ 5*~a~ :,r 0 6 - ~,•

;'~ -~ -:. •S, r ti . ~~ i ~ ^r s~- nP .~~
Habitat coin less .~ r_ f:., ~~. -. n*rs ,,r, ~ «:
~ ~ ~cn
~ ~ j ~,~,
~
~ (tittle or no habitat = 0
frequent;'
aned h
bit
t
nt
x' D ~
~ :: rz
.~
~ ..:. ,
v
a
a
s :ma
i
s ,
~-:
z..>_ .._ f.,. ,
,s,~... <{4

;~'
r 18 y' Canopy coverage over streambed }` + ~4
no-shading ve elation O, continuous cano `maz Dints r i~-~„ '""x L,~~
1~ ~ 6~S~N s'~>. ~ ~ ~ ~~'
ry ~a~.-1••~~K ~'' ;i- •,.~Y
'a c ~ P~~ ~'
IW~~~4ya '. "S it ;- ~-,-}"'x ~ ~'-..5ubstrate'embeddednesS •~ ;. ~,v ,.-t ,~ ~fi~~~. -~~~ ~~ .~, -~ ~~ `-: e~'"~. ~ - ~,~'
`(dee I `embedded °:: O
l
ose str
ctur ~
......_
,
o
u
e-max) s._R~~~.
• :..,.,,

~~=
- a Presence of stream invertebrates see page 4J °~s `+` s ~.<-i. ~.
~ -"L--,~.~~='`~ y
'~. 5"
"` Va ,^~,~ :~,•'"
"
'" o
iden
O
~
:
(
- '- ~ 3
~ ev
ce
,
L
n
ominon, numerous es
max points) ~ ~ ,~ ~»' ~ s
~~R,~.
.C7 21 ~ ~.~ .. ~aF~ Presence of amphibians ~ ~ t ,.:.: "

~0
4~ ~ L. `~ ~L tip"' f -~~~~'-
~,
T
O
~
0
, ~ ... ? ;,: (no evidence 0~ common, numerous es = maz points) ~V
.~,~
~, Qt ,.,zx"~~ ~
"~`
r ~,~~,?~~~
,
.
`a
LQ
22 :_ L- R ~ ~nh = ,-.Presence of fish.:T_f : ~ : ~, ~ ~,~,
.:..
t
~ _
; .
.
M>
F
- ~~,~i ~...~~^^~
.
~ p 4 •4. ;~,,'~a..t•->_,'~„~~
~
~ fl 4 ^~ ~• .~~*-r

-~-+
• .
, ~
:
., ,.~ .
.; ~ .. ,,. ,
~,
.. ti
no evidence 0 common
''
numerous es
t ,;
,
"~k
~-'~ ~~
~
r i s`
~
~'
' ~ 0 4
~
~' "~
, ;
max Din
s , ,
1 ~
~ , , i .
' " ~ is
-~
" ~ s Evidence of wildlife'use ''"i
' 's,
i li ~,
~•-,•~ p u
~~
~ 23
; ~,
C
f ^ >f i
t _ ~ R. S. y. ~ ..: r _ : sr '' ~ _ i,.,:~ R ~. '..i= ~ , >I' O A 6 Np ~'
:
:
•{no ev'idence~=~0
abundant eviden
c
f
e=`inax otnts) ,
[
'~ {~ ~ ~ .7 'R y
~
••
~" *'
fp
-~~tl V
ilf-~
ra~ ~1 :~,~1
~
~ ~
„s.
_ .,..
, .
.
,
..
.., _ s... ,.
;: ~~~,.~
. ,
;~.-,~. .
,
~,
..,,F.~~
:at[, ~~r
,~
r~ ` T P•.' ~'~
F,~` n~
Y~:-y
1 _
~,;
~
(~ h P.S.--V+~YS ,~` J i~ ~~~'+f.'•{: ~-i' ]' 3~a~.a~. ~ '+Y -L a r~,~,^ TiJr'rl ,1..y _ v~'~ iir~ 1v^.lij~il'e_,i7: ~f
"i ~~+'F ~:~ ,fit '~;otal:Poinfs•Possible~ ~' ~~i:;r~~~ '~~~;~ D ~' =,
W 7fi ~ ~... 9-.* .t i~+y .Q43
+
-
L
'
'
' ~' ~'ls~~y .tiF'~i ~

~L
~~~100:. "•
' ~,-. •- en~9Y.,' ro ~ ~
~ _ • -
e ~ :`d',~``t- ft
~
_
.,
`F„~~ .
rA T:.l
'1 ' •
.+
r r
I
T (' 1<
feS" ~. f2~ ~ +'Y 9 YF~'
v
l~'.._rn.~y~ l.T.,~. r ' -f: •c. -::u..~
~.. ~' '....~~i-a~ ar
.r'~ .;,tl~, t.~ I u.'~~.
;~ ...t t"..ex.?'~Qr~J?~ISt.C3
. _
..311`-T1 =
~
M3M,ie._e'-.-.I..: _ "s
... c:. _
.
~
~'aa~: ..cam -
s~+
KCI
L:e-
~ Mian Sr
Ir k
~
~y~ ~q,
~~
y
~~i `~'~ ~l. ~Tr~.~j{~~ / ~'S ~~~i,Li. ,.r~i]E~5'~R~ ~MT4^i7{~rV`•1,~".,,~ii"~~"' '~~+~7~,
J "'4 ., ,f"".1~ ~ W.1. L1 +' ~,4-+Y f I .i'T' SyIL
l
a'l
: T
~:
~
~~
~
TOTAL SCORE (al
t
t
o
fi .' Zs' i,'+~`
,~+G ~S.t Y'
~~i
'g„ F /~,
~ ` }
~
[
r~
~.;..?' ;
_~_~~;.` ~
g
e ~ ~
p
•
:
,
•
, ,~,- .,.
s
in
er on
rs
w"~t_r_„{,n~.>'.r.r~~~f.'`F.r~a._?§~;"_.~~-_.~'S~:.~~,.`:~'+. 'k_I~an .;-al ~~:t .n<~.=, c?Su '~. .....:.~:. ?. .' ...w+'yl'.1m ~ y
~,~~
Vtis.F.'~w. ~{,l.rli:Ft. 'O. L'
'~_ V
\
T ! nBSe CnaraCCenSIiCS are nOi aSSCSSe~ In COaSial Streams.
„~.
~~~~~
o~l,~ e~~,z.~
lleri Nt;
~.J~
h ~ 'f V f oa
~~.~

~.C f (Ou r~
2