19960716 Ver 1_Complete File_19960729

. r
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
w?,A
Pxr ??
STATE OF NORTH CAPOLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 17, 1996
?SSV---Q
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P. W. S.
Dear Sir:
Chief, North Section
O?
O
Subject: Wake County, Replacement of Bridge No. 300 over Middle Creek on
SR 1375, Federal Project No. BRZ-1375(1), State Project No. 8.2404401,
T.I.P. No. B-3054.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. Bridge No. 300 will be replaced at its existing location with a bridge
41 meters (135 feet) long and 9.0 meters (30 feet) wide. Traffic will be detoured on
existing secondary roads during construction. Construction of the proposed project may
impact approximately 0.13 hectares (0.32 acres) of jurisdictional wetlands.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4
and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will
apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, for their review.

GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
9
- r
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at [phone], Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P. E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr., P. E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
f ,
T
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3054
State Project No. 8.2404401
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRZ-1375(1)
A. Project Description : (include project scope and location)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 300 on SR 1375 over Middle Creek in Wake
County. The bridge will be replaced with a 41 meter (13 5 foot) long bridge at the existing
location. The new bridge will have a 9.0 meter (30 foot) clear deck width which will
provide a 7.2 meter (24 foot) travelway with a 0.9 meter (3 foot) offset on each side.
Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 300 has a sufficiency rating of 7.0 out of 100 and an estimated
remaining life of 4 years. The deck of Bridge No. 300 is only 6.1 meters (20.0 feet) wide.
The existing bridge is posted at 14 tons for single vehicles and at 17 tons for truck-tractor
semi-trailers. For these reasons Bridge No. 300 needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Tyke II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking weaving,
turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.

a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
® Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is not a
substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located in a
commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
2
4
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise impact on
the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types of
land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process
has been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. High Quality Water (HQW) sedimentation and erosion control measures
will be implemented and strictly maintained throughout project
construction.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 500,000
Right of Way $ 42,500
Total $ 542,500
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1800 VPD
Year 2018 - 4800 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 8.4 meters (28 feet) wide with a 3.6 meter (12 foot)
travel lane in each direction and 0.6 meter (2 foot) paved shoulders. Total usable shoulder
width will be at least 2.4 meters (8 feet). Shoulders will be increased to at least 3.3 meters
(11 feet) where guardrail is warranted.
3

Design Speed:
Based on initial design, it appears that the design speed will be approximately
100 km/h (60 mph).
Functional Classification:
SR 1375 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer agrees with the project recommendations, and
recommends using SR 1503, US 401, and SR 1393 as the detour route as shown in Fig. 1.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists gply of Type I improvements, the following
checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? F-1 X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally 1
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than X
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? El X
4

(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW) ?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States ?
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any ? X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? ? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required ? ?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F1 X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned ?
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? ? X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X CJ
5

(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control ? L?_J X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land f - -
use of any adjacent property? X
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local X
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? --
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X D
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? -
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic X
volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or ?
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
X
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for 1-1 X
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? a
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl ?
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation X
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for ? X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? -
6
4
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached as necessary.)
(1) Response to question 2 on page 4 - endangered species.
While the dwarf wedged mussel is found in areas of Middle Creek, surveys for the
species were conducted on September 5, 1995 and no specimens were found. Further, the
NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats does not
indicate any populations of dwarf wedged mussel in the project vicinity. This project will
not affect the dwarf wedged mussel.
7
0
G
GAP,) '?.
F' ? p
?y
/itIti100%
CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3054
State Project No. 8.2404401
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRZ-1375(1)
Project Description : (include project scope and location)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 300 on SR 1375 over Middle Creek in
Wake County. The bridge will be replaced with a 41 meter (135 foot) long bridge
at the existing location. The new bridge will have a 9.0 meter (30 foot) clear deck
width which will provide a 7.2 meter (24 foot) travelway with a 0.9 meter (3 foot)
offset on each side. Traffic will be maintained on existing secondary roads during
construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
Approved
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Z_7461 V
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
44 Y il Q_ E-J1, - a-.#-
Date Project Manning Unit Head
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
tat4?6
P
6 Divis14 Administrator
iFederal Highway Administration
8

.ill <<<`?

LLL
°! IN}
U`
u? ? °s I Iit
r e
u
b
°? III II
I Wake T?ehlioal
III 11 co""
.16 till
lin II I
II 11
Lw l l 11 Im
I II
II 11
I I
j I Swi. _ .OJ
ULL
ivi

Studied Detour Route
I`

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WAKE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 300 ON SR 1375
OVER MIDDLE CREEK
B - 3054
1
0 mile 1 FIG. 1
V
Ff
Vr w++p'?
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 14, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation.
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #300 on SR 1375 over Middle
Creek, Wake County, B-3054, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1375(1), State Project No. 8.2404401,
ER 95-8112
Dear Mr. Graf:
GE I VF
O
Q?
FEB 17 1995
Divisio
Will
i r or ?
FN?RONN??
On February 7, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites in the general project vicinity. It is
likely that as yet unrecorded resources may be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement. Please forward information concerning the location of the
replacement, detour structures, additional right-of-way, and approach work in
order that we may complete our review.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

I
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.
V?
77!,O?
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slww
cc:L" H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
i

r SU1r o?
?? rah
L
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
02 January 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: P. Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridle Unit
ATTENTION: Bill Goodwin. Project Manager
Project Planning Urli?
FROM: Dale W. Suiterst""E "ironmental Biology,,ist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Proposed replacement of Bridge Number 300 on SR
137 over `diddle Creek, Wake County, NC. T.I.P.
No. B-3052: State Project No. 5.2404401: Federal
Project No. BRZ-1375(1).
This report is to assist in the preparation of a Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for the subject project. Water
resources. biotic resources and jurisdictional issues such as
wetlands and federally-protected species are included in this
report. A completed ecological threshold checklist for a PCE is
also attached.
This project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 300 on SR
13-5 over diddle Creek. The existing and proposed right-of-way
(ROW) for this project is 1S.3 in (60.0 ft). The only alternative
proposed involves replacing the bridge at the existin` location
Traffic will be rerouted on existing roads during the construction
of the new bridle.
WATER RESOURCES
Water resources located within the project vicinity lie in
the Neuse River Drainage Basin. Middle Creek on<,inates
approximately 16.1 km (10.0 mi) northwest of the project site in
southeastern Wake County and flows into the Neuse River near
Smithfield. Johnston County. Figure I shows the general area of
the project site in Wake County. At the project site. this stream
is approximately 6.1 m (20.0 ft) wide and has slow to moderate
flow. The stream is approximately 30.5 cm (1.0 ft) deep with a
substrate of Mud and gavel.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The best usage
classification for Middle Creek (DEM Index No. 27--}3-13-(-F)1 is
0

C
b

?? I ?
?
u -4V•:?e, v A
''
'
,em ?
?

/ Ape.
1 I
AN L.A.
Q?AMw
7L?
•'+ i
S II 1
l
?
1
43Z?pn?
Y?1•Y ?IIl1• r t~
111? Son

dl. 1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTNIEN7 c
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION' OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMEN7AL
BRANCH
WAKE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 700 ON SR 1375
OVER MIDDLE CREEK
B - 3054
0 mile 1 F?G. 1
3
Class C NSW. Class C refers to maters suitable for aQuatlc life
propagation and survival. fishing, wildlife. secondary recreation
and agriculture. Middle Creek has also been assigned a
supplemental classification of NSW. The NSW supplemental
classification was assigned to diddle Creek since the stream
contains Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Because of this designation,
the DES( has placed limitations on nutrient inputs to this stream.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II)
nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi)
of the project study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by the DELI and is part of an ongoing ambient water qualit}
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. ?Iacroinyertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in
water quality; thus. the species richness and overall biomass of
these organisms are reflections of water quality. In May 1986.
`diddle Creek received a BRIAN rating of fair at the project site
(NC DEHNR 1991).
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register
for a permit. Several permitted dischargers are located along
`diddle Cree'.t. Table 1 summari7_es the permitted dischargers along
this portion of Middle Creek and their distance upstream or
downstream from the project site.
Table 1. Permitted dischargers for diddle Creek
Permitted Discharger Direction Distance
diddle Creek Development Upstream 1.0 km (0.6 mi)
CC Propoerties. Inc. Upstream 1.6 lm (1.0 in i)
Town of Cary - South %VWTP Upstream '.'9 km ( 1.8 mi )
Levinson Steel Co. Downstream 1.3 km (O.S mil
The construction of this project may result in:
increased erosion, sedimentation and siltation:
- changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and yc?__,ctation removal:
alteration of water leveIs and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and round water flow from
construction:
chances in water t-emneraturc due to vegetation removaI; and
- increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
construction and toxic spills.
Precautions should be taken to minimize these and other
impacts to water resources in the study area. This can be
accomplished b protecting stream bank vegetation. installing silt
Y
fences as well as other erosion and sedimentation controls.
NCDOT*s Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions
to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic substances during
the construction interval should also be strictly enforced.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Two main terrestrial plant communities are present in the
project study area: a Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
and a disturbed roadside shoulder. One aquatic community. a
Piedmont Perennial Stream. is also present in the study area.
Fauna observed during the field investigation are indicated with
an asterisk (*).
Piedmont / Mountain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Dominant canopy species found in this Piedmont Bottomland
Hardwood Forest include sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green
ash (Fraxinus pennsvlvanica). tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). swamp chestnut oak ( uercus michauxii), beech (Fagus
erandifolia) and red maple (Ater rubrum). River birch (Betula
ni2ra). sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and water oak Quercus
ni:ra) are common along the banks of Middle Creek. Shrubby
species such as American holly (Ilex onaca). privet (Licustrum
sinene). green ash. arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum). laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia) and American strawberry-bush Quonymus
americans) are common throughout the project area.
Fines such as Virginia creeper (Parthenoci,sus cLuinc?uefolia)
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) are present.
Species comprising the herbaceous laver include cardinal flower
(Lobelia cardinalis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Virginia knotweed (Tovara virwiniana). clammy hedge-hyssop
(Gratiola neelecta) and winged monkey-flower (Mimulus alatus).
Spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), false nettle (Boehmeria
cvtindrica). clear weed (Pilea Rumila), river oats (Chasmanthium
latifolium) and giant cane (Arundinaria eigantea) are herbaceous
species that are indicators of the hydric conditions present at
the project site. Other herbaceous species present include panic
grass (Panicum sp.). Chinese yam (Dioscorea oppositifolia), ginger
(Hetiastylis arifolium) and Christmas fern (Polystiehum
acrostichoides).
A variety of animal species inhabit this Bottomland hardwood
forest. Mammals common in bottomland hardwood forests include
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus vir,inianus). Virginia opossum
(Didelphis yireinana), raccoon* (Procyon lotor). and hispid cotton
rat (Siamodon hispidus). Avian species found in the forests of
the project area include Carolina wren's (Thrvothorus
tudovicianus), American crow* (Corvus brachyrhvnchos), yellow
billed cuckoo* (Coccvzus americanus). northern cardinal

(Co. rdinaIis card inaIis). ruby throated hummingbird (Archilochus
colubris). blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Carolina chickadee
(Parus carolinensis) and sreat blue heron (Arden herodias).
Reptilian species found in this bottomland hardwood forest include
eastern box turtle? (Terraoerne carolina) and yellow bellied
slider" (Chrvsemys scripta scripta). Amphibians such as the
bullfrog* (Rana catesbeiana). northern cricket frog* (Acris
creoitans crepitans) and pickerel frog* (Rana palustris) were
found here.
Disturbed Roadside Shoulder
Disturbed or maintained areas are located along the roadside
throughout the project study area. The dominant vegetation of
this community includes herbaceous species such as: poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radieans). Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum).
ye!Iow wood sorrel (OxaIis stricca), pokeweed (PhytoIacca
americans). around ivy (Glechom;3 heder.acea). yard rush (Juncus
t,enuis). hlac:<berry (Rubus sp. ). greenbrier sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibiIis) and climbing hempvine (>likania scandens)
Many of the same species that occupy the bottomland hardwood
sorest also use this disturbed communit%. Common bird species
expected here include the Carolina wren. ruby-throated hummingbird
and Carolina chickadee. White-tailed deer. Virginia opossum and
raccoon are lively to use this community- for foraging.
Terrestrial communities found in the stud,,- area serve as
nestins. feeding and sheltering_ habitat for Various Wildlife.
Ha;)itat reduction concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of
refute. thus causing some species to become more susceptible to
disease. predation and starvation.
Project construction «vill result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts
are derived using a ROW width of 1S.3 m (60.0 ft). Usua11%
project construction does not require the entire ROW width;
therefore. actual impacts may be considerably less.
The construction of a replacement bridge on site could
potentially destroy approximately 0.1- ha (0.=3 ac) of disturbed
area aloniz the roadside shoulders. Approximately 0.13 ha (0.32
ac) of the Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest falls within the
project right-of-way and is subject to destruction or degradation.
Most of this bottomland hardwood forest would also classify as
jurisdictional wetland.
Piedmont Perennial S.trcam
Middle Creek contains habitat for various species of
freshwater fish. mussels and aquatic insects. hater boatman*
(family Corixidae) and water striders'r (family- Gerridae) are
common in calm stretches of the stream and along the edges. Fish
tioecies found in :diddle Creek include tessellated darter
6
(Etheostoma olins tedi), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus). common
carp (Cyorinus carpio), largemouth bass (Mieropterus salmoides)
and black crappie (Pomoxis nizromaculatus). NCDOT biolo,ist. Tim
Savidse collected common elliptio mussels (Elliptic, spp.) and
Asiatic clams (Corbicula fluminea) near the project site. The NC
Natural Heritage Pro-ram lists the followin?_, state rare freshwater
mussels from this section of Middle Creek: squawfoot (Strophitus
undulatus) (between SR 197-5 and SR 1356) and eastern lampmussel
(Lampsilis radiata), trianvle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) and
notched lampmussel (Villosa constricta) (upstream from the project
site).
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the
inroad cateror} of "Waters of the United States." as defined
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 3'5.3.
Wetlands. defined in 33 CFR 325.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequenc%
and duration sufficient to support. and under normal circumstances
do support. a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life
in saturated conditions. And- action that proposes to place fill
:material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Ac: (CWA) (33 U.S.C_. 1344).
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands
tic vegetation and
includes evidence of hydric soils, hydrophy
hydrolos!v. Wetlands that may be impacted by this project are
located on both sides of SR 13-5. The total area of wetlands
within the proposed rialit -of -wav is appro:cimatety 0.13 ha (0.33
acl Hvdrophvtic veactation present inciudes sweet gum. swan"n
chestnut oa'.?_. svcamore and river birch. Other hydroph%tic species
are listed in the Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest communit•
description. Saturated soils with a chroma of two (10YR 6/2)
(according to the Mansell color charts) were also present.
Mottles in the soil were 2.5Y 3/2. The adjacent bottomland
hardwood forests along, diddle Creek outside of the proposed RO'X
are also predominantly wetland. Middle Creek is the only surface
water in the project study area.
Permits
. Impacts to surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from
project construction. In accordance with provisions of Section
101 of the MVA. a.pesmit will be required from the COE for
dischar,e of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federalI ' y permitted or licensed
activity' that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United
States. This project will require a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the DE)I prior to the issuance of the Nationwide
Permit.
Since this is a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion. a Section
404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be
applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States from the
proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken.
assisted. authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole. or
part by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental
quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work. or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it is included
within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
and:
(?) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the aL-ency's or department's application for the
programmatic categorical exclusion and concurs with the
determination.
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental
Quality (CEQ). a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose
of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical. biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States.
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands).
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time
and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 150S.20). Each of these
three aspects (avoidance. minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially. Avoidance mitigation
examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. Minimization includes the
examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Compensatory
mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered. Threatened. Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section , and Section
9 of the Endangered Species Act. As of 3S March 1995. four
species are listed for Wake County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1990. A summary of each species' natural history and
distribution follows.
S
Table ?. Federally-Protected Species for Wake County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alismodonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Haliaeetus leucocenhalus bald eagle E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
Alismodonta heterodon (dwarf «vedge mussel) E
.-animal Family: [:nionidae
Date Listed: March 14. 1990
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin. Granville. Halifax.
Johnston. Nash. Vance, Wake. Warren, Wilson.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right
half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer
shell) is olive green to dart: brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedze mussel in North
Carolina are found in diddle Creek and the Little River of
the `ease River Basin and in the Lipper Tar River and Cedar.
Crooked. and Stony Creeks of the 'Far River system. This
mussel is sensitive to agricultural. domestic, and industrial
pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with
well oxvsgenated water to survive.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT biologist Tim Savids-e surveyed Middle Creek at the
project site for dwarf wedge mussels on 05 September 1995 and
found no specimens of this species. Further, the NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats
does not indicate any Populations of dwarf wedge mussel in
the project vicinity. This project will not affect the dwarf
wedge mussel.
Haliaeetus leucocenh_alus (bald eagle) E
An ilnaI Family: Accipit ridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort. Brunswick.
Carteret, Chatham. Chowan, Craven. Dare,
Durham. Guilford, Hyde. Montgomery. Now
Hanover. Northhampton. Periquimans, Richmond.
9
St anIev. Vance. Wake. Washington
adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white
head and short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to
chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water
(within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the water.
in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open
view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an
eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other
sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may
be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Middle Creek, the only body of water in the project
site. is not large enough to support bald eagle foraging.
The forested areas near the project site do not contain any
tall trees suitable for bald eagle nests. The NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats
does not indicate any populations of bald eagles in the
vicinity of the project. This project will not affect the
bald ea?_,le.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpeck,_r) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13. 1970
Distribution in N.C.: Anson. Beaufort. Bercie. Bladen.
BrunSWick. Camden. Carteret. Chatham.
Columbus. Craven. Cumberland. Dare. Duplin.
Forsyth. Gates. Halifax. Harnett. Hertford.
Hoke. Hyde. Johnston. Jones. Lee. Lenoir.
Montgomery. Moore. Nash. New Hanover,
Northhampton. Onslow. Orange. Pamlico.
Pender, Perquimans. Pitt. Richmond. Robeson.
Sampson. Scotland. Tyrrell. Wake. Wayne.
Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RC`.C) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white e::cept for small red streaks
on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white streaked flanks.
The RMV has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black-
cap. nape, and throat.
The RC%V uses open old growth stands of southern pines.
particularly lon-leaf pine (Pinus palustris). for foraging
and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
?0':? pine. lack a thick understorv. and be contiguous with
10
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RO . These
birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 Fears old and
are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500
acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees
and usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that
causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the around and average 9.1-
15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RMV
lays its eggs in April, May. and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project cicinit}' is mainly composed of a bottomland
hardwood forest. No pine stands are present at or near the
project site. Thus. suitable habitat for this species does
not exist. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats does not indicate any populations
of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the project vicinity.
Therefore, this project will not affect the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Rhus mi chaux 1 (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Aria ca rd iac eae
Federally Listed: September ?5. 1959
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.. Columbus. Davie. Durham. Fran'_lin.
Hoke. Lincoln. Moore. Orange. Richmond.
Robeson. Scotland. Wake. WiIson.
14ichaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous
shrub. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges
are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac
are greenish to white in color. Fruits. which develop from
:august to September on female plants, are a red densely
short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods.
Michaux's sumac is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy
Ioams. Mlchau\'s sumac crows only in open habitat where it
can Let full sunlight.. Michaux's sumac floes not compete well
with other species. such as Japanese honeysuckle. with which
it is often associated.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Only' marginal habitat exists for this species at tht
11
project site. Most of the disturbed community is mowed on a
regular basis. A plant by plant survey for Rhus michauxii
was conducted at the site and no specimens were found. The
\C Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats does not indicate any populations Michaux's
sumac in the project vicinity. This project will not affect
Michaus's sumac.
cc: V. Charles Britton. Ph.D.. Unit Head
Hal Bain. Environmental Supervisor
St phanie Briggs, Permits Supervisor
?i le B-305-1
. ., .
E. Threshold Criteria
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact ?
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened 7V--
(3) species may occur?
Will the project affect anadromous fish? F-1
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third ? ?
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of ? V/
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water ? -
resources be adversely impacted by k/
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified ?
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(S) Will the project require fill in waters of ?
the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known ?
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
4
r Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ? j/
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ?
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? 1/
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ?
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ?
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of F-1
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way
acquisition considered minor?
(13) Will the project involve any changes in
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent
property?*
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?
F-1
F-1
1-1
r
r Q • • a
r3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JP.
GOVERNOR
`-I?:1OR?,iJDliM TO:
^, ^1 ."1 ^ T T

P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 276JL520
;e?tem?er lam, -
Wayne ?lliot, Unit Head
Eridge Unit
Bill Goodwin, Project Manaaer
R. SAMUEL HUNT I II
SECRETARY
Tim, :-7. Savid::_, Environmental B..`-oust
:'vi_-:1r,menr_al Un_t r
^te_t ed''_'_l?_°e'_ SI=Vc'/ 11 LCr
=C'w0_ ?C ?e(=! aces °i. _ OL Pr1dg--:? i,io. 3( C1
on Cj1 i 7? nV I't Cc11E Cree-f j'7_'.-
C ? - - l- N ri ,!
T -
S. t. _ aanQ=reCS il_l ?e f ' - - i- r
_S its=eC L;L - (J.S ?'1__ 1 a:iCl iVLIQ-.i--
Se, _ :_ =o r `,,7=.Y : Coun -J . T :e rrc posed proj ec will irr.'.Da•_
Cr r r
?:u3 Ze?" GI_ -'Member 05, 199S by iJCDOT bl0loais Tim. SaVi die.
':r`: ,J i(le == OQC! OC_ncludea Vi Eua l and tacti searc;z' na y'
;aC_na _n t-:°_ stream. !-! LOtc.l of 37, common e11; t'.ti (D ',RU :Sc_S
rr ) were found in 1 man.-hour (n-,.hr) . The
_.:rodu,_=_a clam (Corbicola fl uminea}wa: _'Dund to to t.._
fc'1rIQ.
mo_ _ .?i:u?lGn bi'i=1ve in 1`I1ad-Le Creek No DNINI were
'--) LjGiCaL ("'.1CLUSIOt•d: NT:-; F'ffec
_s
Give e S'1_ve'•/ resuit _s a_rparent --at t-e -r -7. 4
no- present in this segment of Middle Creek. It :.an be
concluded that conZtruction of this project wi 11 1-ve no
>_m-act of the cwarf-wedge mussel. Strict adhere-nce to the
Eesc Man=cc-m=nt Practic (SMP's) for the-- rrot_c`_-on o-
surrace waters will ensure that t-he musse_ e--L _n
Mil ddle Creek will not be adverse',, i'.npact =d by thy- ; rC-O;used
action.
. V. Charles Bruton, Ph. D,
Hal Bain, Environrlental
F'il?. B-30
r it =: S -ct-Lon 7 Aaua __c
Unit Head Environmental Unit
Surervisor
I??;ues

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

(FV•?A_. -901P. NO. OR ROOM, RLD0. ,
-DER NR-b im
1 R O. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PtR- OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO MR ? Pit YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR. YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS
i
A
. '"
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 24, 1995 RECEIVED
FEB 1 0 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File BRANCH
'661
FROM: Bill Goodwin
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 300 on
SR 1375 over Middle Creek, Wake County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1375(1), State Project No. 8.2404401,
TIP No. B-3054
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on February 7, 1995.
The following persons were in attendance:
David Cox
Debbie Bevin
Buddy Gregg
Don Sellers
Sid Autry
Ray Moore
Ramesh Fofaria
Darin Wilder
Jerry Snead
Steve Drum
Doug Burns
Bill Goodwin
A „?. STAI( ?
ww
NC WRC
SHPO
Division Five
Right of Way
Location and Surveys
Structure Design
Structure Design
Program Development
Hydraulics
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Planning and Environmental
The following is a summary of comments made at the scoping meeting and
through correspondence prior to the meeting.
This project will be designed in Metric units. The design speed will be
100 km/h (62 mph). Utility conflicts will be low for this project. The only
known utility in the project area is an underground telephone line which runs
along the eastern shoulder of SR 1375. The line is hung overhead in the
vicinity of the existing bridge.
The proposed structure will be 9 meters (30 ft) wide, with two 3.6 meter
(12 ft) travel lanes and 0.9 meter (3 ft) shoulders. The roadway approaches
will have two 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes, 0.6 meter (2 ft) paved
shoulders and a total usable shoulder width of at least 2.4 meters (8 ft).

w
February 24, 1995
Page 2
Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM indicated, by telephone prior to the meeting,
that Middle Creek is classified as Class C, Nutrient Sensitive.
Implementation of standard erosion control measures was suggested.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated that Middle Creek may contain one or
more species of endangered mussels. A complete biological investigation will
have to be undertaken to evaluate their presence. If endangered mussels are
found High Quality Water (HQW) sedimentation and erosion control measures may
be required, as well as other possible environmental commitments. Mr. Cox
contacted me after the meeting to state that Middle Creek is designated as a
Critical Habitat Area for mussels, including several species of state or
federally endangered mussels. Coordination with NC WRC will be required to
minimize possible impacts to the waters of Middle Creek. HQW sedimentation
and erosion control measures will be required.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
indicated that there are no known architectural or archaeological sites in
the immediate project area. No architectural survey is required; however, an
archaeological survey may be required if an on-site detour is used.
Mr. Jerry Snead of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a new structure
approximately 41 meters (135 feet) long will be required to replace the
existing bridge. The new structure can be built at the existing bridge deck
elevation of 4 meters (13 feet) above the streambed. If an on-site detour is
required, a 21 meter (70 feet) long temporary structure can be constructed.
The temporary structure can be approximately one meter (3 feet) lower than
the existing bridge.
The Division Engineers Office has indicated that a local detour, using
SR 1503, US 401, and SR 1393 would be preferred.
Two alternates will be evaluated for replacing bridge number 300 over
Middle Creek. These alternates are:
Alternate One - close SR 1375 to through traffic using local road
for a detour, remove the existing structure, and construct the new
bridge at the location of the existing bridge
Alternate Two - construct an on-site detour downstream of the
existing structure, remove the existing structure, and construct the new
bridge at the location of the existing bridge.
Construction cost estimates for both alternates will be provided to
concerned parties as soon as they are available.
At this time alternate one appears to be preferable due to the reduced
environmental effects associated with using a local detour and the existing
bridge location. A final recommended alternate will be selected in the
environmental document.
The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin
in January 1997 and construction to begin in April 1998.
WTG/plr
Attachment
cc/att: Scoping Meeting Participants
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
2/22/95
TIP PROJECT: B-3054 DIVISION: Fifth
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1375(1) COUNTY: Wake
STATE PROJECT: 8.2404401 ROUTE: SR 1375
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 300 on SR 1375 over Middle Creek
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Lake Wheeler
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Minor Collector
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTENGENCIES) ............................. $ 700,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, unL mEs, AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ '700,000
TOTAL COST ................................................................................................................................ $ ?00,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 350,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 25,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ $ 375,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR tE (CIRCLE ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $
OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1800 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 4500 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 2 %
E'.%CSTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: 22 foot pavement including 2 foot paved shoulders
8 foot grassed shoulders
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE ------------------------------------------
2 .. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR -----------------------------------------
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------------- ?
4. OTHER -------------------------- ?
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 36.9 mErElRs WIDTH 6.1 Ivr=s
121 FEET 20 FEET
PROPSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH 41 METERS WIDTH 9 ?vn rERs
135 FEET 30 FEET
-
.NOW
J4!2 •ID
11 3'4
DO
31ej
7100
A
1375
oa
L29
o 1.141
'08 I _4.4
v el
!JV7 X91
77 1504
I(( I 77
it 1 II
III I a
I Wake Technical
I Cdlwpe
-
? I I I I
. .375 .16 7e11
I I
? I I I
I
?.Q4 II II „Ir
II
it II
it
II 9anlce
I \ 7711 d5
7
0 mile 1 FIG. 1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WAKE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 300 ON SR 1375
OVER MIDDLE CREEK
B - 3054

-N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-ow TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

IZ-Zl
TO:
c REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
'
_ ?IL A4Arna -l*l
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
BILL G=QA_XAb
ACTION
? NOT! AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
.146
e,,. SfATj o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
)AMES B. HUNT, )R.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
R0. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 20, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
RECEIVE
DEC 2 6 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL SCwNC,
R. SAMUEL HUNT II
SLCRL I AItY
Review of Scoping Sheets for Wake County, Bridge
No. 300, SR 1375 over Middle Creek, B-3054
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for February 7, 1995 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WTG/plr
Attachment
rltc4?
Gy)q b_?
>? s ??
2?1-4 3_ /f- 7
N
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3054 DIVISION: Fifth
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1375(1) COUNTY: Wake
STATE PROJECT: 8.2404401 ROUTE: SR 1375
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 300 on SR 1375 over Middle Creek
in Wake County
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET(S): Lake Wheeler
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION:
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .................................... $ 350,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .................................... $ 259000
PRIOR YEARS COST ......................................... $ -0-
TIP TOTAL COST ............................................ $ 375,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($)
7 (%)
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1800 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 4500 VPD
TTST 1 % DT 2 %
EXISTING TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: 22 foot pavement including 2 foot
paved shoulder with 8 foot grassed shoulder
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 36.9 Meters WIDTH 6.1 Meters
121 Feet 20 Feet
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Bill Goodwin DATE 12/20/94
6
1 p-eJ
I I
17 917
I.US
J9?7 /D
ZS ?B
I]90
)901
7900` 1
1404
1]!d
_
1171
]9]
n7s
I ?- Fv(h to
rv
11s

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARI*MrNT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
"t BRANCII
WAKE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 300 ON SR 1375
OVER MIDDLE CREEK
B - 3054
0 mile 1 FIG. 1
08 1Ad7 I
14
'A90
1 fee I
.4 o 09 I _ 9
1 67
n I501 1312 lsot I
'?I I
I (I I ? 27
I i I I Wake T,,hi-I
College
rvN Ten
I ie
II ?I
n
14e0 375
n II
II II
III
1 \ 90nk,< 1721
?s
' I Teri