20020649 Ver 1_Complete File_20020426

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Q??
Michael F. Easley, Governor NC ENR
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DWQ Project No.:
Applicant:
Project Name:
.Q
County:
(,, A?
e- 305 -9-
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: --hot 0 Z
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1621. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the
project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, UN N CLAre- , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and s ecifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date: Zip Z?40
Agent's Certifi ation
1, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities,'due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Engineer's Certification
T Partial Final
I, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State
of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of
the project,for the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in
the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules. the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature
Date
0zn&gq
AJc.tl OT
Registration No.
Wetlands1401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1 62 1
Telephone [phone] , FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT
B-3057
DIVISION: Five
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ - 2226 (1
COUNTY: Wake
STATE PROJECT: 8.2405001
ROUTE: SR 2226
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 480 on SR 2226 over Powell Creek
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Rolesville Quad
. 1
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 200,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 20,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ...................................................................................... $ 40,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 260,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1300 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) 2900 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 2 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 19 foot
pavement, grassed shoulders
EXISTING STPUCTURE: LENGTH 15.5 METERS WIDTH 8.0 METERS
51.0 FEET 26.0 FEET
COMMENTS:

" 51 \ `.
\
' 923 ?•
_

2306
i . \ _• ._.._..--. 2305

/
- o 401
i ,
d
t? - 2226 1003
i
? i
401 i !. !,\ 230
_..; = Cr.
'
se v' .
f

Bridge No. 480 `

2049 ,e• 2224 _

- - -•-----
i ?•
L
_ '.-?
,• - - ' •? 2230
:, ? ••?
' `. `. 2318
"
i
i 2227 l.•
2320
100 d
1- 2929 :..
,

A

_..? 2215 .......
i
......

c N?
' V e VS-e- ff?
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Wake County
Replace Bridge No. 480 on SR 2226
Over Powell Creek
B-3057
Figure 1
'WaZiceh';'`Cis
/? => \
• I i
S `? r
O \ /( >11
lic
C3 / Q •/ i ?/
1 \ J
300
ross?i o
I n\
r\
iE04.0-CA1 Y?/avl ?. w.°? M ?I,MC-^-1Y4t
72500°'^ E.
)AD CLASSIFICATION
1 RoIes\
Water
.3 \•?
.? Win, ~I\\..?1\J?\\?\??r IJI• i,•\-4P? "'•-
/7 tt
_
It.
?? - /? .?--, \/,?? t •? 389 ?_r????rf ?\ ?' /?: j ?? n r : .C=.
;??\\ 150 ? ??- `? ? V ?/j Jf`11?r ? ? ??c -: _?
f.
-3 -
i \ a= , a I I ? t:
_ ? ??_" °. :'mi'l ?/' f / / o/ ? • ? ???? ;',? `\?_r ??\?`, . u;? ?` .
40
o `' ??` \`' f _ ?• l III'.
OZW
-Ij
rl-
221
224 -
-0 -Ce
7
'? .J ?•,\\ .? of 'i ?' `.?? 222 ?;-
.h Wa7ce rossrood? k??-?
78 ° 30` 726 2 150 000 FEET 727 728 729
Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey
Control by USGS and USC&GS
MN !
Topography by ohot02rammetric methods from aerial ohotograohs I ,.a
v
f
•a o
D p
0
4
o
o c? I
a d
o TV
Q
Q o
? a
d ? a
O
19 O o
0 0
0
0 4
0
o p D
D
o •a o
0
a
D
t
i
a
CA
0
D
a
0
O
•
a D
O p ?o
Q o '
p o
e o
e
0
Q Q
Q
4 g
0
O
Q 4
0 4, o
o
o
D
o O 1
.
O
Q D
a ?
0
D
4
v
0
0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
11k1:?W,J
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
May 10, 2002
Wake County
DWQ Project No. 020649
APPROVAL OF 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS and Neuse
River Buffer Rules
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, as described in your application dated April 5, 2002, and in accordance with the
attached conditions and those listed below, to place permanent fill material in 0.001 acres of wetlands,
temporary fill in 0.03 acres of wetlands and streams, 2734 square feet of protected riparian buffers in Zone
1, and 1986 square feet of protected riparian buffers in Zone 2. The project's purpose is the replacement of
Bridge Number 480 on SR 2226 over Powell Creek in Wake County. The project shall be constructed in
accordance with your application dated April 5, 2002. After reviewing your application, we have decided
that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3361. Certification 3361
corresponds to Nationwide Permit Number 23 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also valid
for the Neuse River buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .033). In addition, you should acquire any other federal,
state or local permits before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and
Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when
the accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified
below). Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby
responsible for complying with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, or of total impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). ). This approval shall
expire with the corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as otherwise provided in the General
Certification. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
1. Stormwater shall be directed to sheetflow at nonerosive velocities through the protected stream buffers.
2. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed.
The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the
Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project.
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/] 0% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
MEMO
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
3. All impacts to protected buffers will be restored to preconstruction contours and revegetated with
native riparian species.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
c:\ncdot\TIP B-3057\wgc\020649h1d.doc
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 5, 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
? t
APR
02®649
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No.
480 on SR 2226 over Powell Creek, Wake County, NCDOT Division 5,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2226(1), State Project No. 8.2405001, TIP
Project No. B-3057.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report along with copies of the
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR), the Pre-construction Notification (PCN),
and permit drawings for the above referenced project. Replacement of Bridge No. 480
will be on the existing alignment with a bridge approximately 98 feet in length and 42
feet in width. During construction, traffic will be detoured on surrounding roads.
Mechanized Clearing will be by Method II.
Wetland Impacts: Wetland impacts will be minimal. Permanent fill will be placed in
0.0007 acre of wetland in the southwest quadrant of the project area. Temporary fill
comprising 0.0001 acre will occur in the northeast quadrant.
Temporary Causeway Information: A temporary rock causeway will be located along the
northern edge of the stream channel and will be utilized during construction. The
causeway will facilitate the placement of a single span cored slab bridge. The causeway
will consist of Class II riprap. The resulting temporary fill associated with the causeway
is approximately 0.03 acre.
Restoration Plan: The material used as temporary fill in the construction of the causeway
will be removed after their purpose has been served. The temporary fill area will be
restored to its original contours. Elevations and contours .in the vicinity are available
from field survey notes.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for an August 20, 2002 let date with an availability
date of October 8, 2002. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start
construction of the causeway shortly after the availability date. The causeway will be
removed within 90 days of project completion.
Disposal: After the causeway is no longer needed, the contractor will use excavating
equipment to remove the riprap used in the causeway. All causeway material will
become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a
reclamation plan for removal and disposal of all material off-site.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 480 is a two-lane bridge with a 25.9-foot deck and 19-
foot approach. The bridge consists of a timber deck with a bituminous wearing surface
on steel I-beams supported by timber caps and piles. The bridge and substructure will be
removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States. During
construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
._ followed.
This project is located in the Neuse River Basin; therefore the regulations pertaining to
the Neuse River Buffer Rules will apply. There are 0.06 acre (2733.6 ft2) of allowable
impacts within Zone 1 and 0.04 acre (1986 ft2) of allowable impacts within Zone 2 (see
permit buffer drawings sheet 7 of 7).
It is anticipated that the construction of the causeway will be authorized under Section
404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering). Therefore,
we are requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing construction of the
causeway. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 in accordance with the Federal
Register of March 9, 2000, Part VII, Vol. 65, No. 47, Pages 12817-12899.
By copy of this letter, the appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification is requested from
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. In addition to the Water Quality
Certification, a letter of authorization from the DWQ will be required under Section 15A
NCAC ?B .0233 (7) (b) of the Neuse River Buffer Rules.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Lynn Smith
at [phone], ext. 286.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: w/ attachment:
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Raleigh
Mr. Burt Tasaico, P.E., NCDOT Program Development, Raleigh
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., NCDOT Highway Design, Raleigh
Mr. John Alford, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., NCDOT Structure Design, Raleigh
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., NCDOT Hydraulics, Raleigh
Ms. Robin Young, P.E., NCDOT PD&EA, Raleigh
Mr. Jon G. Nance, P.E., NCDOT Division 5 Engineer, Durham ,
Mr. Chris Murray, NCDOT Division 5 Environmental Officer, Durham

If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A rather than
leaving the space blank.
L Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 23 and
Nationwide 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here:
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department Of Transportation/Project Development & Environmental
Analysis
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141. Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be ,
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 3 of 12

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. ' For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge No. 480, on SR 2226 Over Powell Creek, Wake County
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3057
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No. 480 is located on SR
2226 ( Jonesville Road) southwest of NC 401 and north of SR 2224 (Mitchell Mill Road) in
Wake County.
5.. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 035° 53' 6.41" N, 078° 28' 42.45"W
Rolesville Quadrangle.
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. `Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: Highway
corridor consisting of a bridge and maintained road shoulders.
7. Property size (acres): N/A
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Powell Creek (Harris Creek on the
USGS Quad)
9. River Basin: Neuse
Page 4 of 12
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Bridge replacement
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Mechanical highway
construction equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest,
maintained/disturbed, and riverine marsh.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules:
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or`, agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, an? stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must-be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is. needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1 Wetland Impacts
Page 5 of 12
Wetland Impact
. Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream (linear
feet)
Type of Wetland***
1 Permanent Fill 0.0007 Yes 175 feet Riverine marsh
1 Temporary Fill 0.0001 Yes 10 feet Riverine marsh

List each impact separately ana wenttry temporary impacts. impacts 111G1uuc, UUL WE; UUL 111111LGLL LV. 11Ml I LLL- anL.LUa..b, 5. ..5 . ....,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's.(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
.List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0.1 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: Permanent impact of 0.0007 acre and Temporary
impact of 0.0001 acre.
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
Stream Name* * Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
1 Temporary Fill 0.03 Powell Creek 25 feet Perennial

List eacn impact separately ana iaentlry Lenlpurary 1111paL;LJ. 1111p"LJ 111L;1ULLO, UUL 0.16 11VL 111LL -U LV. aua rLaw --v.u.......1....y,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is.
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 60 linear feet due to
temporary causeway

3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact* Area of

Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
.

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody

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

List each impact separately ana iaenury temporary impacts. impacts tncruue, our are nor r,mrreu ru: 1111, cxr:avauU,i, uiougui8,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design.options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Bridize No. 480 will be replaced with a new bridge at the same location. Surface water impacts
are restricted to those associated with the construction of a temporary work causeway, totaling
0.03 acres. Once construction of Bridge No. 480 is completed, the temporary fill will be
removed and the area will be restored to original grade. Permanent and temporary wetland
impacts are limited to permanent fill impacts of 0.0007 acre and temporary fill impacts of 0.0001 acre.
Page 7 of 12
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including,size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to. protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) respnibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section XII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at.the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ® No If you answered "yes", provide the following information
Page 9 of 12
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* ` Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 2733.6 N/A
2 1986.0 N/A
Total 4719.6 N/A
Gone t extends out su reet perpenaicuiar from near oanK ui cnwinciI f.unc c cnLcllub an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian. Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Stormwater run-off will be directed into grass swales and scour holes and allowed to filter across
the buffer zones.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes E No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes No
Page 10 of 12
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A

/G. C
44
Applicant/Agent's Si nature D to
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell Union
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk Watauga
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan Yancey
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham Wilson
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes Yadkin
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange . Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones Pitt
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir Tyrrell
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin Washington
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico Wayne
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans *Croatan National Forest Only
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890. Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Page ;11 of 12

-i???lcr

ktV.-?ko
New ? aP)
i
I
I
i
m?
10
u,
401 2046
.m
2224
VVake dsa r
:X7 > ?22
22:
401 _

m?
? 2226
'

e. l
a
ISlackle Lak ?;- f
e
1K
?
?
YI
as ?
2225

HartsNed Dr.
SITE > 3

. .% i,P am% ,'Tt
i+ _ 2966 _ mfi?
m.: mill. V
l
222; ??'o
n
.R .
J '
M!! Mill
2224

2470 if

NOT TO SCALE
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
L ®C A 11 I®1 V WARE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2405001 (B-3057)
PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
MAPS BRO. NO. -480 ON SR 2226
OVER POWELL CREEK
-02
SHEET 2 OF 7 01-02
\L- J
Cal
?•` r r

V'

!b
NX4,-
"Ito. if
i
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
ROOTWAO
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
.".'.". CLEARING
-? FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP
-TB TOP OF BANK
W
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
E
EDGE OF WATER
- 5 OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
_C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
E PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
- - -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
k
?
R
i F
? (LS)
LEVEL SPREADE
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE DITCH /
GRASS SWALE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE-- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
T-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- kPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE
xX X )l x LIVE STAKES NCDO
Jl

BOULDER
C2D
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CORE FIBER ROLLS WAKE COUNTY
PROJECT: &2405001 (B-3057)
PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRG. NO.480 ON SR ' 2226
OVER POWELL CREEK.
SHEET 4- OF 7 01-02-02
WE J°TLAND ltsEGENTD

--WLg- - WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
L

L
WETLAND
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
?L1%1C11? WETLAND 12'-48'

®
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES

EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
SURFACE WATER &. ABOVE
DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE WATER
SINGLE TREE
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
AND
T
'
WOODS LINE
IILLLUJ
k L
FILL IN WE J
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
N
F
0 z p
W J d' N O
J O t:e M < W O
LL a
0 V)
LL F-
r?o I a z ?? z o
0 X 3:x I cn I I o c? O
W c W O ?;? ?`
3 W.rn F U X03
mo ?? o I w 0Qv® w
UN? z I ® z F O o, O
A- N Qvi
V
? w JW X ? ? ct, 3 ? ? .?,
a v W I w W> O E-'
C a ®m0 W
I I U
z
co
tv
r J N I s m
s:
00
LL- cn
CID
w
CO
co
V- LL

7,J _l? . * I %-B-
F-
4- N m
J E
o l
LL
I .
LLJ I UL

co
-^
V ? O
3
l
I
r cy- I
cn
Lli
Q
? IN
cn W I N

O
?.
3 3
O
Z
?w`
1

Z
C
)
`X

cy-
.
mW
N
co
? b p

?
c
a N
w
r y? W
?a
¢;
Q
!LD
Z pW ? ?
J !W?

WNN
N
r
zZ
° t
z
W WJ
0 0?

(D

N
_
O

3a1--? V)
o
O
W 3
Q p u

W

DE Ln a
N (>
N
O
to
o _ o 0 0 - I'
to '?' M N °
N N N N H .: ?o N
h w A

? x E ? ?rnU

m OC4

_W
Z aV)
?Z ,
J

O
O O >-
Q4-?

J IOW

-ln re)

N u
I
,
U
x
Q
N

W
N
O U)
'1 N
?W u J , W U F
QN ?Q
Q
U
O ?O ?
ON W
W W
U
00
Ul NOS oLIJ N CLW .
11 II. =cr O wU
Q _

Y f"' LL-
Q W
~ N

I

;

WU)
In LLJ W ?-
Z
O

pJ

WI
O I Z
O
Q?
Q
tlr h I :
Q
_
p'
I , Q
> W
Mw?

Z? N F-
QZ
,
Q
? N I x
w n
Jm3 J
I \
C
7
XI
I C)
W
pO Ln

N
WI Nh-?
cy-
' I
Iz o
LO
r p n
W
J
LO a
N U
N

O
O o O ?
?'

N N N N
N
O
V
N
O C th
CIS
U t
c
U
W
N ?
m c ..
o m
t
7ii W
O
V Z
O

c c 'v F- fn
H Q

O c m ?
N = -- ?
=
C
)
F.
.
XM L
W
V
O
a
0
V °
?
Q Z=? I
_ Cl) co 9LL O co
-
w iii N
a to o o J.-O V o
LL Z W 0
W E C U e O O Y O ti
F- co Q N
Q
3 AJ H
a>?' w
Go
W
O ?- _
(n
Q
LL c
C p U U W
Z
O
IX a-

N CL

y ?
U)

l0 U ?
pJ

7

.-.
m 73
N _ O y
N p'

l9
N U
v V

d r

?•• ? rVVV`,
C ? r-
U
a
oc +
y2 r.
= y

O A
X
Q
a
W `
} U

3 LL rm o ?^
CL
E ? m o

H c v ? CU

? n

-r
LL 3
w

N
m
=
U N
2 CO
y'
? Q

L!?
I.O..
O `
O ~
.J
O
J

1 `4
?
E f- F-
ti LO ° v °
LO to

J

.2 ci Q
fn Z D

_ _ Ac,, }fir
Lad
ge
III
a i 401 ;
12226
Slackle
` m
401 gas
CAL
222s
r'' HartsNed Dr.
J? SITE } < :2803
_ c
2224
-cb
` i-m
Wakei
ds 2986 2226 `Of 3
,? hell f ,, . I' - C9 u 1
2224 O ?
Y '• , " ?z / . •AR?, ' ?' a Mill
2224 - -
'ww
NIM sY1' ?\
1 22T - / - - ,,\ 2230 7
J
NOT TO SCALE \
N E U S E RIVER BUFFER N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
L ® C A T 10 N WAKE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2405001 (B-3057).
MAPS PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRG. NO..480 ON SR 2226
OVER POWELL CREEK
01
SHEET 2 OF 7 -02-02

00
), v ? Y,-j,
300,

rte- -?
r
U
t
BUFFER LEGEND

-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
L
WETLAND
L
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
YYXY?, ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE1 PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2 EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
MITIGABLE IMPACTS` ZONE i
® MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
.. _ ., .. WOODS LINE

-BZ - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE DRAINAGE INLET
-BZi - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 1 ROOTWAD
30 f t (9.2m)
-BZ2- RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE -2 RIP RAP
20 ft (6.1m)
-? -? FLOW DIRECTION
ADJACENT'PROPERTY OWNER
B 5 OR PARCEL NUMBER
? TOP OF BANK IF AVAILABLE
WE EDGE OF WATER
- -C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT D PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--AML- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -'PL - PROPERTY LINE
? GRASS SWALE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
I
-- EASEMENT
- EAR- EXIST. ENDANGERED
\ ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
x x x DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
x xX 'x `.LIVE STAKES
WARE COUNTY
O BOULDER
PROJECT: 8.2405001 (B-3057)
CORE FIBER ROLLS BRIDGE NO. 480
OVER POWELL CREEK
ON SR 2226
SHEET 4 OF 7 01 / 02 / 02
jN? \ O Z O C\i
1
;LLliiAm _
w

IW clj
4o>
.10
°N

d

i W

M
O
/ Qi M V O

I ?, a F 0
a
P v

I o C7 o
.
W
O I V I
I 3 r?
o S Z
N I
i oG
F. o U o w0?

? ? o a
°
ao.,°
P:
z
Q?
o
F;
Z a
u

V-40>
x LL-
m w
LL)
W.
W G
f
_

_ C m O
\
u
a W

1
3 J
' Jr4w
I -j o_
Ti m' l
I ?
Z Oa.
Jw?d

. Odd
W-
N=

WON
I
N
o>? <V) I N
4 co
Q N
\ o co -
AZ W J
J
U
N
?

N
m.'
OD N
lp
co U-

U- N
co
00
J 77
N

co
m
vwl

aNp
m
N z
Z
N co
- N

Z

Q
r N
m ; \ m
zz zo
. J

N
*N
N N N
Q
00 F
c1 r U

-
N
CO CO v
tL f Ua a
O LL- c)

3 . W
W
U p w
m < =

co o
=

~ -
1 •,
E I D: 3 ;
m g ° W
N Qom,;.-,-„•.a

LL L

V
I -
cr-.
I I 3a1--I o b
I
w ?'
? I I
N
N l

3 V)
U E ui L Q
'
V W? Z
I
N Z
r

X W N
J
LL N \
; Vy?,l"? x
3
N
N
u
l/1
X X
Lli I N r,odd N

o
0

0= z
O
2
LJ
L?. o

Q
? 0 :
co
a = -
C7 jo O
O
Z
LL.
f
W
LL aD W
Z
W
Op

I aN 0
U) 0-
L
L
I W

q a
- Z

N M n m
CL

LLJ

0

' to w
U
)
LO
cc cn

0
H N

W
W

. ? z N
?.
N
O
C
N _
N
Z

Z
LL
Q L1. o
o
J ?
co
W zN

O
C

f' <

W 0
J
(p o
Q N
N O
Q Z
O v
~

Q
? O
O

G ? v

?D

v

V
J
~ v N N
o
V
Q Q
CL mQ
W N
C,5
P1
-
Q?
? ?
o a?
J N
G J O
W N co 'n
?i O v N ? N
W N
LL.

.7 J V
m
a-
W
a
c!)
z

0 0. x

? t O J O J
\
y LL `D ? n

O
N ? y m
y
W W
?
co
w

? a v
!n N

F-

ti .
0206 4.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3057
State Project No. 8.2405001
Federal Project No. BRZ-2226(1)
A. Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 480 over Powell Creek
on SR 2226. The bridge will be replaced with a 62-foot (18.9 m) single-
span cored slab bridge in approximately the same location and roadway
elevation as the existing briJ e. The cross section of the new bridge
includes two 12-foot (3.6-m) Panes with 3-foot (1-m) offsets. Approach
work consists of resurfacing and tying in to the existing alignment.
Guardrail will be installed where warranted. The total project length will
be 0.145 miles (0.23 km). Traffic will be detoured along surrounding
roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 480 has a sufficiency rating of 50.1 out of a possible 100.
The deck and superstructure of this 40-year old Bridge are in poor
condition. Therefore, the bridge needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are
circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration,
rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding
auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitatin , and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvementsf
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through
lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
gg Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through
lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects
including the installation of ramp metering control devices and
lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including' Jersey type barriers and
pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or
re pinment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including
removing hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail
retrofit
O3 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade
railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, ender systems, and minor structural
improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited
use of right-of way, where the proposed use does not have
significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas
used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes
where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning
and located on or near a street with ade uate capacity to handle
anticipated bus and support vehicle tra Flic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings
and ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional
land are required and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high
2

activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for
projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where
such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and
where there is no significant noise impact on the surrounding
community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance
land acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act.
Hardship and protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types of
Land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not
limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for
planned construction protects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until
the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 474,000
Right of Way
l $ 35,000
000
509
Tota ,
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1300 vpd
Year 2025 - 2900 vpd
TTST - 1 %
Dual - 2%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The approach roadway cross section will include two 12-ft (3.6-m).
lanes with 8-ft (2.4-m) grassed shoulders.
Design Speed:
60 mph (96 km/h)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division concurs with the recommendation of closing the road
and detouring traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
3
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 480 is composed completely of timber and steel.
Therefore, the bridge will be removed without dropping any of its
components into Waters of the United States during construction.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type
II actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique
or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? ?X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been ?
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service
lands?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters
(HQW)?
?
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ?
X.
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
F roject sig?uficantly affect the coastal zone and/or any ?
Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
X
4
e
(11) Does theroject involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources. X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
X
(14) Will the roject require any stream relocations or channel
changes. ?
X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the roject require the relocation of any family or
b
i
X
us
ness.
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any
minority or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is
the amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or
?
land use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of ?
1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using ?
existing roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
5
(25) If the project is a bride replacement project, will the
bridge be replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be ?
contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ?
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/ properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which
are important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4?f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife an waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act
of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and ?
Scenic Rivers? X
F.
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be
provided below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached,
as necessary.)
Item 2 - Habitat for Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) in the form of
open, disturbed areas on sandy soils does occur within the project limits. .
However, no plants were found during the field survey conducted on
August 6,1999. Additionally, the N. C. Natural Heritage Program
database of rare species and unique habitats has no record for the
presence of Michaux's sumac within the project vicinity. Therefore, no
impact to Michaux's sumac will result from project construction.
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-3057
8.2405001
BRZ-2226(1)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 480 over Powell Creek
on SR 2226. The bridge will be replaced with a 62-foot (18.9 m) single-
span cored slab bridge in approximately the same location and roadway
elevation as the existing bridge. The cross section of the new bridge
includes two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes with 3-foot (1-m) offsets. Approach
work consists of resurfacing and tying in to the existing alignment.
Guardrail will be installed where warranted. The total project length will
be 0.145 miles (0.23 km). Traffic will be detoured along surrounding
roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
3 ??, r-2-oa , 4 ?,,
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
2_ 29-0 0 Wa7 k e- &7/,'of
Date Wayne Elliott, Project Development Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
'C-20-00 _ ,'i
Date Kafen Ofthner, Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
3-M,.-aaw
Date
7
Federal Highway Administration

9
Korth Carolina
Department of Transportation
Diviston of Highways
f Planning & Environmental Branch
Wake County
Replace Bridge No. 480 on SR 2226
Over Powell Creek
B-3457
Figure 1
-
?.._.. -- ---- -

2051
923 ?:
_ - -
?'. 2306 $

~
- • r - - _ ,
i' 2305
401
4
2226 1003 -?.
.. LLL
,
i

401 230
Cr.

ss
t
; L:P

Ne ??25
'' -• Bridge No. 480 ?``..
_
2049
?I .
?
•` _--? ? 2230
? ?
? •'?
t ` `
`•, •, 2318

;' 2227
- -'. 2320

100 ,o
??
- . 2929 -
`
- - - r - ?
- '•,
- `

A

.2
_

_ •? ;' 2215 - - -'- ' '

Studied Detour Route
STATE
T•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 20, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 480 on SR 2226 over Powell Creek, B- waict Lo.
3057, ER 99-7697
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On December 15, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no 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 investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??

Nicholas L. Graf
January 20, 1999, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
A,016
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: W. D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett.
bc: File
Brov&evin
Claggett/Hall
County
RF

s.
dd SUlE ?
1?Rn^
?Q gY1M ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 10, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, P.E., Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
FROM: LeiLani Paugh, Natural Systems Specialist
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 480 on SR 2226 over Powell
Creek in Wake County, TIP No. B-3057, State Project
No. 8.2405001. Federal Aid No. BRZ-2226(1).
ATTENTION: Karen Orthner, Project Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
This document addresses four issues pertinent to the development of a
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for the proposed project: water resources,
biotic resources, jurisdictional issues such as waters of the United States, and federally
protected species. A complete ecological threshold checklist for a PCE is also attached.
Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 480 on SR 2226
over Powell Creek in Wake County. The existing structure is a two-lane bridge with a
25.9-foot deck and 19-foot approach. The proposed structure is a two-lane bridge with a
24-foot travelway and-3 -foot offsets on each side. The existing right-of-way is assumed
to be ditch line to ditch line. The proposed right-of-way is approximately 243' m (80.0
ft). Project length is approximately 235 m (770.0 ft).
The existing 50-foot bridge will be replaced with a 62-foot bridge at
approximately the same location and roadway elevation. Traffic will be detoured along
surrounding roads during construction.
Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2
quadrangle map (Rolesville), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland
Inventory Map (Rolesville), Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service) soil
maps (Wake County), and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200). Water
resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Information concerning the occurrence
of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and species of
concern (December 1999), and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of
rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists LeiLani Paugh and Karen Lynch on August 6, 1999. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks and burrows). Mussels and other aquatic life were surveyed by LeiLani Paugh
and Sue Brady on July 16, 1999 using tactile and visual techniques. Jurisdictional
wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: LeiLani Y. Paugh, Natural Systems Biologist
Education: BS Fisheries and Wildlife Science, North Carolina State University.
MS Natural Resource Mngt/ Hydrology, North Carolina State University.
Experience: Biological Technician, Carolina Power & Light Company, Biological
Assessment Unit, June 1995- July 1996.
Biological Technician, Fish and Wildlife Associates, February 1996 -
September 1996
Biologist, NCDOT PD&EA Branch, Natural Systems Unit, June 1998-
present
Expertise: Wetland hydrology
Definitions
. Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project
Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity
describes an area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and
Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle
map with the project occupying the central position.
(, 4W

WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
conditions. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Powell Creek (also known as Harris Creek) will be the only surface water
resource directly impacted by the proposed project (Figure 2). Powell Creek is located in
sub-basin 030402 of the Neuse River Basin. Powell Creek is a tributary of the Neuse
River, approximately 5 miles downstream of Falls Lake Dam.
Powell Creek, at Bridge No. 480, is approximately 9 in (30.0 ft) wide, with 4 - 5
ft steep banks, and areas of riprap along the banks. The substrate is composed of
unconsolidated sandy material overlain with a mucky organic layer. The waters of Powell
Creek varied from 2 ft to 6 ft deep within the project limits and visibility was less than
0.3 m (1 ft).
Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned streams a best usage
classification. The classification of Powell Creek (DEM Index # 27-22) is C NSW. The
C classification denotes waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish
and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses. NSW classification
denotes waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being subjected to
excessive growth of microscopic and macroscopic vegetation.
No Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately
undeveloped watersheds) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mile) of project study area.
Water Quality
The Division of Water Quality has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. The basinwide approach allows for
more intensive sampling of biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in
basinwide assessment and planning. Likewise, benthic macroinvertebrates are
intensively sampled for specific river basins. Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to
be a good indicator of water quality because they are sensitive to subtle changes in water
quality, have a relatively long life cycle, are nonmobile (compared to fish) and are
extremely.diverse. The overall species richness and presence of indicator organisms help
4
to assess the health of streams and rivers. River basins are reassessed every five years to
detect changes in water quality and to facilitate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit review.
A benthic macroinvertebrate collection site is located on the Neuse River
approximately 2.5 miles upstream of its confluence with Powell Creek. This station was
sampled nine times from 1983 to 1995 and received a taxa richness rating from 55 to 75,
a Biotic Index value of 2.75 to 2.91, and a bioclassification of good to fair (DWQ Web
Page)-
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters
that are collected is determined by the waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification
and corresponding water quality standards (DWQ, 1992). Water quality use support
rateings designate Powell Creek as Support-threatened (DWQ, 1993). There are no AMS
stations on Powell Creek. The first AMS station on the Neuse River downstream of the
city of Raleigh is at Hwy 42 near Clayton. A comparison of data collected just
downstream of Falls Dam with data collected at the Clayton station reveal an overall
decrease in water quality associated mainly with urbanization. (DWQ, 1993).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the NPDES Program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. No point source
dischargers are located within a 1.6 km (1.0 mi) radius of the project study area.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et
al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
Biotic Communities
• 5
Three communities are identified in the project study area: Streamside freshwater
marsh, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and maintained/disturbed. Community boundaries
within the study area are well defined without a significant transition zone between them.
Faunal species likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for
shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors, except those fauna restricted
to the aquatic environment.
Streamside Freshwater Marsh
The freshwater marsh community is present on both sides of the project area,
along the stream channel. This community consists mainly of herbaceous vegetation
bordered by a few woody species. It is mainly found inside the channel and at low spots
along banks within the project limits, abruptly grading into the Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest.
The herbaceous species in this community consist of jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), dayflower (Commelina sp.), Japanese
grass (Microstegium vimineum), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), arrow arum (Peltandra
virginica), bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), and lovegrass (Eragrostis sp.). The wood}
species bordering this community consists of tag alder (Alnus serrulata), swamp
dogwood (Corpus stricta), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), button bush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis), and river birch (Betula nigra).
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest community occurs on both sides of the
project outside the channel banks and adjacent to the maintained/disturbed community.
The woody species in this community consists of white oak (Quercus alba), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and river birch. The shrub layer consists of
possum haw (Ilex decidua), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), smooth blackhaw (Viburnum
prunifolium), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and
black cherry (Prunus serotina). The herbaceous layer consists Virginia creeper vine
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), japanese honeysuckle
vine (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus sp.), rush (Juncus sp.), sedge (Carex sp.), St.
John's-wort (Hypericum sp.), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Maintained/ Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community includes roadside shoulders and edges of
agricultural fields. Flora within this periodically maintained community includes: fescue
(Festuca sp.),.goldenrod (Solidago sp.), dock (Rumex sp.), paspalum (Paspalum sp.),
blackberry, henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), wild
6
onion (Allium stellatum), morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), dog fennel (Eupatorium
spp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), queen anne's lace (Daucus carota), trumpet
creeper (Campsis radicans), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), plantain grass (Plantago
lanceolata) , wild sensitive plant (Cassia nictitans), sericea (Lespedeza cuneata), St.
John's wort (Hypericum gentianoides), prunella (Prunella vulgaris), rabbit tobacco
(Gnaphalium obtusifolium), and winged sumac (Rhus copallina).
Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic communities in an area
will affect the fauna that are present and use the area. This section addresses the fauna
likely to be found in the project study area.
Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the communities in the project area includes the white
tailed deer*, beaver, golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali), opossum* (Didelphis
virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Avian species utilizing these areas include the Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis), turkey vulture* (Cathartes
aura), American robin* (Turdus migratorius), American crow* (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), yellow-throat warbler* (Dendroica dominica), red-shouldered hawk*
(Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis), white eyed vireo* (Vireo
griseus), Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), bobwhite quail* (Colinus
virginianus), and tufted titmouse* (Parus bicolor).
Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Fish such as' mosquitofish (Gambusia afnis) and redbreast (Lepomis
auritus), and amphibians such as cricket frogs may use the shallow, fairly disturbed
habitat present in the project area. Invertebrates that are likely present include crayfish
(family Cambaridae), nymphal stages of dragonflies and damselflies (Order Odonata),
and caddisfly larvae (Order Trichoptera). Other aquatic invertebrates identified during
the survey include: Utterbackia imbeciles, Elliptio sp., Physella sp., and Camploma
decisum.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected, for each of the
two project alternates. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
7
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts for each alternate are derived using the entire proposed right of way width.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community type ;Impacts
Freshwater marsh .04 (.10)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood ' .21 (.52)
Maintained/disturbed 16 (.40)
Total .41 (1.02)
Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 480 and its associated
improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers.
However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna
will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas suitable
for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-related work will affect water
quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, indirect
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or
irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate
will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
8
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures, which may
impact many species.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR §328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to
life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used, where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Wetlands within the project limits are freshwater marsh areas associated with
Powell Creek, along with low spots along the banks dominated by shrubby species. Soils
along the creek have a sandy texture with an organic surface layer. Hydric soil indicators
within 12 inches of the surface include soil saturation and low chroma (1 OYR 511). Soils
in the low areas along the bank had a matrix color of 2.5YR 5/2 with mottles of 7.5 YR
5/8. Freshwater marsh areas are characterized by standing water throughout the year that
limits tree establishment. Vegetation within the wetlands includes arrow arum,
arrowhead, peltandra, tag alder, elderberry, and other herbaceous and woody species as
described in previous sections of this report.
9
Powell Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality
aspects of Powell Creek are presented in previous sections of this report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Table 2 summarizes anticipated impacts to wetland and surface water areas in the
project area for each alternate. Anticipated impacts to these areas are determined by
using the entire project ROW width. Usually, project construction does not require the
entire ROW; therefore, actual wetland and surface water impacts may be considerably
less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Areas
Impacts
Total Wetlands hectares (acres) .04 (.10)
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States are anticipated. 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 Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to regulate the discharge
of dredge or fill material into Waters of the United States. The USACE, which
administers the permit program under CWA §404, established nationwide permits for
minor activities, specialized activities, and activities regulated by other authorities. A
nationwide permit (NWT) is a permit by rule. In other words, compliance with the NWP
rules satisfies the statutory provision under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Forty
NWP's referenced by a number currently exist (Strand, 1997). Nationwide 23, entitled
Approved Categorical Exclusions, covers certain activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or part, by another Federal agency or
department. Nationwide 23 applies when another Federal agency or department
determines that their activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from an
environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The activity, work, or discharge becomes categorically excluded when its
actions neither individually nor cumulatively have significant effect on the human
environment. Also, the Office of the Chief of Engineers must receive notice of the
agency or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concur with the
categorical exclusion determination (61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996). The
project's impacts on the Waters of the United States will likely require a NWP 23.
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required
prior to the issuance of the Section 404. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters
10
to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulations.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating
for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE states, that in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable
in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the-proposed project through the
reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other
practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the
proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
II
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should
be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Compensatory
mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit # 23.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
As of 16 December 1999, the FWS lists the following federally protected species for
Wake County (Table 3). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat
follows.
Table 3. Fei
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Alasmidonta heterodon
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Rhus michauxii
lerally-Protected Species for Wake County
COMMON NAME STATUS
dwarf wedge mussel E
bald eagle T
red-cockaded woodpecker E
Michaux's sumac E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the forseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell noted by
two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is
olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are found in
Middle Creek and the Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and
Cedar, Crooked, and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system. This mussel is sensitive to
12
agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed
with well oxygenated water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Powell Creek does not provide the proper habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel.
The banks are covered with a thick mucky layer and riprap for most of the project limits.
Flow in Powell Creek is sluggish and doesn't appear to be well oxygenated. A visual and
tactile search was performed for approximately 2 man hours on Powell Creek from 100 ft
upstream to 75 ft downstream of Bridge # 480. Two mussel species, Utterbackia
imbeciles and Elliptio sp., were identified during this survey; however, no dwarf wedge
mussels were found. In addition, NCNHP database, reviewed on July 14, 1999 does not
contain any records of the dwarf wedge mussel within the study area. This project will
not affect the dwarf wedge mussel.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) T
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear.
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are
the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO -EFFECT
The majority of the project study area consists of maintained/disturbed lands,
including agricultural fields and roadside shoulders, bordered by mixed hardwood forest.
Review of area maps show several small ponds within the project study area. However,
these areas are highly subjected to human disturbance, with few large trees and
fragmented forest communities. Habitat for the bald eagle in the form of open water
(within a half mile) with a clear flight path is not found in the project study area.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats on
July 14, 1999 revealed no records of bald eagles in the project study area. Therefore, the
proposed project construction will have no effect on the bald eagle.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the

13
RCW.is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine
(Pinus alustris , for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate
habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up
to 200.0 hectares (500.0 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 in (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 in (30-50 ft) high.
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Nesting and foraging habitat requirements in the form of open, large pine stands
considered necessary for the RCW are not present within the project vicinity. Forested
areas in the project vicinity consist of mixed hardwoods and generally have a dense
understory of hardwood saplings and shrubs. The NC Natural Heritage Program database
of rare species and unique habitats has no record for the presence of the RCW within the
project vicinity. Therefore, no impact to the red-cockaded woodpecker will result from
project construction.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's
sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on
female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent on
some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually occurs on sand
or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight.
Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle;
with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Habitat for Michaux's sumac in the form of open, disturbed areas on sandy soils
does occur within the project limits. However, no plants of this species were found during
the field survey conducted on August 6, 1999. Additionally, the NC Natural Heritage
14
Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no record for the presence of the
Michaux's sumac within the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact to Michaux's sumac
will result from project construction.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
, Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Wake County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC
Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC No
Etheostoma collis Carolina darter SC Yes
lepidinion
Heterodon simus Southern hognose SR/PSC Yes
snake
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner SR Yes
Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis SC Yes
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T/PE Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE No
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater E Yes
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary SR* Yes
butterfly
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C No
Trillium pusillum var. Carolina least E No
pusillum trillium
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is determined
to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC'--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under
regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the
Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern
plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina. generally with 1-20 populations in the state.
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction. direct exploitation or disease. The species is
also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the
country or the world.
Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina. generally with 1-20 populations in the
state. generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction. direct exploitation or disease. The
species is generally more common elsewhere in its range. occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered. Threatened. or Special Concern.
but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
15
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program data base of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
Y
16
11
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, James L., 1997. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Cowardin, Lewis M., et al 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B., Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and S. P. Hall, 1997. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Vir inia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC, Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North
Carolina River Basins." Raleigh.
NC Division of Environmental Management. 1993. "Basinwide Assessment Report
Support Document: Neuse River Basin." Raleigh.
NC Division of Water Quality. 1992. "Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan." Raleigh.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
17
1 Strand, Margaret N. 1997. Wetlands Deskbook, 2"d Edition. Washington, D.C.,
Environmental Law Institute.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County. Soil Conservation
Service, North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. "Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States." U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. "Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina." Asheville.
Webster,.W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.