20071773 Ver 1_Application_20071012

ai
,xsuno
,,~~
~ ~.,.,.
'Q~.,,~'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 12, 2007
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-681;
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 5
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
071773
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23, Section 401 Water
Quality Certification, and Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization for the
replacement of Bridge No. 125 over Smith Creek on SR 2045 (Burlington Mills
Rd), Wake County, Division 5. Federal Aid Project No: BRZ-2045 (1),
State Project No: 8.2408001, WBS No: 33245.1.1, TIP Project No: B-3705.
REFERENCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Action ID No. 200120076 (reference number for
project, not for any individual document; provided to NCDOT by USACE via
email).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 125 over
Smith Creek on SR 2045 (Burlington Mills Rd) in Wake County. The current 121-foot long structure has
a sufficiency rating of 6 out of 100 (for a new structure) and is considered functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The replacement of this structure will result in safer traffic conditions.
The project proposes to construct athree-span bridge with 45-inch pre-stressed concrete girders directly
north of the existing horizontal alignment. Traffic will be maintained on the current structure and, once
the new bridge is built, the existing bridge will be demolished. The new structure will be 170 feet long
and will have a 48-foot wide deck. The bridge will span Smith Creek. The new bridge will have two 12-
foot lanes, a 12-foot center turn lane, a 4-foot shoulder on the north side of the bridge, and a 2-foot wide
shoulder/ 5.5-foot sidewalk combination on the south side. The bridge approaches will have two 12-foot
lanes, a 12-foot center turn lane, an 8-foot shoulder (4 feet of shoulder paved) on the north side, and curb
and gutter on the south side.
The proposed design is slightly different than the preferred alternative that was described in the
Categorical Exclusion (CE; Alternative 4). The CE stated that a 70-foot wide bridge with five lanes
would be constructed in three stages on the existing horizontal alignment. However, due to financial
constraints NCDOT has decided to reduce the number of .lanes from five to three. The current bridge
replacement proposal is essentially the 1S` stage of the preferred alternative.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
LOCATION:
TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 240
FAX: [phone] RALEIGH NC 27604
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORCa

w
Please see the enclosed copies of the permit drawings, design plans, Pre-Construction Notification
(PCN), On-site Buffer Mitigation Plan, and Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) mitigation
acceptance letter for the above-referenced project. The CE was completed for this project in July 2002
and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies of this document are available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Descrivtion
The project is located in the Neuse River Basin (sub-basin 03-04-02) in Wake County. This area is part
of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03020201. Water resources within the project study area include Smith
Creek, an unnamed tributary (UT-1) to Smith Creek, and two 2 wetlands (WT-1 and WT-2). U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (LJSACE) Regulatory Specialist Eric Alsmeyer visited the study area on December
28, 2006 and verified the delineation of each water resource.
Smith Creek is a perennial stream that is approximately 25 to 30 feet wide. It is assigned Stream Index
Number 27-23-(2) (05/01/1988) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and has a best usage
classification of C NSW. During field visits associated with the Natural Resources Technical Report
(NRTR; September 2001), the water clarity was described as being moderate to poor, partially due to
increased sediment loads. Water flow within the creek was moderate and substrate was primarily
composed of sand and gravel.
UT-1 to Smith Creek is also a perennial stream, approximately 18 inches wide and one to two inches
deep. During a field visit by NCDOT biologists on October 16, 2006, the water clarity was observed as
being moderate, flow was moderate, and the substrate was composed of silt and sand. This tributary runs
west through WT-2 into Smith Creek.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS I or WS In, nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Additionally, Smith Creek is not
included on NCDWQ's 2006 Final 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. However, Tom's Creek (Mill
Creek), which is within 1.0 mile of the project study area, is on the 2006 list due to an overall impaired
biological integrity. Both Smith Creek and Tom's Creek empty into the Neuse River, but they do not
connect/flow in to each other at any point.
WT-1 is located northwest of the existing bridge and is adjacent to Smith Creek. This riverine wetland
extends beyond the project boundaries to the north. WT-2 is located southeast of the existing bridge and
is adjacent to Smith Creek. This riverine wetland extends beyond the project boundaries to the south.
Both wetlands are classified as palustrine forested, temporarily flooded communities (PFOIA Cowardin
classification).
Permanent Impacts
There will be a total of 72 linear feet (0.03 acres) of permanent stream impacts associated with this
project (Site 1). These impacts will occur along the west bank of Smith Creek where the current bridge
crosses the creek and will result from stream bank repair work between Stations 26+00 -L-rt and 26+65 -
L-rt. The repair work is necessary to repair erosion damage to the stream bank resulting from a large
scour hole. Two hundred-pound to 700-pound stone will be used to fill the scour hole and stabilize the
bank.
There will be no permanent stream impacts to UT-1 to Smith Creek associated with this project.
B-3705 Permit Application
2

There are a total of 0.17 acres of permanent riverine wetland impacts to WT-1 associated with this
project (Site 1). A total of 0.14 acres of impact will result from the placement of fill material into the
wetland. The remaining 0.03 acres of impact will result from mechanized clearing within the wetland.
The mechanized clearing will be performed 10 feet beyond the cut/fill line across the entire wetland.
There will also be 0.02 acres of permanent wetland impacts to WT-2 associated with this project (Site 2).
These impacts are a result of mechanized clearing within the wetland for a Construction Easement.
Temporary Impacts
There are no temporary impacts associated with this project.
Bridge Demolition
The superstructure of Bridge No. 125 consists of a reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. The
substructure consists of end bents, internal bents, and timber caps on timber piers. All components of the
bridge will be removed without dropping any components into Waters of the U.S. The piers associated
with the three in-stream bents will either be removed or snapped off level to the streambed. NCDOT
shall adhere to NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Utility Impacts
There are no utility impacts to jurisdictional areas associated with this project. As an avoidance and
minimization effort, Embarq will install a directional bore for telephone wiring under Smith Creek on the
south side of Burlington Mills Road. They will be boring from high ground to high ground, resulting in
no impacts to jurisdictional areas. The bore will begin around Station 29+OS -L- and will end around
Station 24+40 -L-.
IMPACTS TO THE NEUSE RIVER RIPARIAN BUFFER
Riparian Buffer Impacts
This project is located within the Neuse River Basin and is therefore subject to Neuse River riparian
buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). There will be a total of 13,036 square feet of impacts to the buffers
of Smith Creek from the construction of the bridge (Site 1). A total of 8,188 square feet will occur in
Zone 1 and 4,848 square feet will occur in Zone 2 (Table 1). According to the buffer rules, impacts
associated with the construction of bridges are Allowable.
An additiona1664 square feet of buffer impacts will occur along UT-1 to Smith Creek beyond the eastern
end bent of the new structure (Site 2). A total of 505 square feet will occur in Zone 1 and 159 square feet
will occur in Zone 2 (Table 1). These impacts are categorized as road impacts other than crossings of
streams and other surface waters (or road impacts other than crossings) and are Allowable with
Mitigation (listed as Parallel Impacts on the Buffer Impacts Summary sheet and Mitigable Impacts on
the buffer drawings).
Additional road crossing impacts totaling less than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer will also occur along
the west side of Smith Creek (Site 1; not shown in Table 1). A portion of the impacts will occur
underneath and adjacent to the western approach slab of the new structure. These impacts will be in both
Zones 1 and 2. The remainder of these road crossing impacts will occur south of the existing roadway in
Zone 2. The buffer impacts are below the minimum threshold to be considered Allowable and are
therefore considered Exempt. However, these impacts are shown with the same hatching as Allowable
impacts on the buffer drawings.
B-3705 Permit Application

Wetlands in Buffers
According to 15A NCAC 2B .0242, Section (3)(b)(iii), impacts to wetlands within Zones 1 and 2 of the
riparian buffer that are subject to mitigation under 15A NCAC 2H .0506 shall comply with the mitigation
ratios in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 only. Therefore, any wetland impacts that occur within either/both buffer
zones will be subtracted from the buffer impacts and mitigated for as wetland impacts only.
Along Smith Creek, there is a total of 208 square feet of WT-1 impacts within buffer Zone 2 (Site 1; not
in Table 1). This wetland overlaps the road crossing buffer impacts mentioned above, which are
Exempt from mitigation. Therefore, mitigation will only be proposed for the wetland impacts.
Along UT-1 to Smith Creek, there are a total of 311 square feet of WT-2 impacts within its riparian
buffer zones (Site 2). A total of 152 square feet occur in Zone 1 and 159 square feet occur in Zone 2
(Table 1). This wetland overlaps the buffer impacts considered road impacts other than crossings
mentioned above, which are Allowable with Mitigation. Mitigation will only be proposed for the
wetland impacts. Therefore, the square footage of WT-2 overlapping the buffer zones will be deducted
from the buffer impacts. This will result in 353 square feet of Zone 1 impacts and zero square feet of
Zone 2 impacts being considered for mitigation (Table 1).
Table 1. Neuse River Ri arian Buffer Im acts
"` ° ~ ~~ ~~ Nx~a ~ ~
Type of Impact ,x
~ Bridge Road Impacts Other
i ,
.
~~~~
~
~:~~
~r
~ ~
~
~ ~ Than Crossings
~
.
~
z~,
v~-
~
~~,
. ~-~~~a~,
NLdgatio~requirements~~ ~ ' '~ °~~~ ~. fi. ; { ; ' , ~ ,;
~
~ Allowable Allowable with
~ r ;.
~. ~, .,~ ,,~, ~ ~ ,, ~, ,~
~
(ex t allo~r~abre, oi=allowable with miti ation) : , ~ .-
Miti ation
ft)~ :~~ ~ ~; i' ~ _ r ,
Zone''1 Impac~~(sq 8,188 505
,
...y..~,
In Buffer~WIB);~Zone~ l,~ ~sq. ft) ~ ~
Wetland --- 152
.
~Zone2In'"act~ s~.ft ::~f~~~~~~ ~ *~ ~ ~:~~:; 4,848 159
WIB;c~on~2~`~"`'°ft ~ e ;ka~?~.s ~,:~, ~ ,1 i. ,~ ~ --- 159
~` ~
~ ~ ~"'?~
Total~Zonel?~ii"act 11-iinus'WIB' s `: ft 8
188 353
t
. ,
Total Zon~:-2+>fin~ 'ac Minas WIB' s : ft ~ ~ ~ 4,848 0
TotaI° Zones ~~`and h~~1Vlinus WIB' s ft ' ` ~ ~ ~ '~ ` i 13,036 353
Practical Alternatives Anal
This bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. 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 Smith Creek and UT-1 to Smith Creek are
unavoidable. In this case, replacing the existing bridge on a slightly new alignment and maintaining
traffic on the existing bridge during construction provides the least amount of impacts to riparian buffers.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part
of the project design.
B-3705 Permit Application
4

According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the U.S. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream and wetland avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
• Use ofpre-formed scour holes and an energy dissipater.
• Use of directional boring for telephone utility work.
• No bents are to be placed in Smith Creek.
• During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structure.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of NCDOT's BMPs for Protection of
Surface Waters. NCDOT's BMP's for Bridge Demolition and Removal will also be implemented
during this project.
Com_pensator~Miti ag tion
Stream and Wetland Mitigation through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
No mitigation is proposed for the 721inear feet of permanent stream impacts to Smith Creek because it is
below the 150-foot threshold for requiring compensation. EEP will provide wetland mitigation for the
0.19 acres of permanent riverine wetland impacts resulting from this project. Please see the attached
EEP mitigation acceptance letter, dated October 11, 2007.
Buffer Mitigation Requirement
There will be a total of 353 square feet of mitigable Zone 1 buffer impacts associated with this project.
These impacts are considered road impacts other than crossings and are Allowable with Mitigation. To
determine the mitigation requirement for these impacts, they were multiplied by the NCDWQ Zone 1
buffer multiplier of 3. This resulted in a total of 1,059 square feet of buffer mitigation being required for
this project (Table 2).
On-site Buffer Mitigation
NCDOT will perform on-site buffer mitigation where SR 2045 (Burlington Mills Rd) currently passes
over Smith Creek. The proposed mitigation will consist of restoring an area within buffer Zones I and 2
on the eastern bank of the creek (Site 1). This restoration will be used to mitigate for the 1,059 square
feet of buffer mitigation required for this project.
The on-site restoration will occur where the existing earthen abutment is located. It will involve
excavating the abutment to match the natural ground elevations. Although a similar abutment excavation
will occur on the western bank, that area was not considered for restoration because of the amount of rip
rap that will be placed there during construction. The excavated area will be ripped and disked prior to
planting, if necessary. The restoration area will be planted following successful completion of site
grading. As specified in the On-site Buffer Mitigation Plan (enclosed), the site will be planted with a
mixture of approximately 40 percent (%) tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), 30 % percent southern
red oak (Quercus falcata), and 30 % white oak (Quercus alba). Saplings will be planted six to ten feet,
on center, at a density of approximately 680 trees per acre. The site will be visually inspected following
completion of the project. NCDOT proposes no annual monitoring of the site.
There will be a total of 1,810 square feet of restoration associated with this project, with 1,330 square
feet occurring in Zone 1 and 480 square feet occurring in Zone 2 (Table 2). After this on-site mitigation
is applied to the 1,059 square feet of mitigation required, there will be a total of 751 square feet of
B-3705 Permit Application
5

surplus buffer restoration on this project (Table 2). This surplus buffer restoration will placed on
NCDOT's On-site Mitigation Debit Ledger for use on future NCDOT projects.
Tahle 2. Proposed On-site Mitigation for Neuse River Riparian Buffer Impacts
of
Type Buffer ` '. NCDWQ Mitigation : On-site Buffer On-site,
,
"Impact . ," Impacts*, :Buffer: Requirt:ment Restoration ~ ..
° Mingation
Multi Tier ~
; ~ Sur lus
Road
r Impacts 1 t,
Other Than
ssin~
Cro
Zone 1 _
;;;1, 353 3 1,059 1,330 271
s . ft L ~
Zone 2 0 1.5 0 480 480
s . ft
,~,'W .
Total :; 353 1,059 1,810 751
,
s . ft
*Wetlands in Buffers have been deducted from the buffer impacts.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of its most recent update on May 10, 2007, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (iJSFWS) website lists four federally-protected species for Wake
County: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauzii).
Table 3. Federally protected species in Wake County
Biological Habitat
Scientific Narue :. Common Name Federal Status Conclusion Present
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle De-listed Not Required No
Picoides borealis red-cockaded E No Effect No
wood ecker
Yes (poor
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedgemussel E No Effect ualit )
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E No Effect Yes
There is no suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the bald eagle within the project study area.
Furthermore, a search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (GIS
shapefiles most recently updated on July 2, 2007) revealed no known populations of this species within
1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, a biological conclusion of No Effect was assigned to this species.
According to a July 9, 2007 Federal Register release, the bald eagle was officially de-listed from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife effective August 8, 2007 (50 CFR Part 17).
There is no suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker within the project study area. Furthermore,
a search of the NCNHP database on October 9, 2007 revealed no known populations of this species
B-3705 Permit Application
6

within 1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, a biological conclusion of No Effect has been assigned to this
species.
A survey for potential dwarf wedgemussel habitat and individuals was performed by NCDOT biologists
Logan Williams and Sue Brady on August 21, 2000. No mussels were found during the survey and the
habitat was determined to be "somewhat degraded". NCDOT biologists Karen Lynch, Kathy Herring,
and Heather Renninger reassessed the habitat and re-surveyed the study area on March 22, 2007. Again,
no mussels were found during the survey. Shells of the invasive Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) were
present. As a result of these surveys and a review of historical data, it appears that the dwarf
wedgemussel does not occur in this watershed. Additionally, the NCNHP database shows no known
populations of this species within 1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, this project will not impact the
dwarf wedgemussel and a biological conclusion of No Effect has been rendered for this species.
Initially, the biological conclusion for Michaux's sumac documented in the CE was No Effect due to
lack of potential habitat. However, NCDOT biologists Jim Mason, Erica McLamb, and Greg Price re-
evaluated the project area on October 16, 2006 and determined that potential habitat did exist in the form
of disturbed roadsides and forest edges. Walking surveys totaling six man-hours were conducted and
resulted in 100 percent coverage of the study area. No specimens of Michaux's sumac were observed.
Furthermore, a review of the NCNHP database (most recently checked on October 9, 2007) revealed no
known populations of this species within 1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, the Biological Conclusion of
No Effect remains valid for this species.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a review date of November 27, 2007, a letting of January 15, 2008, and a date of
availability of February 26, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in
February/March 2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that
activities described in the CE document be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (72 FR 11092 - 11198;
March 12, 2007).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate that Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) 3632
will apply to this project. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of this WQC. This project
will impact Neuse Riparian Buffers and written concurrence will be required. In accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H, Section .0500 (a) and 15A NCAC 2B, Section .0200, we are providing five copies of this
application to the .North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR),
NCDWQ, for their review.
Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization: The proposed project has been designed to comply with the Neuse
River Basin Riparian Buffer Protection Rule (15A NCAC 2B .0233). Therefore, we respectfully request
a Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization Certificate from NCDWQ.
B-3705 Permit Application
7

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 Mr. Jim Mason at [phone].
Sincerely,
/~
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, Project Services Unit
Mr. J. Wally Bowman, PE., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO, Division 5
w/o attachment:
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
Mr. Mark Pierce, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, NCDOT Coordinator, Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Ms. LeiLani Paugh, Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Randy Griffin, Natural Environment Unit
B-3705 Permit Application

Office Use Only' Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "loot Applicable" or ..Niti .1
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 23
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
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J Thorpe Ph D. Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:_(919) 733-9794
E-mail Address: __
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: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 10

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: Replacement of Bridge No 125 over Smith Creek on SR 2045
(Burlington Mills Rd)
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3705
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Wake Forest
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): US 1 north , righht on SR
2045 proceed east to first bridge on SR 2045.
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): °N °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Smith 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: SR 2045 is a two-lane paved road in arural-to-suburban
setting- Land use is forested and residential within the study area.
Page 2 of 10

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project proposes to construct athree-span bridge with 45-inch pre-stressed concrete
girders directly north of the existing horizontal aliment Traffic will be maintained on the
current structure and once the new bride is built the existing bridge will be demolished.
The new structure will be 170 feet long and will have a 48-foot wide deck. The new bride
will have two 12-foot lanes, a 12-foot center turn lane, a 4-foot shoulder on thenorth side of
the bridge and a 2-foot wide shoulder/ 5 5-foot sidewalk combination on the south side. The
bridge approaches will have two 12-foot lanes a 12-foot center turn lane, an 8-foot shoulder
(4 feet of shoulder paved) on the north side and curb and gutter on the south side. Heavy
duty excavation equipment will be used such as trucks dozers cranes and other various
equipment necessary for roadwayconstruction
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The current bride has a sufficiency ratin~1 of 6
out of 100 and is considered to be functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
aerations
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.N/A
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
Page 3 of 10

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 maybe 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.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be a total of 72 linear feet
(0 03 acres) of permanent stream impacts associated with this project (Site 1). These impacts
will occur along the west bank of Smith Creek and will result from stream bank repair work
between Stations 26+00 -L-rt and 26+65 -L-rt The repair work will take place where the current
bridge crosses Smith Creek and is necessary repair erosion damage to the stream bank
resulting from a large scour hole There will be no permanent stream impacts to UT-1 to Smith
Creek associated with this project There are a total of 0.17 acres of permanent wetland impacts
to WT-1 associated with this project Site 1) A total of 0.14 acres of impact will result from the
placement of fill material into the wetland. The remaining 0.03 acres of impact will result from
mechanized clearing within the wetland The mechanized clearing will be performed 10 feet
beyond the cut/fill line across the entire wetland. There will also be a total of 0.02 acres of
permanent wetland impacts to WT-2 associated with this~roject (Site 2). These impacts are a
result of mechanized clearing within the wetland associated with a Construction Easement.
1. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
ePnaratPly lief imnartc rlne to tenth ctrnch~re and flnnding_
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)
1 Permanent Fill Forested Yes 70 0.14
1 Mechanized Clearing Forested Yes 70 0.03
2 Mechanized Clearing Forested Yes 0 0.02

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.19
2. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:0.54
Page 4 of 10

3. 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 Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

1
Smith Creek Stream Bank
Repair/Filling of
Scour Hole
Perennial
25-30 ft
72
0.03

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 72 0.03
4. 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, dred in , floodin ,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)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.0
5. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.03
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.19
O en Water Im act (acres): 0
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.22
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 72
6. 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.
Page 5 of 10

7. 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.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. NCDOT will use pre-formed
scour holes and an energy dissipater on this project. Also, as an avoidance and minimization
effort Embara will employ directional boring for telephone utility work. No bents are to be
placed in Smith Creek. Additionally, during construction, traffic will be maintained on the
existing structure. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be
minimized through implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of NCDOT's
BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters. NCDOT's BMP's for Bride Demolition and Removal
will also be implemented during this project.
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.
Page 6 of 10

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://h2o.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/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.19
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.00
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.00
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
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 ^
Page 7 of 10

3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 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 ^
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
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1 353 3 (2 for Catawba) 1,059
2 0 1.5 0
Total 353 1,059
* 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.
In addition to the mitigable buffer impacts listed above, there will be a total of 13,036 square
feet of Allowable bridge impacts to the buffers of Smith Creek and UT-1 to Smith Creek
associated with this project Sites 1 and 2). A total of 8,188 square feet will occur in Zone 1
and 4,848 square feet will occur in Zone 2. There will also be additional Exempt buffer
impacts to Zones 1 and 2 of Smith Creek. For the mitigable impacts listed above, NCDOT
will perform limited on-site buffer mitigation where SR 2045 currently passes over Smith
Creek. The proposed mitigation will consist of restoring riparian buffer within buffer Zones
1 and 2 on the eastern bank of the creek. This restoration will involve excavating the existin>;
brids;e abutment on the eastern bank to match the natural ground elevations. Although a
similar abutment excavation will occur on the western bank that area was not considered for
restoration because of the amount of riprap that will be placed there during construction. The
excavated area will be ripped and disked prior to planting, if necessary. The restoration azea
Page 8 of 10

will be planted following successful completion of site rg_adm~pecified in the on-site
buffer miti atg ion plan (enclosed) the site will be planted with a mixture of approximately 40
percent (%) tulip poplar (Liriodendron tuli~ifera), 30 % percent southern red oak (~uercus
„ alcata) and 30 % white oak (Ouercus alba). Saplings will be planted six to ten feet, on
center at a density of approximately 680 trees der acre. The site will be visually inspected
following completion of the project. NCDOT proposes no annual monitoring of the site.
There will be a total of 1 810 square feet of restoration associated with this project, with
1 330 square feet occurringin Zone 1 and 480 square feet occurring in Zone 2. After this on-
site mitigation is applied to the 1 059 square feet of mitigation required, there will be a total
of 751 square feet of surplus buffer restoration on this project. This suralus buffer
restoration will placed on NCDOT's On-site Mitigation Debit Ledger for use on future
NCDOT proiects.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
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
httL://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
N/A
Page 9 of 10

XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
- ~' ~ rP ~ - Ty ~h~ a~f ~ Z ZOd~Z
A licant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

~ -,
Eco stem
~Y
PROGRAM
October 11, 2007
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter (revision 1):
B-3705, Replace Bridge Number 125 over Smith Creek on SR 2045,
Wake Cou;qty
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based
on the information supplied by ~-ou or- October 11, 2007, the impacts are located in CU 03020201
of the Neuse River Basin in the Central Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riparian Wetlands: 0.17 acre (original request, April 26, 2007)
Riparian Wetlands: 0.19 acre (revised request, increase of 0.02 acre)
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory riparian wetland mitigation to
offset the impacts associated with this I>roject by the end of the MOA Year in which this project
is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of
Agreement between the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, fully
executed on March 8, 2007. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this
mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be
required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929..
Sincerely,
~ ~~
Will m D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP ' ector
cc:
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE -Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3705 '~/
u"

~,
Eco tem
PROGRAM
October 11, 2007
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field. Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter (revision 1):
B-3705, Replace Bridge Number 125 over Smith Creek on SR 2045,
Wake County; Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201); Central
Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region
Tite purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will proviclc the compensatory riparian wetland mitigation for the unavoidable impact
associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request
revision dated October 11, 2007, compensatory riparian wetland mitigation from EEP is required
for approximately 0.19 acre of riparian wetland impacts.
Compensatory riparian wetland mitigation associated with this project will be provided in
accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between
the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers fully executed on March 8, 2007 (Tri-
Party MOA). EEP commits to implement sufficient compensatory riparian wetland mitigation up
to 0.34 riparian wetland credits to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the
MOA year in which this project is permitted. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised,
then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance
letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director

cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3705

.~
- - ~% '~ SITE
~- /
~ + ~_
~/ a
ao~
1 440
I
/ ~
/ 64 6d
i
~ ~ ~ SEE IWSET / ~'
~ ~ / ~ i
. ~ ` /
.~
`~~ _``~ i
WAKE COUNTY -' '~
~_ I '1 r+t. f~ a4 ~ ~'~. ~ i lV r _ ~~ 1~%'~~/ f_-,~~ )~ fLL•~/!;4 ~ r O
3C~0 1'' ~ ,~ti '~, ~-J~'1 l ( r/ j ~ ~ /, / `l ~ , ,r tit ~~ •~
r ` I ~ ~~ `V ~~ ~' _ 1,
_/ice fi^ ~... \.:''~ ` ~ i~~ t , % i `~ ' Aa-.v' ~~ ~
sue. '~• ~\ ;y~,'~ rr r % `_`'~; ~,~' C i ; ~ ~ c~~' ~'~.
_ // r // ~~-~.~
..
fi , ~"lS
..
~ ~, l i
~. r -,
~ ~:~ I `1 r~~ cif
i ~'T
t r '
as ,~~1~~` f .I• ;` ~ Jn~, l ~' ~~, ~ ~. • ~1 r~ }~~,~~
.~
~(' ~ --~:
~~ ~ r~ ~. ~.
~, ~ --~~ /
-'`" I \ tel. f /~ ~ l ~.
N.C DBPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
WETLAND IMPACTS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKB COUNTY
PROD BC'1': 3325.1.1 1B-370
BRIDQB NQ 125 ON SR 2M5
IBURLINQTON MILLS RD)
VBR ITH'S CRBBK
SHBBT ~ OF ~ 3 / LS/ 07

~I~®~~RT~ ®yVN~I~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
3800 BURLINGTON MILLS RD
1 DAVID D.FULLER,TRUSTEE WAKE FOREST. NC 27587-8876
GRACIE P. MACON. ETAL 262 BURLINGTON MILLS RD
2 ALICE MACON ADAMS AND WAKE FOREST, NC 27587-8855
JACK LYNN ADAMS
THURMAN D. KITCHEN III PO BOX 179
~ JOHN S. KITCHIN WINTER PARK, FL 32790-179
CADDELL WOODS HOMEOWNERS 2520A RELIANCE AVE
5 ASSOCIATION. INC APEX, NC 27539-636

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(FromlTo)

Structure
Size /Type
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 26+00 26+65 -L-rt. Re air Stream bank 0.03 72
due to scour

1 24+55-25+58 -L- It. Roadwa 0.140 0.03

2 27+07 - 28+38 -L- Rt Roadwa 0.02

TOTALS: 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 72 0 0
Revised 3!31/05

s
,~~ ~~o. ~' ~~,~,'~~~.., (tom ; ~ ', ~.. ~~'` f/ ~ ~i ~~ ~ r~ ~' t o
V ~ 7
" 't' 1" ` `r ~ 1`
i , ( ,~
~1 a .' ~ \..~
~~ ` ~` +}--tier ?~ ~,. ~~~~I ~ ( ~ --~
~ ~~~i~~l ri~lf~~~ ,~f ~"/~ll'~1~~, {' ~ f~~,~J~jl;~~y ' ~`~f~ ~r•.30
l ~ ' ,
`~`'- J ., ~~`~"-'~ !mil (~ r' []~~ ~ ~ ~-.! ~~ ~ S
~jr•--~-,~- i, ,~ ~~( *,~ ~x ` . ~.J~ •), .fir-- t ,.r
~~
SEE IN6ET
~LOw
~~.
.~ i
~`
`~~ _
WAKE COUNTY
N C. DBPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
BUFFER IMPACTS Div1510N OF HIGHWAYS
WAKB COUNTY
PROJBCT: 3325,.1.1 tB-3703)
BRIDGB Na 12s ON sR 2015
tBURLIN(3TON MILLS RD)
OVBR 3 ITH'S CRBBK
SHBBT~ OF~ 3/13/07

•
~~®~~~ JL JL ®Vi~ N~~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 DAVID D. FULLER. TRUSTEE ~~ BURLINGTON MILLS RD
WAKE FOREST, NC 27587-8876
GRACIE P. MACON. ETAL

2
ALICE MACON ADAMS AND 2621 BURLINGTON MILLS RD

JACK LYNN ADAMS WAKE FOREST. NC 27587-8855
THURMAN D. KITCHEN III PO BOX 1179
~ JOHN S. KITCHEN W[NTER PARK. FL 32790-1179
CADDELL WOODS HOMEOWNERS 4S20A RELIANCE AVE
5 ASSOCIATION. INC APEX. NC 27539-6316
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIQHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
PROJECT:33Z15.1.1 tB•3705)
BRIDGE N0.12s ON SR 401S
tBURLINGTON MILLS RD)
OVER SMITHS CREEK
T ~ OF 3-13-07

BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT

SITE NO. STRUCTURE SIZE
!TYPE STATION ROAD
(FROMlfO) CROSSING
BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ftZ) TOTAL
(ftz) ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ftZ) TOTAL
(ftZ) ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ftz)
1 3 S an Bride 25+65-27+35Lt & Rt X 8188 4848 13036

2 Roadwa 27+00 Rt to 27+60Rt. X 505 159 664

1 excavated area Sta 26+75 -L- Rt 1330 480

TOTAL: 8188 4848 13036 505.0 159.0 664.0 1330.0 480.0

BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLANDS IN BUFFER
ZONE 1 ZONE 2
Site Station (tt^z> (ft^z>
Sile 1 25+36 -L- Ll 208
Site 2 26+28 -L- Rt 152 159
152 367
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Wake County
PROJECT: 33245.2.1 (B-3705)
SHEET OF ~ 10/8/2007

P
m
B

m
e

See Sl~e1 i-A For Index of Sf~ets ~ II ~' II'~ ®~ ~T®IVy ~~y1 ~~1~ ®~~~~ RA1t RA1YP1101[LTp6p0TlaNq
See Sleet 1-BI~For ConvenUonolSymbols ll ~ll~~~~~®~1~1 ®llA~1 ll~ll~~~~llur(`i~~~
E PR~JEQT € VV •~• B-3705
s ! ~' rtAn woiNn ~.Awotxn
33245.1.1 BRZ-2045
J
~ \ \ ~~ _ 33245.2.1 BRZ-2045j1 _ RO'
- -- -
--
!, ~ 9 ___ _ __ __ __ _ __
V ~ WAKL COU11tT~' -
I 5 Rd, ~ - - - --____ _ -_
:iia - ~~ LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.125 OVER SMITH'S CREEK ON SR 2045 (BURLINGTON MILLS RD) Permit Drawing
u~
,~~! TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE Sheet •~ of,~
i r--
~ %! I
`'I ~ ! _ ~
yi// ~ '~_ni U
BEG1T1' P OJEC ~ o Z
___ o aso ( , ~ i
J ~~
~~.
~ --- ~: ease . ,' ~~ 1:.. - M
~. ~ Q
VICINITY MAID i
N.Ts
4 s
Q
g 3
x o Q
O o g
o o
`, 3 a ~ ~ o
2 ~ N y
O ~~
~ ~ E D TIP PRO E T 3705
ro R '' -L-t sta. I + Ir POT 37+1 .00
~~Gy -YI-
--
i
- -_------ ---- --------- ~ -~0 ROLESVILLE -
BURLINGTON MILLS ROAD / f ~ m~ fU5-~11
SITE 1 ! END Bail { y
BEGI11i TIP PRO ECT B-3705 ~ ~
POT 10+00.00 y~ ~~ ~ m
!4, i i w
!~O ICU
/W j~
% ~~ i
0
M
.~
[~
V
W
O
l~
NCDOT CONTACT: 8. DOUG TAYLOR, P.E.- ROADvUAY DESIGN -ENGINEERING COORDINATION
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NUT U96 PoR NNRRUCCIUN
•~
V
0
V

* ~ DENOTES MECHANIZED
•~ •' »' • CLEARING
®DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES IMPACTS IN = m
SURFACE WATER
N
i
Y1
N

e+ Dr DDE
Q roNla1'
[N RAF, 67 rt iF
IAr r LvaE DITCH VVS' [EIAI
LIB vYa'r [v Iw
r rtA n+DI ro rtA a+ao ~.. LT
YE DrtAR Il
GRACE P,NACON,ETAL
pAVp D. FuLER,1RU5TEE ICOW [w
01, TIy,-0, 717 WD OF luDae k LT
Q SITE 1 / W v l
ENEWT DaaAro[
If! DIaAU [HLSr?A
J, IE1~ADS W ~
sem Lr Eem v
Bem Bem .I. .I. y w
t
y
E ~, * LT
8 __
N ~' ~. .roans } T
J Z ~ -' 11 P ~ O Tnc n

~~ tyau~ ~saE
S
~
-
Q AA
tf

BEG7Y 2.6'CtC fx.Rpr ~
+,TSDO r~sDV7 Tale Rr ~
PRDP,2~
AVD GUTTER +~
W CN Vb'OfOA'i
'~ f16D0 RT
AHD L~~
~ ~ }esDD
l2Z5 RT

~
I@ OrtNI INRT
GLACE i,WCOLL,ETAL
Od. LN92. V0. KK
_ 0
IXCAYATE D01RNO WAD RLL
ro NATUAI DEOUND
# 1fD LY
CHANNEL
700LLTDOU IMEOIAN SO%
E9T +/ 178 '
[Si
i8 /
~~
aTm a
BRIDGE SKETCH
~
R fN0 BRIDGE s''g11~R
EERY DrrrER
~
ER -L- POr Sta 2T+3SA0
a-n e-n
~- ~ T / ~ _ _
N T614' 27A' E
~ ~
rrPE td ~ TrPE r
IDEWALF G!N! 1AJ

AVD ~ R P-GGIRB
.w0 GUTTER

iWPROACH SLAB BEGIN BRIDGE

-L- POr SrD
25+65A0
APPROACH SLAB
-L- POT Sta 25+4110 . -L- tD. +
QETAIL I
UT ALL BASE GTCH
Iwr ro fee-
R
D }. SAp
FaOrb YAL Da.S Fr.
Ym. AqA Fr.
NMn 1 II < CO' B-2.0 Ft.
0=5A Ft,
Trp1 0} Llnryluu 1'Rip-BIp
ITiOM rt~ n+oo ro rt~ a+oo + LT
L9tOM fTA.71+00 ro rtA. n+DD a. LT
FSH ilE/IWN O.uTCLEN,RETAL
1.1.0' 01,/177.FGHp
sa DrtNL IHErt fA
4
il' ar v}eLEOwI
MYI~IIE}~! OAfEEl3p
+y~DD ~
e~wD Li eero cr
4O
M
`~
•

-L-
PI. 30+73A2 Pr= 35+ 14
o • s5zourRn o • sor~i.~rcn
D = r 32' S4T D . p ~ 30,E
L • ~~' c • 35oir

R - 3r DDS R = 2,50p,Qp'
OS • 50 NPH OS = 50 YPH
5E • 0.03 SE • OA4
RUNOfF = T2' RUNOff - 95'
26 C DDE
N iOlq a'Y Typ1 of LIIIrs Clpaa TY Ripitap
wr b}, 61 rt IT: rEOM rtA.n+00 ro rtAf1+01 a. li
uT f' IA[e Dnol 11vB' IBUI
IIT}m 1Wa'Yp/FAI
r rtA 71+00 TO rtA b+00.1. LT
>e I7rtA1L it
TNIFWN O.IIICIEIA~ETAL
De.essO~es /
-I - PT Sln T9+69 TA /

u+DI -' F

\ -~~
~ ~ Fn F F !NO p6 ~°- ~ c - '-F~ GRAD 150 ~~

F PAI u 7N.,
• rtA fl+7f ~,• Ll
M
c roa a
" ~ ~
~~
B-
Toros t,,,,
-L- rME A
,•G
Ra n
u

1 79.92 u
N it _
~~!
/r _- _._-
~--
\COFIV
lIR CI 2
END AOEIPIUC PROP.2~'LllRB c
AVD GUTTER n
~ U
f1 ° en DP
MOVE
G BB EBAOIf ++7yD
W~ n
x YI ~ v ~S ~ ~ '
~ ~
..
~
nN
"+ Ew
. qq
~~ s

NI.T

Cmsr.6 Ai. c
i0.•

ve ;

~.
N00a5
,s.
~ ~ IrtAIN
~ 6
N

d
~
;,

i .. 1LU
s
~ 25N
ti T Ewa y
~N i
E E Ji ~L y I I
M0005 ~ . ~ rI5D0'1 rt FF $, ~C - FO ~ LP
zs
y "~"V°sy y y
Q
ti a• v '800 R STW$TER ~ ~ ERLEST 0.•
g1E1. NC ~" AM61 L WLLO - o
,
a

" 'kfYOVp EXI9TAIC
v, AID

~ y : 3 ;
~,

~ 2srD 04 63Y OB. S91F FG q5/

a• r 9'0.1>t
Y` '
' ^: ~~

YOTHV R COINTEf.
e; ,~~
i
. ~ ; r
a EN .6,1
~ 01,1670. FO.LT10
71
T2
'
~o
~
P
y y y
p
~ x .
I
912
t2•II
~ 66
VATF G RLL a
J ( v, tO WAMIAL t11ouND ~ -BL 4- +28.67 PMIC S. I s
I " +~ a8a cT~ ; -l- W 30, T4.J2' Ri ''r~
N 0 m 2` N72'19'17~
'~ ~ A CADELASSOCUTq~17C011ER5 ~, I r? ~'" ~ ~-~~'
Ne2v' . "' 1667,Lq,7771 "~ ew
CA00.L ^OOOS I I n<vyt i
~EY' ASSOCIATIDN,IIC. I ~ ~vo p`•'
Q0.1mS.P0.f2/9 y
.:o ~ Q ~
p o.
2
as Ij
`4r1 .
}E ~ 9n96'76~ _-
"8B'ku.rw L~~ ze6•ar
a1.69` ~ / PP
® BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB ~f/ ~ ~
IXIST. RDWY. PILL EXCAVATION '
CLASS II RIP RAP
UtIAIL 2
sPECUC'CITER,ii"•v' D~TCN
I MOr Fa SMu
Ft
-d s,d slow
tra.u
IhI. D= l5 Ff.
Fea`I~ Ymi'a= Lo Fr.
h
1Y CY ODE
- 60 TONS a 7'
19 MF, ro rt rf
uT9AL V DRQI
rtA n+oo ro rtA >r+aD a. LT
6EE HIOFEI T0f dUDE
IFE DrtAll +7
-r - a^ cry t:acs ~a
• w
lLGINEQ
POR IWRI! 01: k fEE 1rIFrt NOS 7
-1- !ff SN4T N0:1LS THIU A-0
E4A ITSIICNSE NANf SE fIffET NO.~ LI
Permit Drawing
Sheet ~ of
- ta. f-
-9 - DT Nw T7tII09
c c GIGRO- ' ~
150TAPEA
MTAIH
r sraxE PROP.2-6'
AEI.IALL AMD ~(TTI
N 1405'Or.81f
7NVL7n a
~ sroN: slat ~ ' W
MiCaWAS a
i EGCUSTOY ~ OREES COIP ~ILUN dSTOLE
~ ~~~ Ik.t7SLPC,OiT
06 9080, F0.110 OB, I/IA }0.1969 ~ LLISON ~
lPyi~ a m -NO&B76APO.20G'
Hm ^'N o
m~ q
165 '29.7'M m ^ 51651'76.9'M~.
$i6S1'26.17 n S1Ttl0'21.9'M il.Tl' 67.62'
59.29' ~'~

*

`i
8
NQ
dF,
~W
I=
J 1/)
WW
j~
U
Q
" * « DENOTES MECHANIZED
«*~* ** * CLEARING
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES IMPACTS IN ?a
SURFACE WATER
i
N
gGCE: P, WCON,ETAL
~n ,., R~IT n Cleiee tea e: rer unY uc r
GIUCE P. YACOY, Eru
Dd. 1112, F0. WTd
0
CRANNlI LANK AIE
]OOU-IDOLI NIEOWV SO% IOOLSI OHF
FST +/-0IS TONS F IAF
ESi +HT SY FF
~ BRIDGE SKETCH
snwlaER a END BRIDGE sRaalaER
EERY GOITER
EERY (i1T7ER -L- PO>• S1a 27+35.00
e-n e-n

x 7614' 27A' E
~ ~
IrvE w ~ IrPE a ~ ~
ALA
2~LURB
Av0 GU11ER Z$CUAB
AND GIRTER
APPROACH SLAB BEGIN BRlOGE
25+65A0
-L- ~ Slo APPROACH SLAB
-L- POT S1a 25+41p . -L- lp. +
TAI I
LATERAL BASE DITCx
~eot ro SoaY
0 f• sMCe
Flier
Ionic YkI Dm,S Ft.
YO=. 210 Ff.
news 1 4 < 6A' 1=ZO Ff.
D=SA Ff.

w
e
S6 CT ODE
a row a'r
OF M1, 67 >Y ff
UT Z' WE DITOI Yrl' 1lNI
IIJ~ 1WC1 Y~ er w

'~-
~ ~ ~ xo. ~
Pr - 3p+73A2 Pi - 35+~J4
~ - 5'52'02r(R71 O. 801'Z7.3"rLrl
D - t' 32' 54T 0 • 20'30.5
L - 37sa~ c - 35a2

R • 3700rOD' R - 2.00'
OS - 50 NPH p$ . 5p YPH
SE - 0.03
RUNOFF • 7 SE - OA4
r RUNOFF - ~ v, ~ W
DETAIL 2
SPECIACTATEItrTt'v' OITCx j
IIDI fo SOONI
FE
r+ ~t6 Sbq
tram 0
Nn. D= L5 Ft. i
FaOrk Ym. O= LO FL ~.
~, ;„,
dam
1. LQA FIOFat OF. -1. aeE SRFEF rlod T
~. ~ sEa FYar xa rrE Halo A-n
D. FOR maeNAE FWYS Sff SxaFf ND.~ i1
M ~1
C
A ~ASSOCUS x01EpaFERS Y3 I ;sty ~ ~"`°°"
. IS67.~27k ~ ~ ~ ek -
IOEII 110$ ~ I I ni ~•d o
ASSOCUT10Y, NC. ~ .~ `'
D6./SSS. P0. 2219 1 I I ~ r3 + c
5
O a 5 I~
O I~
o' ~I
NB9'J1,4re . R
2JJ.95'` F ~ - ~ ~ 58959.7,pM
a z ~ me-~- ~#
1 5n'38'7b~
BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB ~•- ~ ~
CYIlT 011UN eu I evr-v,lrinu /

PROIECf IIEfEESNCE N0. SNfff N0.
B-3705 7
aw snEEr ra.
ROADWAY DESIGN nvouwuu
~ ENGRIEQ
I FORM TION 0 BE S
HOW ON P LANS
PRELIM[N R

De
ign:
Dis
c arge.
_- 6,00

. _ _ . - _

. _ c.f.s

F

e
uen

0 YR

1
~~~. Y PLANS
~~,,,
q
c .. - _ . lev. 99.0
Ba e Floo Dis c urge _ _ .7,50
_ _ ..
_ _ _ _
.. c,f.s F equenc ~

y - ~ yl"

- - - <

lev.
200.4
- - - - ~ „"""""~
""~'~ weyta~~w su~hoESCxrsouv,°"
,..e+..,..
Ov rtappi g: Dis c urge _ _ . _+13, 00_ , , - c.f.s . F equenc y

R 500 R lev.. _ '204.8
~~~--
~~----
---
Per
it Dra
ing
Sh t Of

BR1D6E HYDRAULIC DATA ,,, ,
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 6,000CFS
DESIGN FREQU ~ ~
b~ ~~
ENCY = 50 YRS
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 199.0 FT
BASE DISCHARGE = 7
500 CFS a
i
,
BASE FREQUENCY = !00 YRS
BASE hW ELEVATION
= 200
4 FT i
/

.
OVERTOPPING DISCHARG EXISTIN
E _ /3,OO~FS
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = 500 YRS PROPO E D GRAD

OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 204.8 FT N a PROPO ED GRAD
DATE OF SURVEY
= 6/15/04 EXISTIN GROUND MATCH
WS. ELEVATION
AT DATE OF S
= 188
FT r
.45
URVEY
T PI - 0+90.0 ~
SI
I ~ EL = 08
15 /
PI = 23
EL = 20
VC = 30 75.00
.15'
' VC =
K =
DS = .
60'
6
0 MPH I
/
/ /
Onj~%~
'

'?

K = 96 BENCHMARK M2 //
, o N

DS = 50
MPH •L- STA = 29+50.56, 199.23' RT
EL 198.80'
i~ ''
,~ pl• ~ N
RR SPIKE IN BASE OF PP , ~ g
BEGIN BRIDGE s
~ /
•~~,
' oN

Gr=
-
os.ev
END BRI
GE ~
,,
aoP 6 J o + N

~

m
o
N i~sG
,i®ro,

+)O. ®sa,~s rcG
=ns

94 -L- STA 27+35

R 00

OPOSED

RADE

)0. 5

/

4k //

--

- l
~i

~

6/i
V~l'i ~
g N
iI ~
p~AI' ~
i` u' J

°

O a
+

e s

N
X58 Og ( )0.5594 / ~
/

~
\~.
~'Vs,

~

~\ 1

I
I
j
I 1

I

I

1 1

I
I
1
I

1 I I

I I I
I I I
1 1 1
I I I

1 1 1 I

I I
I ~
1 1
I I

1 1

!

~
/
/
/

i
~ 4
°0 0
*N vo
o
°o
m
` ~ ``,`~~: ~~~
~~
__ I
~ I
~ I
-I I I
I I I ~
I I
~~/ i
o m FIL IN I 1 11 / __ -
~ps ATER URFACE L = 18 . 45 ' I
,~~ I
IST
p O i I j ING GROUND

23 24 L-
25 26 27 28 29 30 ~, .,,,
F
~~
i
's
~I
$'„
6>
s
~~
.,~ ~~ 34 35 36

--------------------------
r
PItOJ. REFERENCE N0. SNEET N0.
B-3705 X•16
~~ ;, ~ ~ ~,
205
_ OA20 OAZO 2~5
- 4,/
___-___________ _ c
/' - ~- ~
195 ~i~~ fX.EL.20200 ~~~ 195
~-- --- ~~ --- ---- --- ---- -~/ - \\~ --- ---- - - ian
205 205
OA20 OD20 9~
`__"-
-t=_ ---
- r-
~' 2a .~
195 ~' fX. EL 20222 ~~ 195
/~i ~\
SITE 1
0
i
FIL IN W LAND
2os M CHANI ED zo5
IR r ---- -_ _ _ _ OANJ _ OA20
C FARING ~L - - -
195 ~ ~ 25+ OAO \ ~~ 195
~ EX, E 20131
i
...,.
ion --- ---- -------- --
205
195
205
195
f
F~
10
1
FILL N WET ND5
C FARING
OA20
i - 1-
i' 25+ OAO
EX. E 201J8
i
i
i
OA20
i - -
24+ 0.00
- - J ~ ~ EX. E 20IJ1

195
205
195

00 NOT ro0. RfR V617'ION
PRELIM
no xor INARY
usa roR a PLANS
vcnvN
10
_~~.

`..
l1
V
W
0
~G

U
O
U
C
`»@
4a
GRAPHIC SCALES

50 25 0 50 100 DESIGN DATA

ADT 2007 = 10,280 PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-3705 = D
482 MILES Prepared In tl~ Oltlce of:
WIJT,BUR S1~1ITH ASSOCIATES
42l FAYETTEVILLE STREET MALL, STfi 1303
FOR: NORTX CAROLINA DEPT?OF JTRANSPORATJON HYDRAU11C5 ENGIlI1EER STATESOF XORTH CAROYLWA
ADT 2027 = 20,340 . 20°6 srAxDARD sPECffrcAJTOxs
PLANS DHV = 10 °~
3705 =
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B
P~
50 25 0 50 100 D = 60 % -
0.032 MILES RIGf17' OF WAY DATE: sicxAruRE: PJ"
DAVJD y R7LVER, P3?. DESIGN
A STA78 DESIGN E7YGAff.ER
T = 3 % ~ AUGUST JE. 2006 PROJECT ENGINEER ROADW
Y
ENGINEER ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
D
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
2
5 0 5 10 V = 50 MPH
•
TTST 1% + DUAL
° TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT B~705 = D.514 MILES
LETTING DATE:
O
~
P
S EP
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIO
. (
2
k( PR
J
DESIGN
ENG
JNEER
FUNCTIONAL
RURAL MINO IANUARY Js.2ooE
_
- P8 APPROVED
PROFILE (VERTICALS CLASS.
COLLECTOR SIGNANRE: DIVISION ADMIMSJRATOR DA7E

~&
8
NQ
0
~W
LT
J {/)
W yWj
~~
U
Q
,~,~~~~~ ALLOWABLE BUFFER
IMPACTS ZONE 1
////// ALLOWABLE BUFFER
IMPACTS ZONE 2
MITIGABLE BUFFER
IMPACTS ZONE 1 „'
MITIGABLE BUFFER
IMPACTS ZONE 2

N
E9 C DDE
4 70Nf a 7' DAYp D. iILIER. TRUSTEE
Rlr w, A7 >r FT DI. iw, rw 733
KqN EED
LMD Or EER7a a. lT
LAT E' EW dTCN 1WY LErM
UwD YYCI'Y 9F w O SITE 1 / W
;
B DRA 10110 AA 71+00 a. lT m;
tFAU+E ~ ~ ~ ^:
~
15 A ~
~
a
ENNO'! DDrr11T0R
1!! OEGUL Ysr 8A ~_»°~ ~

~ LT ~ YEt~x05 ~
U
y a 1Y F ~ FdDD U
w ,.p6~ ' 8300 LT
1A
0
BBDO ~
y ~ W J. d
yW EKiIN EIO,fT Z~DO
ET"TO
E~ y `
.fC ~ l
ii

/ np ... 8J
n

BR10GE SKETCH
c~v
~R END RIOGf eEcLirER
~
~ -C- POT Sra 27+35
e-n a-n

N 76 rr Z7OE
~ -•~ ~
nPE e $ rrvE . ~ yyc
Z~CU~
' a DEIA'A(.C f6CURB
AYD 4TD
TER BEGIN ~~ .wD 4rR'TER
APPROACH SLAB -L- POT Sra
25+65
00 APPROACH SWB
-L- S-a +4110 .
. -C- rD. +
TAI I
LATE AL DA DITCH
1Ner rw soa-
rN
;.
r;aa ~ Das Fr.
Lrml.aLO Fr.
.wnn e N < Sb R=2.0 Ft.
b=!A Ft.
Tfpw pT LNer=0ou E' Rlp•Rrrp
F1AM RAZE+OD TO fiA 8/+00 k LT
FAOA1 EEA SI+EO TD STA.lS+00 L LT
FEN TIRRrIAN D. dTGEN. ~, ETAL
E•I.Y oe.EUS,RC.oEr
sEE DETAL EwEr to

1!= tll YVlLIOWI
4

YYEIEY! 64110:IE

+91D0
BJLb ~
+
+B]M
CIBLO LT
EG f/+N -Ir LT
fRD SrOEW~A r~~;2-6`LURB
Sy,10n +fQ~ ~.u CJTfER
~~ Ji y, Ey wOWS
SL0~1G50 LTI 7a56 Rr ~X ~, 4 ~ O wFJy4LDS~, y y
PROP.2~ #AOYf EXL9/MG
AYD CUTTER / +d'i00 0 ~' '~ E8 '!,
AND lUD ONNECTORE +~ +arro~ , ~ ~ ~ ~' ~" * _ SET
1WEllM CAEIRR 2~ l~rj RT h ~ ~
TEN i y. y ~l. ~Y
E-I~a °P ATF~ p ~
kE DETAR WET ?A ,1pErE80
-BL 3- 20+03.74 PN1C / ~W Y TO1NA11EIAlDmuNO' ~ -~ 4' +28.67 PNC
cRACE¢ P. LucuN, Eru
Od EN2. PG K7R
O
IXCAYATt OEEfINO Aa1D FEl
TO NATURAL GROUND
+L iS0 IX
CHANNEL IANR
8001E-7001E (AIEDUN !0% IOOU',
EST +W I! TONS
ESi +~II!

_

rROxcT ulem+te F
EJIOE
Ew WEEr
{-
PI. 3p+73,02 PI. 35 14
p - 5'S2'02l(RT) p - SOI' 7,3=QTJ
0 • r 32' S4T D - Zrr 3ofi
C - 37889' C - 35012'
r - r89br r - n5.3s'
R - 3700A(7 R -2500,00'
OS - 50 NPH OS - 50 YPH
SE - OQ3 SE - OA4
RUNOFF - 72' RuNOFf - 96'
?b G' DD!
a row a'e' Typw o} Llner= pau 'r' Rlp•Rap
Er w. E7 K R 7ROM ETA E2+00 TO RA8/+00 a. Li
LAT E' WE DIrOr YPY IEAI
~ Yra'r ar w
r 9A >I+00 TO ETA 71+00 d- lT
!EE DETAR i1
iNIR'DeAN 0. RITC1ftL ti ETAL
oa.ESiO~er /
-I - PT Stn 79ffi9_TA
i
h
W 0Y OOF
-AO row a'r
IP w,19 EYR
(TUA~Ei+00 TO~ETA ]1+00 ~1. LT
fEE F1N1fllE FOR fiIADE
tEE DEru i7
d - CY` fln !l1CI70
NGNI'rl
~-•~~~ YLw-1 I ~ MME
-L• fFE WFET N0: 7
,(~; k !~ WffT N0: A-2 TNAU R-11
Ft1R lTILICTUE wa EEE SHEET Noe SI
Buffer Df8w111Q '
Sheet ~ O1~
t CtARO
- - ~ ~
JiDTAPER ~~6

'L-
N \CONVED 01
a
80 - ~'~
$ pry..
+ . .~ ..
_ ARAEI
., 7 'sw
s
w,1 EY
I I w ~' +15D0 STIpSTER 6f
e• Y z hC
~` r\srD D0.RY
rG 1!1
EM \ej`ok'
\,r~ 1
J
_ ~~df
982 M ~ -+ E66S. LW Z! ~~I (I ~ 6k
I ' _~
°~cm C~SSOCUT101ANC. ~I +eoaryy<
~ OE.EISS.FG2iE9 ~
~~° 0 ~ ~
wB878,y,Y
°p
21jS5•` ~ I
IE a 2,.¢~yy
VE ~~ I Sn78'~~
FF gr,67` ~J
® BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB sir ~~~7/~ ~,
EXIST. RDWY. FILL EXCAVATION ~
CLASS II RIP RAP
e \ / ~' \~ I t.5
~-+ rstoxE PROP.Z-FW
~,^. .. .. Fp .. iiRlcai ~ RET.Yeu ARD DOTTER
VOWS ,~ Y S7pNE 5801
~j Y/COLIIMS
~N o ~'1 ~ E EGGISTOY ~ DREES COLT
-~
2sFp EiN ~~ te• ~` E&90E05.-O.iTO 0&7lk.vO.rkT D4EN4FC.L169
25F0 ~ lP €I lP t~ H u
EAfE51 G i N N
s. cALw ; ~
D& p6glE ~. N N .
4~ ~ e, ~igTLET R, COINTEE. ~ ~~'65-~=
5765/'26A'w ` d Sii'0024.5'w lt.ir
I rG DEO 5929' 7912'
49'17.24
\\~ N12' -
~~ o
F,
-"- ~_ sLis~~
rtLer ~#
DETAIL 2 ,I
SPECIAC77TEfEI1-v' DITCH
IEOr ro Sedu ~,
FE
eadld sNa
a-ro
IIM1 D= l! it.
ioerk Nw. a Lo Fr. ~.
'l- N~07.1 ]r 90.CG 111
INSET
N T405'OIB~E
7NYEEr p I
In ~
ml$
oE.1T60,Eq.

{1'V/VJ
RW SNEET N0.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYOWWlICS
BIGINE[R ENGINFEA
~ FORM TION 0 BE SHOW ON LANS
PRELIMIN
GO NQf UA RY PLANS
WN3I7tUCiION
De ign : Disc urge 6,00 c
f
s F U ~ lev 199
0
_ . _ _ _
.
. equenc ... _ _ . ... . _ _ .
_ _
m~~W S~h~~D,~,EA
7 ~
Ba e Floo Disc urge . ,50
_ _ ... _ .. .. c.f. F equenc y ... yr° lev. _ . 200.4
Ov rtoppi g: Disc urge _ _ _ .+13, 00 _ _ c.f.s F equenc y .. _ _ _ 500 R _ lev. `
204.8 8 ~
_ . _
-- ----- - Sh ,
t Of
' T

'Q A LOWAB E IMP CTS Z NE 1

~~~~
~~~~ ~~
~~ AL LOWAB E IMPA CTS Z NE 2 0% /
o /
BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA a~ /
,~
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 6,000 CFS ~
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 50 YRS
DESIGN FNY ELEVATION = 199.0 fT
BASE DISCHARGE = 7,500 CFS /
/
BASE FREQUENCY = !00 YRS EXISTIN
BASE kW ELEVATION =200.4 F7 PROPO ED GRAD n n
0VERTOPPING O15CHARGE = 13,000rFS ~ ~ PROPO ED GRAD
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = 500 YRS N N
0V
RT
PP
E
O
ING ELEVATION = 204.8 FT
EXISTIN GROUND
MATCN
DATE OF SURVEY = 6/15/04 /
WS. ELEVATION
= 188.45FT
AT DATE OF SURVEY /
/
pI = 0+90.0 /
SIT ~ EL = 08.15' /
'
VC = 60' / ~,;
p~?~
PI = 23 75.00 K = / ~ v
EL=2 .15' DS= OMPH / o ai
V BENCHMARK N2 + w
K = 96 •L• STA = 29+50
56
199
23' RT / 'R~•
DS = 50 MPN .
,
.
EL 198.80' /
~ ~
~ °o
RR SPIKE IN BASE OF PP /
BEGIN BRIDGE A~ / . 6 ~ o

Gr- Ds.ev END BRI GE ~ / ~ o m
i@w~,l®~D~, ~sD•,u•rcG •L- STA 21+35 DO ~ %A~' + N
.ns ~~ J o
~ ROPOSED GRADE _
~ /
i ,°~
i / + N

o
/
~ti,~ ~
~
N ~
/ /
•S6 0$ 0 0.5594 E ~~ X ~/ /
0 ~'
0
V/
~ ~_ x
X /
~ / ,- h
°
j ~ I I % I o c
o
! ~ o

~~~
I 11 I
I I
I
~
a
\~~6~ \ j ~ ~;
I I ~
/ j ° N
I
'~
\ \~ ~ I I I j~ /
~ , ~
~~.
o; ~~ V / I I I /
,

o ~ FIL IN I 111 I
!ANDS ATER URFACE L = 18 . 45' ~~,
i XISTING GROUND
o I I
L-
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
~a
a

C
g
___
INSET LEGEND
I
~(~(~(~(~(~( RESTORED BUFFER ZONE 1
~~~~~~~ RESTORED BUFFER ZONE 2
ao
h
N
MITIGATION SITE
d9 Cv DDE
Id TONI 0.'r DAVE? 0. FILER TRSISTEE IK01 i1D
RO R4, 61 fY YF 00. IW, PG. 733 ~ ~ ~~'~ LT
Lv Y WI DRCN 1Y/Y EERN ! / W ~
urn ~wcL'r Rv Ru ,~ =
rt~A ~~ +ro IrA u+oo a. Lr T ESE t ~~
~ ~ / ,bM!
ENEIIOY DISR9ATOR „p oq ~
KF DFFNL RRS7F ?A ~y .~~,,,,
~~u
W ~~ExOS W y 0. TY RA9 .ha` p ~ 83D0 LT
seDD v 6dDO Lr RF 9A
8800 U B8L0 W tW •~• IEGN OG A f~00 d S ~.
e .~ ~~+T"TO u _ ~ I
BRIDGE SKETCH
~ R
N NO BRIOGf ~ p~ER
~ -C- POT Sta Z1+35A0
e-n B-n

~ N 7614' 270 f
-~
1YPE d TYPE ^ CRM/ J50
P$CURB ~~ P-8'CURB
AND COTTER BEGIN QRlOGE ~ fNlITER
APPROACH S1AB -L- POT Sro
25+fi5
00 APPROACH SCAB
Y- POr S!a +4110 .
. -L- o.
TAI I
LATERAL BA gTCN
iwt ~e $oon
t. ~•
roorrk WtDiS Ft.
Iqx, d•l0 Ft,
.r•n E b t 0.a 8.2.0 Ft.
D=SA it,
Type o} lNrCbu 9' Alp-Rap
9RDM ETA b+ao ro ETA flroo + LT
FROM lF1.71+11 ro RA E2+ol .L. LT
FEN TNUWN D.IITCNEN,Et,ETAL
1.1A'
sEF oETNL sN~r rA 00.1777,9'0,1317

tdr Cp 9l'1!IION7
4
O
~
AV
v9
A8
! GAIEIR
19100
8700 ~
+B7.N
6800 LT
F ~ SOU 51+7! -l- lT
.wD LAITTER
JSD
SLD !25.50' LT1 78.56 RT
PAO°.P-6'
AYD GUTTER
ANO wG C0 +5~
Y171lM 4ARRIE A?ilJO ~ i
RN
1![ DRAB SNIT fA
-BL )- 20+03.74
GRACE P. WCON. ETAL
OE.1192.94 K16
O
w,Ln DamND RDAD nLi
CHANNEL
f00L4700L1 DAEOLW !0%
EST +/21S '
EST

A
['" ' y "y cy ~qOD$
E"
h ~. ~$y y y
~ 'NEM7vf Ex19TALC y
y ~ E$. y
s
`* ~L .I. ~L? .f. t y
`~c ~L W ~W~ W ~L -W W a
~p
M
-L-
Pi- 30+73A2 P!- 35+ 14
o - s5zo2r~Rrr o - 8'or ,rr~rr
0 - f 32' S4T O • 2!7' 30B
r - ~
6 ~
r
n
89
r -
5
.,)s
R • 3700.00' R -2.50000'
OS - 50 NPH OS • 50 YPH
SE - 003 SE •004
RuNaFF . 7r RuNOFF - ~'
ETAIL 2
SPEtlA 'r DITCH
ilbf to 7WU
i•
fid t d sap. ~
trans D ii
Wt~lS ft. ~
F<Drk Ym~'0= LO Ft. ~~

CMSRD
c ~~~
~~~--~-
~ 75v rA+'ER ~
EEE 9ROFL! FOF OIADF
O EEE OETAI If
~_ PC S1a-33Nfi479
Ei
CT 00!
roNS 0.'1' I Type of Lhwr= Cku 'B' Rip-Rap
~'BT ~ ~ IIOM mA If+DI ro RAS1+o0 k lT
IAT 2' Nk OIRJ1 NYD' bIM 711 CY ODE
LI11EO vY0.'1' pl RN N TOIq 0.'r
RA 71+00 ro ITA n+00 a. LT DF M1, 19 r 9F
IEE OETAL it
TNIdE1MN D. FITCNEN, ~, ETAL lAi~µ v DRCN
00.1773, 9&1511 . RA 15+00 ro AA >I+00 d. LT
's- /pp0$
I
T swe 7sFp
R _
E~Ix~ {~ •~' ~iD LLO
X131 ~ 1~
~N t~
zsFO 7 IIIL---v
)rxT RCa/rtEE.I~
,1871, 941510 /
W' ro cwuND v -DL •- C8.07 1m{, I SCI ~ ~ \,r ` ~
o tt'aL ? -L- 6,30, 74,)2' Ri- 9: \
r ~ ` A cAoEL~ssroC~iAro~i+DG.~"~ Y~ I ~~~"' 1r' `eo~
xez• i 1 "' 1687.9417!1 ~~ I ,yaA' -
CAOELL HOODS a' ~
• ER lSSOpdTR7N, ENC. I a i ~.o +yy
00.1m5, P0.12190 ~
~~° 5 ~ Q ~
:a ~ ~
7.95'` •Y ~ ~w-~~ k7S9'1.0"N
dA a Y 74• finer'-- --~#
`~ o
NE $n9e'M•ge
~k,,.n ~{I~7,~ 2fifi.0~
et,fiJ~ - /
® BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB ~~
EXIST. RDWY. FILL IXCAVATION ~
CLASS II RIP RAP
/
\ \ ~ F ~/GRAB !50
u
Y i v ~ ,,,~ , FY N 7405' 01 E
~ rslat PFA7W.P-6' ONy0R0
RET.eu~ AMD GUTTER ro ~ u e
Wrt70NEauiVS W W
A ECICUSTOEI
=4 NOEES,I7C. OREES COIi ~ILWL dSTONE 6 YARCE m
4;J ~ oe. solo, 9G, no ~ la/, rC.IsIT 04 MS-c.ISES ,~ E11,SON
lP ~ i ~ u u 00.1760, P0.1062
NN "' ou
cw
4 $ifi5r76.9'M
$li'00'70.5'e , n $765 '3b fiibY
$Tfi'S1'26.47m 79~, lT.n'
5479'
-BL S- PINC 28+27.74
-I - +C6.7S_ dG 7T RT
INSET MITIGATION SITE
I1tCT RlRFEiCE No. ENar
land ..
RW RIEEF NO.
DWAV OOIGN NYDAAINC
RK1F1EtA CKANeeI
Ma•~R~I• ~YIM ~YYwf~
i, rDR FAOPI! Oh~EEE aEFr NO: 7
1. ~.CL.Of: k sEE fllFEr N0: f-7 TNW %-11
f. fOR STMICIINE 111NE !ff EXFET NO.: L1
h
C TD CL ~ , I
.~' .
9 p~
. 0 rl~•
fir.' 5.23'
~0° /+39.82. TP
DV .TE '"
REMWE 1
I E •125..,, r,ry~ -
IaTb L / ~ ~ I /
SICALE :1" = 50`

~o.
PLANTING DETAILS
SEEDLING /LINER BAREROOT PLANTING DETAIL
REFORESTATION
HEALING IN
L Lam a hmfm~m site o a seal
poteelad naa,
2 Esenam a et bamm trmoh
~ imr
3• Hadda ~ trend e]h 2 ods ed
rained aniirt. Poop a T od ba d
ealrot4d eaedokrt^ iapiod oa~e
at one and of die trans. /~.c
~~
4. Pleoe . ~ lgar of plm
ayoat the abpod end m drt
db root ediarr at bamd ktd.

S Place a 1 od Yger
aaedoe oaar db roeb
a elapood mQa.

ti.Itepeu lgen atplmu and oadmt
. neem., and eapa dweaab
DIBBLE PIANTING 1V<ETHOD
USING THE KBC PLAN1lNG BAR
2lemon rlmlq be
ad ~ooe aeedlod t
eaneatltpi.
6. Lena amopaedm
We q~m• weeer
PLANTING NOTES:
rdArrdnvc arc
n.:e t+~d. eee,Gga
diba kqt o . aaoit
amer W ar e~
aaotaoertopwaatdw
coat gete•e &am dgiy.
Id3C PLAl171NG BAB
Pomod bar o6e1 haro a
bode e+h a tnoaJdr
aror oeedee,aod dal
be 12 oa~eo oaW
4 odes wide and
1 od drat ae eeoYa.
~~~
~emed,Smeena7,eo dear
m mate emend mare dim
10 oda bdon dr
root oalar•
~~
TREE REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 6 FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM SPACING,
AVERAGING 8 FT. ON CENTER, APPROXfMATELY 680 PLANTS PER ACRE
REFORESTATION
1tflXNRE,IYPE, Bi~,APID PUNNISH SHAH, CONFORM 7'0 'tiiE FOLLOWIlVG:
40% LIRIODENDRON 1ULIPIEERA YELLOW POPLAR 1Z m -18 in BR
30% QUERCUS FALCATA 30UTHERN RED OAR 12 in -18 in BR
30% QUERCUS ALBA
WHTfE OAK 12 in -18 m BR
REFORESTATION DETAIL SHEET
N.CDAJ • ROADIIDa INVIRdrtMINTAL UNR
6-3705 ref sheet-reforestatirn.rirn (1Rf13/~f1(17 (19.37.39 AAA - '

I-

0
M
V
W
0

~i
U
O
U
See Sl>ref 1-A for Index of Sheels
See Sheet f-B For ConveMlpnal Symbols
WAKE COUNTY
a
N LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.125 OVER SMITH'S CREEK ON SR 2045 (BURLINGTON MILLS RDj
g TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
NCDOT CONTACT: B. DOUG .TAYLOR, P.E. - ROADWAY DESIGN -
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2001 = 10,280
ADT 2027 = 20,340
PLANS DHV = 10 %
50 25 50 100 D = 60 %
T = 396 •
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) y 50 MPH
5 215 ~ 5 10 • (17571% + DUAL 2%~
UNCTIONAL=RURAL MIND
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-3705 = 0.482 MILES
LENGiT1 OF STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 8705 = 0.032 MMES
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT 83705 = 0.514 MILES
~~°A°~]E ®~ N®l~~C~[ ~AI~®]LIN~
I~IVI~I®N ®~ ~[IG][~~VA~Y~
Prepared !n tle Orflce of:
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
u1 PAYarrav{us sraaeY er4rc, sre X303
ailp srmm~w ,sr~rcanoxs
R1GIlT oP war DarE: OAi'ID L r~uvan.P$
LINUARY lA 1011 ri0~6Cf
LEIITNG DATE; I~ MowvsoxPB
llMiARP 1S 3091 r~ecr msrta! urrmeR
PRELIMINARY PLANS 1
0o wm veR !aR rnxerRVCnox
IIYDRAT1LlCS IiNGIN6HR ~( DMSION OF ffiGRWAYS
STA2E OF NORTH CdROLiNA
DWAY J>BSICN run osuav wao~
ENGIJ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDJ3RAL ffiGNIYAY ADM/NISTRATIO
R~7~ RA77 IROIIGS YIAMD NR oQ~
_ TOILL
.c. 6 -3705 1
Rqt IW.R R1.IROl11R ~OVIM
33245.1.1 BR~2045 P.E
33245,2.2 BRZ-2045 ROV~GUTRJTIES

v-
•S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
ROADS f7 RELATED ITEMS
Edge of Pavement .._...._ ................................_..
Curb ......................................_._......._.........................
Prop. Slope Stakes Cut .........................._.......
Prop. Slope Stakes Fill ........_...._ ................::
Prop. Woven ~ro Fence ........_...._......._....
Prop. Chain Link Fence .............................
Prop. Barbed Wire Fence .............................
Prop, Wheelchair Ramp ............._._.._..........
Curb Cut for Future Wheelchair Ramp
Exist. Guardrail ....._ ..................................._._
Prop. Guardrail ............................_.....:................
Equality Symbol ........_.........-_ ..................._.....
Pavement Removal _.........._....-------_---_- __
o RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point ................_....-.-._.........._
Existing Right of Way Marker ...:............-.......
Exist, Right of Woy line w'Marker ...............
Prop. Right of Way line with Proposed
RNV Marker (Iron Pin & Cap) .................
Prop. Right of Woy line with Proposed
(Concrete or Granite) fkW Marker ......._.
Exist. Control of Access Line ..................--......-
Prop. Control of Aaess line _......_ ..................
Exist. Easement Line .....................................__......
Prop. Temp. Construction Easement Line
Prop. Temp. Drainage Easement line _....
Prop. Perm. Drainage Easement Line .......
HYDROLOGY
Stream or Body of Water ....._.....
River Basin Buffer ..................................
Flo PPS g ..................................._....._.
Disc rin Stream ...........................
Spring _ ......................................._........-...
Swamp Marsh . - ..................................
Shoreline........._ ...................:.............. ......
Falls, Rapids ................................................
Prop Lateral, Tail, Head Ditches
STRUCTURES
MAJOR
Bridge, Tunnel, or Box Cuhrert
Bridge wng Wall, Head Wall
and End Wall ................_...._-.
R
~~°~~°~ ®~ N®R~°lH CAIN®I,IN~
~IVI~I®N ®~ ~II~~[WA~~
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
_________ MINOR
--------- Head & End Wall .............................
- - - ~ - Pipe Culverf ._...._._ ......................_....._.......
F
- - - - - - - Footbridge _....._...._......-._.._......_---
--8--~- Droinage Boxes ...........................---...----......
--8---f3-- Paved Ditch Guitar .........................._...
~-
® UTILITIES
i- -~ -~ - Exist. Pole
. Exist. Power Pole ..............-.............--------- -.....- .:...._...
~ Prop. Power Pole ...._.....--- ..............._..-.............................-..
Exist. Telephone...P.~e---...-----...._..._..----._...._.........._.
® Prop. Telephone Pole _ ..............._...._...............-..._...........
Exist. Joint Use Pole ....................._.....__..__......................
~ Prop. Joint Use..Pole..-.......__..--......---....-.-. _.-- _---
~ Telephone Pedestal .............._...................._......................
llC Telephone Cable Hand Hold .........................
Cable NPedestal .....--- .....................__......._.........-..........
UrG N Cable Hand Hold......._......._...._ ....................
~ LYG Power Cable Hand Hold ....--_..._....._ .................
Hydrant....--- --....._......._ ......................._.....---.........._..._...__..
Satellite Dish _...__ ..............................._............................._..
~- Exist. Water Valve .
.....

.~,_
-'•6% .............._-......_............_.........._...._...
.
Sewer Clean Out ...........----............---...--- ..........................
--~- Power Manhole...__ ..........................................................
----- -E------- Telephone Booth _......._ .............. .........................._.........-
CellularTelephone Tower ................................................
-E Water Manhole .................--.......__.............-....---...................
-TDE-
light Pole ..........................__................._..-.-..............................
-voE-
........
H-Frame Pole.....- --- ..............................._.
Power line Tower-..........._....._ ................_................._.......
Pole with Base _........---- .........................._...................._...
_...
..
_
Gas Va a _...._ .......:........._......._....................__........._...._...-
-Aee- Gas Meter - ...._....-- -...--......._ ............._................._..........
_..._....~ Telephone Manhole .............................._.................---- -~
_..
>-..._ Power Transformer ............................................_..........

0'' .~ -..
San'dary Sewer Manhole ....._ ........ . ............... -.........
~ Storm Sewer Manhole .........................._......................._
-------------- Tank; Water, Gas, Oil ..........................._......................_.
-~ ---+.._.._ Water Tank With legs ....... .......-- .................._:........_..
Traffic Signal Junction Box ...................._............_.-........
Fiber Optic Splice Box ........................................................
.Television or Radio Tower ..............._...._.........._...._....
Utility Power line Connects to Traffic
~-- cows __~ Signal Lines Cut Into the Pavement .........................

)caws ww(
Recorded Water Line ....._ ............. --............................ ~,-„~-
caN/ c w~ Designated Water line (S.U.E.')
.............................. ---,~-~,---
------- ~ Sanitary Sewer
-ss-ss-
}------------ -( Rewrdad Sanitary Sewer Force Main .---.._---- --fs:-FU-
~ cw Designated Sanitary Sewer Force Main(S
E
•)
U
.
,
. __ ~:S--fss --
-------- - Recorded Gas Line ...................... ......._...... ~--- -
....
~~-
Designated Gas Line (S
U
E
')
................_................
.
.
. _-D--D--
Stonn Sewer
................._.........................._........_.................. -5~-
Recorded Power Une _ .................. ................................. ~~-
+ Designated Power Line (S,U.E,') ............._........_... _ .~
_ ~_ _
Recorded Telephone Cable
b ..............._..._.................. -T-T-
~ Designated Telephone Cable (S.U.E.h
:
_
....-..._.. _ _T- -T- -
~ Recorded USG Telephone Conduit ............
..

+ .
Designated lbG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.') -,c-TC-
_ _

~
Unknown Utility (S,U,E.•) TD__T~_ _
r
-
-
-

0 .-........_.
.........----..__
tu
tuY~
f
.
Recorded Television Cable .....................
© ............-.
._ -TY-TV-
Designated Television Cable (S.U.E.•)
© .............. __TV--TV--
I] Recorded Fiber Optia Cable
.................................. -vo-vo-
® Designated Fiber Optia Cable (S.U.E!) .......... F
--
-
C Exist. Water Meter ...._ .................... --............................ __
O
AO
~
b lIG Test Hole (S.U.E!) ........................._....................... ~
®
0 Abandoned According to USG Record ...._..._..... Iu1TUR
© End of Information ............._........... E.o.i.
° BOUNDARIES ~ PROPERTIES
~' State line ......_....._ ........... .......-
w County line .........:.............._.
G ..............._..................._............... -----
Township line ....................................................._................ -------
® City Line._...----...._ ................-- --....- ...........-- ...._.........--- -----
Reservation Line ............._................-...................................... - - - - -- -
0
O Property Line...._ ...................__......----- ......._....._...---.........
4 Property Line Symbol ..............._-- -...-- :........_....._.... R
~ Exist. Iron Pin ....._ ........ .............._.......-..........................._....
0 Property Comer -...._- - -....__............_ ....._ ..............._.. - +
® Property Monument-- ............._-........_..............................-
~ Property Number ............................._......- .._......-.......... I23
O Parcel Number._ .................................................... ....... .... g
Fence line .........................................................._..........._... - -x-x-x-
Existing Wetland Boundaries ......................_................ _ ww a isew
~ w~a----
C High Quality Wetland Boundary _ ................_........._ -AD wES-
r Medium Quality Wetland Boundaries......._......- -~D w~e-
® Low Qutality Wetland Boundaries-.._ ...............__... -~D w~e-
-..,~~ Proposed Wetland Boundaries ................_......_.......- -woe-
Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries ............. _ _ _ Eye __ _.
Existing Endangered Plant Boundaries ................. _ _ _. EPe _ _ _.
a~
wo.
BUILDINGS ~ OTHER CULTURE
Buildings ._..._...._....._ ................._._......_...._.....__... ..._...._....
Foundations ..................._........._.........._.................... ._....._.._. i ~~
~~
Area Outline ..._... -..........-- -- ........................ ............... ~--
~,~/
Gate ._...._.......... ---....-...._...------......_ ............... ......__..... ~,
Gas Pump Vent orU~G Tank Cap ..._.._.. o
Church .....__........- ....._:.._.
School......_ ...............:._-..........._............................_..._ ...............
Park ...:............. -----,
...... L----'
Cemetery........._ ................._...........................-......... ......_. -----,
Dam ......:..............'.._..................................................... -....:...
Sign ............... ....... .-......................................._....... ............:.. o

Well . ..........................._.................._..... ........ -...... o
.
. ...
........._
Small Mine ...............--..........._........_.......-................ ............... x
Swimming Pool
TOPOGRAPHY
loose Surface .........................._...............................:. ..-----------------
Hard Surface ........................_-..............................................
Change in Road Surface ............................- ........._ ._........................._.
Curb ................. ...................... .. ............. . .........._....... -
Right of Way Symbol _... - ........................................... Riw
Guard Post .... -............_ ... ... ........:........................ oDv
Paved Walk .........................._........_...........-...................... --------------
Bridge ..........................................._........--
Box Culvert or Tunnel ~------------------~
Fery ....._ .....:......... .-- ......................._......................._...... .--------.........--
Culvert ........_........, - ......... ---.....:.....- ................................ >............_...............{
Footbridge ....................._....................................._.................... __
Trail, footpath ..........._...._ ................._................................. ,--.,____.
Light House ............ .... . . ........ d~
f
VEGETATION
Single Tree .............................................................._....-........... Q
Single Shrub ..................................................... ........
Hedge ....................._............--..... ---..................................... ~,-,~
Woods Line_ .............. ..............................__...._........._.........
Orchard ............_ ....................... ........ ..............- - ..... QQQ44€?
Vineyard

......................._.........................................................
-------
i -,

1~11L1~!\Oll1JJ YINEYAAD
~-------J
Standard Gauge ............................... -................................

RR Signal Milepost .:. - - .................... . m rn,wsrovrud

b
switch _......._ ............................................................................... ~
r~lsed 02/02/00

n
-; . M
-. - ~
1;
h ~~ ~
~ ~ I~
~~~~
.,r
//~~
r ~.,J !~"
~ ~ ~ ~ r
~ `\~, r ~ 4
~ ~ I' - ~ ,
rJ it
1
I ~ ~/ 7--_
I
Q/7~\/`` 1 / %if 1\ Ir
JJ I \~ J ~/ ( +Qii
I ~ / 11
II ~~ I ro ~ .'~ f
.- ,/~/ r +
f~ ~ ~ r ~
VICINITY MAP
SURVEY C011iTROL SHEET B-3705
WAKE COUNTY
LOCATION' BRmGE N0.12S OVER SAf177i'S CREBR
ox sR sas csuRr,INCTON ~-racs xn~
I
J I
i ~
1
I
FYI
I I
i'' 1
h 0 ~ ~' 3 I I
~ I ,~,-',_ ~ BL- IW I
C T US~IGH m ~; 1 ' e~R N6r~ Mlus ~oi,o,--' ~ 't
_____ U, I
83/05-2 --- --- - --- ~-- R 2045 -~ ly I
N=7893601095 -- --'-f"-----__- 1
E=2!35674.4310 BL-I ~ ~ BL-2 J J
! F J rJ
B37o5-r 1
'" ~ N=7893%oecD
E=21361272700
w
b
BASELINE DATA
BL
POINT OESC. NORTH EAST ELEVATION L STATION OFFSET
3 Bl-I 789327,4017 2136291.4888 230.99 10.42.56 15,25 RT
4 BL•2 789315.8718 2136858.4521 223.85 16.04.74 42.20 RT
5 BL-3 769491.7279 2137778.4572 208.85 25.35.94 64,78 RT
6 Bl-4 789582.6910 2138193.4959 204,15 29.62.30 74.32 RT
7 BL•5 789676.8432 2138581.3418 227.56. 33.65,73 46.22 RT
B BL-6 789796.6416 2138972.046°. 257.00 OUTSIDE PROJECT ![HITS
BENCHMRRK DATA
BM1 ELEVATION 226.50
N 789466 E 2136661
L STATION 16.46 104' LEFT
YI STATION 10.62 38' LEFT
RR SPIKE SET IN l0' P[NE
BM2 ELEVATION 198.0
N 789458 E 2138289
L STATION 29.58 199' RIGHT
AR SPIKE SET IN BASE OF PP
DATUM DESCRIPTION
iHf LCCALIZED COORDINATE SYSTEM DEVELOPED FOR THIS PROJECT
IS BASED ON THE STATE PGVIE CGURDINATES fSfABLISHED BY
Nccar EoR MoxuMEM 're31o5~ r °
WITH NAD 1983/95 $IATE PLANE GRID CODRDINATES OF
NDRTNING:189,310D8CA'fU FASTING: 213612711pffl
THE AVERAGE COMBINER GRID fACTOR USED ON TNIS PROJECT
fGRWND i0 GRID115: 0.99993313
THE NG. LquBERT GRID BEARING AND
LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL GRCUND DISTANCE FROM
~enDS~ r ° To -~- srartoN m+co Is
N B5 °411'376" W 4/809'
ALL LINEAR DIMENSIONS ARE LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL DISTANCES
VERTICAL DATUM USED IS NGVD 8B
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NOT UY f0& COtki'LLOC110N
99~
3
^
eL-~
ON MIUS ROOD,- ~ BL-5 T~ R~US,gOU
- gIjRUNGI''-'~' X11
'' 'BL,4I m
~I
I~
II
~BN-2
I,
NOTES.'
77DT CONlTtOL MTA POA TRL9 PAOJRCT GN BR POUND RiiCTROMCALLY RY BBLBLRiNO
PROJ&L7' CONTROL DATA AT:
R77'A\WIIW.DOEDOT81'ATRNGUBPREGW~7877tUCDHIOHWA}7fACATlOHfAQlRL4'
TRR P6f8 Ta Rl POUND ARY AB lOLLOWR:
69706 4 aoNevl_06071Ltrf
8178 CAL8IRATTON RIPORMATlON BA9 NOT 88Q1 PROWORD POR TA78 PROlRL7'.
Dr FURTRBR Ra'ORIfATION Di NRLDBD,PLRAR6 CONTACT TNS LOCATTON AND 9URVRYR UNIT.
O' RONCA7718 OWORTN; CONTROL YONUYaVV79 URCD OR RRT POR RORlZONTAL PROJRCf CONTROL
RY TRY NCDOT LOGTION AND BURVRYR UNCP,
PRO/iCT CONTROL P8PA8LI8R99 URINO OLORAL PORITTONDVO BYRT~T.
N87Ti0Bd d8TA8LI888D YROY NARN YONUYRNPB

Buffer Mitigation Plan
At Bridge No. 125 over Smith Creek
On SR 2045
Wake County
TIP B-3705
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1733 (13)
WBS No.33245.1.1
October, 2007
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
will perform on-site buffer mitigation at the Bridge No.
125 over Smith Creek on SR 2045 (Burlington Mills Rd). This
mitigation occurs within Transportation Improvement Project
(TIP) B-3705 in Wake County. The proposed mitigation site
will consist of restoring .1330-sq. ft. of riparian buffer
within Buffer Zone 1 and 480 sq. ft. in Zone 2 of the Neuse
River Basin Buffer Zones. The restoration area will involve
excavating the existing causeway to match the natural
ground elevations. Excavated areas will be ripped and
disked prior to planting if necessary. The restoration area
will be planted after the completion of the site grading.
The site will be planted with a mixture of Yellow Poplar
(Liriodendron Tulipifera), Southern Red Oak (Quercus
Falcata), and White Oak (Quercus Alba). To view a copy of
the plan sheets for this project see sheet No. RF-2. This
mixture of trees will be planted on six to ten foot centers
at a density of 680 trees per acre. The site will visually
be inspected after construction is complete. No annual
monitoring is proposed for this site.

~ -L-
~-
VARIES I VaRlES
EXISTING GRWND ~ $ P GRADE PS.
~ I ~
~ ~ ExrsrlNC cRa1No
'
I
~~ Ls nA
Ml ~ $ I
a .
~ ~
r`
'
~M 6d
vatrARLE ----- -- --- ---- ~ 6,r
4d
vaaaecE
- SLOPE SIAPE
- ~ T Dl fl W U W fl Dt T ~,
~~ V
1
~
- S!A GRADE TO TH1S UNf ~
U
jpE
- _ EXISTING GRIXIND EXISTING GROUND
TYPICAL SECTION N0.!
USE ONr -L- Sto.p+GhAO TO SYo.16+40.00
-L- EXISTING GROUND ~
~~
pA' 124' ,
:
I2A'
pd VARIABLE
SLOPE
rn ~ ~ ~
S IIA' S
~
o EXISTING GROUND '~ ~ $ Cn P0~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ I fXIST1NG GROUND
_ A2 ~
VARIABLE ~ Gd EXISTING GROUN~
~ ~ VARrABtE
510PE SLOPE
r~ T fl Dl 01 fl T
VARIABLE TO TNlS LINE

SIAPE VAR1ABlE
SLOPE
EXrSTrNG GROUND EXISTING GROUND
TYPICAL SECTION N0.2
USE ONr -L- Sta 5+4040 TO Sta. 23+7340
£XrSTING GAWND
EXISTING GRWND
EXISTING GROUND ~'
ti~
VARIABLE
SLOPE
EXISTING GRO
STING GROUND
TYPICAL SECTION N0.5
_ USE ON, -YI- Sfap+ORlp TO Sta11+5194
.
* - PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
~ DESCRIPTION OEM DESCRIPTION
O
~ PROP APPROX. 1.5 IN. ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE, TYPE
59.58, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 168 18551'.
0 PROP, VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT BASE COURSE, TYPE 825.68,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBSSYAN IN LIFTS NOT
LESS THAN 3 IN. NOR GREATER THAN 5.5 IN.

O PROP. APPROX. 3.0 IN. ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE, TYPE
S9.SB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 168 LB55Y IN
EACH QF
OR
2'- d' CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
e .
Two uFTS
.
~
~I
O PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONC. SURFACE COURSE, TYPE
59.58, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 112 IBSSYAN. IN LIFTS
O
SHOUIDER BERM GUTtER
B' NOT 1F55 THAN 1.0 IN. NOR GREATER TFUN 1.5 IN.
$
~~ Di PROP APPROX. 4.0 IN. ASPHALT INT. COURSE, TYPE
119.06, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 456 LBSSY
T
O
EARTH ~~~

~ ~
D2 PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT INT. COURSE, TYPE
119.08,47 AN AVERAGE RATE Of 114 LBSSYAN.IN LIFTS
oU
E1USTING PAVEMENT
NOT LESS THAN 2,25 IN. NOR GREATER THAN 4.0 IN.

~i O
~ PROP APPROX. 4.0 IN. ASPHALT BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 456 LBSSY.
O
WEDGING (SEE DETAIL A)
EXISTING
~ -L-
pA'
TYPICAL SECTION N0.4
USE ON, -L- Sta. 32+8040 TO Sta J7+l5A0
EXISTING PAV M NT
VARIES (See PMnel ~
IMINJ
u a Dz Dt ~
WEDGING DETAIL A
y~~
~ _~
FDPS
ROADWAY
X-SLOPE
A4
SHOULDER BERN GUTTER DETaL
USE OM, -1- Sta. 24~WA0 TO S/a 2S+53AD ILTI
-L- Sta 2T+7040 TO Sfa 2B+3540 ILTI
~ -L-
yMIABLE `--GRADE TO THIS UNEJ
SLOPE
TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
USE ONr -1- Sta 2J+7340 TO SYa 25+B5O0 (BEGIN BRIDGE/
-L- Sta ZT+3540 FEND BRlOGE1 TO Sta 32+8040
EXISTING GROUND
NOTES : X: TOTAL SHOULDER WIDTH TO BE INCREASED
3' WHERE GUARDRAIL IS USED.
USE B" INCIDENTAL STONE BASE FOR GRAVEL DRIVES
VARIES
4' - P9'
-Yl- ~A IN.
IMAXJ'
-------
-L- rN. -- -----------•------ ---------------- -
IMAXJ~' ~ u w
MILLING
MILLING OETAIL B
USE ONr -C- Sta. lHOOAO TO Sta.l3+5040 LT
-L- Sta. 33+5040 TO SJa, 37+1540 LT
-L- Sta 33+OOAD TO Sta. 37+15.Q0 RT
-Yl- Sta, p+25,00 TO Sta If++5fy4
~~, z
w~ro eaTOe
Mw sir ra.
ow~r oes~ moeuera
e~ae~ erw~ta
tELIMIN Y PLANS
0o r,or uea c«+r~xvrnoe
ahra~.r
1 w~"csr -----
EXISTING GRWND
elAetE EXISTING GAWND
SIAPE
EXISTING GRWND
41ABLE
SlDPE
TYPICAL SECTION ON BRIDGE

~cr « ~o. snsr ~a.
wrm u
~v ~ ~a.
A61pNAY DEIGN
. 6VGN~l XMDIAIKKf
g
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
00 NOT Ud LGNRRVC710N
~MDGEOF9GIGIW,lA
a~~r
Y YIO~NLpM ~
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
.V

INot to scale)

Preformed
Scour Nole (PSH)
IRIp Rap In bas)
not shown for aariryl
Section A-A
3.0 ft. to 10.0 ft, of Permanent Soll
Reinforcement mooing lPSR1
to be prescribed around perimeter
of scour hole (see plan views);
Shall be graded level.
Fib
PPG Outlet otl PSR
d Natural
- --
--~i 0 ~-- ~ ---- ---~D~ound-
00 00o W
Liner: Class I Rip Rap
with Fliter Fabric ~ 8 ~ I.0 fT tuck
NOTE;'B"denotes size of basin; NOTE: The Permanent Sa1lRefnforcement
For example: S.Oft.x B.Oft. PSN, 8=5.0 matting (PSR) shall be seeded with native
grosses at Instcllatlon.
B D W d CLASS I* DDE * FI~TF_R
STATION PSR RIP RAP (CU YD) FABRIC
FT. FT. FT. FTL TONS (SO 1'D)
24+71-L-Rt. 4 1.5 5 0.5 9 15 13
27+71-L-Lt. 4 1.5 5 0,5 9 15 13
'~~,, ~fILL SLOPE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
NOT TO SCALE
PROPOSED ~`~
OUTLET DITCH ~`, DISSIPATOR POOL=L
-_____ L~
_____ "'=~-~ PRON
I
_- - J
~~ 2•~ p 2.ti ~0~~0
oOnn nn.,nnnn// IF,O 2.0 FT.
I -'T
CLASS I AIPRAP
FILTER FABRIC
PR(1F11 F
I`IUI IV JVNLC
PI AN UIFW
NOT TO SCALE
NATURAL GROUND

L
W
L
T
D CLASS ~` *
DDE FI~TER*
STATION P
FT P
FT A
FT
FT
FT RIP RAP
(CU YD~ FABRIC
. . . o . TONS (SO YDl
+/-24+25-L-Lt. 17 10 10 2 2' 62 78 50

* QUANTITIES FOR INFORMATION ONLY - INCIDENTAL TO "EACH" PAY ITEM

f _
4
N
y]
cowmen n: sws:
a~ sr: use
ruoiscT meiasa.a. seer ~.
LJYD! 3
NY seer ia.
~MOWAY DBWp
81Gr1l4 M9INAICf
RM~
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
m ewr ua coxenocrma,
811617E0611IMgpIP,fA
ar~~rr
W ro~KCnr

cowluno rc: ~ wl P. owe w7
gICRD n: e.~w. OM1E tm
-

naicr 66 P6A seer uo.
64705 3A
6w ai62T Pp.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
j~
~J~~}~~+~
LIST
F
A
" 6ow+wAr D81GN
6NGIN8A

PRELIMIN
m xor vs RrD6wI1Rs
@ION6R

RY PLANS
rnwrROCrwx
~
O
PIPES, FNDW
LLS, ETC, (FOR PIPES 48
~ VL~!/G!\)
4 ~~~W
11 WY{IlttM~ 71Me11E09pX41DIP,PA
~
6`671TAU2 ~ ~ F
~
~
~

sW1011

~

d
g
y9~

~

~
cuu w6.c nrE
M6a5 rat®
6lIIMI6101K caT®u ME TR'E 6
R6Rtt6 No1® onlarmq gAii N RC. PIR
a
u RPR rm~ A1lMM@D
1016 P6E, T1TE 5 OR D
aD.65am,
noa n
SID. p1.N ~
~
~ ~ A
~ `
~ +
~ <

5

gg

~ID HDOD
sDUlaum ea.w

~

°n

S

y"

~

n

~

g

i
R
;

~
a
~
~

~
s
~

s
S
~

s
3

=

°

~

3
G
~

~
y A1MIVIATi016

_

D.6 ~DR01 eNfl
~ i ~ w e w 0 3 ~ ~ ~ - ~ GDl GIAI® DRDP NN
S ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ € ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aDa. R+aa ~7 ~, s~
1~ 3
3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r u• w u• ao• 2v 12• a• u• w w ~r 2r u• u• Ir u• w w sr• 2a u• +r Ie•
~
~
~ cu roa. e A e
~
~
~
~
&
~ , F
~
~
0
d
~
~
~ ? s f
, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gin.
,,,C1°~
oR owc6
~
~
~
3
1
~
4
!
!
!
~
~
~
{
;
a °•
R ~ §
3
TYR DF DR1T!
E~ + ~`
Z ~
~ r
~
~
~
s
~
b ~
~ C
B ~
~
~ ~
• i! LID.L TLYflt 66,1pND DRa 611Ei
T.e1R TAAMC 161DN6 IUNCigN
4 4 S X S g
A g
G g
6 U~t d
U ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ •, i ~, L y
~
~ L ~ ~ e ° U e P a o o a J d s q
~ qq
6 ~ d ~ k
3 ~! £
3 ~ ~ w~uu0
t1,67L RT ~
16.56E u 6 mo 21636 ~ ~ ~
7 1 21636 116Ae 1eD
1700{. LT 1 21639 216.1! 1 1 1
1 6 21SA 2e7.6p 262
Q 2000{• LT 6 210.70 741.7 1 1 1
6 6 201.7 1a.0 2M
22M0{• LT 0 201.e0 207,1 1 1 1
2900{• e t 2ot.1 166D 61

26w{. Lr a 2a.6e 2m.e1 ~ ~ 1

4- ___- e w 2m.et 26uo m

,c
..., 2x36 1a30 H
7N60{. LT 0 2a.1n 201.M ~ ~ ~
10 12 7m3o 261.a ~
7a7o{. R7 a 2a.w 1o1.a ~ ~ ~
» 12 m.6e 2o1.a 60
7M77L RT N 1a.ee 2o1Ae 1 1 1
12 15 201.a 1w.o a 2

2M00{• RT N ,p7,62 7D1.62 1 1 7
11 16 101,62 ia.t/ ?0
2MT0{. RT 76 207.71 2a.N ~ ~ ~
16 16 70A71 209.11 6B
n+nk RT ro 2o6.u 7o9.u ~ ~ ~
ro a 2o5.a sazao n
27N6 {• LT T7 766.60 102.60 1 f 7
17 1B 202.90 y6p,6 b 1

5060{• RT /6 271,61 1OR61 1 1 1
- 10 10 20Ra FIST 67
90n01. RT m 70e2 F706'T
7

3596{. RT 21 f1e.1 W6T ~
56HD{. RT 21 211.60 E108T 1

6
~1

TOTAI 626 216 62 101 ?0 11 e t 1 1 e / 1 3 1
~~
~s

i K: I.M-. DAZE LAf
K:- O.LW. OpE la7
MY fl6r N 0.

STATE OF NORTH
CAR®LINA IOADWAY 06x11 NYDfrMAlCf
eaW~
~r - DIRANC4 neon IDa a 1w11 ro rAx a GIWOSAL
~i1Ng1D°`"'""'' °a''N°"a'"~0'TM'f°1AN°1°~"D~"~~• DIVISI®N OF HIGHWAYS
r1A1s learn . asrANa naA1 IAA StCleDll a rAlAllB GUAIMAIL ro 1lsD a GWIDIAL
w . >mA<wom a I7ME naA1 ILYdHMIfi a DYQ ro sa a GtNAD1AIL
G ~ ~~ IsrACr ~~ ~ ~

NG . NONGATWG M1rACrAilelMrot 7m 7!0 PRBLIMIN RY PLANS
0o nor uu ro oonlrnurnon
GUARDRAIL SU~RY
~ suDSnsfAa
GDU
rA
~
.,..~~ ~
,

Ilfem Ie1GM wAlyN11 r01rt w nA/l learn w ANCIa93 IIfAQ YIGI7
IFG.ITA B10 S7A LOGnON ~ AII A1~
~ iIIAIGIIf LIOr
01119® OOU81
(ACID AIAOAUI
BD TIAAING
Bf) M
IA.L ~
Want AfrI00ACN TYASRa ArraACN TIASWG
W-I
AT-I
Hl
TVE D BNMT01
~ ~ IA R7AIA6S

a-
uta
u+u
a
laso
77+w
W
nA ~
n! @ID ap
7
7 Ba
1 ~ G ~

~-
77+16
75+67
6
177
!0 . 1
. 71+67 1.9 NYIq IM 170 fA 1 1
~ 77+l6 71+91 lT 77!.00 71+10 IA n.0 115 7a 1 1
a. 77177 71+10 a 11.7! 17+77 I.f NIN NA 70 W I ~
~~ I I I ~~'
SAY I T9'
N
p CIAS II I.G lR
sunoN lip No7® onlennset
a
~

d
L
~ L
a
a
~ 3~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S1• f0' M• 7Y 71' M
4
nlaol3s ~ Q
a Gu1ce
1DN01• CL f 7 771.! 770A ~
LIST OF PIPES, ENDWALLS, ETC. (FOR PIPES S4" f~ OVER)
1G91NIIt®
Nn1NMO1A CWiW Cx.wE TY1I 1 slwl:nlul rlAll rll sm~ifer

31• f0' d6' TY 10' dd' 73'

slay v
8014 1 i
Gu® ~ ~ }

R O R S R a R ! R ! u » 17 w ti to
OA

~ AYAIrMT10115
C.1. CATCH IASW
g NA.I. NMOOIY DOa W{Ef
y i D,L Ola llEi
It ~ ~ GD.L GIA7® DIDf ONEI
~ r Isl' GD.L pLS.I G7AT® DAa WI7T
~~ ~

I' lA. l0NCI1011107
d ~ MIL AlAlxall
7.lD.L iG9RC IFAlI9G Dla NIET
~~
y
/
{ ~l
y ~ ~ T.I.AI. IIAIFIC IfA1NG AWCfaN qi
g
o
~
Z p
~g 9 ~ ~ ~ 1aAAp:1
REMOVAL OF EXISTING
ASPHALT PAVEMENT SUMMARY
~ funoN ro AATgN wunal SQUAH Y
~^ STA u+19 ro STA fs+76 a 7770
~ SM 71+T6 ro RA 7!113 R 16a
IOTAI 077
SAY 010
NOTE: APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES ONLY. UNCLASSIFIED
IXCAVATION, 80RROW IXCAVATION, FINE GRADING,
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, AND REMOVAL OF
EXISTING PAVEMENT WILL BE PA1D FOR AT THE
CONTRACT LUMP SUM PRICE FOR 'GRADING'.
9

F
N
l3
M:
wn e.oe
I~IVI~I®N ®~ ~[I~]HVVAI~Y~
SUI~ZMARY OF EARTHWORK
IN CUBIC YARDS

LOCATION UNCLASSIFIED
EXCAVATION
UNDERCUT EMBANKMENT
~%
BORROW
WASTE
SUMMARY#1
-L-10+00.00 TO -L• 25+65.00 (BEG BRIDGE) 7,62 11,783 4,155 0
-Y1.10+00.00 to -Y1.11+51.94 13 31
SUBTOTAL:SUMMARY#1 7,67 11,796 4,155 31

SUMMARY #2
•L- 27+35,00 (END BRIDGE) -L- 37+15.00 1,708 18,229 16,52
SUBTOTAL: SUMMARY #2 1,708 18,229 16,52

PROJECT TOTAL 9,380 30,02 20,678 3
LOSS DUE TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING (400) 400 400
WASTE TO BE USED IN LIEU OF BORROW (31) (31)

GRAND TOTAL 8,980 30,425 21,045

SAY * 9, 21,100

UNDERCUT CONTINGENCY (PER GEOTECH REPOR 600

NOTE: 1510 CY UNCLASSIFIED STRUCTURE EJ(CAVAT'pN MAY BE USED OJ
ROADWAY EMBANp,IENT IF DEEMED SURABLE BY ENGINEER AS
CONSTRUCTION PHASING ALLOWS.
* APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES ONLY. UNCLASSIFIED
EXCAVATION, FINE GRADING, CLEARING AND
GRUBBING, AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING PAVEMENT
WILL BE PAID FOR AT THE CONTRACT LUMP SUM
PRICE FOR "GRADING".
mama ~o.
PRELIMINARY PLANS

n
{0
N
J
W
V
O
W
QD
6
n
O
N
Si
i n; r. x. eua~a w~ iaa
IY:_Q.LW4Y9l ouE iur
~v~~v~~~~®LV ®~ v~v~~~~ YY ~ ll ~ ~7
PARCEL 111 tDEX SHEET
PARCEL No. SHEET No. PROPERTY OWNER NAME
1 4 DAVID D. FULLER, TRUSTEE
2 1 ORAGE P. MACON, ETAL
3 1 JAMES M, MACON, JR. AND DOROTHY P. MACON
4 5 THURMAN D. KITCHEN, III, ETAL
5 5 CADELL WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCUITI~J, INC.
8 5 CADELL WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
T 5 WESTMINISTER HOMES, INC
~e+a xo.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
~~~~~~~

~ -
ti
S 8644' R2' E
400110
68DO i
+CtlAO
fx ROW
~~.~ \
~~ ~ ~~
~~~ ~~- Q
KOAO ~ `N W
fX.lB1W
t1ANSnNH4Al stole
a'rleP uv
esr zT tora-
.°" ,,, ors Rr
+6rn
Ex,RCW
00.00 6204 ~
0+42.55,15.25' RT
p taa a r
eP Iw, rs sY rr
ON 11NT3 ONLY
+p80
ExEx-RCw
6645 Rf
GRACIE P. LIACON, ETAL
OB. 8492. PG. 1976
O
/~~~
-~.~.
ns,.G w ~ = S 88•
~_- fC`~,
.~_ ~~_.
~e ~ ~-
I ' ~/ +~
~m 58.00 RT ICI
"~ 1
w ~ sP1aALOrta ~3~
a ~+ STA 11+00 TO STA 17+10 a. RT m
'" Iq U+10 TO STA 14+BO a. Ri
aTwY n~wH~AI sroNe ~ nlaPlu -a e1ADe
BT 2.T TONS M9 CY 00E
+18.73 U fY R
EX,ROW
A95 ~ JANES M. NACON, JR.1
DOROTHY P.NACON
DB. R40, 0-E
DB. 4121, PG. I
O
o°
N p I
$'•
h
sPeaAL ortcx
RA 10+/0 TO aA n+20 .L, u
sa POOFIF rol woe
B4B CY DOE
DAV[I D, iULLER, TAUSTREE
D8.7461 PG. A]
O '
s r3s
ti~'' EXX ADW
~~
~ ~'
s•~____ c
RAr{? S -
i
I
I I

III -L-
I Pr Sta 15+33,94
~ = ITOr218'fLTJ
~ D = r 47' 258'
~ L = 950J3'
i T =47889'
~ ~ R = 3200A0'
~ i Ds = 50 IIPH
I ~ sE = OA4
~; ~
Flo
h~ ~ ^ to
1 o I^
I ~I RUNOFF = ~'
I
I f
I
~; ~ ~ ~
~
le ~i ~
~ 1 r
I ExT ~~ IExr;;
5) / Y
i J
' /
~"
- d.
I
j
1 ~ gt67
I l ~ ~ ~9 v
~
OAC71l#lApla No, urfr
uTOS q
iLw II~T No.
ADWAY DESKA4
FNGINEB
N
DAVID D. FULLER, TRUSTEE
- DB. 7461, PG. TSS
O
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
ro NOf VE ro axraucrtox
=,~w„r INILIeoeBel9AOLl,PA
r~
1. COI IIONIF OF. d. ~ f11EFT ND: 6
I. P01 IIORII Oh YI- fEF fXX4r N0:/
S• f46„QE -4 S@ SM[!T N0: Ll TFMU iLll
I. TOI CIOSS3ELTi0N1 OF. YI-SH SHHi NO: Ln
c• ~
I Ir~ ~; Ex FOW 68D0 LT

Tw
'
'
~ W ~
ws~
~ --__ ~ _
S'----- ~
~ --~------ w rcl.l
--
g \
~
~ ~ ~
~ c e
------
-~~.`~
p --- ----------- 17, ~
---
-------
101.1 -
1r
O
Fs
1

a ~ a~

...
L
PP
a
i
.

c ~ -~--~_
_..__.
N

.n.
IYP.
-_.__- ~__ .__ ._ - ti -
-_---_-"-
_
uwtOVl N 79'W'43.0'E- --- --_- - -----_ ' ~
-
___-=---

c -ems ~
--~_..-_~_ --- -
_ '
µ ~K
~-eeTAN 1^"
_ _ ~ waocs
- 0, m ~
1
t

-fiL 2- 10+67,08 PINC
cRAUE P. MACOH, ETAL 1
-l- 16+04.60, 42.21' RT DB. 1492. PG. I9i6
O
D
n
C
m"'
1
_~
(~O
~w}Q
U

w
Z
0
N_
Y
39 CY DDE..-.
(] [
O II
TAT
N
o~
~W
12
~ Ln
W
j~
2
U
Q
T
N
GRACIE P. MACON, ETAL
O6. 8492, PG. 1976
O
ERCAVATE E70mNG AOAO fEl
TO NATU0.A1 GROUND
+F 130 CY

~' CMANHEL BANK

8 700LB-70018 (MEDIAN 50% IOOLBI
EST +/-775 TONS I
Sj' EST +/-17
al

R
2
p
Re
~
qg
Ear
i& /
Wk
BRIDGE SKETCH
SROIIlDfR N END BRIDGE e~~Ef~RrrER
6ERM GG77fR -L- POT StO. Cl+35.O0
8-77 v B_n
t"' $
N T F

- -
N 7514' 27.0' E \ ~
~ c 1 --~

7YPE 111 $ h ~7YPf 111 GRAD 350
z~'cuRe °I " sloEwA1X
z~cuRe
axG currER BEGIN BRIDGE AWO GUTER
APPROACH SLAB
-L- POT Sta
25+65
00 APPROACH SLAB
-L- POT Sta. 25+41J0 .
. -L- Sta. 27+58.90
DETAIL I
LATERAL BASE DITCH
INOi to scaler
t ~ FN
owe 'i 0 IvFt, slope
IHer Mtn. O=LE Ft.
Fa6rlc
Max. d=LO Ft.
•Wnen B Ie f 6A' 8=2.0 Ft.
Q
•
LExu1~ATE mNG flu
TO NO
~ +F SSO CY
(DELL WOODS HOM WNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
DB. 8555, PG. 22690 ~"
5
7"
`.`
'.;. ` - C
WA STA JI+00 TO SfA J7+00 -1-
THURMAN D. KITCHE
76 CY DDE
!B TONS Cl'B'
RP RAT, d7 SY FF
TAT 2' IASE DDCX V/~3' BERM
NNED WKl 'Y ID 11P
PROTECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
8-3705 5
RM/ SHEET N0.
ROADWAY DESK',N NYDAAl1UC5
ENGINEER ENGINEER
W`°`~
NDTEs
1. f00. PROflLE OF -L- SEE SHEET N0: 7
7. F00. C0.035-SECTIONS OF {_ SEE SHEET NO: R-7 THRU 8-11
7. FOR mIl1CTURE PLANS SEE SHEET NO • $-1
U1
IATEMI V DDCN
STA J3+OD TO STA 3/+00 1- LT
SEE FAOflIE FOR GRADE
SEE DETAIL i2

'" ~ ONYDO CI
t ~~uE
Fcl r ,.~ PROP.z$CURB
AND GUTTER TO 11 _
I .
,~,:,-
ECI CUSTOM
HOMES, INC. HE DAEES COMPAN WILLIAM J. STONE DEREK & MARCENIA
DB. 9060, PG. I70 DB. 635& PC. p67 OB. 6BAI, PC.1969 ^ WIL6DN

r
.y.s~. ~.. J,.
`.3.:.
7;. _. E l_
ll V / ~15'::
CAOELL WOODS HOMEOWNERS r
ASSOCIATION, INC ~~r•I i I ~~
6.8667, PG. 2778
I
Ica ~~
II
0
I
I !!- --~ ~ -,~„~
•.:T 'ter' ~~
~' -_':
-L-
DP rAr,e9 sr EF
Pt = 30+73.02 P! = 35+4014
p = 552'02J'(RTJ p = 8'01'21.3'(LTJ
D = f 32' 547 D = 2'!7' 30.8'

L =378.89'
L = 35012' PRELIM[N RY PL DNS
T = 189.81' T = A5.35' pa war use P mNSrBUrnon
R = 3700,00' R =2,500.00'
DS = 50 MPH DS = 50 MPR
SE = OA3 SE = 0.04
RUNOFF = 72' RUNOFF = 96' ~ mom.,,,..... ~"iE°~~"wrRR,PA
DETAIL 2
SPECIA A A 'V' DITCH
I Not to Scdel
FII
Na}urd eTp~Ste< 9npe
OrouM 0
~ Mln 0= 1,9 Ft.
FoBfm Max. d= L0 Ft.

. Nt01. REFNlH1CE N0. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS
~°~°1~'j ~~~®~j1 ~~T ®~ JCA7~L~~~('~ VV ~ ll ~ 8.3705 1F1 1Y
1l ~ 1l ll.'s ~ ll' 1 ~ ®R ~ J(ll V~ L71 ~ ®~ ~ 1 V L]~ NGTE A11~)aMT! GyAN0116 ONLY. UNgAtSNI®
EKGWATiON, NNE GRADING, GlMING AND
CROSS-SECTIOL \ S UI ~~ ~L I i~ .R ~ GEUIMNG, AND !EEMOYAI GP EgS11NG MYEMBR
VA1L IE MID FOE AT THE OONISACT UJMF SUM
NJQ FOB 'GMDWG'.
IN CUBIC YARDS
3EFtlon Und.Ela, Em6t * Bhtlon UIId.E3oe. Ent
L (w.yd) (eu,yd.) L (w,yd.) (~Yd)
Bhual Unel, Ells, EnJlt
ri (eu.yd) Iw,yd)
# EXCLIIDEBDACKFLLPORIIHDEROUTEXCAVATION
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ro trot ore Boa caxrrxucna+

,.

'J

,M

r-

-_

,~
~J
:.

r

f
w
t~
,t.
',R .
1

_.. _
.._.
~ • ~'
~~ w
a.

•

A
Wake County
SR 2045
Bridge No. 125 Over Smith Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2045(1)
State Project 8.2408001
T1P Project No. B-3705
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
r
y
DATE L. Gail Grimes, ., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
" NCDOT
c3/ ~~
A ~ Nicholas L. Graf, P. .
Division Administrator, FHWA

V
.,
Wake County
S R 2045
Bridge No. 125 Over Smith Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2045(1)

State Project 8.2408001
TIP Project No. B-3705
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 2002
Document Prepared by
E A R T H `] T E C H
A>t//CO /NTERNATIONAL L7D. COMPANY

Edward B. McFalls, P.E., Project Manager
Earth Tech, Inc.
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
" r
Brian F. Yamam o, Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Project Development and Environmenital Analysis Branch
J onto .,
nsultant Engineering Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
`\\~\\Ilill/~1j/''
HC
0 EAL , ~~
. ~,.\y
~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~
9'S~®® ~CC ``,``~
Ss~/IBSeoentN\\[\`
tea.. * •.9~
w ;' JOHN G. ~'•~
~ ; : CONFORTI =z
~'•. REM ~
: mod; •_ 9766 : fir''

SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Wake County
SR 2045
Bridge No. 125 Over Smith Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2045(1)
State Project 8.2408001
TIP Project No. B-3705
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 Bridge Demolition and Removal, NCDOT's Guidelines
for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General
Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the
following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis . Branch, and
Hydraulics Unit. The stream impacts associated with the project will likely
be lower than the 150 linear-foot (45.7 m) threshold. If it becomes apparent
during final design that more than 150 linear feet (45.7 m) of stream will be
impacted, mitigation measures will be considered.
Categorical Exclusion
July 2002

Wake County
S R 2045
Bridge No. 125 Over Smith Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2045(1)
State Project 8.2408001
TIP Project No. B-3705
- INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 125 is included in the 2002-
2008 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation
Improvement Program 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
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency
rating of 6 out of a possible of 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered
functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The replacement of this
inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2045 (Burlington Mills Road) in Wake County is functionally classified as a
"Rural Minor Collector" in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Through the project area, SR 2045 has an 18-foot (5.5 m) wide pavement and
6-foot (1.8 m) unstabilized shoulders. There is a widened curb-and-gutter section
in front on the southeast side of the bridge. There is no recorded right-of-way;
therefore, right-of-way is assumed to be to the edge of the pavement. The
horizontal and vertical alignments are adequate. The speed limit posted on
SR 2045 is 45 mph near the bridge. The existing bridge and roadway are shown
- in Figure 4.
The existing bridge was constructed in 1953. The superstructure consists of a
reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. The substructure consists of timber
caps on timber piles. The existing bridge consists of two 17-foot 9-inch (5.4 m)
spans and five 17-foot 0-inch (5.2 m) spans with a clear roadway width of 24 feet
(7.3 m). The crown of the roadway is situated 16 feet (4.9 m) over the bed of
Smith Creek. The posted weight limit is 18 tons for single vehicles and 26 tons
for trucks with trailers. The bridge is located in a tangent section of SR 2045 and
crosses Smith Creek at approximately 90 degrees.
1

7,900 vehicles per day currently cross Bridge No. 125 on SR 2045. By the design
year 2025, the average daily traffic volume is expected to increase to
15,000 vehicles per day. The projected traffic volume includes two percent dual-
tired vehicles and one percent truck-tractor semi-trailers. Twelve school buses
each cross the bridge two times daily. SR 2045 is not a designated bicycle route.
Three accidents were reported approximately 500 feet (152 m) from Bridge
No. 125 in the period between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2001. In
addition, there were seven other accidents in the project vicinity mostly involving
animals. Two of these accidents (not involving animals) occurred within 100 feet
(30 m) of each other. One accident, the vehicle ran off the road to the right and
alcohol impairment was suspected according to NCDOT Traffic Engineering
Accident Analysis System. Another accident involved two vehicles sideswiping
each other.
Underground telephone cable is located on the north side of SR 2045. The line
crosses Smiths Creek on two poles. Overhead power and telephone lines are
located on the south side of the existing structure. A fire hydrant is located
approximately 150 feet (46 m) east of the bridge on the south side of SR 2045.
There is curb and gutter on the south side of SR 2045 east of the bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The project replaces the existing bridge with a new bridge approximately on the
existing horizontal alignment and above the existing grade. The bridge will carry
two lanes of traffic over Smith Creek. It will have two 12-foot (3.6 m) lanes with
3-foot (0.9 m) shoulders. The bridge approaches will have two 12-foot (3.6 m)
lanes with 8-foot (2.4 m) shoulders, 4 feet (1.2 m) of the shoulders being paved.
The bridge is anticipated to be approximately 120 feet (37 m) long. Figure 3
shows the typical cross-sections of the roadway approaches and bridge. The
proposed design speed is 50 miles per hour (80 kilometers per hour).
B. Detailed Study Alternatives
Four alternatives were carried forward for detailed study in this Categorical
Exclusion. They are shown on Figure 2 and described below.
Alternative 1. This alternative replaces the bridge on its existing horizontal
alignment while maintaining traffic on-site during construction on a temporary
detour to the north of the existing bridge. The bridge would have a 30-foot
(9.1 m) wide deck.
2

Alternative 2. This alternative replaces the bridge on its existing horizontal
alignment while maintaining traffic on-site during construction on a temporary
detour to the south of the existing bridge. The bridge would have a 30-foot
(9.1 m) wide deck.
Alternative 3. This alternative replaces the bridge on its existing horizontal
alignment while using an off-site detour to maintain traffic during
construction. The bridge would have a 30-foot (9.1 m) wide deck. The detour
consists of US 1, US 1 A, SR 2044 (Ligon Mill Road), and SR 2045
(Burlington Mill Road). The total off-site detour length is approximately
6.2 miles (10 km). The detour is shown on Figure 1.
Alternative 4. This alternative replaces the bridge on its existing horizontal
alignment while using multi-staged construction to maintain traffic on-site
during construction. The bridge would have a 70-foot (21 m) wide deck. In
Stage 1, the north side of the new bridge will be constructed while
maintaining traffic on the existing bridge. Traffic will be shifted over to the
north side of the new bridge in Stage 2. The existing bridge will be removed
and the south side of the new bridge will be constructed. Stage 3 will consist
of shifting traffic to the south to line up with the existing horizontal alignment.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
No Action Alternative. This alternative consists of short-term minor
reconstruction and maintenance activities that are part of an ongoing plan for
continuing operation of the existing bridge and roadway system in the project
area. Many of the structural elements are decaying. Decay has already reduced
the bridge's safe load-bearing capacity.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative. 4, replacing the existing bridge on its existing horizontal alignment
while using multi-staged construction to maintain traffic on-site during
construction is the preferred alternative. Alternative 4 was selected because:
• It avoids community and commuter disruption caused by using an off-site
detour during construction.
It has the fewer overall natural resources and right-of-way impacts than
the on-site detour alternatives.
• It is less costly than the other on-site detour alternatives.
3

IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
Construction and right-of-way cost estimates for the alternatives studied are
presented below in Table 1.
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Preferred
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Structure Removal $24,200 $24,200 $24,200 $28,500
Structure $273,000 $273,000 $273,000 $738,000
Roadway Approaches $269,294 $269,294 $269,294 $611,384
Detour Structure & Approaches $982,894 $982,894 N/A N/A
Miscellaneous and Mobilization (15%
Structure) $59,050 $59,050 $44,800 $114,500
Miscellaneous and Mobilization (45%
Roadway) $496,562
$561,562
$121,706
$275,616
Engineering and Contingencies $345,000 $350,000 $117,000 $282,000
Right-of-way/Utilities/Relocations $79,450 $79,450 $30,000 $79,450
Total Cost of Alternative $2,529,450 $2,599,450 $880,000 $2,129,450
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program, is $785,000 including $60,000 for right-of-way and
$600,000 for construction. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled for Federal
Fiscal Year 2002, with construction to follow in Federal Fiscal Year 2003.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Published information and resources were collected prior to the field
investigation. Information sources used to prepare this report include the
following:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Wake Forest,
1987)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map (Wake Forest, 1987)
4

• NCDOT aerial photograph of project area (1:1200)
• Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina (Natural Resources
Conservation Service [NRCS) 1970)
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) basin-wide assessment information (NCDENR, 1996)
' USFWS list of protected and candidate species
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and
unique habitats
Water resource information was obtained from publications posted on the World
Wide Web by NCDENR Division of Water Quality. Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species in the study area was obtained from
the USFWS list of protected and candidate species (March 2002), posted on the
World Wide Web by the Ecological Services branch of the USFWS office in
North Carolina. Information concerning species under state protection was
obtained from the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats. NHP files
were reviewed for documented sightings of species on state or federal lists and
locations of significant natural areas.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project route by Earth
Tech biologists on December 7, 2000. Water resources were identified and their
physical characteristics were recorded. For the purposes of this study, a brief
habitat assessment was performed within the project area of Smith Creek. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of
observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations, and
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley
(1990) where appropriate and plant taxonomy follows Radford et al. (1968).
Vertebrate taxonomy follows Potter et a/. (1980), Martof et al. (1980), and
Webster et a/. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped using aerial
photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community
composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing
vegetative communities.
' Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were delineated and evaluated based on
criteria established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
_ Manual (USAGE, 1987). Wetlands were classified based on Cowardin et al.
(1979).
B. Physiography and Soils
The project area lies in the central portion of North Carolina within the Piedmont
physiographic province. Elevations in the project area are approximately 190 feet
(57.6 m) above mean sea level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929). The
topography of the project vicinity is hilly with gentle slopes rising from both
riverbanks.
5

The proposed project is in a rural area in Wake County between US1 and SR
2044 (Ligon Mill Road). Wake County's major economic resources are business,
education, and industry. The population of Wake County in 1999 was 592,218
(North Carolina Office of State Budget, Planning and Management 1999).
Information about soils in the project area was taken from the Soil Survey of
Wake County, North Carolina (USDA, 1970). The map units in the project area -
are Wehadkee and Bibb, and Helena sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slope, eroded
soils.
• Wehadkee and Bibb (Wo) soils are nearly level, poorly drained soils
found in floodplains, narrow upland draws and in depressions throughout
the county. This soil is mapped along the banks of the project area.
These soils are wet, subject to frequent flooding of long duration, and the
water table may be at the surface for nearly six months. Surface runoff is
slow to ponded and infiltration is good to fair. The Wehadkee and Bibb
soil series are on the state list of hydric soils.
• Helena sandy loam (HeC2), 6 to 10 percent slope, eroded soils are
mapped within the project area. This soil is found on narrow slopes in the
uplands, has fair infiltration, slow permeability, and rapid runoff. The water
table is perched as a result of slow permeability.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average
height, in feet, that dominant and co-dominant trees of a given species attain in a
specified number of years (typically 50). The site index applies to fully-stocked,
even-aged, unmanaged stands. The soils in the project area have the following
site indices:
• The Wehadkee and Bibb soils have a site index of 85 to 95 for loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and water oak
(Quercus nigra), and 85 to 100 for tulip poplar (Liriodendron tu/ipifera).
• The Helena sandy loam soils have a site index of 75 to 85 for loblolly
pine, sweetgum, and tulip poplar, and 60 to 70 for shortleaf pine (Pinus
echinata),
C. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resources assessments include the
physical characteristics likely to be impacted by the proposed project
(determined by field survey), best usage classifications, and water quality
aspects of the water resources. Probable impacts to surface waters are also
discussed, as well as means to minimize impacts.
6

i. Waters Impacted
The project is located in the Neuse River basin (NEU02 sub-basin). Smith Creek
originates about 9 miles (14.6 km) northeast of the project area, just east of
Wake Forest, NC. It drains the Wake Forest Reservoir and adjacent rural areas.
The creek flows in a southwesterly direction to the project area. From the project
area, the creek flows south for 0.75 miles (1.2 km) to its confluence with the
Neuse River.
Smith Creek is approximately 35 feet (10.6 m) wide within the study area, except
in the area directly under the bridge where the stream constricts to a width of 8
feet (2.4 m). The banks are generally 4 feet (1.2 m) high, well-vegetated, and
have very little slumping. A wide to moderate floodplain is found on both sides of
the stream. The water clarity is moderate to poor, flow is moderate, and
substrate is sand and gravel. A large sand levee is present along nearly the
entire length of the western bank of the stream within the project area. On the
south (downstream) side of the bride there are large sand and gravel bars on the
inside of the meander bends. A canopy of hardwoods provides 90 percent
canopy cover.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ that
is designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state.
Smith Creek [Index # 27-23-(2)j is classified as a Class C NSW water body
(NCDENR, 2001). Classification and index numbers for Smith Creek change
both above and below Wake Forest Reservoir. The project site lies entirely within
the C NSW classified section. Class C water resources are waters protected for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses
involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an
infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. NSW, or nutrient sensitive waters
require limits on nutrient inputs. There are no restrictions on watershed
development activities in the project area.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1 mile (1.6 km) of
the project study area.
The project area is in a moderately to heavily developed watershed.
Disturbances to the landscape were observed in the immediate vicinity, including
a large residential area, and small agricultural fields. Potential threats to stream
quality in this area are continued residential development that would result in
increased sedimentation within the stream.
7

Basin-wide water quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental
Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section of the DWQ (Jan 2001). The program
has established monitoring stations for sampling selected benthic
macroinvertebrates, which are known to have varying levels of tolerance to water
pollution. An index of water quality can be derived from the number of taxa
present and the ratio of tolerant to intolerant taxa. Streams can then be given a
bioclassification ranging from Poor to Excellent.
There are three monitoring stations on Smith Creek. The station furthest
upstream from the project site is located about 2.5 miles (4.05 km) upstream
where the stream crosses SR 2049. It was sampled in December 1986 and
classified as Fair. Another station is located about 1 mile (1.62 km) upstream of
the project area where the creek crosses SR 2044. It was sampled in December
1986 and classified as Poor. A third station is located at the bridge within the
project area. It was sampled in December of 1986 and given a Poor rating, then
again in July 1995 and given aGood-Fair rating.
Point source discharges in North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the
DWQ. Municipal, industrial, and other facilities that discharge directly into
surface waters must obtain a permit. Homes that use a municipal wastewater
system or a septic system, and do not discharge to surface waters do not require
a permit under the program. There are two permits issued to discharge in Smith
Creek as of January 2001 (NCDENR 2001).
One Minor, Non-municipal permit (#NC0007528) is issued to Wake Forest
Township Wastewater Treatment Plant to discharge in Smith Creek about 0.5
miles (0.3 km) downstream from the project site. This permit is classified as
"Water Plants, Surface Water". Another Minor, Non-municipal permit
(#NC0073318) is issued to Ira D. Lee of Whipporwill Valley to discharge into
Smith Creek about 0.75 miles (0.46 km) upstream from the project site. This
permit is classified as "Domestic, Subdivisions".
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a) Generallmpacts
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms.
Temporary impacts during the construction phases may result in long-term
impacts to the aquatic community. In general, replacing an existing structure in
the same location with an off-site detour is the preferred environmental
approach. Bridge replacement at a new location results in more severe impacts,
and physical impacts are incurred at the point of bridge replacement.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water
resources:
8

• Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed
vegetation removal, erosion, and/or construction.
• Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
• Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation
removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction activities and construction equipment, and spills from
construction equipment.
• Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or
additions to surface and groundwater flow from construction.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities.
Efforts will be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will
be implemented, as applicable, during the construction phase of the project to
ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
Case 3 applies to this bridge replacement project because Smith Creek has not
been identified as a special resource water, is not associated with fish migration,
spawning or larval recruitment, and is not known to contain any threatened or
endangered species.
The superstructure consists of reinforced concrete with timber joints. The
substructure consists of end bents and internal bents, and timber caps on timber
piles. The maximum potential fill is 60.59 cubic yards (46.32 cubic meters).
D. Biotic Resources
Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in the description of biotic
- resources. Living systems described in the following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the
dominant flora and fauna in each community and the relationships of these biotic
components. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context
of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible. They are also cross-referenced to The Nature
Conservancy International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial
Vegetation of the Southeastern United States (Weakley et al., 1998), which has
recently been adopted as the standard land cover classification by the Federal
Geographic Data Committee. Representative animal species that are likely to
occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the
9

plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same species
are by the common name only.
1. Plant Communities
Five terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a disturbed
roadside community, a floodplain forest, an upland forest, a pine plantation, and
a wetland. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas -
will be discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to
the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be
mentioned separately in each community description.
a) Disturbed Roadside Community
This community covers the area along the road shoulders in the project area.
Species include greenbriar (Smilax sp.), a variety of grasses (including Festuca),
privet (Ligustrum sp.), dewberry (Rubus sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), wild onion (Allium cernuum), henbit (Lamium amp/exicau/e), clover
(Lespedeza sp.), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.).
b) Floodplain Forest Community
This community occurs along the banks of Smith Creek. Canopy species include
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica var.
subintegerrima), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and river birch (Betula
nigra). The understory includes red maple (Acer rubrum), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), Japanese honeysuckle, dewberry, .glaucous greenbriar (Smilax
g/auca), grapevine (Vitis sp.), winged elm (U/mus a/ata), box elder (Acer
negundo), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and
privet. This community probably represents a marginal example of a
Piedmont/Mountain Levee forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
The TNC classification is most likely 1.6.2.N.d.13 P/atanus occidentalis-(Fraxinus
pennsylvanica, Celtis laevigata, Acer saccharinum) Temporarily Flooded Forest
Alliance.
c) Upland Forest Community
An upland forest community is present along the periphery of both wetland areas
and the floodplain forests within the project area. Tree species in this community
include loblolly pine (Pious taeda), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweetgum, southern red oak (Quercus falcata), white oak (Quercus a/ba), red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana), winged elm, and dogwood (Corpus f/orida). Little to
no herbaceous vegetation was observed due to the time of year the site visit
occurred. This community is probably an example of a Basic Mesic Forest
(Piedmont Subtype) as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The TNC
10

classification is most likely I.C.3.N.a.23 Pinus taeda - (Liquidambar styraciflua,
Liriodendron tulipifera) forest alliance.
d) Pine Plantation Community
This community is present on the northeast side of Smith's Creek. This
community contains only 15 to 20 year-old loblolly pine and various grasses.
There are no community types listed by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The TNC
equivalent is I.A.8.C.x.9 Pinus taeda Planted Forest Alliance.
e) Wetland Community
A forested wetland community is present on the northwest side of Smith Creek.
In general, the plants within this community are growing in Wehadkee and Bibb
soil. This wetland community is dominated by sweetgum, willow oak (Quercus
phellos), red maple, sycamore, and green ash. Other shrub species include
ironwood, privet, greenbriar, poison ivy, and cross vine (Bignonea capreolata).
Herbaceous vegetation includes giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and sedge
(Carex sp.). This community is similar in part to the Piedmont/Mountain Swamp
Forest community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The TNC
equivalent is 111.B.2.N.d.12. Liquidambar styraciflua- (Liriodendron tulipifera, Acer
rubrum) Temporarily Flooded Forest Alliance.
A second forested wetland community lies on the southeast side of Smith Creek.
The plants of this wetland are also growing in Wehadkee and Bibb soil. Tree
species in this wetland include sweetgum, sycamore, red maple, green ash, and
willow oak. Shrubs include red maple, green, winged elm, American holly (Ilex
opaca), and ironwood. Vines and herbaceous vegetation include greenbriar,
poison ivy, sedges, soft rush (Juncus effusus), and asters (Aster sp.). This
wetland community is also similar in part to the Piedmont/Mountain Swamp
Forest Community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The TNC
equivalent is also III.B.2.N.d.12. Liquidambar styraciflua- (Liriodendron tulipifera,
Acer rubrum) Temporarily Flooded Forest Alliance.
2. Wildlife Communities
a) Disturbed Roadside Community
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both
living and dead faunal components. Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and American robin (Turdus migratorius) are common
birds that use these habitats. The area may also be used by the Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), various species of ,mice (Peromyscus sp.),
11

Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and American toad (Bufo
americanus).
b) Floodplain Forest Community
While visiting this site, Earth Tech biologists observed downy woodpecker '
(Picoides pubescens), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendu/a), tufted titmouse
(Parus bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), yellow-bellied
sapsucker (Sphyrapicus various), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Raccoon (Procyon lotor) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) may also
be expected here, along with Carolina wren (Thryothorus /udovicianus), and
eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina).
c) Upland Forest Community
On the day of the site visit Earth Tech biologists observed red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis),
yellow-romped warbler (Dendroica coronata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), and song sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus). Rubbings of white-tailed
deer were also seen within this community. Other species that might be
expected include gray squirrel, southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), white-
breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), and eastern box turtle.
d) Pine Plantation Community
Animals expected in this community include pine warbler (Dendroica pious),
ruby-crowned kinglet, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern mole (Scalopus
aquaticus), and corn snake (Elaphe guttata gutfata).
e) Wetland Community
Due to the small size of these wetlands, the animals that utilize this community
are essentially the same as those found in the Floodplain Forest. However, on
the day of the site visit spring peepers (Pseudacris crucifer) were heard. Other
amphibians such as southern cricket frogs (Acris gry/lus) and southern chorus
frogs (Pseudacris nigrita) may also utilize this wet area.
3. Aquatic Communities
Within the project area, Smith Creek is aloes-gradient, third-order stream. The
bed material consists of mostly of sand and gravel. On the day of the site visit,
the water flow was moderate and clarity was moderate to poor. The riparian
community is mostly deciduous trees and mixed evergreen-deciduous shrubs.
No aquatic vegetation was observed.
12

Smith Creek has not been identified by fisheries biologists at the Wildlife
Resources Commission as an important spawning area for any anadramous
fishes.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described
terrestrial and aquatic communities. Any construction activities in or near these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the
project area in terms of the area impacted and the plants and animals affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
a) Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by
project construction from clearing and paving. Estimated impacts are based on
the length of the alternative and the entire study corridor width. Alternative 1 and
its detour are a total of 180 feet (54.5 m) wide. The bridge replacement portion of
Alternative 1 is 850 feet (258.6 m) long and 90 feet (27.3 m) wide, and the detour
for Alternative 1 is 1757 feet (532.4 m) long and 90 feet (27.3 m) wide. The
bridge replacement portion of Alternative 2 is 850 feet (258.6 m) long and 90 feet
(27.3 m) wide, and the detour is 1702 feet (515.8 m) long and 90 feet (27.3 m)
wide. Table 2 describes the potential impacts to terrestrial communities by
habitat type. Because impacts are based on the entire study corridor width, the
actual loss of habitat will likely be less than the estimate.
Table 2. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Area of Im act in Acres Hectares
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Communi Tem Perm. Tem Perm. Tem Perm. Tem Perm.
Disturbed 0.33 0.61 0.35 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.00 1.68
Roadside 0.12 0.22 0.13 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.68
Floodplain Forest 0.81 0.25 0.29 0.25 0.00 0.25 0:00 0.52
0.29 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.21
Upland Forest 0.97 0.23 1.62 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.85
0.35 0.08 0.59 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.34
Pine Plantation 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wetland 0.42 0.07 0.43 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.24
0.15 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.10
Totallmpact 2.74 1.16 2.69 1.16 0.00 1.16 0.00 3.29
0.99 0.42 0.99 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00) 1.33)
13

Alternative 3's permanent impacts are the same as Alternatives 1 and 2, but
there are no temporary impacts. Alternative 4, will have less overall impacts as
compared to Alternatives 1 and 2.
Destruction of natural communities along the project alignment will result in the
loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize
the area. Animal species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult
birds, mammals, and some reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during
construction. Young animals and less mobile species, such as many amphibians,
may suffer direct loss during construction. The plants and animals that are found
in the upland communities are generally common throughout the piedmont of
North Carolina.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to
moderate slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. Construction impacts may not be restricted
to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect
downstream communities. Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment
leaves the construction site.
b) Wetland Communities
Two forested palustrine wetlands were identified within the project area.
Alternative 1 would impact 0.49 acres (0.18 hectares [haJ) of the wetland
community; Alternative 2 would impact 0.50 acres (0.19 ha) of the wetland
community; Alternative 3 would impact 0.07 acres (0.03 ha) of the wetland
community; and Alternative 4 would impact 0.24 acres (0.10 ha) of the wetland
community. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on
the surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction
of the USACE and the DWQ.
c) Aquatic Communities
Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperatures as a
result of the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the
aquatic and terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by
losses in the terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will
affect terrestrial fauna which rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from
increased sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during
construction and recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized.
Sediments have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways,
including the clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces,
affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water
14

chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased sedimentation may
cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity.
Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge
construction. Potential adverse effects can be minimized through the
implementation of NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters. Because the stream in the proposed project area is designated as a
WS-IV water, erosion control methods for high quality waters will be
implemented as included in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection
of Surface Waters and Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines.
E. Special Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses for two federal and state
regulatory issues: "Waters of the United States." and rare and protected species.
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as defined in 33 CFR § 328.3 and in accordance with provisions
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). These waters are
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Any action that
proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls
under these provisions.
The Wake Forest, NC NWI map shows a palustrine forested temporarily flooded
wetland on both banks of Smith Creek within the proposed project area. A site
visit confirmed the presence of two jurisdictional wetlands; one each on the
northwest and southeast sides of the stream within the project area. Smith Creek
meets the definition of surface waters, and is therefore classified as Waters of
the United States. The channel is 10 feet (3 m) wide within the project area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on the surface
waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
USAGE and the DWQ. Within the project area, Smith Creek is 13 feet (10.6 m)
wide. Assuming two study corridors of 90 feet (27.3 m) for each alternate, the
construction of the new bridge will impact 180 linear feet (54.5 m) of stream, and
a total area of 2340 sq feet (709 sq m) of surface waters.
Two forested palustrine wetlands were identified within the project area.
Alternative 1 would impact 0.49 acres (0.18 hectares [ha]) of the wetland
community; Alternative 2 would impact 0.50 acres (0.19 ha) of the wetland
community; Alternative 3 would impact 0.07 acres (0.03 ha) of the wetland
community; and Alternative 4 would impact 0.24 acres (0.10 ha) of the wetland
community.
15

2. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. Permits and certifications from various state and federal agencies may
be required prior to construction activities.
a) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23, as
promulgated under 61 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in
whole or in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act:
• 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
the Office of the Chief Engineer has been furnished notice of the
agency's or department's application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with that determination.
b) Section 401 Water Quality Certification
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver thereof,
from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prior to
issuance of the NWP 23. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the
state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that results in a discharge into Waters of the U.S. Final permit decision
rests with the USACE.
c) Bridge Demolition and Removal
Demolition and removal of a highway bridge over Waters of the United States -
requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers if dropping components
of the bridge into the water is the only practical. means of demolition. Effective
9/20/99, this permit is included with the permit for bridge reconstruction. The
permit application henceforth will require disclosure of demolition methods and
potential impacts to the body of water in the planning document for the bridge
reconstruction.
Section 402-2 "Removal of Existing Structures" of NCDOT's Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures stipulates that "excavated materials shall
16

not be deposited....in rivers, streams, or impoundments," and "the dropping of
parts or components of structures into any body of water will not be permitted
unless there is no other practical method of removal. The removal from the
water of any part or component of a structure shall be done so as to keep any
resulting siltation to a minimum." To meet these specifications, NCDOT shall
adhere to Best Management Practices for the Protection. of Surface Waters, as
supplemented with Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal.
In addition, all in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as
follows:
Case 1) In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the
presence of special resource waters or threatened and/or endangered
species, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the
water. The work is carefully coordinated with the responsible agency to
protect the Special Resource Water or T&E species.
Case 2) No work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated
with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3) No special restrictions other than those outlined in Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
Case 3 applies to this bridge replacement project because Smith Creek has not
been identified as a special resource water, is not associated with fish migration,
spawning or larval recruitment, and is not known to contain any threatened or
endangered species.
The stream bed in the project area is nearly all sand and gravel. Therefore,
conditions in the stream do not raise sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is
not recommended.
3. Buffer Rules
As the project is located in the Neuse River Basin, Riparian Area Rules for
Nutrient Sensitive Waters apply. The rules state that roads, bridges, stormwater
- management facilities, ponds, and utilities may be allowed where no practical
alternative exists. They also state that these structures shall be located,
designed, constructed, and maintained to have minimal disturbance, to provide
maximum erosion protection, to have the least adverse effects on aquatic life
and habitat, and to protect water quality to the maximum extent practical through
the use of best management practices. Every reasonable effort will be made to
avoid and minimize wetland and stream impacts. The Authorization Certificate
for Neuse Buffer Impacts will be requested along with the 401 Water Quality
Certification.
17

4. Mitigation
Because this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide Permit,
mitigation for impacts to surface waters may or may not be required by the
USACE. In accordance with the Division of Water Quality Wetland Rules [15A
NCAC 211 .0506 (h)] "Fill or alteration of more than one acre of wetlands will
require compensatory mitigation; and fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet
(45.6 m) of streams may require compensatory mitigation." Because wetland
impacts will be less than an acre, wetland mitigation likely will not be required. A
total of 275 linear feet (83.3 m) of Smith Creek are located within the study
corridor for the proposed project. If the final length of stream impact is greater
than 150 linear feet (45.6 m), compensatory mitigation may be required.
F. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural
forces or their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and
protected species listed for Wake County, and any likely impacts to these
species as a result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the
following sections.
i. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
The USFWS lists 4 species under federal protection for Wake County as of
March 2002. These species are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Species Under Federal Protection for Wake County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
ertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel lasmidonta heterodon Endangered
ascular Plants
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Notes: Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or
significant portion of its range.
Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species withi
the foreseeable future throu hout all or a si nificant ortion of its ran e.
18

A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each
species follows, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact.
Hallaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: 1967
A large raptor, the bald eagle has a wingspread of about 7 feet (2.12 m). Its
plumage is mainly dark brown, and adults have a pure white head and tail. First
year juveniles are often chocolate brown to blackish, sometimes with white
mottling on the tail, belly, and underwings. The head and tail become
increasingly white with age until full adult plumage is reached in the fifth or sixth
year. An opportunistic predator, the bald eagle feeds primarily on fish but also
takes a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles (both live and as carrion) when
fish are not readily available.
The bald eagle is primarily riparian, associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes,
usually nesting near bodies of water where it feeds. Selection of nesting sites
varies tremendously depending on the species of trees growing in a particular
area. In the Southeast, nests are constructed in dominant or codominant pines
or cypress. Nests are usually constructed in living trees, but bald eagles will
occasionally use dead ones.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable nesting sites exist within the project area. Furthermore, Smith Creek
is not large enough to provide an adequate food source for bald eagles. A review
of the NHP files did not reveal any records of bald eagles in the project vicinity. It
can be determined that the project will not impact this threatened species.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small to medium sized bird about 8 inches
(20.32 centimeters [cm]) long, with a wingspan of 13.8 to 14.96 inches (35 to 38
cm). There are black and white horizontal stripes on its back, and its cheeks and
underparts are white. Its flanks are black streaked. The cap and stripe on the
side of the neck and the throat are black. The male has a small red spot on each
side of the black cap. After the first post-fledgling molt, fledgling males have a
red crown patch. This woodpecker's diet is composed mainly of insects, which
include ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, caterpillars, and corn earworms if
available. About 16 to 18 percent of the diet includes seasonal wild fruit.
19

Open stands of pines with a minimum age of 80 to 120 years, depending on the
site, provide suitable nesting habitat. Longleaf pines (Pious pa/ustris) are most
commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense
stands (stands that are primarily hardwood, or that have a dense hardwood
understory) are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood
stands 30 years old or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches
(25.4 cm) or larger in diameter. In good, well-stocked, pine habitat, sufficient
foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres (29.2 to 45.6 hectares).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Within the project area no suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat exists.
These birds are not associated with hardwood riparian areas or hurnan-
dominated maintained habitats. The pine plantation within the project area does
not contain pine trees mature enough to contain nest cavities used by red-
cockaded woodpeckers. A search of the NHP files did not reveal any records of
red-cockaded woodpeckers in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
project will not threaten this endangered species.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Threatened
Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1990
The dwarf wedge mussel's shell rarely exceeds 1.5 in (3.81 cm) in length. It is
also the only North American freshwater mussel that has two lateral teeth on the
right valve, but only one on the left (Fuller, 1977). The female's shell is inflated in
the back where the marsupial gills are located. Little is known about the species'
life history and reproductive cycle. Gravid females have been observed from late
August until June (Clarke, 1981). Like other freshwater mussels, this species'
eggs are fertilized in the female as sperm passes through its gills; the resulting
larvae then attach to a fish host. Although this host is still unknown, strong
evidence suggests that it is an anadromous fish which migrates from the ocean
into freshwater to spawn.
The dwarf wedge mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to moderate
current and a sand, gravel, or muddy bottom. These areas must be nearly silt
free. Four of the existing populations are located in North Carolina. One in the
Little River (Johnston County); another on the Tar River (Granville County); and
one each in two of the Tar River Tributaries (Franklin County).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A search of the NHP files did not reveal any records of dwarf wedge mussels
occurring in the project vicinity. NCDOT biologists performed surreys for the
dwarf wedge mussel on August 21, 2000. No mussels were found during the
20

u

survey. Habitat in the vicinity of the bridge was determined to be somewhat
degraded due to sediment loads. It can be concluded that this project will not
impact this threatened species.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 1989
Michaux's sumac or false poison sumac is a densely hairy shrub with erect
stems, which are 1 to 3 feet (0.3-0.9 m) in height. The shrub's compound leaves
are narrowly winged at their base, dull on their tops, and veiny and slightly hairy
on their bottoms. Each leaf is finely toothed on its edges. Flowers are greenish-
yellow to white and are 4-5 parted. Each plant is unisexual. With a male plant the
flowers and fruits are solitary, with a female plant all flowers are grouped in 3 to 5
stalked clusters. The plant flowers from April to June; its fruit, a dull red drupe, is
produced in October and November.
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic
soils. Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some form of
disturbance has provided an open area. Eleven of the plant's 16 remaining
populations are on highway rights-of way, roadsides, or on the edges of
artificially maintained clearings. Two other populations are in areas with periodic
fires, and two more populations exist on sites undergoing natural succession.
One population is situated in a natural opening on the rim of a Carolina bay.
Currently, the plant survives in the following North Carolina Counties: Richmond
(6 populations); Hoke (3 populations); Scotland (2 populations); Franklin
(1 population); Davie (1 population); Robeson (1 population); and Wake
(1 population).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for Michaux's sumac. The soils in the project
area are all acidic. A search of the NHP database found no occurrences of
Michaux's sumac in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will
not impact this threatened species.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Table 4 includes FSC species listed for Wake County and their
state classifications. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list
of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
21

Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed
species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern in Wake County
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
resent
Vertebrates
Southeastern Bat' Myotis austroriparius SC No
Bachman's Sparrow' Aimophi/a aestivalis SC No
Southern Hognose Snake *' Heterodon simus SR No
Pinewoods Shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR No
Carolina Darter Etheostoma Collis lepidinion SR No
Invertebrates
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata T No
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T No
Green Floater Lasmigona subviridis E No
Diana Fritillary ** Speyeria diana SR No
Vascular Plants
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea E No
Sweet Pinesap * Monotropsis odorata C No
Carolina Least Trillium * Trillium pusillum var pusillum E No
Sources: Amoroso, ed., 1999; LeGrand and Hall, eds., 1999
Key: T = Threatened, E =Endangered, SC =Special Concern, C =Candidate,
SR =Significantly Rare
"=Historic record. The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**=Obscure record. The date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Bog spicebush does not appear on the March 2002 USFWS list of protected
species for Wake County, however this species is listed by the NC NHP on their
website (last updated July 2001) as a Federal Species of Concern. John
Finnegan, Data Systems Manager of the NC NHP, stated on August 21, 2001
that the NC NHP has one record of bog spicebush from northern Wake County
in 1997. For this reason the bog spicebush remains on Table 4.
No FSC species were observed during the site visit. No FSC species are
recorded by the NHP as occurring within two miles of the project site.
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No impacts to federally protected species are anticipated.
22

VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on
- Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally funded, licensed, or
permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) was conducted. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). In a concurrence form dated February 17, 2000, the
SHPO concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in
or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A
copy of the concurrence form is included in the appendix.
C. Archaeology
The SHPO in a memorandum dated November 16, 2000 recommended that
archaeological site 31 WA305"'* be investigated for National Register eligibility.
The investigation resulted in a determination that the site is not eligible for listing
in the National Register. The SHPO concurred with the finding in their April 25,
2002 memorandum; which is included in the appendix to this categorical
exclusion.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Anticipated impacts to the resources in the project area are described in this
section. The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion"
- because of its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences. The
project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation.
No significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the
project.
23

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.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited. There are no relocations.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the
project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and important
farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects. Prime and
important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. No prime or important farmlands will be impacted by the proposed
project. In addition, the proposed project is anticipated to be limited to the
existing right of way, and the land use adjacent to the project is residential.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is
not required. The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-
Durharn nonattainment area for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as
defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated
these areas as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03 and CO. However, due to
improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for
03 on June 17, 1994 and "maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995.
Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and
projects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP).
The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Wake
County. The Capital Area 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the
2002-2008 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) has been
determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT air quality conformity
approval for the LRTP was August 20, 1999 and the USDOT air quality
conformity approval for the MTIP was October 1, 2001. The current conformity
determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts
51 and 93. There has been no significant changes in the project's design
concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
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 significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality
24

f
•
in compliance with 15 NAACO 2D.0520. 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
Division of Waste Management revealed neither underground storage tanks,
hazardous waste sites, regulated or unregulated landfills, nor dump sites in the
• project area.
Wake County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Flood Insurance Study maps for Wake County show that Bridge No. 125 is
located in a FEMA 100-year floodplain. Replacement of this bridge is not
expected to affect the 100-year floodplain. The hydraulic opening of the
proposed bridge is greater than that of the existing bridge.
On the basis of the above discussions, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of this project.
VIII.PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on
May 1, 2002, at the Wakefield Middle School. The Citizens Informational
Workshop was a "drop-in" style workshop giving citizens an opportunity to meet
"one-on-one" with project team member to ask questions and provide comments.
The workshop was announced through "Notice of a Citizens Informational
Workshop" in the News and Observer on April 18, 21, and 28; La Conexion
April 22 and 29; the Independent Weekly on April 17 and 24. A Press Release
was issued on April 24 and posted on the NCDOT website. A newsletter was
mailed to property owners in the project area.
Comments received at the workshop and later by mail expressed concern about
the magnitude of community and commuter disruption that Alternative 3 may
provide.
• IX. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
There are no areas of controversy on this project.
25

X. AGENCY COMMENTS
United States Department of Agriculture: Natural Resource
Conservation Service. The Natural Resource Conservation Service has no
comment at this time.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The Wildlife Resource
Commission conducted a review of the project and is not aware of any _
threatened or endangered species in the project vicinity. In addition, they had
several general comments.
26

FIGURES

U
c
U
Q;

WAKE FOREST
S,Q
vr`` . ~O~
~:
~`~ ~
~~
r . ~/i.
S
2
N
~ ~ ~
.
~p,6~P~o ®P((Natilonal ~~
s. ~ ~tegister) .~
:~ ~F
~a~
"•~~~ .FRA
DURHA ~ ~/
oRaN'~ ~, •.:
'~.
' HATHAM•~
L,
~_ _ __ 'NViAKE~,
'JOHN
i ,~-
.
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 125
ON SR 2045 OVER SMITH CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
TIP NO. 8-3705
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
BRIDGE SITE
Oak Forest
(Study List)
North Carolina -Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

TYPICAL ROADWAY
VI\l1VL I V I I IIJ LIIVL
APPROACH SECTION
3' 12' 12' 3'
0.9m 3.6m 3.6m 0.9m

GRADE NORTH CAROLINA

POINT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND

02
02 , ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
TRAFFIC DATA TYPICAL SECTION

A D T 2 0 0 2 7 8 0 0 BRIDGE N0.125 ON SR 2045
ADT 2 0 2 5 1 5 0 0 0 OvWAKE COUNTY EK
DUAL 2~o TYPICAL
SECTION ON STRUCTURE TIP NO.B-3705
TTST ~ ~o . ALT. 1, 2,& 3
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL
COLLECTOR (MINOR)
FIGURE 3a

1~
P4
.r ~
•• t T lY~~x fF..i
j.~s '1
5..~'. ~4 ... Y~t~r ~r~
~ LX a ?~ 5`' 2
L ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~
f
P
wqy w
^r.~
.~~ ~I
.« \r ~~
t. ~ `.
3'~"` '..
~ uY x: ~•

~i~ c ~ t _
.q - ..fit ~S" ,,j~
~ q r.~
~ ~~ i ~' ..ate.
.

d
~ ~~,,
3 '~
,mo
C~ ;. y
~ ,~„~ ~ ~,
3 "+ ~
~ T
r
r ~ ~ ~ ~ E
~ ~~'
V'' ~
t
'
*
.ice. M
.T__~:~t ~'.~... i'i:'... ., _,...._
~ ....w .,
;
,
c
ort§~ ~'aroiirra - C?op~rtrner~t of °€~~ansporfat~c~r~
I~'svis~ian of ~iigtrv~ra~~s
~'s-aject e~~~o~r€~ent ~aci
:rrr.tira~rnor~tol :~:~taly~is E3ra~ €~
IG~ 4~
REPL~~Efv1Ef~~" Cl~ ~E~fDG i~U~~l~~Ft i2~
Q~l SR 204 ~7Vl~ Pat~ITt-9S CREW.
~~~'~'
TIF' SIC). ~-7Ct5

Looking ciounstream from ii~e bridge.
~,J -,. e'er,
~.~ ~~ ``s
~ !~,, ~~
~~~
~. ~
~-
~ ~~ ~~
Looking at the bridge from the da~~nstream side.

x
t. .- ~'~'
Looking upstream from the bridge.
~. '~ ~
w.~ ,~,r
` 4
~~~

.. ~
' t

.~
~ ~ ?~
~ a ~ ' F F
S ~~ t E r ~
_
a
~~ ~ f 7~9 e ~ t
~' Y~` vJ~
.3t 'c '
II ~ ~ ~'
r r. _ E ~ "3
. ~h kl V .~ ~ 1'N' A ~ ~ ~ f i ~
H
~ j
. ~
~

~~ i "F'} mY~~~ { ~~ ~!
r ~
j
'
".
.1
'~
f
~ ~~
~
.
.
P[
.
~ h~ ~ __ ~
F
X33.. ~'n

ki ~
t
E f ~5} -~~
~ ~r ~ ~ 1 5
~
;
_
L~ ~ ~ ~~ lnt_ ~~
N
~ ~ x .'~ 'b ..il ~ .~~ .
..
;
J t S ~•n~ ~ ...
~ ~ x ~ Y f ~. ~?f

3
~
rJ
JL „~
~ Y -! '

r ~~:
< .
F
rt
C*7orth CaeoEin~ -- t?~partrn~nt of Transpc,rt~t3on
C~ivisior~ o~f Nit~~~rvays
F'resj~ct ~~~~~~Qps~er~t an~3
E€~vir®nmorstal r~~~~l~rsss Branch
FlG~.l~B ~b
fl_~G~--y~~g~tTp~^~+J;; ~~g-~I+Gg,y~i~gC~~i~fv~~~8~r~;/1:~5
~i'F +J B~. G11'~`~3° S.JV~~6'x t74Y€E ~ E 1~~°* 4..e Ems. .~{`i
~~TA COi~N~"Y
TIF' t~3~. -~i~b
Locking east at the bridge.

~:
Z~~~ :4 ~
-~ ~`+
Y
;~~ ~ 4 .... ... ._ ..
a ~ ,~•, ,'.' '~
~~~~ ~
F
h
}

~~,` ~~~
,;,»
_. ~ - - .
_ _ _ . - ___...._ __ - ~ t~'s~~
3 +~i ~ y./
;~.
~:
,~ $»a;; it t"'-r rd:
-llxza ~ ~„S?r x~; I!
~~,: t
A ~iY1~ ~C
~» y
{ yq~}
a ,u; 1'
J r
~~ ~ ~ }
A f ~C r-C"~^;
~~~ ~ `~ i, ~ '~` R i.~ ~-
t~
~.C,ul ~ y,3 c- ~~ `? ..
.;w ~.
~T '~ a ~~~~~4~ ~ ~'L~~~ ~~ ,i
jD 1
s"*.
f t J
~ i k E
~~ C~ ~ ~' ~~~E
t
F.Y, ~~\
FIG~F~~
F~~{~LA~~M~tT ~~ ~~1C1~~ ~^~U~P~~~ 125
ESN R 2~~5 ~}V~R a LAT GRE
U`v'AK~ CC~Ut~! i Y
?'EFL ~. -3705

APPENDIX

r,
ited States
partment of
riculture
tural
sources
nservation
rvice
OS Bland Rd.
ite 205
sleigh, NC 27609
~J~H
~~
Mr. John Conforti
Project Development & Erivironmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
October 30,. 2000
19) 873-2134 Dear Mr. Conforti:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Bridge Group XXVI I I bridge
replacement projects listed below:
TIP Project
No. County Bridge
Number Road Carried Stream Crossed
B-3643 Granville ~ 72 ~ SR1004 (Providence Rd.) Hachers Run
8-3644 ~ Granville 226 SR1120 (Veasey Rd.) Knap of Reeds Creek ~
B-3645 Granville 201 SR 1435 (Davis Chapel Rd.) Little Grassy Creek
B-3653 Halifax 162 SR1450 (Branch Rd.) Chockoyotte Creek
B-3853 Halifax 82 ~ NC561 Marsh Swamp
B-3702 Vance 19 SR 1305 (Barker Rd.) Flat Creek
B-3915 Vance 21 SR 1303 (Hicksboro P.d.) Flat Creek
B-3521 Wake 273 SR 1006 (Old Stage Rd.) ~ Middle Creek
B-3523 Wake 525 SR 1300 (Kildaire Farm Rd.) Swift Creek
B-3530 Wake 174 SR 2320 (Riley Hill Rd.) Buffalo Creek
B-3703 Wake 317 SR 1404 (Johnson Pond Rd.) Middle Creek
B-3704 Wake 108 SR 1834 (Norwood Rd.) ~ Lower Bartons Creek
B-3705 ~ Wake 125 ~ SR 2045 (Burlington Mills Rd.) Smiths Creek
B-3917 Wake 311 SR 1379 (Penny Rd.) Lake Wheeler (Swift
Cr.)
B-3918 Wake ~ 127 SR 2044 (Ligon Mill Rd.) Tom Creek
The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any comments at this time.
Sincerely,
Mary K.`~Combs
State Conservationist
The Natural Resources Conservation Service works hand-in-nand wish the
American people to conserve natural resources en privata lane AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EiV1PLOYER

._~JRC , HCP ,FALLS LAKE
r
~3'~~S
~I North. Carol~a ~lildI.if 1~.resGUrces Corr~mission ®_
Charles R Fullwood, F.xetutive Director
TO: Yvonne; G. G. Howell., PE
Earth Tech
FROM: navid Cox, Highway Project ~~o in r
Habitat Conservation Prograua
DA"fJ/: Uctobor 8, 2Q01
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replazements in Granville, Halifax, Vance, and Wake counties
of North C'.arolina. TIT' Nos. ,B-3643, B-3644, B-3645, B-3653, B-3853, B-3702,
>3-3915,13-3521, B-3523, R-3530, B-3703, B-3704, B-3705, B-3917, and B-3918.
Biologists witi, the N. C. Wildlife Resoua+ces ~;'omar:ission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
infoniiation provided and have the fallowing prelirrin.;uy ro*nments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions ofthe National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordirlation Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 1G
U.S.C. GG I -667d).
On h~idge replacement proj cts of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
TEL~919-528-9839 .Oct 08'01 10 11 No.OO1 P.02
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanrtirlg structures usually do not require
work withui the stream and do not require.~troam channel realignment. 1'he horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges. all~,ws for human and wildlire passage
beneath the structure, does not blockfisb-passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
Z. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact t>±.e water in or entering into the stream.
4. 1f possible, bridge supports (bents} si?ould not h.e placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are cc~astructed, they should be removed back to
original gr-o~~nd elevations immediately llpr~n the s;ompletion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize tits soil and native tree species s)~oilld
be planted with a spacing of not more thAn ,30'x10`. If possible, when using tcinporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Cleruing the area with chain
Mailing Address: Division of Inlan.c' Fisheries • 1721 M:.il Service Cenccr • ltale;gh, NC 27699- l 72'1
Telephone: [phone] ext. 2.91 • Fax: [phone]

_~1RC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL~919-528-9839 Oct 08'01 10~i2 No .001 P.03
Bridge Memo 2 October li, 2001
~.
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, o* 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 freb) area of at least 1,0 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. end general `404' ermits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
" recommend that the project require an ixidividutizl `404' permit.
o. In strcarns that contain t}areatenccJ. or endangered .species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge 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
information on requirem~ts of thra Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. 1n streams that are used by Rnadronnous fish, the ivCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guide.tines for 1~nadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed. ~ ,
10. Ili areas with significant ..Fisheries for sunfish, s?asonaI exclusions may also be
recorruncnded. .,, , -
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any;gzaumd distuz:bing activities. Si3-uctures should be
maintained regularly, aspeeially foDowiig rainaall events.
I2. Temporary or permanent i~.°rbaccou~ vegecetion should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of gmund disturbing activities io provide long-term. erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream wa.t~ers should bw conducted in a drywork area.
Sandbags, rock berms, coffez~dams, or.othpr diversion structures should be used
where possible to prover~t excavation in Aowir~ water.
1 S. Heavy eyuipinent should i~a operated froth the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimcmtation arid reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams. ;
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be aced a~; temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed withput exce~ive disttubana;e of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During substuface investigations, equipment shrsuId be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent eata.ta~ination ofs~zrfar,~.:,,vs~ters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other, toxic materiels.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinfor<;pd. r,4ucrele pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
Ttie culvert must be designed to allow for fish pas ;age. Generally, this means that the
culvert or pipe invert is berried at least 1 font below the natural stream bed_ If
multiple cells sec required the second w-d/vr third cells should be pIaCCd so that their
bottoms arc at stream bankful stage (similar tc~ Lyonsfield design). This cculd be

•_.~,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Gct 08'01 10:12 No .001 P.04
'f ~ Bridge Memo

October 8, 2001
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the ~pstreern end of the other cells that
will divert low slows to tuiather cell.~'Th~~ will-allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flown to accommodate fish movements. If culverts arc
long, notched baffles should be placed ~ ~inforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediment& in the culvert, to rc;duce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for ns-z. and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
2. If multiple pipes or cells tare used;,: at least one dine or box should be desig-ned to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for waldlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should. be situated sa that no chFznnel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of thy: atre~-n chartsel. at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing, sedamertt deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. R.iprap should not be placed on the streArt bed. ,
Ir. most casts, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. Ifroad closure is not feas~ibls,.a~ernporaty detour should be designeal and
located to avoid. wetland impacts, minimize tie ne~;d for cfraring end to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the shveture will be on a ne~v alignant, for old structure should be reinovcd
and tl~e approach fills removed from the 100-year flonclpplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation,, 'fhe are.a.should b; sT~bilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is mclaim ~~1. was previr~usly wetlands, NCDOT should rester
tut at'~a to~9L3tiu~ ~~I~. lf~~rt;~sfaf, rye rite a~a,~,-b ~ uti~c~ as w~~ an mitigation or the subject
project cr other projects in the watersticai. '
Project specific comments:
1. B-3643 -Granville County - Bridges No. 77`over .?Yatch~rs Run. Standard comments apply.
We arz not aware of any threatens of enclangsrPd. species i.n the project vicinty.
2. B-3644 -Granville County -Bridge No. 226 over Knap. of Reeds Creek. NCDOT shculd be
aware that NCWRC has designated NCWIZC ~atrtelenc'~s:in the vicinity of this bridge.
Icrpacts to gameland properties should be'avo~ded. There are also records of state listed
mussels upstream of the pro}yet. ?'herefoFo, `due to the potential for impacts to listed species
we request that NCDOT perform a: <nu6srl survey prior to the construction of this bridge.
3. B-3645 -Granville County - Bnidge No. OZ over Litt(e ~Grass~+ Creek. Standard comments
apply. We arc not aware of any tlti.reatenecl o.f endangered spectes in the project vicinity.
4. 5-3653 -Halifax County - Brid{re No. I62 caves (hock-: yotte Creek. Due io the potential for
anadromous fish at this location, i~1CDf.~T sla~~a~.ld vlosoly follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines L'or Anadromous Fish Passage". '.l'l~ti~ i,~~~;tude€ an in-water work moratorium front
February 15 to June 15. We are not aware og'~~,y rhseatPrled of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard comments apply,,
5. B-3853 -Halifax County -Bridge No. 82 overM~.rsh Swamp. Standard comments apply.
We are not aware of any threatened of end~gered speci,e;~ in the project vicinity.
~ _ ~_t

~C,HLF',t-HLLS LHK~. IEL:919-528-989 Oct 08'01 10:13 No .001 P.05
.,
. Bridge Memo - _ 4' ~ 1
t ,~
j, , t~, ~ October i;, 2001
',
6. B-3702 -Vance County -Bridge No. I19'over Flat Creek. Standard comments apply. We
are not aware of any threatened of endargered sFecies:in the project vicinity.
7. B-3 915 ~• Vaneo County -Bridge No, 2 ~ oder'~Flat Creak. Standard comments a ] We
are not aware o{any llueatened,of enda,~gared species iz~ the project vicinity. pp y
~ 8. B-3521- Wake County-Bridge No 273 over'Middlz creek. Due to the potential for
anadromous fish at this location; NCDO'T should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines Tor Anadromous Fish Psssag:"', This includQS an in-water work moratorium from
February I S to June 1 S. There are also ra3cnrdB ~f state listed mussels upstream of the
project. Therefore, due to the potential for impacts to listed species we request that NCDOT
perform a mussel survey prior try tha contctiort of this bridge. Standard comments apply.
9. B-3523 -Wake County-Bridp,~ No. 525~`ove~ ~~yift Creek. Standard comments apply. We
arc not aware of any threatened Af endangered species in the project vicinity.
10. B-3530 -Wake County -Bridge No. 174 over )3uffalo,Creek. Standard comments apply.
We are not aware of any thraat~ed of exxilang~red species in the project vicinity.
11. B-3703 -Wake County -Bridge No. 31'~ over Middles ~;
reek. There are records of state
listed mussels upstream ofthe project. Therefore; due o the potential for impacts to listed
species we request that NCDOT perform:a mussei survey prior to the construction of this
bridge. Standard comments apply.
12. B-3704 -Wake County -- Bridge I~T.~. I08` aside Lnwer B~rtons Creek. Standard comments
apply. We are not aware of any threatened ~~f clang®; F_d apeci.es in the project vicinity.
13. B-3705 -Wake County - Bridge'Vo. 1'1~';~FVe.s~; w*t;itll~ C~ ~ok. Standard comments apply.
We are not aware of any threateiatc~ of ea~tagPrei! species in the project vicinity.
l d, B_3017 Wnlco Count ~ ' .4:
y - Dci~l c No. 317. over ~.alFe Wheeler (Swig Creek). Standard
comments apply. We are not aware ofany.,thz~tened of endangered species in the project
vicinity.
1:~
15. B-3918 -Wake County- Bridge.No..127;~over Tom Cree>,C. Standard comments appl We
are not aware of any threatened of e.ndaagered species tn; the project vicinity. y
We request that NCDOT routin~;ly miaianze ~adverse'impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vi.cuuty of badge r®glacemonts. The r1CD01' should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the li.fe;of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these stre~ns. Re~lacerzant of budges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or bir~c culverts, is ,recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife ppa-4sage aloa~ g~:;~b~,~, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crosstngs.,~ , ,
If you need fi~rther assistance or information spa NC~'~Rt2 concerns re ardin
replacements, please contact me at (9,19) 528-5886, -Thank y~~~1 fot the opportunity for oa1eu, and
comment ot~ these projects.
-_

,~
~•, STATE ~,
~~n • ~~
~~ •¢_i
_ .~
%Y, - }.a=
~, ~.
North Carolina Department of Cultural resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator ~
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray 1VIcCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 16, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
FRONI: David Brook ~~
Deputy State Hist ~ Preservation Officer
RE: Replacement of Bridge #125 on SR 2045 over Smiths Creek
B-3705, Wake County, ERO 1-7794, Bridge Group XXVIII
Thank you for your memorandum of October 2, 2000 concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
Historic period archaeological site 31 WA305** is located north of the existing bridge
and may be affected by the proposed replacement project. Since this site has not been
evaluated for National Register eligibility, we recommend that your staff archaeologists
relocate site 31 WA305** and conduct investigations sufficient to determine eligibility if
the site will be affected by the proposed bridge replacement.
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 CFR Part 800.
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.
cc: Tom Padgett
305
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Ralei¢h NC 21699-4617 [phone] 73?-3663
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St.. Raleieh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4ti19 [phone] 716-2671
RESTORATIOY 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 tvfail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4301
SURVEY & PLANNIIG 616 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4618 (919j 733-6545 715-4801

y~r ~'v ~'c 6•
~ A
ti Z
• .~ ate., ~,.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. 5. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David]. Olson, Director
3etFrey 1. Crow, Deputy Secretary
OfFice of.Archives and History G Cj E I VE
i ~ O
April 25, 2002
MEMORANDUM
APR ~ (1 Erna
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager rt'yA °_
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch iPo,~ ~ ~Mr~jgY~s '~ ~r
NCDOT Division of Highways ~~'1'~FNr~V[ ~P ~5~`'~
~`y~..~ ~~ L A,
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Bridge No. 125 on SR 2045 over Smiths Creek,
Federal # BRZ-2045(1), 8.2408001, B-3705, Wake County, ER 01-7794 and ER 02-9331
Thank you for your letter of March 14, 2002, transmitting the survey report by Nick Bon-Harper of Legacy
Research Associates, Inc. for the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 10G of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion D:
31WA1525
This site lacks subsurface integrity, yielded no diagnostic lithic or ceramic material and is unlikely to
contribute substantive information concerning prehistoric occupation of the area.
Archaeological site 31WA305*~~ is located outside the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and therefore,
warrants no additional archaeological investigation in connection with this project. While we concur with
the author's recommendations for no additional investigation for this bridge replacement project, there are
specific concerns and corrections that need to be addressed in preparation of the final report. These are
attached for the author's information.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 10G of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
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 concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Deborah Joy, Legacy Research
Location
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Restoration 515 N_ Blount St, Raleigh , NC
Sun~ey & Planning S l5 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Associates, Inc.
Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 (919) 733763 •715801

a
Specific Comments, Archaeological Survey Report
Replacement of Bridge No. 125 over Smiths Creek, B-3705
Wake County, ER 01-7794 and ER 02-9331
1. The archaeological site forms should not be double-sided. While this does save paper, double-
sided forms do not microfilm legibly.
2. r~ short form should be used for site 31WA305** revisit, not an amateur site form. We will be
happy to supply theirs if needed.
3. Page 5: Tie surrey of the Raleigh-Durham Airport vas 7200 acres, not 72,000 acres.
4. Page 7: Candey 1992; Claggett & Cable 1982; Cultural Resource Group 1990; Eastman and
Lautzenh.eiser 1992; Gossett & Gossett 1975, McCorrnick 1970; Gunn et al 1997a-b; and Little-
Stokes 1979 are all compliance related reports.
5. The projects and sites described in Claggett & Cable 1982 and McCormick 1970 are located in
Chatham County, not Wake.
6. There are more appropriate references for use as the basis for the prehistoric background
section for this project than Purrington 1983 and Bass 1977.
7. Page 8: Margaret Wake Tryon was the wife of the last royal governor of the North Carolina
colony, not the "wife of the states (sic) first governor."
8. Page 9: Paragraphs 4 and 5 under Survey Methodology give conflicting information concerning
the nuinl~er of shovel tests excavated.
9. The amount of acreage suLVeyed should be included in the report.
10. The entire report needs extensive editing

r
•
Project Description: Replace Bride No. I?S on SR ~OdS over Smiths Creek
I~LLUVLsIP
4I
Federal.-list=BRZ~U-l~(1) TIP TB-=?0~ Coruut•: Wake ~4.
BAR ~ 0' ~ `„ i
CONCURRENCE FOR,[ FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIG[BLE FOR THE NATION L
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ~- -- -- _---- - "- ---
On February 17, ?000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHW.A)
0~ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
0~ photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
~ P~
Representatives DOT

~ FHWA. for the Division Administrator. or other Federal AQencv
Date
Z / % // ~`;
Date

Representative. SHPO / Date
/'
State His~ric Preservation Officer / ,' Date
11 asune~. r~purt i5 prepared. a final cnp. ufthis ti~rm and thr attachzd list ~~ill he ir.~ludcd.

i

8' 12' 12' 8'
2.4m 3.7m 3.7m 2.4m
11' ~ct2 ~
w/gr D S
4' tt.2ml GRADE
D S POINT
)8 02 02 0
12' 6' 10'
3.7m tam 3.Om 10'-0"
3.Om
6~1
1
-GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL ROADWAY APPROACH SECTION

24' (7.3m)
Zn~in ~__T
~OZ
ULTIMATE ROADWAY APPROACH SECTION
---8'-6" (2.6m)CLEARANCE PROPOSEQ C TO EDGE OF EXSITING STRUCTURE
----,10'-0" (3.Om) CLEARANCE TO EDGE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE
'DINT
I
------------r_J
NORTH SIDES ~
of BRIDGE STRUCTURE TYPICAL SECTION
DURING STAGED CONSTRUCTION

NORTH SID
OF BRIDGE
ULTIMATE ROADWAY SECTION ON STRUCTURE
TRAFFIC DATA
ADT 2002 7900
ADT 2025 15000
DUAL 2~0
TTST 1~0
FUNCTIONAL C~ASSIFICATiON: RURAL COLLECTOR (MINOR
~E 42" min.
MIDGE RAIL
SOUTH SIDE
OF BRIDGE
60' ~