20090366 Ver 1_Application_20090406

a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION til?'?gr? yGO ?9
N
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. , JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 31, 2009
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604 ® 9 0 3 6 6
ATTN: Mr. Rob Ridings
Subject: Application for Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Neuse Riparian
Buffer Authorization, and Notice of Intent to Use Nationwide Permit 13 for
the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 448 over Austin Creek and No. 140 over
Smiths Creek on SR 2053 in Wake County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
2053(1); Division 5; TIP No. B-3919
$240.00 Debit to WBS Element 33554.1.1
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 448
over Austin Creek and No. 140 over Smiths Creek on SR 2053. There will be 85 feet of
permanent surface water impacts due to the placement of riprap for bank stabilization, 11,356
square feet of Zone 1 impacts, and 19,098 square feet of Zone 2 impacts for road crossing and
bridge construction. Written authorization from the USACE is not requested.
Please see enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), Stormwater Management
Plan, permit drawings, and design plans for the above-referenced project. The Categorical
Exclusion (CE) was completed in August 2004,.addendum to the CE was completed in
September 2007, and the Right-of-Way Consultation was completed in October 2008.
Documents were distributed shortly thereafter- Additional copies are available upon request.

This project calls for a letting date of November 17, 2009 and a review date of September 29,
2009.
MAILING ADDRESS:
INC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONVENTAL ANALYSIS
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAR SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH INC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LOCATION:
4701 Atlantic Ave.,
Suite 116
Raleigh, NC 27604
W BSITE.W ,NCDOT.ORG
i ?•
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
',?infonnation, please. call James Pflaum at [phone].
SincereI ,
( Greg o ?Ph.D
rY rP ,
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. J. Wally Bowman, PE., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
W/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. 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. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ms. Anne Deaton, NCDMF
Mr. Steve Brown, PDEA
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
a2 F wATF9vc
h y
? r
O T
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
? Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 13 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ®No
td. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ®No For the record only for Corps Permit:

® Yes ? No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ®No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Replacment of Bridge No.448 over Austin Creek and No. 140 over Smiths Creek on SR
2053
2b. County: Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Wake Forest
2d. Subdivision name: not applicable
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: B-3919
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. not applicable
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): not applicable
3d. Street address: 1598 Mail Service Center
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
3f. Telephone no.: [phone] .
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: not applicable
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: not applicable
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): not applicable
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.966152 Longitude: - 78.489896
(D13.131DDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 12 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Austin and Smiths Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C, NSW
2c. River basin: Neuse
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Primarily rural residential housing with forested land between lots and adjacent developments.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
175
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace a structurally deficient and/ or functionally obsolete bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves replacing bridge No.448 a 36-foot long, 26-foot wide, 2 span reinforced concrete floor with timber
joists with a 86-foot long, 81-foot wide single span box beam bridge on the existing alignment. This project also involves
replacing bridge No. 140 a 36-foot long, 26-foot wide, 2-span reinforced concrete floor with timber joists with a 100-foot
long, 81-foot wide, single span box beam bridge on existing alignment. Offsite detour is planned to route traffic during
construction. Standard road building equipment, such as trucks, dozers, and cranes will be used.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property
? Yes ® No ? Unknown
/ project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: No wetlands, all perennial streams
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what
? Preliminary ? Final
type of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certificafions been requested or obtained
? Yes ® No ? Unknown
for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ®No
61b. If yes, explain.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams -tributaries ® Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number- Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWO
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWO
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of Average Impact length
number - (PER) or jurisdiction stream (linear feet)
Permanent (P) or intermittent (Corps - 404, 10 width
Temporary (T) (INT)? DWQ-non-404, (feet)
other)
/
S1 ®P ? T / Bank Austin Creek ® PER ® Corps 15 10
Stabilization ? INT ? DWQ
S2 ® P ? T Bank miths Creek ® PER ® Corps 15 75
Stabilization ? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ° ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ _
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts ( 85
Permanent
3i. Comments: Riprap is used in the above mentioned impacts to prevent scour and erosion.
.4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number -
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
T 4b.
Name of
waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction propose d, then complete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number purpose of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts req uire mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
® Neuse
?Tar-Pamlico
? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f . 69.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ®P ? T croRoa? ssing Austin/Smiths Creek ® Nos 2308 3912
B2 ®P ? T Bridge Austin/Smiths Creek ® Nos 9048 3830
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts 11356 7742
6i. Comments: Total stream length buffer impacts are under 150' for bridge No . 448 and 140.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed bridges are longer and span both streams, no bents will be placed in the stream. Timber bents will be
removed from Austin and Smiths Creek. Level spreaders will be used in conjunction with PSRM lined ditches and riprap
to enable sheet flow and prevent scour and erosion within the buffer. Offsite detour will be used to route traffic during
construction.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
NCDOT's BMP's for bridge demolition and removal will be enforced.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this

project? ? Mitigation bank

El Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: not applicable
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
41h. Comments:
S. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ®No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ® Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
tb. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
® Yes ? No
Comments: See Permit drawings
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? n/a %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
See enclosed description
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? not applicable
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HOW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
? Yes ? No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
111b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ® Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. 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.
not applicable
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ®Yes El No
impacts?
Raleigh
®
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ? A
h
ill
s
ev
e
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Field surveys, NHP database, and USFWS Website for Rockingham County
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NMFS County Index
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a . Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ®No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b . What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Categorical Exclusion for B-3919
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a . Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b . If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Hydraulics coordinating with FEMA
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA flood maps

Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph D Q q-1.07
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name App canUAgent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
State Project No.: 33353.1.1 (B-3919)
County: WAKE
Hydraulics Project Manager: Steven M. Bondor, P.E. (Greenhome & O'Mara)
Anne Gamber, P.E. (NCDOT Hydraulics Unit)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project B-3919 includes replacement of bridge number 448 over Austin Creek and bridge
number 140 over Smiths Creek located on SR 2053 Jones Dairy Road.
The proposed Austin Creek Bridge is a single span 85 feet in length and includes
approximately 700 feet of approach roadway with a curb and gutter cross section on the
east side of Austin Creek and a ditch section on the west side. The proposed roadway on
the east side and the bridge drainage will discharge to catch basins and pipes which tie to
the existing roadway drainage system within the right of way. The existing system
discharges to an existing riprap pad and disperses to sheet flow across the wooded stream
buffer. The ditch section on the west side of Austin Creek on the north side of the
roadway discharges to the existing woods in sheet flow similar to the existing drainage
ditch at that location. The ditch on the south side of the roadway discharges to a level
spreader upstream of the stream buffer.
The proposed Smiths Creek Bridge is a single span 100 feet in length and includes
approximately 1100 feet of approach roadway with a ditch section. The south side of the
roadway along the east side of Smiths Creek is a fill section with sheet flow from the
pavement along the grass shoulder. The south side also includes a pipe system with a
preformed scour hole at the outlet that drains the bridge. The north side of the roadway
along the east side of Smiths Creek includes a cut section with a ditch that discharges to a
flat sump upstream of the stream buffer. The sump will create sheet flow through the
buffer. The north side of roadway along the west side of Smiths Creek includes a cut
ditch that to the existing woods in sheet flow similar to the existing drainage ditch at that
location. The ditch on the south side of the roadway on the west side of Smiths Creek
discharges to a level spreader upstream of the stream buffer.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
Both Austin Creek and Smiths Creek are jurisdictional streams located in the Neuse
River Basin. The Neuse River basin includes buffer rules that require storm drainage be
discharged as sheet flow upstream of the buffer limits. No wetlands are located within the
project limits. The project causes impacts to the stream buffers due to fill from the
roadway.
STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The purpose of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is to minimize degradation of surface
waters caused by stormwater pollution from highway drainage. The BMP measures used
on this project to reduce stormwater impacts are:
Rip rap preformed scour hole at pipe outlets
Level spreaders at ditch outlets to promote sheet flow upstream of stream buffers

z V)
zx
F mF o
F ?' ? Q ? .Mn w

A
a
x F M
ra W Cy
w?? rl
?
!?

t
4 z
?
a z
x] >0?.

a
S
e

w
?, ?

m

' 00
? .. O
R
0Zw
O O? Z a W (T.
a
U A C
. a ? E.
z "' co
U co

b

? z

?' a W
f?.
fa.

z
p F F !
m C+ LYia M W; ? O
y
M 00 N
wi CGwO ? e U
,5 cPEEK F ® n a p ? ?.
Oz? U...zzW o
- OF•i?ia O W zU r
Q, a Qd
o$ U ? W W
x '^
ag o
J O
O
W
J
U ?
My O N
O U
So I rl =
Q
O LD
?a
O
o vPO
w J 1??--
1?J
• j I?1
O Y
O
M
w
AUSTIN CHEEK ?Q
o
o?
2g
° ? 41J

co z zx °
(0 Lf) O
® F
n .-
co CO
?
to
CIO
3•
b
c
N O W Z Z a F" aW n

N
N ® A
z WJ
, O m
Z co N .,
® C)

N z z ¢ cc ??
fs N ap@®

C
n

(n
n

F-
LL

LLI

LJ
.
FO

e.? e

@O

z
O.
U s o a a ®z ?U
z
w
W LL s 3 3 ® 3® tnZ O
U O W 1:4 W 'o
L)
E-
3 Y H
O a
C A
A A F
Q CG W GcI
Cl) C0
W
to 0)
co
W
N

z
W
co o
Q
H X
O X ?M
N wCo
z r,
D
p C
O co
W t, O
7 t
O OD
N O O M to N to
C? m CL ti N N N

PT4
z

®
t
rig 2
U Q
J F-
n ?
O
® O W

Cl) w 3 U
= z
r
O a
- w
tJ-t
7
Y
O F O
L
L W

U LLJ
CC
W
z Y
y U Q
Z W W
2 H CW9 O U }
W
Z ? F LL 0
O N
2 N
cc W
v cc
O O
OC
v = 3 LLJ l
cc 0
J
r
2 CO) le O
Q
CL
0
0
N
N
Y ?
W m
.,

w ?

? O
F ° O U
m
} m p r
_

J m Q m p W
O
a
a
co W ^ 0
=
N O Z o
Z= p n e Q o v
?
O
O
o
?
wN
O
Z YN??`W
a
U
H W W
?z x
pF ?
w>
0 m
?o ?<

ti a
Z W

(9
W „^
O O

CL
0
N

r N
Z W r
W = r

W

? Q

W p
Q' N
J
o?
r
w
J
m N

Z Y O
F 0v

W ?^ O
O Y o

N
} a ^ N 17 ?n(l ? O
Q
w r
Q J
?
U CO
N

O

N

O

O

N
C ? ..
W „
N
N
O
L > Q? N n

VI Q

:
N m n
b ?
N 2
C O h

J
Q r
/? J
J Q
Q
C -
- a
?
w
W w
a o
x
x
LL ?
LL m

O ?
m
oo x x
?
x
U
°m rn °o °o
m m

20 ? ?

O o 0
w 0 0 o p
r? rn r + r r
V1 LL N ?O f?f t[1
J J J
W
N
N
W W d m d m
?
a
? D D D D
r
r
U m m m m

K
r
N
O J
Z Q
W N N
H O
N
Siifff f6f if ff if
I?
I m
K
I

Z
Z N I N
?
O I tim
m _
° x m I
Np I n
S O <
vv

N
m N N m r N
A m
K
0 FT-1
_° y N m ?
n ( I G
° m ?
N A N 4 U) rTl

r° n ?
z D C/-)
O
o o _ a 0
_
mo
A
F-
n
a?
m +m
r 71 (
D I>
n r, _o

n <
z
n
o f
-
O O
Z > Z O y
C? m ;?
X' O
< ti n N n A N
O _
.
=oa
Op
om m
n ova
'
r m - m m Am o r
.. t,. n
a
m ti
n ma FT1 n r

' A °
~
,.,, 5, n

r _
Z T N r ti
< N m
MP
C
C
O m
m
r
O<
r m
o
x CC
C
o m

m -
z c,
<
n -N
m
o m N m
o r
Z
o -
r v T '
I` N
m ti N n
10
i
Nr I
?'m
m m z
N
° o N
K

- ? in

F « A

m n
r p zt ?

m m A
ti
m
'
OD

n
v r
m ti
nm n W

o=
O
m Ny
o
K X
r
o ?
m n N
m A
i ?. p m
n Z r
3
p T ti D

m

A
o m
m

Cf)
F A
0
?
m
I?
I m p
zz
<T
I mr
A o
p
I ?
I x

I
I ?
m
K
n
I N
N n 1
Z w N

_
N W I ti ti m
n O
?^_
°°
' NT
mn I x mm
n
'Or ?nN z m? I (-
N m m
N
°
v
p m m K
n
'SS-
F- FT-1
r m O A VI ( G
N N 44 O? F

z D

F
zN?o? _?
r o w?

m _, K amm
r ' m f- \
D o Nv C-0m
m z
m
; m
n
m
Nn -F
D

o
;
1'
§ <>n$
n
m
z m
K m o
mz m
r
o
O
I
?

Z
n
n r
O 3 y
I
O
G
n
?
N
_
I
?T
TI?
= ti n N " ° O 1
D 1 :a
f P> O m O O G N -u E5

- v

S

n
n

m
m F S]m
m N

-
m
x CC m A
m
m
y
`n
m r
z C

,
m
ZE b
o m i+
i
< x
2
co
° N

° <
m
w z i. m F w

v
N a ° N n M p

m o < c z

n
r N ?

iO '0? ?

1D mm m z m n
n r =
N .
O
N F ti
Nr- m
w oA
mm Nti
y
V K
_
A
A
10
m?
O
-1
n`' m

- m. m -
_ .? N y .X r T m

3 m m
5 n
O
^'
?
A
N

A m m
O
X
V
I
I ?
°
Z z
< T F
I
mr
I A O p

I y
n
I o
I n
x ?

0

v, al z $z 4
? G 8

B m
?? a0
c8
i
p
~ ero
az r
1I? ? z o

a
t
S
[ $ae ?e s ge
A
<4? ;e
S ' Ss
55

}T
} i
e+
7

T o 5
m
, m
n y
? D
p D

so
T T T
3
sss;
?-rr
o
O O O s'
0 0 0
D>D
m V ? $v
O N O
y ti
T
A
O
F
m
<
m r
- r -
o ?
- m
D ?
o m
m <
n1m'1
O
m 0 F Z E m
o
0 x o i o i o
m ti m m z
z n
n c
0
° z a

m
y
oti
m o
z
y ? Z ? m
< p m p N m

m n o
m mo
m ti Z
0

v N
'^ o
r
.
A 0mo y

?n
?'
m mm
ZnnE m
? K c' m m
m

? 0
O
m
m
a % m
ti m O
m

m m o a m x
o ?n oc?rr
m c -? a
m WZO%ti

T
y Z y
m
z
m

O D
Ti
z
T
T

m
<

FTl m
n O F
N m ? n

0 ti
m m
m> m o
z _ r m
T m
m m
_
A
m e
I r ;n m
? o m n
r
m c E n
<
m m
m
T D r m '
m
O O ti m'
E m ? m

m z
m

m ?^
ti
0
y
v
?
r - ?
B pp
m ;
?
n

N e
m

D
r
4f
V
+
O

-Ai

? n

oP ?

}

s --
to
? C
S2
CC g?
=r 40
... W 9

E s ?
t
4?d F
z .r
a? :m
$.f° ?ro b-
a
1 r
I : S
C f te'
m
e
F
29090114\b3919_ buff e._ps64.dgn
N
fy? P
C P
o ?
9
0

4
L
N gg 'q 11
nFi+;4 I
imp
N5 11
+ T-0G)
a
v
N
i
n
? o
M J
VP
I
t
6 M.?a1bl? 5

gg8}
g
^
q
Y
T ?
L
.NNNN
??
y
%?
1(

P lqr
_ RCCgFF

3

D
N
g
N
nH
A
A .p ?N
O
P
o a
l
O
O
N
O
O
0
O N

? N
O
Z
N N pN
IO
?A
jN P
C 41
m O

g

all Qp
f .N
i p
y3
9
A
g ?
\I
N 11
+
rn A 4x
fa
?? f7
? J P ?u
R
4O Q4 p
F 4 ? 4?
° p a ca

a
\? Q

8? T o
F u + $ b-?
asa==?
QP$ ???b _ ? ?3? o
,yG i \

,, 1 I
.. 1
Z
I

?i
I
? D I
I
?
E ? O
Z I
,? x ?
I
/ / $gx 4 N P .

/ O @0
O 1
RR
? Z I.

Sao
OY n\

r 6

7
?.
\ P 1
15
W\
1 Y•
W
Q ? ?n
a W?
????F T u +.-°
s???z N C
cqp
41
20
?Q
p ? P o s a-
R
f) LTA``\? a4 z
p 41 0
PY
=d
H9• ?L?
PBia O
Q .z I ? = a
Uf }QI

2,?-(E?-2009 1248
6y reuLcs\permrte a ronmeneel\d.evzngs\buff er_pe.mit 20099114\63919_bu((er_ps64.dgn
9/17/9c
.Y
:
O1 A IM II S fig

o F
e
I m
TM
m
M

'
u + A 10 0

O
T yZ
D _
Z
? Z
= _,aw- - _-_
,_ -
.Ltd
A
T
y AO Nxuoz
m -
q -
8?
T +
g
81 A
'.a m ON
? A
0 ,
• 2 g
08 ' / tR I? F
R ++ g
o o y u u
.1
G 2' 41 1 LA
z?
2 A
p
G1 CC
O A m

?
yy
Y
8
'
d, a

?

K
G ,
y

L
In 216
"R? gqg
a

- ?o
6 75
I
RJR=
Z
G
v 0

?? mub` H" 3
-

?

y
+
°o
o c
w -- ?n g

0 r x ? 2
+
0 1
?
/
2 6
1
2g ?
I 8 l . ? \

?
s
?6 1
280 /
/

z
eam
' I /
s /

/ / 26 263
2g 262
.pr Q ti6 m

? >3rm
S
4
lei
oil
g r ??
m n Rx> ? n
S 9 F
in N ? L
m n rD
^n 8Z V
IV 9,-
IT-
N
/
A
.Ap F
8l~ /
o N /
N P 8 F
O N /
O O
7.
H
N N
pzp o Is A N Of O Oa
O O
y
r.
S \6 _
v /
\l?
24
? ro
Q
s
P.
20
Wg2 . . Fn"{zP 8??
RRa O
f
+ / I
1
g e?
A
I pa x? z
0 A 9
E
-permit 20090114\b3919_bu f(er_p sh5.dgn
+
\; 44 Q
a
VIA
?I

R
0 5
9 C
IN N
I
I=
N -

N -7- '°%
m
Np r r
0
In i\ €
of
x o
x
01 1
a ?j
f i l l o
8
0
NZ''?
+R'
N7o

4
Qr
ti4f) S3
35
0
1
f
Q
9z9 'Jd sWZtilrln 3tv fJMd
tx3M35v] Is eN1'?? _
1 ,

9 YY@g R
? mili O
?.RR R N
.t ijjxjEi,q
?r
m
y
1 1 40
_ k` 1
III ? I a m eje \1?a„? - 1
y
T ?
r
4a 4/
v
+ 4

w u
w E
1 1 A

o
T
= 9
O

0 22' 22 = z
o
N ? Ze
LA

- o
z
N_

o
Q2 92
A
?

T . 44 4 m n
0
+

w

m O

N
N
P
O
QYS;§
R??4 R o
MY?g?
? 6 3
41 i V 4.
a ?>r R R?
N bF R?C SSy:
a, r
p ??a
I?" x
a a
Q K
14%
Noo ? ? B?B ?9 ?x
anmental\dre.ings\4uffer_permit 20090110\b3919_buffer_psh5.dgn
i
, f
ptgy? N
t7??S a '
a
i
?I
?I
?)9Ayi
?ti1%S
v
u YI
z$z
8
?I
,%V3r3
m
N

? cccg ?
N
0
g.t?8 E
0
c6 I
=N
N09
O?
F
4'

O

p
22'
12' N
/
N c
N L

v 7 8'

T
c w
A
1 v
4

35
Q
f
A"b i
??se°gg'mO°
J
404
8
IN.
4b
? f4
T Y? A§cc8?
N / Wf xu ?.
W 9 •?n
-am£ 3
OTC

7
z €

F DoE
L o

? Ln M 6`1
Q'i ?
F M
m ? W N C

? V)
z
H
.. z
U
.. ' O Ln

O

O
o w M
M C
@ o D 4
z oa F
w
zow

?

a
a
ti
?zu .
o
? ? F
U
z ? W
ma r]
G
x
V m
z

?
z

z
EM4
® ®
E-4

® ®

® ?
E=4 F4
?-4 a C
r
k
tl

r?

z °
® F F
w

n m ? F V7 ? ? to
N N ? i, W ? ?j R! W N

V) OZ
..
z y '®v,

of ?] °z
@

EEK 1:4 4.0 K+
n i
@
. .g GP F ® e
A 9
® u
c?
o
F

°?? z a x
No
°o 0
xa o

W? m

J O
O
lD

w
J
U b
y O ?
M O U

o Q
?
? N
t~i? N
s ? pp
H
W J

• J
Q
O
M
w
t-
N
AUSTIN GREEK
o?

?
d
• 2 ?
oti
0

m ?

00

z ?
zx

.. F P
°
(0 Lf)

00
.-1 Vl

M
?

°
LO

N co

ill
Fed
a
Y P
M
F
?O
w

U
a O
?
? CO
z W?
,®vtLi
z C
7
z ® ®

z x
d M
U n °z
m °?
O

U) W

LL
w pz @U z
w
Y O o a® q
u
W

LLI d
C7
3 Q G q e' ® >C
0 3 U ?44 W

Q W U)
z P4
u w
O Q
a x
a
D O
co
0
LO o
rn a

Z

cc
x
N
W
2 F-
0)
Y
J W
2
O
W

W U
w
z ? 3
z w
u
W N 0

0O
S
2
2
U W
2
J
LLI
Cl) O
a
CL

z ?
0
m o

3m
?

,pY,
.p
U m
O
6
0
m O m
0 0
f
?
.
L y
W O u
0
qq ?
? ? 3
w
A C
z
U kl
m

d r o

F
? m n y? 0
o
a wU Et-
a
?
c
C
C
Q C
U
N
a
v o o ? m
m
F L
E
w
E
3 U
a

w

? N n ?

E `.
m o
Y
y
r
Q
c
m

r a
U
p °' °
c o
°
E AAO `-0m
m '- m •? o
f U

Q
W m a°
O
Q m o
? y 3
U
F m
3 a o ?
'
om
o m
m? o
x 3
w

3 9
o
E5 ?m 0
H w m °
3

E
y o
jL
a 3

z z
z
m T N W m w m W
U 4Y Y Y
Z Q
6Z Q
6
rv !G

w w w

} O ?

of
O m
O ?
?Q
E
1O o
0
~ ?
0
~ J o
N LL + ? mm
, m r '?
[?1 J
J J
N
J
d O N t7 F
N Z O

7M M

'
z aY-
o
1 •?
VIZ Z .,
,f 5
. J= [ e N 'F... 1 O

+ ?
F`, a z O 8
Z A ? 1
on.
A ?' 9w f
I

OQ
Q H 3
1
cNm

10
0

? F
_r
y
o

1°fl`mN c
QQ I I
1
8 .?
I
p 1 /fY

fl j ?
s2
m s
w 8yg?O ,. ;.
-------- --------
U ,.

wz 4 '( C? ??
n Li

II g
i
?I

?H4?i SJ \J S..
_ n;
VN
P
sN
S$
g 8?
Z
g NN
N ? m Olm
s? g

f sNa f

5

'? - oZ
9 • ? Y
I ? / t

lit;
.w Q
\` °rr
15 \
ao
Cam
W -1 %
A
O!Q
N
J

I IV

'
\
1'
I
L
1
\
I i j j ? i
I
I I I .
?
? ? ::Vy
y?

1 =
I 20
?

r I `I I U` _ ? ? C1'.
f 4 I, ?' s I I ?h ' :,?
II ? Iz II II ?Q?' J. j r 'w J }I ?,. I? '
} 1? ? I ? I x' S. ??? i
------- ------

a t

i

0 ?Z Z 1 a R
,. D u +
A = 1 at
+ZMF w i' $
h +
70
m 0g0
bc "M
3?
A „ h I
fll p
5 Z ti= I
S ..
`I f ; O
:e
^ Ir
n u ,.
v ICI ;, ,.
\w
'
Jil,
n ?
.. QTY.
?X it, l<
g D
` T O
+ CM
y _ l Y ?l Y W I'J '? ?? I I?N r O C ..
+ o N
+
? s-
r

.Pp
P
N
10
V

8 N
O
Z
C.'

N N
C
?p
K N $ O
s?
hi

AN-
20
\ \l
l
e a
1
?\` 4
b z
f 1
I (P
1 k': I ?' \ 1 . '? I K
NNd '? " ?' \-r 7
I {/// .1 T 1 l 1 III ?I 1. - '!
i
A
r
8
8
onmemei\d...-,e\4 a dend_pe1m«\h3919_.ecl end.psh5.d9n
8 ... a
'~~r M
§'' N
sgi
?\ q 4
a a4Q
i
\? Q a ?

Y
$s gOPryN
?O Y¢
21 r
O ; L
C3
4?N ? ? AUTN 3LV fix
Lx3N3T3

W
Z
A .
C.)
;
4
+-I
R
eit$
99vvly i 0
?pRRRR
A

T
I m
m
rZ
Z
vv +
N a
v

11
oil
qT,
a

4
?
I
8
I ? I
1

n

5
1

31
r
?
asl
1

?I
f
?£ D
jla
m' II
?woa III
°_ ?I
- ?I
r
8?8
0

i
Q
4 Q
4
4
35
a
T

1
f
Q 1
a N
m
N
40
gg
RfVTO
a

.1
o'
? Y R
RB lit, ?
+ E R Rr }
a 1! g
1~
6m
I?
?o
D
0
g
a
8 /
y3y'0??p? o
yYY1? P
n

B/17/9?
+ a 4' 4'
*
4
N w

$
(V
V

N
W

?
v

O
T
p 22' ' 22' to
0 o

O

CJ

,
y o 4. 4'
Z
0
T
A
0
Z
N
T
35
0
C3
N
m
-i
I
I
YYY %?' o0
1N3M3rl
W v
D
A
4
? Y?gg
ggRRRR N

q§r,.gt, ???2
104
b
----------

<'v 1
£. IJ
Lo
°Seo g0£. ?.
60
Nob 0[E
o; c

e48??

N
?q
Ic ?? ? Wx
10-MAR-2009 12:17
r:\roadway\,?ro?\b3919_rdy_t sh.dgn
a aaau xnivNmc aa+
CONTRACT: C202232 TIP PROJECT: B-3919
0 0 0 D

9 {T p
Q N
H N
u ? Zm O?
N
V A
mZ ME

F

r
-Z 0
A! 0 o NN
p i!O ? H z0
n
AM ?Z m m
4

r
y
o 0 U;
OZ D?D_
? I
y
D
?"
yyy.O?
\
S
I
n
W
° D T A ?

- C)A =0 m ? oN
N Z
'
. 9

T
n

I g

g bb C mm

?1

° O

n !1??

/

£' y -

l"° O o

?°a
'4'' 1 b f "C A
1II ,n ~
ae„. ?
x >
GOB
0 ^
? ? I 1 I ?'? O t?

11 o n o
C ° A u
n o
p,
n
m
H7
?
m Qm
?
b

t SR IQ"

wralm Rd

\ "
a
S
Z . i
r
I m • g
i m i* I v S 1 r
Z
0 s Nd'1 rr,?7
0 z z m I O
G1 G?
2 r
1
N
Z H pp
A g I
'
jmalu?03 usm
c
1
1
m A O
Z N
? y 9
?
is
b
O

m
70 O
1
n D ? b7W
A? n ?e ? 6b ® ?
? hl? Z
o
P
N
_
Z
AA
"

®
_ O V?
M
c
z y A

b

Z

0 0

=

a
D
r
' m
? 0 C CO) C Gd

Ny

a
a 41 ppp
ma
?
p

?

? f?

?N?7 `j
y $g
8 ?G r7'

r b R1 ?'` O
Z
y m
tig`
F ? 1
n O ?.

o
^+
Z z v

"
fol
s 0 1 + 5 + b
(n T
r
m 0 A I
m 71
T rn
Q
A y
6
N
1
C
S - +

N
nn
1
1
? L
a'
?.
Y 1 r
U

U CA)
RO
p

+
+ g
8 g a
y

;t5
SM
A r
? ??
y p sy ,o
Ib r? ? ? e a
, x s
• z ?>
kE b° gK
r '
?
r
H y
y
b
O a N
S $ 3
N
6 a°
a T
0
x
a
c
A p T_ CCw m - x oN
j '? ? o ? d p 8
;m o o o m 0
o h
N ? N ? GGG4"'l
Ig a ?
3 °- 3
o

a II
° s m v 3 f m k' 4+ S -° a sr a' a' sr S
2t ms O
g s g a 3 n o v e
ti o °o
,2 S o' ? v m m f e 8 3 n a ??°°?°
f7 °s °e ? a a ? ? c $ 3 ° 0 0
?i g § a a 3
O g a o .°2 u S b
n S? n b
c
? a b
C ? :C
I?Illi I I!I!!'
??+I }. I I ??? k -o "0 O F F
4 O:E x N N T m T T (7 9 T T
a m o o 3° o o x e $ o o F F
aa? ° Tay 3mdn° 3SSaa?nm?
° C1 O N N m
o F;
'I Q o g o° a O c $$? B o,
I o ?^a as ; ; o 0
I T
°• C
3 n
III
?o: IIII
4 °° ?? ??? ?rl^I I
l l
° p I I I. I I
o D o ? v 10 S O O O O a %
°D ° M M 4' 0 0 0 0 9 5
'a In a, n 1 ?r S T s g
?y $ ?19 O O O O m
0 o.s S o 0 0
qT O O~ ? Y 9 O' °? O O Y T
1 ° o a o O T°
O O x O O
c
;n v r
Q Q 0 n a
o o
° c -' D O
?
N h 17
F -r
III I I I II I ® ? B ? ® Y T
f
o ° ° o ? 8 ? o aOx 8 > >
m $ n Sa va m °
+
O A J A p" O O
T O O O O
o o
m OR Oa ° ao a s s b
s of of F g g
02- o °
.? S s
a o et
? O O
3 Q 4 ; l
3 o a n
3 3 a
? I ?j II
?aa i ? D?
II I ?
O
a ao a v° 3 v s
?TVVO?°??
r? b ? S T
T o' a ° C a c
v ? ° S T o' o
T O O
O O
O ? 6 O
m o 0
0
C
m
I
I
I ®m ®o o-.
I
I
I
I
? ? H F N
0
p ? n N
T3 O
3 a

s c
y
$ °
{ ?0 ao
{
{
N N T p T 9 x ; w w C
3 3 n u. c n g?° e Cp 11y???
N N p 0 0 C `S c 1
y Q? fZ ° D a '
m O2 CyS1 , ; ° ; ^
6 `? n a c : ,J
O ° S ? x x
O G S n J
f s !y
o °
a y
m `m
O
I
I ?
m C C p p :° O v p F
N O ? p JO F? f f j
T O 0 C C C 'G `C `C v FmF O O `Z `Z .b a a Y C_ 7 m o ° 0 2<;; p
am a o E_ O o a .c o °
>> g>>> S o o> x a E1 < 61 0 a a
o F F ^? o o m N 'o ? N 'o a ?° g. 3 ? a a o s T
CT o' o
D OF o 4 ow E C N T a y "' o O oa = o
o `? H>> O s t^ o^ n. n Fn G1 T x f
0 6 3? o zj ^ m m ° v
° N n O N H
C° m Q o m C
A ? e p •? m
R v^,
_ in
a in
I
I ? I I I
®®© R ? 8® O
m 30 0 El 0 d d R" c 0 ® ?® 0
O g e 9 i °
n
O
Z
m
O
Z
r
-v
Z
2
m
O
cn
u
o. O
4
C `0

e
Z
,m
Yl J

10- AH-LUU9 Ilal
ocamamu..e a\63919_b_Ic_081120.dgn 6/2/99
D = mDmJ on ? ?
mmaWN_. B-3919
:ammm -
m - ? - n
m m °m mmmmmm?m?m m to
°e
_ ma - m`n: .`uWm Jmu:eW N-?'^ O P
mW: ? Nm
m m ?m z N1V r ,? .s
i min i °inm ol- D °n
2 NN NN o N J 2 L
D N? lml:?JJm W W NJ -? 'D? O
. D 2 r 2= D r 2 3 rz T``
? D In 0 A D VI B N p d N CU A
D V?DN D ^1N K ?
T y 9 pi0 NN N N N N N N NN UI?%Cje
D _ w
m?2m :TO=N Tm NONUImm Np ?? ?? ? ? ? ?? O
'y°m n ym m -m i.?mwe ?N>nmie':Dn ?S: SR 194b
> u ?aIN ?]r
NN:m nNN'B WNm
:zm u: °z?nmu-N?g -m NNT-N- ? /ij* -•
a,,? N Vim: _ =% ??• -
2 a D= m N m - J : ,
'yN N W UI_ a dN_NOmPDLy r ,
:mw N: n v
g
mn wwwNN-__r
ymmn mmmJNm?
_ ? mJmnin m.-m ? y
:O f°nmm?m .DmNS'
J m i 9 A B .O O N N O N O
DD O
u• eN O I -121(3-
WmmN m?W JI m yQyQI?
mom... ?.... a ?i
I ??Q
t,4
A w0'
m N m - +
r I I {.? y)
m ai z mo O QyD
? n .Fi an °- O SO?
s s .. i o m 0 O ? y `,
?-` m 9?oO mg ? m ? S
b az.nro???°oD °.. czri ?yQ
tirax f+z ?n?° ? r
r,o? ° z' ?n a a N g
? Huo ?r o°?i n. T? .p
Z a m yrl-i.? z=wy?? ?n 0 c11? b? Ki OD
? cRo yrlA°°?g??m (/1 Z JN (A
I c m y ?? O
m.°-mym._in^ amzciz n AH
O °N C.O .. p-yl 9m IV O
y H o`°. z °moc zv`' om rr oL r nnj
z " z
03 Pm
n y ° m a Z Wy CM M
L x ?TGR NN W y V
111111 y C) ? ° a r I)
N K y
r yyo m
' w VVz ti
?b mo 3 b o
o ?B
m w
bb@> y r
h o m m W C6
it w z ` z
=_- ~I
tq yy -" "ter.. n n
p C q 6 A '?? m z
b ;
> am ?o
At NO MK
x wo m
b yy m -< yn ?n n z
Off. O 'A a' B u+ al _ a W' 0 pr
m 'aid O Nr oa 0T n
p?p z
Li N e, ' w 0 > fry. ' R
?b K m N 0
h
k OY a o
b ? m
n y o ?'o
h
G/2/99
Lyy
\T
n
D
r
N
rn
0
Z
Z?
O a
> ,"„
O
z
m
in
i
-4 -1
0 ?!
Z
ma
zo
0
Z Ozc
?Cm
T T
70 >~ Z:1
0
O; OR
mZ
Z q a::e A
Z?
O ?1f?
O=
Z
y 0 Z?Z
m
>>
i O
9O
. s O
>
pm
P > 0
0
0
0
N A ZZ
t +
O
p O
p O
p O
r
A
:E C 1 N c- N m N A W N 0
m N P
>T
Am
> T
O O y T
yy v
0> 9
> T
9
>
9
>
X > - x m Am y a m m< a < m T Am y m y a y m

a > O O T T T O O O O O
0
A O w > 2 v v > v > Am v T v T> 9 > 9 > v >
1 M 2 O O r S. y2 - rZ• Z- z z.
wO
I Z
Z O O
O D > <
Y N
> > >
< a <
y m> >
W v O > <
m> > >
< v > >
< v > >
G v
m m y T S P T G
?Vmm v
my y0- m - T °m9 TV T9 T9

m
a
j• as x O• wa a• as as as
D n m y ww >O m
>m mo ?+> >O >O to
O
v < m m Zzp0 Ox -
zT O x zoo Ox 0x x
A T y W y mm T- T TT T- m T•
S C r m m 01 v a v D v > r 9
+
= m> a y a w -r AA A W > a y MW MW
>
• m
>•
?
> m 0 v<>x >- > x <>S > a w
y e
y N
y y C m A T y y P w e> > T y y
m> m m
> a xam> m a zmzD z> am> -
x r m ° a
fO s
° v wov ov o> e>
r z O os °
> > T S T W 'm
y y Z T 2
° > T m
v m w< x-
vzm> <=
m> Z T x
o > > v v
O W y+ r m x a r
y =I - r
y + r _ + x

m + y N> r
x > y > y -
y P A P> P>
r
O r r V r > O O AM P 01 P
y
< C .0 y < T 0 m o On 0 y
m y w r 0 r m O O r 0 r 0 r r
e
z y Wmz me aaz az mmz 0z me m
mo
m m me m0 m>o >e xwo mo mo z
z a y. a z ya ya e• m - m z e
y x m a zmm mm m m m e a
> v y
mm T m
m m O y
y O m y
O M T v y
O m m v y
m m S a
m m v
m m
y? a ay T T a a ay ay
m W m
t m r w w N m W m m
m w> m mm wz _wc 0C m m
m
om
m om m-y
W?m ay
NT oa
i- > oa ow
y 0
a
m
m z w m m
<0 <m yr
c
rc
<n
<0
<T
<T
>
>
> 0 00 O S m m w m O O m O m O> °
v a
O Zw0 m0
9- O
0
wT
m
r yvm c i > yve zo z
w Smm a "m vy xmc
c
n
0
2 a• W m
xm am am >m s°c c
o
a+< m 0 0 :m 0!. a m
z v
0 m
;PC W
oc m
m
i m
m .
T m m m< m< 0-
m
. D v m v
m O< m < m mm v y y
MO-
1. Am
A m
•
N
-?
w
OW
OT
T
x a
O w 2v
e

O
O p
O O ! O O S o P m
> P
> W
° a a mm m a
o
T +
o m w
a m m
_ W W•
00
A ?
00
Z?
Dr
m
O
N
fN

? n

P
I
m
? W
iv I ?
?s y o

1
0 ?
Z I n m
A
fn C
A
O J
-

A y
?

0 1
6N
a
o
m c
O C
S
m
A
C)o
op-
!!? oA

N
m rA
T I
T
N ,I

0
i O
J

m c 00

>m +
o
m 7Te
=m
09 c) 0; p
m O Z
r
0
0 Z
0, `
SN
. 4 50 03
p
Z " D
>-? -? r0
oz
P + ?- ? z

p

N N
o
Q.
J
Z
w A
t +
O p
O p
G O
O p
v
W
Q
Vl
cS
3•
0
M
0
rn
/
H
Z
D
r
m
mm
Z
1
N
0
mm
O
C
r
m
i

c 1 m zr m
N m o
N o n
A o
co a

N n

D
G
m m A N 0 < fn < W < W N m
m n S
a w m P 9 m m
O p1 y n W > = r N = z
w CD
y
Z 2 n v m O 0 0 ca O
O ; 0 n m N m m n
m m m m
P^
O in
m < m DJ = O = 2 O m m
O
m
D z o m H N c
m K)
`
°
m
r z r cnn !D .

m m m

4I
nO
D ? N
F O ?,
m
m
m
ni O
o =
Z H
Z c
O m
A I \ ?,
11 O
00
ill

ON
`J O
O
N N
?N 4 N
rp
Io ?O
6a N r
v
Ip
O
00
VN N
N
O
I

0
O
N
I
I
m W

I Y in
Y
1
i PpY
N WAW
_ +++
c NO J
m G0 °.
Z00
p
c)p W
OD
yO Z++
F O N V
? pP O
= y0
pm O -M
T e
0 ?Z
N
ym
70 >o
O AO
r +
to Z
in PO
00
0 ° O
m
0
m
a
1
N
m m
m
O?
o?
fN
Z0
O
OZ
RZ
Z O
A
N
?I
m m
Q O
O
Z
z C
Om
W
Z
.ti
O~
.a
NZ O
_ OC)
O
lli 00
lfl o

y
O
N
N
- • IT
r
A
A
O
W
N
p ?? PP Z3 03 P
N O AW O O
> Z OW ZZ 1Z +
pp 1 ++ O l
O? CWT CN Wp 7 A V
00TZ 1
yO .G0 0
? 0
0Ot>>? ++ 1-Q N? 0
yy`? °-[1
I ?m N? 00 pZ o? `D
"O? 60 NA ca +
W? PN N
O Om N
+ m W r o ++ +1 0
tho 0
U10? 0 00 N 0 O
(10
O Y Z 00 O I Z
O o
z Z
zz O O
y W N fJ
Z y O y
i - 0 (I
C 0 y ~
6 p
p N +
1 N
O r C
y O O
Z O O
N
gL
m
M y
O
Z
ZZ
O m
NI
1
S m
m
oO
G N
C1 ?_
r0
OZ
?0
ZW
N
111?
CS, 2002
1 z
Il go
00
ll zZ
_. v
fN
fN
H • - • - • - • - ' r
II°
VN ? N '
O
N

V +
+ +
O
D
0 O 2 N
y m m
O -
z 0?
I r
Zm
m 41 Of
Z+ r0
ON OZ
14
m ° O
y m O N
00 N
r Z
I
y p
so
O
co m
+ ZO
o
00
4
7
C 1 !A 9 L N m p . m q
D
<
m m A N OD m W < W N _
m D D
_ 3

O w s n P w m
M
Z
G) Cl) D N

M 1 = m j
CD z
Z Z O p O v d)
67 3 n n m h) m m N co co y
D m O v p v m n
v D 1 lae at N x
m < m (A x o x x Im m m
c) m
D
^
+ m D m N 0 r
r z r f cn m m
> CA
m m
x m
0
oc?i
i?
v
\
4
r
0-
Z?
z
9 r
V

?
Z^• n
r W
D I

yA¦
I

Q
U
G , f N
_
O
o N?TI ?

0
zN
?? c
?N
? v
N
A Z
= b W m
O
P m A
I m I?
'.a
?r
P8
OC1
Cq
ZFC
v
b
I ?
0
tZ
0
0
0
c
O
+
P
P
O
1C
N
m
M :y
T T
0 n
Or
N
Z H
00
0Z
Z
4 0
Z V
0
N N
A r-Z
t
ch m p
O 0
O
O Zm
z(A
l< OZ
PO
D>1
+ I
t 1
N
N yN
w sy
A
+ ca
+
NN
WO
O
O
~C
mm
m
T T
On
Z- m
n
r0
OZ
?O
O
N
v
N
O
z
z
O
Yf
O7 ? 017
V
pW s+
CON Z VV
Np Z Vt-cM m0 om
mZ ZZ
O
CA
0 p?
Z 0
p 0 m
?m Im a m
mZ C mO
ZO m oA
OG Z AA
o- 0
A
W
= m
m
T
0 T
r [1
O D
t r
` N
zn
0
0Z
9O
U
Z VI
I I
rn
r
b
?I
9
0
i

T
T ^
l
l
S 1 0
?r ]T
flo .e m c y
y
P?q
g p
a
r 7 ? ? s oo?
'D
rX I
r

Nm
O
py
}
}

? f
O N
M
4 ? y

y 2
? +7
z
?
32
4 $
^ ?
S
TTT?

W W W ? s
u
++
3>
BSc
'D
o
?
i ?
oo
s

1 IL R 82

NOO }'?
y y y 4
r

S

y OO?Ny?
y
N? 4"t a?
O x N 2 p Z p u? » D
p yA?'O
D
O

O
?
m znr';
z
m
y
o
?
42,
m D
n??m T8
I
K
D
.
O m m 0 °•
?n
N
l']r
O pyoz
D D O N a ??r t y }
N m Ql ZOD f Am P

'?
y
K 0 M,
y
X p0
y
?? m v N m
w
p°^'oamx
r T N o??ra
O 9 - Z O X y
r m ; a z
O =
r y
y ? D
Z y
m a m
< N
o

--6 m
'+'g?i3?
A ms a
s
moo elm]
r
D o m aoa8 ~D
<
mm <
. C 10
m y
5 5 z

m N K y
m m W m y^
O V} a

rg
!0 p
r A %
}N
}
T{ m m p z a
o
y
r
f a
a y

Z N p

A C m

? y
o
K
m a ? m A
v
r
O
O y _
?
? m K m
? $ O
m m
0
P

`a p
?
z
4

Y

10-MAR-2009 121
\d.-_-.63.19_hyd-deoil.dgn
8/17/99

I?OJ
D
I
N
-?i O 2 N I O

m
°
° r , m

N v ^ ti W
2 O C
v

I O_
?
N >
T N
I?

n
m N <
A r N m /
p. r m
C
o a m In A N ??
q Y
m
o V?
° m n
z T
N D
)
O
_ (/
er m TI 0 8 0070
=Do
m >
m
m r .? D m q oN e' +m

?
u, „
,
r n m tpD
N
_
' _
m n M. T A
< G
m vni A z O
z i O
F
O o
z n
n ?"n i3 /
\ In mD nm N -
M
D z?n
o O _ 00 / U T N O m
T
D
D 8 r
o H m m n m r p m O r?
I:
In m
Z C'1
2 m x
r m D r
O m
x
y C Z m N
m
< C
C O T
3 r
r N
m ! m

° z In a
?? m o z r
m
m
v T Nom ??
?' mn My
-

N i

?r r y

U+mO m m z
ti
n

- V
1 in E mC A
n o A vK
m rn
W
a ? :+ o D T o
r
?; z 0
m m mK X
m u; N m
v z

3 A T
D z r
y
D
o
m r
O m
m

C/)
31 F 1) ,

m
O
i m X
Z 2
< m
mr
I
F
ti
I ?
I
^
2

m
I
n
I N
?n
W
z
N
O G O I O
_ N m
N = D
°J = p ?n IDn z vii m I r
N G
r m
N ? ? m m n SS-
II v ? I
m o
N ?n
N q p y m

°
n
x --q r
D N
z
n O

1n y N r
y
? TT
a L/V
Z _
\ r
`J N
LD m
m nz? ?mm
m r D tnv
n W
; m
iom
A n m
Z m ?n r? + D
O
Q
p o > D z m °
z m m mn F
Z c
i
3, C? N
z _ O m
S O Cl 2° \ -i n
00 /
\ VI
0 W O T
m ti F
n

D F

o Z D r D m

o 0

?

m 0
z
?

A m

O
TT
N
nmv Q t
l mz m mD Inr T
n
r
2 Q
Z m N
m C
D A
O
O < <
C Z m f W T m n n
r tNnm ti o r
t m mD
r
e r
O 0
p O m y
x ti r
^
O 3
in f to r m W m m m .?

m
° 14 O m D nl m W

o
z m
n
m
rC O
m y m
T
r o

I
i O
m
m
O
A T
V
x K y
3 m

O
m
A D
V
I
A m om

x U)
Z
0
O
2 Z F
< m
A ?
O
ti E ?
I n
O 2
I n
2 /

9d
" AR

1 " y
Z

, Jr O
E $
0.
ja
+

-- o

i
10-MAR-2009 12:20
.:\rad.a \ .. \6,9_,dq-pshA.dgm 8/17/99
8
P
N N ?U m?l ?p
a z 0 0l t f.?4) - Bn I W W "w?gg ?, AmG64 1
r'MT
/1 I/1 A' F '11 F -- / O
?, 3 9 ?l 1 •? ? N.KAPI• SB??`J ? / - y N +
V S c> AO k.ISA0.U 5 ^ 1 py `L''! ( pS
A In A 9 B 9T M1 ,? s
s, v m +Z-0 I E \V wn'
O r' .4 rh ?7v a$^ a = l ' 1 Il£ r. ?: F u "Vol;
-4 -4 via
p I' F
r O Z J m Y -?II 11 ? ?^?? T
9 :11
7i 10
t ?? °II 111 I \ 0 h8 65 N +
v rIDN.p1-9M III I la X?t ?} Ail IF g
o
TL o ?nas .. ? 'lll F ? ? \? Pfd 6??? -. S
+ ? $ \ ? III 51 li ? le3l '?? , r
/"` / a\e
aT+l 9 aR fib.1 `?f1 1? IIl Ri . \ n\ / ,?y /
G? 1 IIi
B2'p- ° •.WL6lb 5(/. 1 1 1 ? g = \''?` s d5 / • 1 \ //yy
3.BWEPLt M V/ 1 r? a y b •?? Q y, y y/`?
cE S =8 ?q ? aQg I 1? I` ? $G. +lt ?? rd // 15 O ' 'G R
}y{? ?L N i I III ,? s a4.+F y, ? N ;?
r, + P'Q O o n .1' j 11 1 // • 8 ?IT1
N `43 i a +IFn a` m\ N. L F
?i 15 r
-?CjI J ??^gURs
N 8Y
Y 1 i ` p ^ ?Q it ?' n O C z
v '?? k t 5 L1 1 " /" to L•?
Z
OII BBB BV?i Q w 1 o NOS .•_
117 B ~ I + i - O O -I
J n
mtNi?l }QO?j???U+ } + ©wu• ?N R uR $ Z - C
? u
e
>o.
wm ^y?s , ? Q 'Cj ? Q
ca ° a I I ?
Awra?Z
N
mmmm f 1 4
mm r
...Pa
- -100
mwI
00?A
70
ZNImm
r7o-r
MCmm
y ?.
OC
"'I m
Av
Ny
m
Z
O
M
0

_
d ? (?N
A
N
00 ? 7CU

o
? AA
O
G N
o
g N

S N
o
Z
m
N

N N
A P
P m Y
O O
m
jN 8 By
m
g

/;' aaa g

./

8
83 n D
1
/ /
8

F
wB.Be •
m
t -
\ P
..a
-
?L
20 8
F
88Fi

A TAO
ZZN
F ~N eY?\ Q/
j a s +?
Ix II ?'ls?- ? i a \'LT
II i ??fFJ \ .BVB \,
I I I .???Y11F? '.
t
Imo
Onm
?rz
Son
vZZ
nolD
UC
0
i^• T
?O
A
$I

8/17/99

t

P
al 41 r:
II II 114
$ Ati^o
u n n 11
g
gL
AwN?Z
CA C., CA 0
°m
mmm
x x co co
x
mmm
?Zcn?-4
N
7°Np, 00
O>v I TT
w
`sAy Ap i
mTar
0;v X
C(Aa
Zpo3!
toc)n m
N-,m
m
?m
2-0
m
H N
m
z
0
m
v
? i
I ?
./ ?/ / ! ! I Q QQ
! t I' Ix m W
+ I Z
a? ti a Q f3 Q w Z
. / Qg ? N Q
?& FQ as g +so.oo +y{
Q .. F OC
O
R?h n ?z \ yy $ ? O O :' r
4. A,
f7 Fy Q : ? y ` 9
a
r
W
40
Q
', ? Uz I Q u
Q Q Q QQQ Q
?? Q QQQ Q P Q %
?.. Q x
P ? `, QQ Q ?s
I a g (I N I? Q. Y g m:
???qo¢ p? Y pQyl
O + gPm n is
11.9
1nm / +
Z..S N + /l Q
m .
4 N I Q,
f
MIR
?i')'?XI W I a ? ~? ( b
?SNEU T/?
W
Od tl009 AWd

MN33tl0 9 Mll910 3p
l'135tl3 Atl919
/
-

__
lN3 ? 2
m
g
? m
iZ Z
vo +
rn
DO -0 a
N q
S

A Q
`
CAC
m
bQ ni 4x
p0 as s

E[i
$
Z \
g

U' .o
z
?
IO
= ^3 o
WON C

m
?
l l
T t
t 3
P
+ 4' 4' n
W
V

0
w

D2 02
N
?
c `
V
n

o
T

_ 9
A
Q T
O 22' ' 22' Z
'
Ln P
C 78'
G1
m

I
? p
T

' I y
o

w m

D2 D2 z
?°
I
J
T
?2
W m a+ ^
+g om
um a[
P 6
0
sum
m W
r y W
y S
W
W ^
m W
O N
O tl
T
4
P
Q P A
'N Q ? W b m y 3
ry ylm e?$ .
I ? _ ?? y D N ? St
N T O Yw'gQ Q
N pi N
9p Na
_ 40
? 9 g k„ov
a
J \
I ?I ?9? _-?? vu alu
Rm
Y<
x PI
iQ ¢YRx? W n

mo

North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION FORM
I.D. No. B-3919
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Consultation Phase:
b. Project Description
C. WBS Element No.:
State Project:
Federal Project:
d. Document Type:
if.
Right of Way
Bridge No. 448 on SR 2053 over Austin Creek and
Bridge No. 140 on SR 2053 over Smith's Creek
Town of Wake Forest, Wake County, Division 5.
33353.1.1
8.2408501
BRZ-2053(1)
CE 08/20/04
Date
CE Addendum 09/11/07
Date
The above environmental document has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771. It
was determined that the current proposed action is essentially the same as the original proposed
action. Proposed changes, if any, are noted below in Section III. It has been determined that
anticipated social, economic, and environmental impacts were accurately described in the above
referenced document(s) unless noted otherwise herein.. Therefore, the original Administration
Action remains valid.
III. CHANGES IN PROPOSED ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
1. Protected species status and water resources were reviewed (see attached memorandum from
the NCDOT Natural Environment Unit dated 08/28/08).
As of January 31, 2008 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov/nc-
es/es/countyfr.htmp lists three federally protected species for Wake County, the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), and
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). No new species have been added since the completion
of the referenced documents. Descriptions and biological conclusions of "No Effect" were
given for all of the above mentioned species in the CE. Biological conclusions of "No
Effect" are still valid for the federally protected species identified in the Categorical
Exclusion and Categorical Exclusion Addendum as potentially present within the project
area.
Suitable habitat for the Dwarf wedgemussel is not present in the project area. Surveys
conducted in February 2003 on Austin Creek and January 30, 2006 on Smith's Creek did not
yield any individuals or suitable habitat. Therefore this project will have no effect on the
Dwarf wedgemussel.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac (maintained roadsides) is present in the project area.
Surveys for this species were conducted on January 10, 2006, June 25, 2007, and May 15,
2008 and did not yield any individuals. A review of the Natural Heritage Program database
(updated February 2008) revealed no occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the
project area. Therefore, the biological conclusion of 'No Effect' remains valid for Michaux's
sumac.
The bald eagle was officially delisted on August 8, 2007 (CFR 50 Part 17). The bald eagle is
still afforded protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A description of
the bald eagle and its habitat is included in the CE. Suitable habitat for bald eagle
nesting/foraging does not exist within the project area. Additionally, a review of the Natural
Heritage Program database (updated February 2008) revealed no occurrences of this species
within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect the
bald eagle.
2. Water resource classifications have not changed since the referenced Categorical Exclusion
(CE). The Division of Water Quality best usage classification for Austin Creek [DWQ Index
No. 27-23-21 and Smith's Creek [DWQ Index No. 27-23-2] and its tributaries remains C,
NSW.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile up or down stream of Bridge No. 448 over
Austin Creek. Bridge No. 140 over Smith Creek is located approximately 0.4 miles
downstream of the Wake Forest Reservoir. The Wake Forest Reservoir is classified as WS-II,
HQW, NSW, CA.
3. The proposed project will include raised sidewalks on both sides of Bridge No. 140 due to
development occurring in the area.
4. To accommodate a greenway access underneath Bridge No. 140 over Smith's Creek, the
proposed bridge's vertical profile has been raised to allow 7-foot access under the bridge. The
revised grade has extended the project construction limits.
5. Two (2) known Underground Storage Tank facilities and one (1) automotive repair facility
were noted in the project area in an evaluation performed by the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit
in January 2008. Anticipated impact to the project from these facilities is expected to be low.
IV. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
D.O.T. will implement all practical measures and procedures to minimize and avoid
environmental impacts.
Please see attached for revisions and updates to the Green Sheet Commitments for this project.
V. COORDINATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch personnel have discussed
current project proposals with others as follows:
Design Engineer: Susan Lancaster. Roadway Design
10/02/2008
Date
FHWA Engineer: Jake Ri sg bee 10/03/2008
Date
Natural Environment Unit: James Pflaum
10/02/2008
Date
V1. NCDOT CONCURRENCE
4 - /0?3(Oe
Projec anning E ineer Date
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Date
Manager
VII. FHWA CONCURRENCE
Not Required _
Federal Highway Administration Date
Division Administrator
?. SEP 0 F 1000
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ".:..
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TtrPEri,
GOVERNOR - SECRETARY
August 28, 2008
MEMORANDUM TO: Derrick Weaver, Project Engineer
Central Project Development Unit
FROM: James Pflaum, Environmental Specialist
Natural Environment Unit
SUBJECT: Water resources and protected species update for a
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Right of
Way Consultation for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 448 over Austin Creek and Bridge No.
140 over Smith's Creek on SR 2053 in Wake County.
TIP No. B-3919.
REFERENCE: Categorical Exclusion addendum, dated September 2007
The following memorandum provides information to assist in the preparation of a FHWA
Right of Way Consultation for the proposed project. It addresses water resources, federally
protected species under the Endangered Species Act, and moratoria potentially impacted by
the project and serves to update the previously submitted documents with respect to these
issues.
WATER RESOURCES
Water resource classifications have not changed since the referenced Categorical Exclusion
(CE). The Division of Water Quality best usage classification for Austin Creek [DWQ Index
No. 27-23-2] and Smith's Creek [DWQ Index No. 27-23-2] and its tributaries remains C,
NSW. No Portion of Austin Creek or Smith's Creek, its tributaries, or other surface waters
within 1.0 mile of the project area are listed on the Final 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waters.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-11), nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile up or down stream of Bridge No. 448
over Austin Creek. Bridge No. 140 over Smith Creek is located approximately 0.4 miles
downstream of the Wake Forest Reservoir. The Wake Forest Reservoir is classified as
WS-11, HQW, NSW, CA.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMFNF OF TlkMSFORTATION
PROJEL9- DEVELOPMPNTAND FNVIRONMMTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICECO I'F.R
M.EIGH NC 27699-1598
T1:LEPHONE: 919415-1334
FAX: [phone]
WRBSITE.' IPH'H'.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
7728 CAPITAL BLVD
SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
As of January 31, 2008 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov/ne-
es/es/countyfr.html) lists threeTederally protected species for Wake County, the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis, Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), and
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). No new species have been added since the completion of
the referenced documents. Descriptions and biological conclusions of "No Effect" were given
for all of the above mentioned species in the CE.
Suitable habitat for the Dwarf wedgemussel is not present in the project area. Surveys
conducted in February 2003 on Austin Creek and January 30, 2006 on Smith's Creek did not
yield any individuals or suitable habitat. Therefore this project will have no effect on the
Dwarf wedgemussel.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac (maintained roadsides) is present in the project area.
Surveys for this species were conducted on January 10, 2006, June 25, 2007, and May 15,
2008 and did not yield any individuals. A review of the Natural Heritage Program database
(updated February 2008) revealed no occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project
area. Therefore, the biological conclusion of `No Effect' remains valid for Michaux's sumac.
The bald eagle was officially delisted on August 8, 2007 (CFR 50 Part 17). The bald eagle is
still afforded protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A description of the
bald eagle and its habitat is included in the CE. Suitable habitat for bald eagle
nesting/foraging does not exist within the project area. Additionally, a review of the Natural
Heritage Program database (updated February 2008) revealed no occurrences of this species
within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect the
bald eagle.
cc:
B-3919 file
Bridge No. 448 on SR 2053 Over Austin Creek
and
Bridge No. 140 on SR 2053 Over Smith's Creek
Town of Wake Forest
Wake County
WBS Element No. 33353. 1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-2053(1)
State Project No. 8.2408501
T.I.P. PROJECT B-3919
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
b
at F(j?Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., ranch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
i 47 ?? ? /t
ate John F. Sullivan HI, P.E. Division A ' strator
Federal Highway Administration
Bridge No. 448 on SR 2053 Over Austin Creek
and
Bridge No. 140 on SR 2053 Over Smith's Creek
Town of Wake Forest
Wake County
-WBS Element No. 33353.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-2053(1)
State Project No. 8.2408501
T.I.P. PROJECT B-3919
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 2007
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED IN
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
9- /1- a
Date
y /6 ?,
Date
BRANCH BY. ..,,.
SN FA
20P FESSIp;?'ti? L
Q
SEAL -
26985
Q
r M. duller, P.E., )sroject Planning Engineer ?cnZ..lt`NGIN?EP.•?/i,`
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch N??; •• ?J?. ?.
.,,? Eq M • ,..
Derrick G. Weaver, P.E:, Project Development Group Supervisor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Bridge No. 448 on SR 2053 Over Austin Creek
and
Bridge No. 140 on SR 2053 Over Smith's Creek
Town of Wake Forest
Wake County
WBS Element 33353.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-2053(1)
State Project No. 8.2408501
T.I.P. PROJECT B-3919
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, Division 5, Roadway
Design
1. If the proposed alignment is altered from what is stated in the planning
document, the NCDOT will contact the appropriate agencies in order to
reevaluate any potential impacts.
2. Traffic will be maintained off-site during the construction of this project. At
no time will both bridges be non-operational, as there are several residents
between the two bridges who require access to SR 2053. Residents will
always have access to one of the two bridges, and the construction will be
phased appropriately.
3. Coordination with the Town of Wake Forest will continue for possible
accommodation of town-constructed greenway trail crossings under the
bridges.
Division 5
4. NCDOT will coordinate with the Wake County Public Schools Transportation
Department in order to minimize impacts to the school bus routes. The
Department requested that the Wake Forest school offices be specifically
notified so drivers can be alerted as soon as possible.
Standard Project Committments
5. The appropriate utilities or local goverment officials will be consulted
concerning possible relocation of utilities during final design.
6. NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be followed during construction of this project in order to ensure
minimal impact to water resources.
7. DOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 448 and Bridge
No. 140.
8. All Neuse River Buffer Rules will apply.
B-3919 CE ADDENDUM PAGE 1 OF 1
SEPTEMBER 2007
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
Bridge No. 448 on SR 2053 Over Austin Creek
and
Bridge No. 140 on SR 2053 Over Smith's Creek
Town of Wake Forest
Wake County
WBS Element 33353.1.1
Federal Project BRZ-2053(1)
State Project 8.2408501
TIP No. B-3919
INTRODUCTION:
Bridge Nos. 448 and 140 are located in Wake County on SR 2053 (Jones Dairy Road) over
Austin and Smith's Creek, respectively. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed
replacement of these bridges was approved on August 20, 2004. At that time, NCDOT proposed
to replace-in-place the existing two-lane bridges with new two-lane bridges, with some minor
approach work.
Coordination with the Wake Forest Town Planners revealed the Wake Forest Transportation
Plan, adopted January 2003, includes a five-lane cross section proposed for Jones Dairy Road to
accommodate the heavy residential development in this area of town, now and in the future.
NCDOT was requested to consider multi-lane bridges in TIP Project B73919. Upon studying this
concept, NCDOT agrees it is prudent to propose multi-lane bridges for these locations.
Due to wider proposed bridges, further environmental analysis was required. It is the purpose of
this report to document the new information acquired as a result of the design change. This
document is not meant to be a stand-alone document; it must be considered in conjunction with
the Categorical Exclusion for the subject project.
The location is shown in Figure 1 of this document. B-3919 is programmed in the latest
approved North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. Right-of-Way acquisition is planned for Federal
Fiscal Year 2007 and Construction for Federal Fiscal Year 2008. This project is part of the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and has been classified as a
"Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
PROPOSED ACTION:
Bridge No. 448 will be replaced with a 90-foot long bridge at the existing location and Bridge
No. 140 will be replaced with new 75-foot long bridge at the existing location (see Figure 2A
through 2B of this document. The cross section of bridge number 448 will include a 12-foot
wide center turn lane, two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, and two 14-foot outside lanes in
each direction with 2'-6" concrete curb and gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk on both sides.
Bridge number 140 will include an the same lane widths as bridge number 448, except sidewalk
is not proposed at this time. Both bridges will have 79 feet total width. Figure 2 of this
document shows the proposed.cross sections of the bridges.
Approach work to the north of Bridge No. 448 includes tying into Chalks Road, approximately
100 feet from the end of the bridge approach slab. Approach work to the south of Bridge No.
448 includes approximately 150 feet of pavement tapers from the end of the bridge approach slab
back to existing. Approach work to the north of Bridge No. 448 includes tying into Chalks Road,
approximately 100 feet from the end of the bridge approach slab. Approach work to the south of
Bridge No. 448 includes approximately 150 feet of pavement tapers from the end of the bridge
approach slab back to existing. Based on preliminary design, the design speed is 50 mph.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction, utilizing NC 98 and Averette Road. The
off-site detour is approximately 0.7 miles longer for through traffic on SR 2053 than the existing
travel route. The design speed is 50 mph.
Design exceptions occur when the proposed design will not meet the standards for a particular
design speed. Design exceptions are commonly used when trying to utilize the existing
alignment for a road in order to minimize impacts and costs, as is the case for this project. The
speed limit for Jones Dairy Road is posted at 55 mph, with curves signed for cautionary 45 mph.
The design speed for Bridge Nos. 448 and 140 on Jones Dairy Road will be 50 mph. NCDOT
anticipates the need for a design exception for the vertical alignments for both bridges.
ESTIMATED COST:
Rep Ii ceivent of?
° r Bridges 1Vo` 448 and
$?,,2 r, ?' 1ra?. Noe140;;
Structures $ 1,369,620
Roadway Approaches 11 $ 533,820
Detour Structure and 0-
Approaches 11
Structure Removal 1 1 $ 28,785
Utilities construction $ 103,640
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 151,000
10% structures & utilities
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 238,135
35% Prelimina
Engineering & Contingencies $ 375,000
15%
Total Construction Cost $ 2,800,000
Right-of-Way Costs (includes $ 250,360
Utilities relocation)
Total Project Cost .. $ . 3,050 360

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
A Community Impact Assessment (CIA) was produced for B-3919 in January 2007 by
NCDOT community planners. Recommendations are as follows:
NCDOT should work with the Town of Wake Forest to determine an appropriate location
and design for a greenway crossing of Jones Dairy Road. If a grade separated crossing is not
feasible the intersection of the roadway with Chalk Road may be appropriate for an at grade
crossing. It should be assumed that relatively young children, accessing area parks and
schools will be using this crossing.
If an off site detour is used, NCDOT should coordinate with the Wake County Public
Schools Transportation Department in order to minimize impacts to the school buses routes.
The Department requested that the Wake Forest offices be specifically notified so drivers can
be alerted as soon as possible.
NCDOT should coordinate the replacement schedule of this bridge with Bridge 448 so that
the homes between the bridges maintain appropriate access.
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (ICI) were also addressed in the CIA. Regional growth
pressures will likely drive continued development in the area. The bridge project complies with
the Town of Wake Forest's plan to manage expected growth and maintain quality of life. Thus,
changes in the patterns of residential or commercial development and/or land uses in the vicinity
of the bridge project would not be anticipated as directly stemming from the bridge's
replacement. For these reasons, indirect and cumulative effects on the existing resources,
including downstream water quality, should be minimal.
NATURAL RESOURCES:
A site visit was completed on January 10, 2006 by NCDOT biologists. Additional impacts at
each bridge were evaluated.
Water Resources
The project study area in the southeast quadrant of Austin Creek supports an ephemeral channel
that drains into Austin Creek. This channel is not shown on the quadrant map (Rolesville), the
soils map of Wake County, or with GIS mapping. This channel was rated using the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) worksheet and had a score of 4. Even though the
project is located in the Neuse River basin this ephemeral channel is not subject to the Riparian
or Watershed Buffer rules because it does not appear on the soils or the quadrant map.
The Smith Creek bridge is located less than 1 mile from a WS-11 resource: the Wake Forest
Reservoir. Therefore, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds apply.
Wake County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program, which is
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These crossings of
Austin and Smith Creeks are located within detailed flood study reaches in a flood hazard zones
designated as Zone AE, for which 100-year base flood elevations have been determined and
regulated floodways are established. Both Austin and Smith Creeks were designated in the
currently effective FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Wake County as "Flooding Sources
Studied by Detailed Methods: Redelineated", meaning that they were studied by detailed
methods for previous FISs, but were only partially revised in the current study. Their effective
analyses remain valid; however, their floodplain delineations have been revised on the current
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). A copy of the current FIRM is attached, (see Figure 3) on
which are depicted the established limits of the 100-year floodplain and floodway in the vicinity
of the project. It was noted in the published effective FEMA FIS for Wake County that the
existing bridge over Austin Creek is shown in the flood profile to be currently inundated by the
100-year flood event. It is therefore recommended that the proposed approach roadway and
bridge deck elevation be set at the same elevation as that of the existing bridge. The proposed
bridge replacements will be "in-kind" replacements and will provide equivalent or improved
conveyance compared to that of the existing bridges; therefore, it is not anticipated that this
project will have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain and associated flood
hazard. Any potential improvement in conveyance provided by the replacement structures may
result in a lower 100-year water surface elevation; therefore, it is anticipated that approval of a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be required by FEMA. After the project is
constructed, approval of a final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will also be required upon
project acceptance by NCDOT. NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with FEMA and local
authorities in the final design stage and after project acceptance to ensure compliance with
applicable floodplain management ordinances. Recommendations made in this report are
preliminary and could be subject to change during the final and more detailed design phase of the
project.
Biotic Communities
Tables I and 2 in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) summarize the impact area by plant community
type. The current project study area is now wider but the approach length has decreased at both
bridges. Impacts by plant community type are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. Plant Community Impacts for Bridge No. 448 over Austin Creek
Plant Community Acres Impacted % of Project Stud Area
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.12 6.7
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.10 5.5
Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest 0.29 16.1
Earl Successional land 0 0
Maintained/ Disturbed 1.29 71.7
Totals 1.80 100
At the time of the site visit the southwest quadrant was recently disturbed/graded. The plant
community impacts in this quadrant changed to maintained/ disturbed. A new sewer easement is
located in the southwest quadrant. Plant community impacts for this area are now
Maintained/Disturbed. There are no Early Successional land impacts at the Austin Creek bridge
study area.
Table 2. Plant Community Impacts for Bridge No. 140 over Smith Creek
Plant Community Acres Impacted % of project Stud Area
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0 0
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.65 24
Pine Plantation 0.22 8
Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest 0.17 6
Successional Land 0.36 13
Maintained/ Disturbed 1.35 49
Totals 2.75 100
Adjacent to the roadway impacts, a Maintained/Disturbed community is present in all four
quadrants at the Smith Creek crossing. A small amount of Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
forest is present adjacent to Smith's Creek in the northeast quadrant. The differences in plant
community impacts from above to the CE can be attributed to the shorter and wider study area.
Waters of the United States
No wetlands were found in the additional study area at either bridge.
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 of 1973, as amended. As of May 10, 2007 the USFWS
lists the following federally protected species for Wake County (Table 3).
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Wake County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucoce halus Bald Eagle Threatened (proposed for delistin
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wed emussel Endangered
Rhus michauxii Michaux Sumac Endan ered
"E" denotes Endangered (a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ............................... Threatened (proposed for delisting)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The study area was evaluated for the bald eagle on January 10, 2006. The study area does not
support significant large trees that would be suitable for the bald eagle and the study area is not
within site distance of a large body of water. The two bridges are located on a busy road that is
approximately 0.2 mile from the new multi-lane Wake Forest NC 98 bypass. The Smith Creek
bridge, however, is approximately 0.3 mile downstream from the Wake Forest Reservoir shown
on the Rolesville quadrant map. The Wake Forest Reservoir personnel said they have not ever
seen a bald eagle at the reservoir. The closest active bald eagle nest known by the Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) is over 12 miles away at Lick Creek area of Falls Lake. No bald eagles
were observed during the field visit. A biological conclusion of No Effect was reached. Mr.
Gary Jordan of the US Fish and Wildlife Service was contacted by email and concurred with the
No Effect Biological Conclusion.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The additional study area at both bridges did not support suitable habitat in the form of large
contiguous pine dominated stands greater than 30 years old. Scattered mature pine trees are
present in the study area in residential areas. No''/2 mile survey was conducted. A search of the
NCNHP database on January 12, 2006 found no occurrence of this species within 1.0 mile of the
study area. Therefore, this project will have a No Effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Dwarf wedge mussel was surveyed for Austin Creek in February 2003 by NCDOT biologists
Sharon Snider and Karen Lynch. No mussels or relics were found and Austin Creek lacked
suitable habitat. A Biological Conclusion of No Effect was reached as stated in the August 2004
Categorical Exclusion (CE). A recent habitat assessment was conducted in Smith Creek on
January 30, 2006 by NCDOT biologists. Smith Creek was characterized as a slow flowing,
sandy creek with moderate beaver impact not providing suitable habitat for freshwater mussels.
The project area of B-3919 also lacks suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel. Therefore it
can be concluded that there will be No Effect to the dwarf wedge mussel from construction of 13-
3919.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of forest edges and roadsides are present within the project area.
Plant by plant surveys for Michaux's sumac were conducted on January 10, 2006 by NCDOT
biologists. Habitat was marginal because most of the area was too thick and did not have
sufficient daylight especially at the Smith Creek bridge. Other areas that were more open were
maintained or disturbed such as the southeast quadrant of the Austin Creek bridge. Weedy
species precluded its growth in other areas especially in the northeast quadrant of the Smith
Creek bridge.
Since surveys were conducted outside the growing season Mr. Gary Jordan (USFWS) was
contacted (email Jan. 11, 2006) by Karen Lynch. The information above was presented to Mr.
Jordan as a Biological Conclusion of No Effect. Mr. Jordan agreed with the Biological
Conclusion of No Effect.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are sixteen Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Wake County as of May 10, 2007.
Eleven species were reported in the NRTR. The entire list of species and their state status are
listed below in Table 4. The habitat column refers to existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. As of January 12, 2006 review of the NCNHP database of the rare species and unique
habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the study
area or within 1.0 mile.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Wake County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Anguilla rostrata American eel W1 Yes
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC No
Etheostoma collis lepidinion
Noturus furiosus
Lythrurus matutinus
Ambloplites cavifrons
Myotis ausiroriparius
Heterodon simus
Fusconaia masoni
Speyeria diana
Lasmigona subviridus
Elliptio lanceolata
Lindera subcoriacea
Trillium pusillum var. pusillum
Sagittaria graminea var.
weatherbiana
Carolina darter SC Yes
Carolina madtom SC(PT) Yes
Pinewoods shiner W2 Yes
Roanoke bass SR Yes
Southeastern myotis SC Yes
Southern hognose snake SC No
Atlantic pigtoe E Yes
Diana fritillary (butterfly) W2 No
Green floater E Yes
Yellow lance E Yes
Bog spicebush T No
Carolina trillium E No
Grassleaf arrowhead SR-T Yes
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap SR-T No
"SC" - Significantly Rare: Any species which has not been listed by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Speciel Concern species: but
which exists in the state in small numbers and has been determined by the NCNHP to need
monitoring.
"(P_" - Proposed: Species proposed in the Federal Register as a status different from its current
Federal status.
- Threatened: A taxon "which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range".
"T"-- Threatened: A taxon likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SR"-- Significantly Rare: Species which are rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-100
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction
(and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease).
"-T" - Throughout: These species are rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations
total).
"W 1' - Watch: Any other species believed to be of conservation concern in the state because of
scarcity, declining populations, threats to populations, or inadequacy of information to
asses its rarity.
CONCLUSION:
The environmental impacts associated with the multi-lane bridges described herein will impart
no greater impacts than did the two-lane bridges described in the CE. It is concluded that the
project as redesigned will not result in substantial adverse social, economic, or environmental
impacts, and that the categorical exclusion classification, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.4 and 23
CFR 771.117, is appropriate.
N
W
LL

?^l?o
M °
Ln
N

?,j ---*
of
? o
m
0
z
u
0
m
z
0
z
0
V
V
F
M
Ln
O
N
w
N
c3' -
0
z
0
m
z
0
z
0
V
5
N
W
0
m
Z
0
N
Z
o• O
r
0- U
CV) LLI
m N
m N
N
0.
V
0
LJJ
N
O
CL.
0
ce
a

'= Ea
ro i s iii i?tt
-- ? ? ? ?a9a i,d ? a?g?
o» . I ? e a 3 OF (i{ ?+ H
o !5{gg ?jd
C6_2 °x a
yyy{{{:
?? 9 a ® e t o ®®A_ t ® t. ????}
A6?,e"?P-r e??'a•.,e ?^t ?? 'Z ?e'v?-_C,? ?. v ?.? K'r` 9.?5'. "` - ?,.? M..
", 'cam
+V110. .
{{F,
- ?? u p nee •. -{t ? ? - "t" a ?`-' ?, yid.
^. J;34.. y d. ' .. emu' i n _ Ci • .- ?a o 5. -,d--.: $ ;.?
Jyl
a i .gyp
r i
Y P .. t q ? ... -..T4.{ 3 e' .+? a lJ 4 p? C 'G }6y+ - Y?
.9 D uj
g - OM 73WVd SNIor
S i
Bridge No. 448 on SR 2053 Over Austin Creek
and
Bridge No. 140 on SR 2053 Over Smith's Creek
Town of Wake Forest
Wake County
WBS Element No. 33353. 1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-2053(1)
State Project No. 8.2408501
T.I.P. PROJECT B-3919
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Ba0o-?
Dat
4 -2a r
ate
Federal Highway Administration

Bridge No. 448 on SR 2053 Over Austin Creek
and
Bridge No. 140 on SR 2053 Over Smith's Creek
Town of Wake Forest
Wake County
WBS Element No. 33353.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-2053(1)
State Project No. 8.2408501
T.I.P. PROJECT B-3919
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 2004
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED IN
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH BY:
,1.•SN CARD"%,
`'
SEAL
J, -All 2b'85
er M. F er, P.., roject Development Engineer
Dat 9bject
De
velopment and Environmental Analysis Branch %CilNfcEQ''V1w
icFR M FJ.•`•
Date
S. Eric Midkiff, P.E., Project DEve"ment Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Bridge No. 448 on SR 2053 Over Austin Creek
and
Bridge No. 140 on SR 2053 Over Smith's Creek
Town of Wake Forest
Wake County
WBS Element 33353.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-2053(1)
State Project No. 8.2408501
T.I.P. PROJECT B-3919
Division 5, Roadside Environmental
1. The appropriate utilities or local government officials will be consulted
concerning possible relocation of utilities during final design.
2. NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be followed during construction of this project in order to ensure
minimal impact to water resources.
3. DOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 448 and Bridge
No. 140.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, Division 5, Roadway
Design
4. If the proposed alignment is altered from what is stated in the planning
document, the NCDOT will contact the appropriate agencies in order to
reevaluate any potential impacts.
5. Traffic will be maintained off-site during the construction of this project. At
no time will both bridges be non-operational, as there are several residents
between the two bridges who require access to SR 2053. Residents will
always have access to one of the two bridges, and the construction will be
phased appropriately.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, Division 5, Roadway
Design, Hydraulics Design, Roadside Environmental
6. All Neuse River Buffer Rules will apply.
B-3919 CE PAGE 1 OF 1
AUGUST 2004
INTRODUCTION: Bridge Nos. 448 and 140 are located in Wake County on SR 2053
(Jones Dairy Road) over Austin and Smith's Creek, respectively. The location is shown
in Figure 1 of Appendix A. B-3919 is programmed in the latest approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a
bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
and Rehabilitation Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
The bridges are in need of replacing due to deteriorating structural integrity and a
deficient cross section. The replacement of these inadequate structures will result in safer
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2053 (Jones Dairy Road) is classified as Rural Local in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It is located in Wake Forest, N.C. Currently, the traffic volume is
6600 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected to be 16,600 VPD for the year 2030.
Approximately 2% of the traffic is dual-tire (DT) vehicles and 2% is truck-tractor semi-
trailers (TTST). The posted speed limit is 55mph with cautionary posted speed of 45 mph
for the curves in the vicinity of the bridges. The road serves primarily local residential
traffic.
Both of the existing bridges were completed in 1953. They are composed of two-span
timber and steel structures. The decks are 36 feet long and 25.5 feet wide. The
superstructures are reinforced concrete floors on timber joists. The end bents and interior
bents are timber caps on timber piles. The crown-to-stream vertical clearance is
approximately 12 feet for each bridge. Both bridges carry two lanes of traffic.
According to NCDOT's Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating for
Bridge No. 448 is 39.2 and for Bridge No. 140 is 21.9, out of a possible 100 for a new
structure. Presently the bridges are posted with weight restrictions of 18 tons for single
vehicles and 26 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Both vertical and horizontal alignment is good in the project vicinity. The pavement
width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 18 feet for Bridge No. 448 and 20 feet
for Bridge No. 140. Shoulders on the approaches of the bridge are approximately 4 feet
wide.
In an analysis of a recent three-year period the NCDOT's Traffic Engineering Branch
indicates that four accidents at Bridge No. 448 and four accidents at Bridge No. 140 were
reported. None of the accidents were attributed to the alignment or the bridge.
There are 40 daily school bus crossings over the studied bridges. Due to the high number
of buses, on-site detours were studied for these bridges.
Several utilities were noted in the area. At bridge No. 448, there are aerial power lines,
cable-TV boxes, and a Town of Wake Forest water line along the north side of SR 2053.
An underground telephone line is located on the south side of SR 2053. A fiber optic line
is buried south of SR 2053, but crosses Austin Creek on the north sided of the existing
structure. At bridge No. 140, there are overhead power and telephone lines along the
south side of SR 2053. A CATV box is located on the north side of SR 2053, as is a
Town of Wake Forest water line. A fiber optic line runs underground on the north and
south sides.
111. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Bridge No. 448 and Bridge No. 140 will each be replaced with new 50-foot long bridges
at their existing locations (see Figure 2A through 2D in Appendix A for the project study
areas). The cross section of the new bridges will include two 12-foot wide lanes with 8-
foot wide shoulders.
There will be approximately 600 feet of new approach work to the north and 650 feet of
new approach work to the south for Bridge No 448. There will be approximately 550 feet
of new approach work to the north and 1100 feet of new approach work to the south for
Bridge No 140. The pavement width on the approaches will be 32 feet including two 12-
foot lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders. Additionally there will be 4-foot grass shoulders.
Based on preliminary design, the design speed is 60 mph.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Alternate 1: (Preferred) Replace Bridge No. 448 and Bridge No. 140 with two new
50-foot long bridges at approximately the same location and roadway
elevation as the existing bridges. Traffic will be detoured off-site during
construction, utilizing NC 98 and Averette Road (see figure 3 in Appendix
A). The off-site detour is approximately 0.7 miles longer for through
traffic on SR 2053 than the existing travel route. The design speed is 60
mph.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 448 with and Bridge No. 140 with two new 50-foot
long bridges at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as
the existing bridges. Traffic will be maintained using temporary on-site
detours during construction. The detours would utilize triple 72 inch
corrugated steel pipe to be placed upstream of the existing structure. The
design speed is 60 mph.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
Because the existing horizontal alignment is suitable, a realignment alternative was not
considered, as it would increase costs and cause relocations.
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing
bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is
neither practical nor economical.
Multi-lane bridges were considered at the request of The Town of Wake Forest. The
Town of Wake Forest Transportation Plan, adopted in January 2003, proposes a five-lane
curb and gutter cross-section on Jones Dairy Road in the future. However, widening of
Jones Dairy Road is not listed in the NCDOT 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program. Bridge replacement funds are only available for bridge replacements and
associated construction like detours and approach work, so to fund widening on Jones
Dairy Road, a new project must be created and approved by the NCDOT Board of
Transportation for inclusion in the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
(T.I.P.). Additionally, Average Daily Traffic forecasts (ADTs) for the year 2030 show
approximately 16,600 vehicles per day on this road. This volume of traffic will still
function at an acceptable level of service on two lanes. Therefore, multi-lane bridges
were dropped from consideration.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridges No. 448 and 140 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative
1 in Figures 2A and 2C. Alternative 1 is recommended because it minimizes impacts on
the sensitive natural ecosystems in the vicinity of the site and provides the most economic
design. Also, this alternative will have a minimal impact on the floodplain and on
adjacent properties.
A road user analysis was performed based on vpd and an average of 0.7 miles of indirect
travel. At a vehicle operating cost of $0.36 per mile, the cost of additional travel would
be about $1,057,770 during a 24-month construction period. The estimated cost of
maintaining traffic on-site for Alternative 2 is $1,783,721. This indicates it is more
economical to detour traffic off-site during the construction period, therefore traffic will
be maintained off-site during the construction of this project. At no time will both
bridges be non-operational, as there are several residents between the two bridges who
require access to SR 2053. Residents will always have access to one of the two bridges,
and the construction will be phased appropriately.
Design exceptions occur when the proposed design will not meet the standards for a
particular design speed. Design exceptions are commonly used when trying to utilize the
existing alignment for a road in order to minimize impacts and costs, as is the case for
this project. The speed limit for Jones Dairy Road is posted at 55 mph, with curves
signed for cautionary 45 mph. Based on this posted speed limit, the design speed for
Bridge Nos. 448 and 140 on Jones Dairy Road will be 60 mph. NCDOT anticipates the
need for a design exception for the crest and sag vertical curves over Smith's Creek for
Bridge No. 140.
The NCDOT Division 5 Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternative 1 as the
preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
`,`Alternative'AlternatiC2?`Structures S 330,400 $ 330,400
Roadway Approaches $ 1,080,463 $ 886,776
Detour Structure and Approaches -0- $ 1,386,021
Structure Removal $ 14,504 $ 14,504
Miscellaneous and Mobilization (45%) $ 641,633 $ 1,178,299
Engineering & Contingencies $ 383,000 $ 604,000
Total Construction Cost $ 2,450,000 11 $ 4,400,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 182,475 $ 397,700
3Toia1 7109r,1632 475 V'i $& 797700
min 'Y.... ,. Eia'Ud. W. r.5 , N...u-W,fe .?.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of existing natural resources in the
project study area. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) an
assessment of natural resource features within the project study area including
descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water
quality; 2) an evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from construction;
and 3) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources. The Rolesville NC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
topographic maps were consulted to determine physiographic relief and to assess
landscape characteristics (USGS 1993). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping was also consulted to determine what
potential wetland types may be encountered in the field. Recent aerial photography
(1:1200) famished by the NCDOT was also used in the evaluation of the study area.
Aerial photography served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands.
Plant community patterns were identified from available mapping sources and then field
verified. Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names typically follow nomenclature found in Radford et
al. (1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979).
Water resource information for Austin Creek and Smith Creek was derived from the most.
recent versions of the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 1998),
Basinwide Assessment Report. Neuse River Basin (DWQ 2001), and N. C. Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) internet resources. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to
support existing data.
The most current USFWS list (25 February 2003) of federal protected species with ranges
extending into Wake County was reviewed prior to initiation of the field investigation. In
addition, NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records documenting occurrences of
federal or state-listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
Direct observations of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were documented, and expected
population distributions were determined through observations of available habitat and
review of supportive documentation found in Martof et al. (1980), Webster et al. (1985),
Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Rohde et al. (1994), and Palmer and Braswell (1995).
Definitions
B-3919 is located on SR 2053 and crosses Austin Creek (Bridge No. 448) and Smith
Creek (Bridge No. 140) southeast of Wake Forest in Wake County, North Carolina.
• The Austin Creek crossing is located approximately 0.6 mi (1.0 km) south of the
intersection of NC 98 and SR 2053 and is approximately 1881 ft (574 m) in length
with the widths ranging from approximately 25 ft (8 m) to approximately 160 ft
(49 m).
• The Smith Creek crossing is located approximately 0.3 mi (1.0 km) south of the
intersection of NC 98 and SR 2053 and is approximately 1525 ft (465 m) in length
with widths ranging from approximately 40 ft (12 m) to approximately 140 ft (43 m).
The project vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile (0.8 km) on all sides of the
project study area.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project study areas for both segments of B-3919 (project study areas) are located in
the piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina with topography that is generally
characterized as gently sloping to nearly level. The project vicinity is rural in nature and
surrounding land use includes a mixture of residential, commercial, and silvicultural use.
• Elevations in the Bridge No. 448 project study area range from 250 to 310 ft (76 to
95 m) above mean sea level (USGS 1993).
• Elevations in the Bridge No. 140 project study area range from 260 to 310 ft (79 to
95 m) above mean sea level (USGS 1993).
The project study areas consist of existing maintained rights-of-way, residential areas and
successional areas.
Soils
The project study area for Bridge No. 448 (Austin Creek) crosses seven soils types
(USDA 1970). The are no hydric soil mapping units located within the Bridge No 448
project study area. Non-hydric soil mapping units within project study areas that may
contain hydric inclusions include the Chewacla mapping unit (Aquic Fluventic
Dystrochrepts), which is typically found on somewhat poorly drained floodplains. The
Chewacla mapping unit may contain inclusions of the poorly drained Wehadkee
(Fluventic Haplaquepts) along drainageways. Other non-hydric soils within the project
study area are Appling sandy loam (Typic Hapludults), Cecil sandy loam (Typic
Hapludults), Wake soils (Lithic Udipsamments), Louisburg loamy sand (Ruptic-Ultic
Dystrochepts), and Wedowee sandy loam (Typic Hapludults).
The project study area for Bridge No. 140 (Smith Creek) crosses three soil types (USDA
1970). There are no hydric soils within the Bridge No. 140 project study area. Non-
hydric soils within the Bridge No. 140 project study area that may contain hydric
inclusions include the Chewacla mapping unit, which is typically found on somewhat
poorly drained floodplains. The Chewacla mapping unit may contain inclusions of the
poorly drained Wehadkee series along drainageways. Other non-hydric soils within the
project study area include Appling sandy loam, Cecil sandy loam, and Wake soils.
Water Resources
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Austin Creek is the only water resource likely to be impacted by the proposed Bridge No.
448 replacement. Austin Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 27-23-3
and a Best Usage Classification of C NSW by the DWQ (DEM 1993) (DENR 2002a).
Austin Creek originates west of NC 96 and north of Jones Dairy Road (SR 2053) in
Wake County and flows southwest to its confluence with Smith Creek southwest of the
Bridge No. 448 project study area. Austin Creek is located within sub-basin 030402 of
the Neuse River Basin (DWQ 1998) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03020201
(USGS 1974).
Smith Creek is the only water resource likely to be impacted by the proposed Bridge No.
140 replacement. Smith Creek has been assigned SIN 27-23-(2) and a Best Usage
Classification of C NSW from the dam at the Wake Forest Reservoir to the Neuse River
(DEM 1993) (DENR 2002a). Smith Creek originates southeast of Youngsville and flows
south/southwest through the Wake Forest Reservoir to the Neuse River. Smith Creek is
located within sub-basin 030402 of the Neuse River Basin (DWQ 1998) and is part of
USGS hydrologic unit 03020201 (USGS 1974).
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on
the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. The C designation indicates waters designated for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The NSW designation
indicates a nutrient sensitive water which requires limitations on nutrient inputs. Point
source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted in these waters, pursuant to Rules
.0104 and .0211 of 15A NCAC 2B; however, local programs to control nonpoint source
and stormwater discharge of pollution are required.
Waters are classified according to their best intended uses. Use support ratings are
assigned to bodies of water to depict how well a body of water supports its designated
uses (DWQ 1998).
• Austin Creek was not evaluated for support uses, but it is a tributary of Smith Creek.
A stream that is tributary to a monitored segment of a stream rated fully supporting
(FS) or fully supporting but threatened (ST) receives the same rating on an evaluated
basis (DWQ 1998).
• Smith Creek is rated as "fully supporting but threatened" (ST) from its source to its
confluence with the Neuse River. Fully supporting but threatened is a rating given to
a water body that "fully supports its designated uses but may not in the future unless
pollution prevention or control action is taken" (DWQ 1998).
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I, or. WS-
II Waters occur within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) upstream or downstream of Bridge No. 448 over
Austin Creek (DENR 2002).
Bridge No. 140 over Smith Creek is located approximately 0.4 mi (0.6 km) downstream
of the Wake Forest Reservoir. The Wake Forest Reservoir is classified as WS-II HQ
NSW CA waters. WS-II HQ NSW CA waters are protected as water supplies which are
generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds (WS-11), waters that have been rated
as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division
monitoring or special studies (HQ), which require limitations on nutrient inputs (NSW),
and is protected as a critical area (CA) for 0.5 mi (0.8 km) upstream of the water supply
intake (DEM 1993).
Neither Austin Creek nor Smith Creek is designated as a North Carolina Natural and
Scenic River, nor as a national Wild and Scenic River.
Austin Creek is a perennial stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of
sand, silt, gravel, and rock. The channel ranges from approximately 10 to 20 ft (3 to 6
m) wide and water surface depths range from approximately 1.0 ft (0.3 m) to greater
than 3 ft (0.9 m) within the project study area. Preliminary observations indicate that
the portion of Austin Creek upstream of Bridge No. 448 represents a "E" stream type
and the portion of Austin Creek downstream of Bridge No. 448 represents a "G"
stream type pursuant to Rosgen (1996). The "E" stream type has a gently to
moderately sloped, relatively deep and narrow, slightly entrenched channel with high
sinuosity and is characterized by riffle-pool sequences, well defined meanders, and a
well-developed floodplain. The "G" stream type has a moderately to gently sloped,
relatively deep and narrow, highly entrenched, moderately to highly sinuous channel
and is characterized by the lack of a developed floodplain, a meandering channel, and
terraces consisting of abandoned floodplains.
Smith Creek is a perennial stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of
sand and gravel. The channel ranges from approximately 10 to 15 ft (3 to 5 m) wide
and water surface depths range from approximately 0.5 ft (0.2 m) to greater than 2.0 ft
(0.6 m) within the project study area. Preliminary observations indicate that this
portion of Smith Creek represents a "G" stream type pursuant to Rosgen (1996). The
"G" stream type has a moderately to gently sloped, relatively deep and narrow, highly
entrenched, moderately to highly sinuous channel and is characterized by the lack of a
developed floodplain, a meandering channel, and terraces consisting of abandoned
floodplains.
WATER QUALITY INFORMATION
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates (DEHNR 1989).
• There are no long-term macroinvertebrate monitoring stations located on Austin
Creek.
• Benthic macroinvertebrates from Smith Creek were sampled in 1986, 1995, and 2000
at SR 2045 approximately 3.3 mi (5.3 km) downstream of the project study areas.
This site received a bioclassification rating of Poor in 1986 due to a spill of dairy
waste, but recovered to Good-Fair rating in 1995 (DWQ 1996). In 2000, Smith Creek
received an Fair bioclassification rating (DWQ 2001).
Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of
Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and
health of the fish communities.
• Austin Creek has not received a NCIBI rating (DWQ 2001).
• Smith Creek received a NCIBI score of Fair in 1995 (DWQ 1996) and received a
rating of Excellent in 2000 (DWQ 2001).
An NCIBI rating of Fair indicates that the system is dominated by omnivores, tolerant
species and habitat generalists; there are few top carnivores; growth rates and condition
factors are commonly depressed; and diseased fish are often present (DWQ 2001).
Streams receiving an Excellent NCIBI rating are "comparable to the best situations
without human disturbance. All regionally expected species for the habitat and stream
size, including the most intolerant forms are present, all with a full array of size classes
and a balance of trophic sructure" (DWQ 2001).
Neuse River Riparian Buffers
Since the project study areas are within the Neuse River Drainage Basin, jurisdictional
surface waters are subject to the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules. The Buffer Rules
apply to a 50-ft (15 m) wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to surface waters in the
Neuse River Drainage Basin. This includes intermittent streams, perennial streams,
lakes, ponds, and estuaries that are depicted on either USGS topographic maps or county
soil survey maps, but does not include jurisdictional wetlands (non-surface waters)
regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Austin Creek and Smith Creek are
mapped on the USGS map and county soil survey map and are subject to the Buffer
Rules. The Buffer Rules are discussed in Section 4.2.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) as "those waters and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or
growth to maturity" (NMFS 1999). For the purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH:
"waters" include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological
properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish
where appropriate; "substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the
waters, and associated biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to
support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy
ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species'
full life cycle (NMFS 1999). An EFH Assessment is an analysis of the effects of a
proposed action on EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920 (g) mandatory contents include: a
description of the proposed action, an analysis of the effects of that action on EFH, the
Federal action agency's views on those effects; and proposed mitigation, if applicable.
An adverse effect includes any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH.
Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.810 adverse effects may include direct (e.g., contamination or
physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey, or reduction in a species' fecundity), site-
specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic
consequences of actions.
During' the agency review period for the proposed project, the COE makes the
determination of whether or not a proposed project "may adversely affect" EFH. This
determination by the COE is submitted to the NMFS for their review and comment.
NMFS will then determine if additional consultation is necessary regarding the proposed
project or if they concur with COE's decision.
EFH is only designated for federally managed species that have a management plan under
a Fisheries Management Council (Ron Sechler, NMFS, Personal Communication). The
South Atlantic Fisheries Council manages species such as red drum (Sciaenops
ocellatas), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) and
several species of shrimp. At this time anadromous fish are not considered for EFH
designations (Ron Sechler, NMFS, Personal Communication). ESI has reviewed the
most recent species list prepared by NMFS pertaining to EFH, and all listed species are
either marine or estuarine in nature and do not occur in either project study area (NMFS
2001). ESI's opinion based on best professional judgment and reviewing pertinent
literature and regulations is that the proposed project will not have any detrimental effect
on EFH.
PERMITTED DISCHARGERS
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point
of discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater point source
discharges include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment
plants and small domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial
offices, residential subdivisions and individual homes (DENR 2002b). Stormwater
point source discharges include stormwater collection systems for municipalities and
stormwater discharges associated with certain industrial activities. Point source
dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under
the NPDES program, delegated to DWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
• There is one permitted point source discharger, Jones Dairy Farm Utilities (NPDES
NC0064149), on Austin Creek (DENR 2002b). Jones Dairy Farm Utilities is located
approximately 1.0 mi (1.6 km) upstream of the project study area for Bridge No. 448
and is permitted to discharge 0.16 million gallons per day (MGD).
• There are two permitted point source dischargers located on Smith Creek (DENR
2001b). The Town of Wake Forest Wastewater Treatment Plant (NPDES
N00007528) located 0.2 mi (0.3 km) upstream of Bridge No. 140. The amount of
discharge from this facility is not limited (DENR 2002b). The Whippoorwill Valley
Wastewater Treatment Plant (N00073318) is located downstream of Bridge No. 140
and is permitted to discharge up to 0.05 MGD (DENR 2002b).
The only evidence of non-point source discharge observed within the Bridge No. 448
project study area (Austin Creek) is stormwater runoff. Jones Dairy Farm Utilities is a
point and non-point pollution source farther upstream of Bridge No. 448.
Evidence of non-point source discharges observed within the Bridge No. 140 project study
area (Smith Creek) includes stormwater runoff. Turbidity was noted in Smith Creek
during the field investigation. Upstream of Bridge No. 140 sedimentation is a major non-
point pollution source. Sedimentation is likely due to bank erosion and stormwater
runoff.
IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled
Removal of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs), as well as guidelines for
calculating maximum potential fill in the stream resulting from demolition.
The Bridge No 448 is 35.5 ft (10.8 m) long with a clear deck width of 25.5 ft (7.8 m).
Components of the superstructure will be removed without dropping them into Waters of
the United. States. Since the substructure consists of timber, this will also be removed
without dropping any portion into Waters of the United States. This project can be
classified as a Case 3 by the BMP's for Bridge Demolition and Removal (NCDOT 1999).
Case 3 bridge replacements have no special restrictions beyond those outlined in BMPs
for Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(NCDOT 1999).
Bridge No. 140 is 35.7 ft (10.9 m) long with a clear deck width of 25.4 ft (7.7 m).
Components of the superstructure will be removed without dropping them into Waters of
the United States. Since the substructure consists of timber, this will also be removed
without dropping any portion into Waters of the United States. This project can be
classified as a Case 3 by the BMP's for Bridge Demolition and Removal (NCDOT 1999).
Case 3 bridge replacements have no special restrictions beyond those outlined in BMPs
for Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(NCDOT 1999).
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction-related activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) can minimize
impacts during construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and
sedimentation control measures, and avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas.
Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of
increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased
shade due to the construction of the bridge, and changes in stormwater flows due to
changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels, can be
anticipated as a result of this project if roadway or bridge surface area increases.
However, due to the limited amount of overall change anticipated in the surrounding
areas, impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
10
In-stream construction activities will be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to
aquatic resources/organisms.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Existing Vegetation Patterns
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area
reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present
land use practices. Logging, farming, selective cutting, and natural succession after fires,
hurricanes, and other disturbances have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. When
appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from the NHP
classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect
local variations within the project study areas. Both project study areas are similar in
nature and have been highly impacted and have very little resemblance to any natural
community. Four plant communities occur within the project study areas and two
additional communities are the result of human activities.
• The plant communities for the Austin Creek crossing total approximately 3.16 ac
(1.28 ha) and do not include the open water attributed to Austin Creek [0.06 ac (0.02
ha)] or impervious road surface [1.00 ac (0.40 ha)].
• The plant communities for the Smith Creek Crossing total approximately 4.66 ac
(1.89 ha) and do not include the open water attributed to Smith Creek [0.06 ac (0.02
ha)] or impervious road surface [0.95 ac (0.38 ha)].
Mixed Hardwood Forest - Mixed hardwood forest consists of white oak (Quercus
alba), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracii lua), and flowering dogwood (CornusJlorida).
The shrub stratum is dominated by sweetgum, American holly (Ilex opaca) and red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana). Groundcover species consist of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and scattered Nepal microstegium
(Eulalia vimineum).
• Mixed hardwood forest is a small component of the nort hwest quadrant of the Austin
Creek bridge crossing. Mixed hardwood forest covers approximately 0.04 ac (0.02 ha)
[1.0 percent] of the Austin Creek project study area.
• Mixed hardwood forest is a small component of the southwest quadrant of the Smith
Creek bridge crossing. Mixed hardwood forest covers approximately 0.40 ac (0.16
ha) [7.1 percent] of the Smith Creek project study area.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest -Mixed pine/hardwood forest consists of loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), willow oak (Quercus phellos), winged elm (Ulmus alata) and white oak.
The shrub stratum is dominated by sweetgum saplings, black cherry (Prunus serotina),
loblolly pine, and eastern red cedar. Groundcover species consist of Japanese
honeysuckle, blackberry (Rubus spp.), and common greenbrier.
• Mixed pine/hardwood forest is a small component of the southwest quadrant of the
Austin Creek bridge crossing. Mixed pine/hardwood forest covers approximately
0.12 ac (0.05 ha) [2.8 percent] of the Austin Creek project study area.
• Mixed pine/hardwood forest is a small component of the northeast quadrant of the
11
Smith Creek bridge crossing. Mixed pine/hardwood forest covers approximately 0.08
ac (0.03 ha) [1.4 percent] of the Smith Creek project study area.
Pine Plantation - Pine plantation community is dominated by loblolly pines. The shrub
stratum is dominated by sweetgum saplings and eastern red cedar. Groundcover species
consist of Japanese honeysuckle, common greenbrier, blackberry, and broomsedge
(Andropogon virginicus).
• The pine plantation community does not occur within the Austin Creek project study
area.
• Pine plantation community occurs in the northwest quadrant of the bridge crossing
and covers approximately 0.65 ac (0.26 ha) [11.4 percent] of the Smith Creek project
study area.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest -Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest has
recently been logged and the remaining tree strata is dominated by sweetgum, red maple
(Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). The shrub stratum is dominated by Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
sweetgum, and red maple. Groundcover species consist of Japanese honeysuckle, Nepal
microsteguim, blackberry, and common greenbrier, with scattered river oats
(Chasmanthium latifolium). This plant community is associated with floodplains of
smaller streams and is seasonally or intermittently flooded.
• Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest occurs in the northeast and southeast quadrants
of the Austin Creek bridge crossing. Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest covers
approximately 0.51 ac (0.21 ha) [12.1 percent] of the Austin Creek project study area.
• Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest occurs in the northeast quadrant of the Smith
Creek bridge crossing. Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest covers approximately
0.03 ac (0.01 ha) [0.5 percent] of the Smith Creek project study area.
Successional Land -Successional land consist of loblolly pines, sweetgum, Japanese
honeysuckle, blackberry, common greenbrier, kudzu (Pueraria lobata), Chinese privet,
and various grasses including witch grass (Panicum spp.).
• The northeast quadrant of the Austin Creek bridge crossing is dominated by
successional land. Successional land covers approximately 0.35 ac (0.14 ha) [8.3
percent] of the Austin Creek project study area.
• The southwest quadrant of the Smith Creek bridge crossing is dominated by
successional land. Successional land covers approximately 2.08 ac (0.84 ha) [36.7
percent] of the Smith Creek project study area.
Maintained/Disturbed Land - Maintained/disturbed land includes roadways, roadsides,
maintained residential yards, power line right-of-way corridors, and areas where other
human related activities dominate the landscape. Roadsides and powerline right-of-ways
are typically maintained by mowing and/or herbicides. Species observed within the road
rights-of-way include blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, sweetgum saplings, plantain
(Plantago spp.), and various maintained roadside grasses including fescue (Festuca spp.),
and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon).
12
• Maintained/disturbed land dominates the northwest and southwest quadrants of the
Austin Creek bridge crossing. Maintained/disturbed land covers approximately 2.14
ac (0.87 ha) [50.7 percent] of the Austin Creek project study area.
• Maintained/disturbed land dominates the southeast quadrant of the Smith Creek
bridge crossing. Maintained/disturbed land covers approximately 1.42 ac (0.57 ha)
[25.0 percent) of the Smith Creek study area.
The plant communities within the project study areas were mapped on an aerial
photo base and field verified. A summary of the coverage of each plant community
within each project study area is presented in Table 1 for Bridge No. 448 and Table 2 for
Bridge No. 140. Open water areas and impervious road surfaces are not included in the
plant community assessments.
Table 1. Plant Communities Within the Project Study Area for Bridge
No. 448.
Plant Cominunit
y
Area
of Project Study;
.:%
acres (hectares) .
Area' '
Mined Har dwood Forest 0 04 (0.02) 1 0
Mixed: Pme/Hazdwood Forest 0 12 (0.05) 2 8 '
Piedmont/L ow Mountain.AlluvialForest, 0.51 (0'.21) 12 1. ..,
(rccentlyalogged)
Successional Land 0.35, (04) 8.3
Maintatned/Dtsturbed Larid 2:14 (0!.87)
-1.29 74.91

' Project Study Area includes the open water area attributed to the Austin Creek channel 10.06 ac
(0.02 ha)] (1.4 percent) and impervious road surface [1.00 ac (0.40 ha)] (23.7 percent) not
included in this plant community assessment.
Table 2. Plant Communities Within the Project Study Area for Bridge
No. 140.
Plant.C6mmunity Area %'of Project Study
acres` (Hectares) Area'
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0 40"(0 16) 7.1
i
Mixed]Pme/Hazdwood Forest
0 8(
003)

1 4
Pme itatlon--
0 65 (0 26)
i
11 4

Piedmont/Low Mountain Allu'vtal Forest
0 03 (1)
0;0
0 5
=
,m,
Successional Lands F
2 8(
840 ,
3b 7'. L
Mairitazned/Drs`nib d Land 142 (0 57) 25
0"
Total's°i.` 4:66 1.87 ) .
82:11

Project Study Area includes the open water area attributed to the Smith Creek channel [0.06 ac
(0.02 ha)] (I.I percent) and impervious road surface [0.95 ac (0.38 ha)] (16.8 percent) not
included in this plant community assessment.
Terrestrial Wildlife
The communities within the project study areas are fragmented and disturbed along both
sides of SR 2053. The communities within both project study areas are similar and
wildlife species that may be expected in the project study areas are expected to be similar.
The species that would be expected within the project study areas are those adapted to
fragmentation, agricultural practices and urban disturbed areas such as roadsides and
13
residential areas. The project study areas were visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial
wildlife.
Mammals directly observed or evidenced by tracks or scat include Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus). Beaver (Castor canadensis) activity is evident in both Austin and Smith
Creek. Insectivores such as southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris) and northern short-
tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) may also be present in the project study area. Other
mammals expected to occur in and around the project study areas include eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and rodents such
as golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).
No terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study areas for Austin Creek or
Smith Creek. Terrestrial reptiles expected to occur in the project study area include such
species as eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), fived-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus),
broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), black racer (Coluber constrictor), and rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta).
No terrestrial or aboreal amphibians were observed within the project study areas for
Austin Creek or Smith Creek. Terrestrial or aboreal amphibians expected to occur in the
project study area include such species as Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei) and spring
peeper (Pseudacris crucifer).
No avian species were observed within the project study areas for Austin Creek and
Smith Creek. Avian species expected to occur in the project study areas include the
turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), and northern cardinal (Cordinalis cardinalis).
Most of the terrestrial wildlife occurring in the project study areas for Austin Creek and
Smith Creek are typically adapted to life in fragmented landscapes, and overall impacts
should be minor. Due to the lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the
proposed bridge replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known
terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife movement corridors are not expected to be
significantly impacted by the proposed project.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area for Bridge No. 448 includes
Austin Creek and the aquatic habitat within the project study area for Bridge No. 140
includes Smith Creek. No distinct areas containing significant amounts of aquatic
vegetation were observed in the channel during the field investigation of either bridge.
Visual observation of stream banks and channel within the project study areas were
conducted in Austin Creek and Smith Creek to document the aquatic community.
Aquatic Wildlife
Since these two streams are located in close proximity and share similar habitats fish
species expected to occur should be similar. No fish species were documented in Austin
Creek during the field investigation. Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) and
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) were documented in Smith Creek. Fish species that may
14
occur in Austin Creek and Smith Creek include American eel (Anguilla rostrata), redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), rosyside dace
(Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), greenfin shiner
(Notropis chloristius), - swallowtail shiner (Notropis procne), white shiner (Notropis
albeolus), rosefin shiner (Notropis ardens), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), pirate
perch (Aphredodrus sayanus), flier (Centrarchus macropterus), green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), pumpkinseed (Lepois gibbosus),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), yellow perch (Perca Jlavens), and Johnny
darter (Etheostoma nigrum) (Menhinick 1991). Menhinick (1991) does not document
any anadromous fish as occurring in the upper reaches of Smith Creek or Austin Creek,
Wake County, North Carolina.
Austin Creek and Smith Creek provide riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of
amphibians and aquatic reptiles. Although none were observed during the field
investigation, the following species are expected to occur in the project study area: green
frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and common snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina).
Waterfowl expected to utilize this portion of Smith Creek and Austin Creek include such
species as wood duck (Aix spoinsa) and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos).
Wading birds expected to utilize this portion of Smith Creek and Austin Creek include
such species as green heron (Butorides virescens) and great blue heron (Ardea herodias).
Limited benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted. These surveys included
rock and log washes, limited bottom sampling, and walking all streambanks in the project
study area to locate freshwater mussel middens. Rock and log washes and limited bottom
sampling conducted within the channels of Austin Creek and Smith Creek produced
various aquatic macroinvertebrates. Table 3 provides a list of the benthic organisms
collected and identified to Order and Family when possible. Identifications are based on
McCafferty (1998).
Table 3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected in Austin Creek and Smith Creek.
15
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Terrestrial Communities
These two bridge replacements are expected to involve minor impacts to the terrestrial
communities located within the project study areas. In-place replacement of the existing
structure will reduce permanent impacts to plant communities and limit community
fragmentation. Impacts resulting from bridge replacements are generally limited to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge structure and roadway approach segments.
Plant communities within the project study area are presented in Table 1; however, actual
impacts will be limited to the designed right-of-way and permitted construction limits
(Table 4). Due to the anticipated lack of, or limited, infringement on natural
communities, the proposed bridge replacement should not result in significant loss or
displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife movement corridors
should not be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Wildlife known to utilize
the project study areas are generally acclimated to fragmented landscapes, and the bridge
replacement should not create any additional detrimental conditions within the project
study areas.
surface.
n ALT 2 areas do not include 0.06 ac (0.02 ha) of open water and 1.00 ac (0.40 ha) of impervious road
surface.
Note Temporary detour impacts area based on the portion of the onsite detour not included in the
permanent impacts.
° Totals do not include the open water area attributed to the Austin Creek channel or impervious road
surface.
16
' ALT 1 areas ao not mcluae u.u4 ac tu.u[ na) of open water ano t.uu ac tu.4u na) of impervious road
surface.
` Note Temporary detour impacts area based on the portion of the onsite detour not included in the
permanent impacts.
° Totals do not include the open water area attributed to the Smith Creek channel or impervious road
surface.
Potential plant community impacts for the Bridge No. 448 over Austin Creek are minimal
due to the in-kind replacement of a bridge with a bridge, on or very near the existing
alignment. For Bridge No. 448 over Austin Creek, ALT 1 and ALT 2 have the same
amount of permanent impacts, 1.56 ac (0.64 ha), but ALT 2 has 1.60 ac (0.65 ha) of
additional temporary impacts. ALT 1 would be the recommended alternative if an off
site detour is feasible.
Potential plant community impacts for the Bridge No. 448 over Austin Creek are minimal
due to the in-kind replacement of a bridge with a bridge, on or very near the existing
alignment. For Bridge No. 140 over Smith Creek, ALT 1 and ALT 2 have the same
amount of permanent impacts, 2.24 ac (0.91 ha), but ALT 2 has 2.43 ac (0.99 ha) of
additional temporary impacts. ALT 1 would be the recommended alternative if an off
site detour is feasible.
An off site detour for both bridges has been determined to not be feasible. So at least one
of the bridges must have an onsite detour. The temporary detour for ALT 2 for Bridge
No. 448 over Austin Creek would have lesser impact to plant communities than the
temporary detour for ALT 2 for Bridge No. 140 over Smith Creek.
Aquatic Communities
The replacement of Bridge No. 448 over Austin Creek and Bridge No. 140 over Smith
Creek will likely cause temporary impacts to the aquatic communities in and around the
project study area. Potential impacts to down-stream aquatic habitat will be avoided by
bridging Austin Creek and Smith Creek to maintain regular flow and stream integrity.
Support structures should be designed to avoid wetland or open water habitats whenever
17
AL7 I areas do not include U.U3 ac (U.U 1 ha) of open water ann U.9?) ac (U.S2f ha) of impervious roan
surface.
ALT 2 areas do not include 0.06 ac (0.02 ha) of open water and 0.95 ac (0.38 ha) of impervious road
possible. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment
during construction are expected to be reduced by limiting in-stream work to an absolute
minimum, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water.
Waterbome sediment flowing downstream can be minimized by use of a floating silt
curtain. Stockpiled material should be kept a minimum of 50 ft (15 m) from the stream
channel. Silt fences should also be erected around any stockpiled material in order to
minimize the chance of erosion or run-off from affecting the stream channel. Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BDR) will follow current NCDOT Guidelines. Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters should be strictly
enforced to reduce impacts during all construction phases.
The proposed bridge replacements call for the in-kind replacement of the existing
structure with a new channel spanning structure that would maintain stream current flow.
Aquatic wildlife may be temporarily displaced during the bridge replacement project. No
long-term or permanent impacts to aquatic communities are expected to result from the
proposed bridge replacements. Any species that may be temporarily displaced would be
expected to re-colonize the area quickly once construction is complete. No impacts are
anticipated to anadromous fish runs or to fish spawning habitat.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, wetlands
are also considered "waters of the United States" and are also subject to jurisdictional
consideration. Wetlands have been defined by EPA and COE as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas [33 CFR 328.3(b)(1986)].
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA
1987).
No jurisdictional wetlands occur within the Bridge No. 448 (Austin Creek) project study
area. The surface water within the Austin Creek stream channel is classified as lower
perennial riverine system (R2) (Cowardin 1979) and is the only jurisdictional areas that
occur within the Austin Creek project study area. R2 systems account for 0.06 ac (0.02
ha) [1.4 percent] within the Bridge No. 448 project study area.
No jurisdictional wetlands occur within the Bridge No. 140 (Smith Creek) project study
area. The surface water within the Smith Creek stream channel is also classified as lower
perennial riverine system (R2) (Cowardin 1979) and is the only jurisdictional areas that
occur within the Smith Creek project study area. R2 systems account for 0.06 ac (0.02
ha) [1.1 percent] within the Bridge No. 140 project study area.
R2 systems are identified as those areas contained within a channel that are not
18
dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, contain
less than 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt) ocean derived salts, have no tidal influence, and
generally have slow flowing water all year (Cowardin et al. 1979). These communities
are generally associated with well-developed floodplains.
ESI delineated the jurisdictional extent of the surface water based on current COE and
DWQ methodology, and the areas were subsequently mapped with Trimble7m Global
Positioning System (GPS) units. Table 6 and Table 7 contain the approximate area and
length of the R2 system occurring within each alternative for each respective bridge,
although permanent impacts are not expected due to the use of channel-spanning
structures. During bridge removal procedures (see Section 2.2), NCDOT's BMP's will
be utilized, including erosion control measures; therefore it is anticipated that removing
the existing structures will result in no impact to surrounding surface waters. Impacts to
surface waters are not anticipated due to the in-kind replacement of a bridge with a
bridge, on or very near the existing alignment. No long-term impacts to surface waters
are expected from this project.
4.2 PERMITS AND CONSULTATIONS
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are not anticipated from the proposed project.
However, construction activities resulting in impacts will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of
public water resources. Surface water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment and
19
7 emporary detour areas are oasea on me portion or me area noc mcmueu m ure permanent onuge areas.
'Temporary detour areas are oasea on me portion of me area not mcmaea in me permanent onage areas.
consideration with respect to most regulatory permits. These permits are authorized
under the Clean Water Act and under separate state laws regarding significant water
resources.
Section 404 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States." The proposed project may not result in impacts to Austin
Creek or Smith Creek provided that the stream channel is bridged, there is no disturbance
to the stream during construction activities, and bridge demolition does not result in
material falling into the stream.
Given the limited nature of potential impacts, a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 (33 CFR
330 Appendix A) for Categorical Exclusion is likely to be applicable at the stream
crossing found in the project study area. NWP 33 may be needed if temporary structures,
work and discharges, including cofferdams are necessary for this project. However, final
decisions concerning applicable permits for the proposed project rest with the COE.
Water Quality Certification
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into the Waters of the United
States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation. Issuance of a 401 Certification
from the DWQ is a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
Anticipated impacts to open water areas will be limited to the actual right-of-way width
and will be determined by NCDOT during the design phase of this project. Impacts to
open water areas of Austin Creek and Smith Creek are not expected due to the use of
channel-spanning structures. During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will
be utilized, including erosion control measures. Floating turbidity curtains are also
recommended to minimize the amount of turbid water flowing off-site.
Neuse River Buffer Rules
Since the project study areas are located within the Neuse River Drainage Basin, the
stream channels are subject to the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules. The Buffer Rules
apply to a 50-11 (15 m) wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to surface waters in the
Neuse River Drainage Basin. This includes intermittent streams, perennial streams,
lakes, ponds, and estuaries that are depicted on either USGS topographic maps or county
soil survey maps, but does not include jurisdictional wetlands (non-surface waters)
regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Austin Creek and Smith Creek are
mapped on the USGS map and are subject to the Buffer Rules. The riparian buffer
consists of two distinct zones. Zone 1 comprises a 30-ft (9 m) wide area adjacent to the
surface water that can not be disturbed except for those specific activities that are allowed
by the Buffer Rules. Zone 2 comprises a 20-ft (6 m) wide area adjacent to Zone 1 that is
to be left undisturbed except for those activities specifically allowed by the Buffer Rules.
Activities in the buffer area beyond the footprint of the existing use are classified as
either "exempt", "allowable"," allowable with mitigation", or " prohibited." Table 8
provides a list of activities that may be subject to Buffer Rules within the project study
area provided with their classifications. Depending upon project alternatives, not all of
the uses listed may apply, and other uses not listed here, such as utility crossings and
20
roadside drainage ditches, among others, may be regulated under the Buffer Rules.
Guidelines will be consulted in their entirety to review all project related uses subject to
the Buffer Rules.
Activities deemed "exempt" will be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize
soil disturbance and to provide the maximum water quality protection practicable.
"Allowable" activities may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that there are no
practicable alternatives to the requested use. Prior written authorization from the DWQ
or delegated local authority is required. Activities deemed "allowable with mitigation"
may proceed within the riparian buffer if there are no practicable alternatives to the
requested use and an appropriate mitigation strategy has been approved. Prior written
authorization from the DWQ or delegated local authority is required. "Prohibited"
activities, none of which are listed above, may not proceed within the riparian buffer
unless a variance is granted from the DWQ or delegated local authority.
ALT 1 for Bridge No. 448 over Austin Creek, the recommended alternative, does not
expand the existing right-of-way of the assumed current 80 linear ft (24 m). There are no
anticipated permanent impacts to riparian buffers for ALT 1, therefore no further action
with respect to DWQ is required. ALT 2 will have no permanent impacts to riparian
buffers and will have 60 linear ft (18 m) of potential impacts to riparian buffers
associated with the temporary detour. Temporary impacts associated with the temporary
detour would be considered allowable provided there is no practical alternative to the
requested use. Allowable uses require written authorization from DWQ.
ALT 1 for Bridge No. 140 over Smith Creek, the recommended alternative, does not
expand the existing right-of-way of the assumed current 80 linear ft (24 m). There are no
anticipated permanent impacts to riparian buffers, therefore no further action with respect
to DWQ is required. ALT 2 will have no permanent impacts to riparian buffers and will
21
Table 8. Activities That May Be Subject to the Buffer Rules in the Project Study
A rea.
have 70 linear ft (21 m) of potential impacts to riparian buffers associated with the
temporary detour. Temporary impacts associated with the temporary detour would be
considered allowable provided there is no practical alternative to the requested use.
Allowable uses require written authorization from DWQ.
4.3 Mitigation
Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b)
minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the
environment [40 CFR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in
accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-
down procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seq.), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the
COE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961
(1977), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) mitigation policy directives (46 FR
7644-7663 (1981).
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the COE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990, stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands.
Practicable alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation
can be discussed.
Avoidance - No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts to the
jurisdictional surface waters present can be avoided by bridging the stream channel, by
avoiding construction activities in the stream channels, and by avoiding deposition into
the stream channel during bridge demolition.
Minimization - Minimization of jurisdictional impacts is being achieved by the in-kind
replacement of a bridge with a bridge and utilizing as much of the existing bridge
corridor as possible. This should result in a minimal amount of new impact depending on
the final design of the new bridge. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to
minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas within wetlands.
Mitigation - Due to the anticipated lack of jurisdictional impacts, no mitigation is
expected to be required for this project. Temporary impacts associated with the
construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native
species and removal of any temporary fill material within the floodplain upon project
completion.
4.4 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially
proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The federal protected species listed for Wake
County (USFWS list dated 25 February 2003) are presented in Table 9.
Table 9. Federallv Protected Species Listed for Wake County. NC.
22
Michati c's sumac Rhus inichauzii E ; No Effect
' E- Endangered, T(pd)- Threatened (proposed for delisting)
Bald eagle - Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near
water and forage over large bodies of water with adjacent trees available for perching
(Hamel 1992). Preventing disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to
1500 feet (229 to 457 m) outward from a nest tree is considered critical for maintaining
acceptable conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). USFWS recommends avoiding any
disturbance activities, including construction and tree cutting, within this primary zone.
Within a secondary zone extending from the primary zone boundary out to a distance of
1.0 mile (1.6 km) from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be
restricted to the non-nesting period. USFWS also recommends avoiding alteration of
natural shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing
activities within 1500 feet (458 m) of roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
NHP records through 14 January 2002 indicate no documented
occurrences of bald eagle nests within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) of the Austin Creek
or Smith Creek project study areas. The project study areas do not contain
large areas of open water, and therefore are not considered to be suitable
nesting and foraging habitat for bald eagles. This project will not have
any effect on the bald eagle.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - This small woodpecker measuring 7.0 to 8.5
inches (19.3 to 23.4 cm) long has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-
and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the
cockades may be absent or difficult to see. Primary nest sites for RCWs include open
pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development.
Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of
age or older (Henry 1989). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern
pine forests dominated by loblolly, long-leaf (Pinus palustris), slash (P. elliotii), and
pond (P. serotina) pines. Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines,
generally older than 60 years, that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity
trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies. The woodpecker drills
holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup
around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees. Pine flatwoods or
pine-dominated savannas that have been maintained by frequent natural fires serve as
ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory
may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
NHP records through 14 January 2002 do not document occurrences of the
RCW within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study areas for Austin Creek
or Smith Creek. The project study areas for Austin Creek or Smith Creek
contain no large contiguous pine stands greater than 60 years old that are
suitable for nesting nor do they contain large contiguous pines stands
greater than 30 years old suitable for foraging. Mature pine trees with
open understories exist primarily within residential yards located within
the project study areas. No cavity trees were found within the project
study area. This project will not effect the RCW.
Dwarf wedgemussel - The dwarf wedgemussel rarely exceeds 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) in
23
length. The outer shell is brown or yellowish brown with faint green rays, and the nacre
is bluish or silvery white. The shells of the females are somewhat wider that those of
males. This mussel species typically inhabits streams with moderate flow velocities and
substrates varying in texture from gravel and coarse sand to mud with little silt deposition
(USFWS 1993). It is generally found in association with other mussels but is never very
numerous. As with other mussel species, the dwarf wedge mussel has suffered from
excess siltation in streams and rivers and from the toxic effects of various pollutants
entering waterways
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
NHP records through 14 January 2002 do not document any occurrences of dwarf
wedgemussel within 3.0 mi (3.8 km) of the project study areas for Austin Creek
or Smith Creek as of 14 January 2002. The dwarf wedgemussel is not known to
occur in any portion of Smith Creek or Austin Creek, but it is known to occur in
the Little River and Swift creek subbasins in Wake County (NCWRC 2001).
Johnny darter, the fish host for the dwarf wedgemussel, has been documented in
Smith Creek (Mehhinick 1991). Smith Creek and Austin Creek may constitute
potentially suitable habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel. During the field
investigation 14 January 2002, no mussel middens were observed within the
project study areas for Austin Creek and Smith Creek, although fingernail clams
were collected from Austin Creek. A survey was conducted on February 3, 2003.
The approximately 2-3 meter wide stream was screened 400 meters downstream
and 100 meters upstream by wading in the water using batiscopes for visual
surveys; tactile methods were employed along creekbeds where stable banks
occurred. Most banks, however, were highly unstable and erosion was evident.
Substrate consisted largely of coarse sand, with sand deposits throughout the
channel. Urban garbage was found in the creek at the bridge site and at least 100
meters downstream. A total of 2.5 person-hours were spent during the survey. No
mussels or relict shells were seen. Given the survey results and poor habitat, it is
apparent that the dwarf wedgemussel does not occur in the project footprint.
Additionally, there are no known occurrences of the species within a mile of the
project. In conclusion, project construction will not affect this species.
Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous
shrub, usually less than 2.0 feet (0.7 m) high. The alternate, compound leaves consist of
9 to 13 hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may be slightly
winged (Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female flowers are produced during June
on separate plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect clusters followed by
small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and September. Michaux's sumac tends to
grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other
disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. In the
Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soil derived from mafrc rocks or sandy
soil derived from granite (Weakley 1993). Michaux's sumac ranges from south Virginia
through Georgia in the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect
24
NHP records do not document the occurrence of this species within 3.0
miles (4.8 km) of the project study areas for Austin Creek and Smith
Creek. Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac exists within the Austin
Creek and Smith Creek project study areas. Potential habitat includes the
road right-of-way and open successional areas. A cursory survey for
Michaux's sumac was conducted on January 17, 2002. No Michaux's
sumac stems were observed. Surveys for Michaux's Sumac were
conducted on June 27, 2002 by NCDOT personnel. All available habitat
was walked and a thorough search of the area performed. No specimens
of Michaux's Sumac were found. Another survey will be conducted in the
Summer of 2004 or 2005.
Federal Species of Concern
The 25 February 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as
"Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection
under the ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso
1999, LeGrand and Hall 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for the
FSC species listed for Wake County (Table 10).
Table 10. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Wake County, NC
(Common Name = Screntific Name g State Status'
' = Poteritral t

?=
`, LIE.
Habrfat
?,
E t
s orr
artus
tem bat
M
otrs au
';Southea SC Noi
s
,i
's sparrow:
;Bachman p
-
y
I
F- 7-
Atmophila ae'strvalrs , a SC '
No f „ `'
Stiuthern,hognose snake Heteiodon simus" ' `.SR(PSC) No
".jPrnewoodsdatei, a Lythrurusmatuhnus*
+ „ C; , S,R Yes ,tw+z

Carolina""darter n
It eos[omd;colisleprdrnron
SG l
Yes
'
Yellow lance ElGpno;lanceolata' -T(PE)b Yes
,
?„ ??•.? pig
Atlantrc i toe- ?, R y
Fusconara mason: u' . I e
T(PE)

Yes ,
Gieemfloater lasmrgona subvrrrdus E , Yes+ I ?I"; Y'
I
IF
Diana &thllary butterfly -IF I
Speyena d:ana SR F
No,'
Sweet pmesap Monotrop¢s odora[a r C' No
+,
Carolina least tnllurii ,
"Tnlhumpusrllum uar E y
Noi
risrllum t ''"'P ,,
..
E - Endangered, T - Threatened, PE- Proposed Endangered, SC - Special Concern, C - Candidate, W -
Watch List, PSC -Proposed Special Concern, SR - Significantly Rare.
°Atlantic pigtoe and yellow lance will receive a State Endangered status effective 1 July 2002 (NCWRC
2001).
No FSC were observed during the field investigation. NHP records show no documented
occurrences within the project study areas or within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) of the project study
areas for Austin Creek or Smith Creek. Austin Creek and Smith Creek do provide habitat
for the aquatic species listed; however, use of BMPs and avoiding construction activities
in the stream channels will avoid impacts to potential habitat.
State Listed Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seg.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.).
No State listed species have been documented within the project study areas for Austin
Creek and Smith Creek. In 1995 the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi) (SC) was
25
documented approximately 1.5 mi (2.4 km) upstream of the Austin Creek project study
area in the Mitchell's Mill Pond State Natural Area. In 1987 the least brook lamprey
(Lampetra aepyptera) [SC(PT)] was documented approximately 2.0 mi (3.2 km)
northeast of the Austin Creek project study area in the Little River. The proposed
projects are not expected to impact any known populations of state listed species.
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh. 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR). 1989. Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN): Water Quality Review
1983-1988. North Carolina DEHNR: Water Quality Section. Raleigh.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water
Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002a. North Carolina
Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin
http://h2o.enr. state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinandwaterbodies/03-04-02.pdf
on 16 January 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002b. Active NPDES
Permits. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/permits.xis on 16
January 2002.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1996. Basinwide Assessment Report Support
Document-Neuse River Basin. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 401 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 214 pp
+ appendices.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2001. Basinwide Assessment Report-Neuse River
Basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
132pp + appendices.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and
26
Evaluations
for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 13pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., and S.P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 91 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury,
MA. 448 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
Guidance. Beaufort, NC. 35 pp+ appendicies.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Major EFH Categories for Managed
Species- South Atlantic. Beaufort, NC. 7pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1999. Best Management
Practices For Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT, Raleigh. 3 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commsion (NCWRC). 2001. North Carolina Mussel
Atlas: Species,Information and Status. Online. http:\www.ncwildlife.org.
3 August 2001:
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Personal Communication. 2001 Ron Sechler with National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS): Habitat Conservation Office. Beaufort, NC.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1182
pp-
Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pogosa
Springs, CO. 365 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 118 pp .+ maps.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for
the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel Recovery Plan.
27
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, MA.
39 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and
Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern, by County, in North
Carolina: Wake County. 12 April 2001. Asheville, NC.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1993. Rolesville, North Carolina 7.5-minute series
topographic Quadrangle.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft
of November 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Pamell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, NC. 255 pp.
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 Title 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory
Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture & Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project and
determined that neither a historic architectural survey nor an archaeological survey would
be required. The SHPO states the project is not likely to affect any resources of
historical significance (see letters dated January 22, 2001 and February 21, 2001 in
Appendix C).
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the
inadequate bridges will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
28
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments of this
document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.-
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited. One business would be temporarily displaced during construction. Refer
to the relocation report in Appendix B.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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. This project
will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the US Department of
Transportation Act of 1966.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition
and construction projects. With the exception of the construction of a temporary detour,
all work will be done within the existing right-of-way. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project. Therefore,
the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications.
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 (state air quality
implementation plan) in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
The replacement of Bridge Nos. 448 and 140 are to be at approximately the same location
and elevation. Since no additional through lanes are proposed, the project will not
increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have a significant impact on noise and air
quality. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary.
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham
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 1/3 moderate
nonattainment area for 03 and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these
areas were redesignated as a maintenance area 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
2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) has been
determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT air quality conformity
approval of the LRTP was August 20, 2002 and the USDOT air quality conformity
approval for the MTIP was October 1, 2003. The current conformity determination is
consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There have
been no significant changes in the projects design concept or scope, as used in the
29
conformity analyses
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Wake County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no
practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in
an impact area of about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to
increase the level or extent of upstream flood potential.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from agencies will be incorporated during the project development and design
for the proposed project. Refer to Appendix C for agency correspondence.
30

s?

h
?I M1
.I t, °t?c C
n ? b
a' ro
l?
ey 1/O? 9 b q
O S
ti
ai ? \•

a??311321
alos _
F`
a°
mr J
c?
i
rn
d
LJ
?I
0
f
1 h'
\I
w Q ,r 0
/V\? 1 = CN Wp F
W
m Nw
(,?P e LU Ods LL
I U- 0
o?
0-
U-
0 i
m
W--,WMM 11

REQIF.ST ',;(DR R'lv C05T 75TLYL>,TF
EIVFO
JUN 21 2002
ATE:
:E1 VED
D.:
0 LfNTY
03-20-02
B-3919
WAKE
M TER.N_?TE 00
?FiWAYSS aS

a`cti'rEl E
r
DEA
17

0 1 0 I i
272,700
40,000
85,000
397,700
'OJECT ?f0.:8.24"08501'
f GIINIZR: JENNIFER SAFRON/
SThi L4T D if 0- OF P.kRCELS:
75MFNTI_=1. RF:L0CAT10N:
1Slt`fE55 RELOCATIOLY
uIND.kf`fD D,f LkG'E:
.-1LITLES:
=Q U1STi0i`f :
OT.?L ESTLYL=_TE'D Rry COST
JECT DESCR PTIOL`f AiND SPECL-1-L IMTRUCIIO`fS:
3RIDGE NO. 448 OVER AUSTIN CREEK AND BRIDGE NO. 140 OVER
SMITH'S CREEK AND APPROACHES ON SR 2053 (JONES DAIRY ROAD)
EOFPLAiti'SFURCf1S1iEDFORF5TLYLATES: AERIAL ** DUE 05-01-02 **
DR ESTllYIATES OFL:u`fD : IND DA.NLiGES (YYITIE DATES):
JCRE.-kS.ES OR DECREASES :ARE SIGNIFICAiNT, PLEASE E_CPL_4 COY:
* MAINLINE = 57,475 DETOURS = 215,225
UYT THAT HAS BeF'if ?.DDED TO L:>`!`fD ufD D.uvl.>GE I'0 CO`/ER CO?YDEb.tC(ATIOCf S1YD:aDPitL`fIST:_aTI':
N USES: S ufD OR; 25
I_aTED B Y:
ANDREW QUESTELL
(D:>TE)
05-30-02
1'tilS ESTh` t_aTE `,VAS iYOT 9:>S.ED UPUiY ct f:i1 RICH"I' OF' w.??" PLUf5 CfOR FLf.: DESIGC( D:>T:=..
-EFORF, ITS ACCUR4CY (S SUBJECT TO `ro-UA 'E`i ER PL.V(S.VQD! OR 0ESfC:f D.aT? PROVIDED BY
LSTG(G P:?CfY.
RELOCATION REPORT
? E.I.S. F-1 CORRIDOR 0 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
'ROJECT: 8.2408501 COUNTY Wake Alternate #448
'.D. NO.: B-3919 F.A: PROJECT BRZ-2553 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Bridge No. 448 over Austin Creek and Bridge No. 140 over Smith's Creek
and approaches on SR 2053 (Jones Dairy Road)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0
Businesses 1 0 1 1 VALUE OF DWELLING -DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
=arms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
on-Profit 0 0 0 0 $ 0-150 0-20M so-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS r 150-250 20-40M 150-250
(es No Explain all "YES" answers. 250-400 40-70M 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-1 400-600 70-t00M 400-600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up 600 up
displacement? TOTAL
K 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
K 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Business services will continue as in before condition.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
4. Business is fruit stand flee market - one employee - minority
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? owner. Business does not operate 5 days per week.
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 6. MLS, Realtor.com
'X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. As in the before condition.
families? -
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. Adequate housing will be available.
{ 11. Is public housing available?
K 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 13. MLS, Realtor.com
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
K 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

.?
/I \ J
?L-
Leonard G. Scarborough/tsg tey O
Division Right of Way A ent tG Approved by Date
more 15.4 Revised 02195 d / Original & 1 Copy: Slate Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
All RELOCATIGN REPORT
X? E.I.S. [__J CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2408501 COUNTY Wake Alternate #140
1. D. NO.: B-3919 F.A. PROJECT BRZ-2553 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Bridge No. 448 over Austin Creek and Bridge No. 140 over Smith's Creek
and approaches on SR 2053 (Jones Dairy Road)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M 35-50M
50 UP
Residential
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING r' DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M s 0-150 o-20M S0_150
ANSWER ALL OUESTIONS 2000M 150-250 2000M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250000 40-70M 250-400
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-100M 400-600
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 UP 100 up 600 uP
displacement? TOTAL
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number)
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, NEGATIVE REPORT
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
-
n
W
Leonard rborough/tsg Date
of Way A en Approved by Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d V
Unginal & 1 Uopy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
l
Cy (L44 cv
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
January 22, 2001 Jef rey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook a41 d Vp [qtv?---
Deputy State Hic Preservation Officer
Re: Replace Bridge No. 448 on SR 2053 over Austin Creek,
TIP No. B-3919, Wake County, ER 01-7927
We regret that a member of or staff was unable to attend the December 7, 2000, meeting of the
minds for the above project.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information provided, we offer our preliminary
comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources we are aware of no historic structures located within the
area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this=
project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our present knowledge of
the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore,
recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to the receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion
or Environmental Assessment, which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisorv 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 any questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator,
at 919 733-4763.
Location Mailing Address TelephondFax
ldministration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4617 Mail Servicc Center. Raleigh 27699-1617 [phone] •715-8653
0.storation 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh 4617 Mail S. rvicc Center. Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] -715-1801
iurvey R Manning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh 461 a Mail S?Tvice (vlner, Raleigh 276'9-4618 (')19) 733-4763 -715-1801

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Admini=rrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow. Director
February 21. 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore. P.E.. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook -?'?-
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge 140 on SR 2053 over Austin Creek.
TIP No. B-3920, Wake County. ER 01-7910
i
We regret that a member of our staff was unable to attend the December 7. 2000. meeting
of the minds for the above project.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed ut tile illcdLinL.
we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources we are a4vare of no historic structures located
within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural surrey
be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area. it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. will be affected by
the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investiuation
be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information. we look forward to the receipt of either a Cutegoricul
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment, which indicates how NCDO'f addressed Our
comments.

Luodnn ]1•illnp Add rya
ADMIN1S'rRATION 397 N. nlnum SL Raleigh NC ari 17 !.lad Service Cmier. R.llag h NC 27699-1617
RESTORATION 515 N alnunl St. Raleigh NC -14,13 .'.lad Smicc Cm,7. Ralen;h NC 27699-1613
SURVEY 5 PLAYNIYI; 515 N Dlnnm Sc. R,.len;h' C W, 1% `1,.l Ser,ce C, uer. R.iIcu;h `:C ^.,? nl-lnlx
TdrPhnnr/Ful
• 777x657
(')19)733-47(,3
(')1')) 71)1,547 •71?.4xlll
i'll'li aim,}i' •-if-4::V1
Page 2 of 2
William D. Gilmore 1
February 21, 2001
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 300.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning
the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator,
at 919 733-+763.
s

i

I'?R
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR.
January 9, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: Jennifer Safron, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
FROM: Stephen Walker.'& J
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Section
LYNDO TIPPETf
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge # 448 over Austin Creek and
Bridge # 140 over Smiths Creek on SR 2053, Wake County,
F.A. BRZ-2053(l), State Project # 5.2408501, TIP # B-3919
The project is located in Wake County. which is within the Raleigh-
Durham nonattainment area for ozone (0;) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the
EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as
"moderate" nonattainment area for 0: and CO. 'However, due to improved monitoring
data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for 0; 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 Rang Transportation Plan
(LRTP) and the 2000-2006 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP)
has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT air quality
conformity approval of the LRTP was August 20, 1999 and the USDOT air quality
conformity approval for the MTIP was October I, 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 projects's design concept or scope, as
used in the conformity analyses.
The project proposes the replacement of Bridge # 448 over Austin Creek and
Bridge # 140 over Smiths Creek on SR 2053. The bridges are planned to be replaced at
approximately the same location and elevation. No additional through traffic lanes are
planned; therefore, the project will not increase traffic volumes. The noise transmission
reduction provided to the interior of the structures within the project limits should be
sufficient to moderate any intrusive traffic noise. Therefore, the project's impact oil noise
and air quality will not be significant
MAILING ADDRESS: TFLEPNONE: 919-733.3141 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRAmsmRTATIOM81JILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 South WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSnr: VIAAWOOH.OOL?:Tr rF_.NC.II?1 RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance .j
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
772, and. for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process.
and no additional reports are necessary.

i ?V..v
WAKE COUNTY
Department of Transportation
November 13, 2000
PUBLIC
Mr. John L. Williams
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Williams:
SCHOOL
SYSTEM
A
Thank you for including the Wake County Public Schools Transportation Department in your planning
process to determine the impact bridge closings would have on our program.
The following numbers of buses travel the bridges indicated on a daily basis:
Bridge # Road # Buses Impacted
273 Old Stage Road 4
525 Kildaire Farm Road 30
174 Riley Hill Road 7
317 Johnson Pond Road 10
108 Norwood Road 6
125 Burlington Mills Road 6
311 Penny Road 13
127 Ligon Mill Road 25
140 Hwy SR 2053 40
448 Hwy SR 2053 40
Rerouting due to bridge closings may cause some delays for bus routes, and in turn increasing length of
ride times for students on buses that normally cross those bridges. The most impacted bridge closings are
Bridge Nos. 140 & 448 which impacts the majority of our Wake Forest Transportation operations with 40
buses affected by their closing and Bridge No. 525 which impacts 30 of our Cary Transportation buses.
Please keep us apprised as things progress so we can make the necessary adjustments to routes to
ensure smooth operations with the transportation of students to and from school. If you need additional
information, please let us know.
Sincerely, /
Wyatt L. C rrin
Department of Transportation
Wake County Public Schools
v
c: Mr. William McNeal
Mr: Walt Sherlin
.i _