19970454 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970522

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

James B. Hunt. Jr.. Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
A. Preston Howard. Jr.. P.E.. Director

-AVA

DEHNR

May 28, 1997
Wake County
WQC 401 Project #970454
TIP #U-3474

APPROV AL or 401 Water Quality Certification

Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201

Dear Mr. Vick:

You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fIll material in 0.004 acres
of waters for the pwpose of widening US 1 (Capital Blvd.) from SR 2041 to SR 3555, as you described in
your application dated 14 May 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality CertifIcation Number 3103. This CertifIcation allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 14 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any
other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General CertifIcation.
This approval is only valid for the pwpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fIlls for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification.
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 fmal 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 telephone lohn Dorney at 919-733-1786.

Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. lohn Dorney
Central Files

Sincerely,

-/lr,l~
i ~\_JJ /,D1 ~/G
n.....'Pr'tonHOWaid,Jr1,J
rfi U

970454.ltr

Division of Water Quality . Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer . 50% recycled/1 0% post consumer paper

......._.J

91 04 ~ 4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETI JR.
CiOVIRNOR P.O. I\OX25201, RALEIGII.N.C 27()]]-S201 SECRETARY

May 14, 1997

Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
440 I Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607

'f?OJ' /&
~~

\{t.C[\VtD
MA'( 2 '2. \991.
LNV\RONMt:NTA~, ~c \[NCl':S

ATTENTION:

Mr. John Dorney

Dear Sir:

SUBJECT:

Wake County, US I, from SR 204 I (Spring Forest Road) to
SR 3555 (Old Wake Forest Road); State Project No. 9.8052038;
TIP No. U-3474.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) proposes to widen US I
(Capital Boulevard) from SR 2041 (Spring Forest Road) to SR 3555 (Old Wake Forest
Road). The existing facility will be widened from a four-lane divided facility to a six-
lane divided roadway in Wake County. The length of the project is approximately
1.0 mile. The project is scheduled to be let to construction in July 1997.

The scope of this project was described in a State Minimum Criteria Checklist
that was approved on December 22, 1995. A Natural Resources Inventory Report
(NRIR) was completed by DOT environmental staff on December 20, 1995. Along with
this letter, copies of the State Minimum Criteria Checklist and the NRIR are being
provided to regulatory agencies involved in the permit review process.

Project construction includes the extension of two pipes. Three streams are
described in the NRIR. The northernmost stream, labeled Tributary 3, will not be
extended as the existing pipe has sufficient length to accommodate widening of Capital
Boulevard. The pipe at tributary 2 will be extended I I feet, impacting 0.00 I acre of the
stream. Impacts associated with tributary I are 15 feet of pipe extension and 0.00 I acrc.
Temporary impacts to clean out stream are 0.002 acre at tributaries I and 2.

*

~

\'

2

Based on scope of project work, the DOT proposes to widen US I under a Section
404 Nationwide Permit 14 without written concurrence from the Corps of Engineers
(CaE). The DOT is providing a copy of this letter and permit application to the CaE.
Due to the recent changes in regulations in the Section 401 Water Quality certification
process, the DOT is requesting written concurrence from the N. C. Division of Water
Quality for project construction.

Thank you for you assistance with this project. If you have any questions, please
contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone], Extension 314.

]?i' .p

H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

HF/plr

cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, CaE, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Northside
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogrs, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, Jr., P.E., Division 5 Engineer

DEM ID:

CORPS ACTION ID:

T.I.P. No.

U-3474

NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):

NWP 14

PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:

1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT

SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.

1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch

2. MAILING ADDRESS:

Post Office Box 25201

SUBDIVISION NAME:

CITY:

Raleigh

STATE:

NC

ZIP CODE:

27611

PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):

3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):

(WORK) :

[phone]

4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:

H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager

5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Wake NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Raleigh

1

USGS Quad Map - Raleigh East

SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD

NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): US 1 (Capital Boulevard) from SR 2041 (Spring

Forest Road) to SR 3555 (Old Wake Forest Road)

6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:

UT's of Perry Creek

RIVER BASIN:

Neuse

7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW) , OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER SUPPLY
(WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:

7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES [ ] NO [X]

7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST
OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?

Sa. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):

8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:

2

9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A

9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
N/A

lOa. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:

FILLING:

N/A

EXCAVATION:

FLOODING:

OTHER:

DRAINAGE:

TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:

lOb. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):

N/A

FT

AFTER:

FT

LENGTH BEFORE:

WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):

FT

WIDTH AFTER:

FT

AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE:

FT

AFTER:

FT

(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION:

PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:

x

CHANNEL EXCAVATION:

CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:

OTHER:

11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?

12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):

Widening of US 1 from SR 2041 (Spring Forest Road) to SR 3555 (Old Wake

Forest Road) to a six lane facility, including extension of pipes.

3

13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:

Public Roadway

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
N/A

15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: By copy of this
letter (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)

16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: State minimum criteria list circulated through clearinghouse

17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?

YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)

a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?

YES [X] NO []

b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?

YES [X] NO []

4

IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMEN~AL POLICY ACT.

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].

18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS:

a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29,
AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Commercial

f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A

g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.

NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

5

.

~ddl

OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE

.4~ .s; L99 7
DJ(TE

(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))

6

JNPTED '!;TATES
ENT OF THE INTERIOR
)LOGICAL SURVEY

"

MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST

The following questions provide direction in determining whether a
proposed project has only a minimum potential for environmental effects.
Answer the following questions by checking either yes or no. Refer to the
attached guidance for assistance.

TIP Project No.
State Project No.

U-3474
9,8052038

Project Location: Raleigh, Capital Boulevard US 1), From Spring Forest
Road (SR 2041) to Old Wake Forest Road (SR 3555), Wake County

Project Description: The project proposes to widen Capital Boulevard
(US 1), from a four-lane divided roadway to a six-lane divided facility

Anticipated Permits or Consultation Requirements: None

Special Project Information: None

PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA

YES NO

1. Is the proposed project listed as a type which would
qualify as a Non-Major Action under the Minimum
Criteri a? X

PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS

2. Is the proposed action likely to precipitate
significant, foreseeable alterations in land use,
planned growth, or development patterns? X
3. Does the proposed action divide or disrupt an
established community? X
4, Does the proposed action bypass an existing
community? X

5. Does the proposed action provide new access to
areas containing significant amounts of exploitable
natural resources?

X

f

6. Is the proposed action likely to have a significant
detrimental impact on air quality?

7. Is the proposed action likely to have a significant
detrimental impact on ambient noise levels for
adjoining areas?

8. Is the proposed action likely to have a significant
impact on travel patterns or traffic volumes?

9. Is the proposed action likely to significantly affect
water quality?

10. Does the proposed action require the relocation of
significant numbers of people?

11. Is the project likely to be controversial?

12. Will the proposed action require the use of land
owned by the U. S. Forest Service or the National
Park Service?

PART C:

COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Ecological Impacts

13. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered
species, or its habitat, likely to be impacted by
the proposed action?

14. Does the action require the placement of fill in
waters of the United States?

15. Does the project require the placement of a
significant amount of fill in high quality or
relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?

16. Does the project require stream relocation or
channel changes?

17. Is the proposed action located in an Area of
Environmental Concern, as defined in the Coastal
Area Management Act?

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

YES NO

x

x

x

x

x

f

Cultural Resources

18. Wi 11 the project have an "effect" on a property or
site listed on the National Register of Historic
Places?

x

19. Will the proposed action require acquisition of
additional right of way from publicly owned
parkland or recreational areas?

x

Reviewed by:

~. JlJ-
:Ns-

Date:

If any of questions 2 through 12 are answered "yes", the proposed project
does not qualify as a Non-Major Action. A state environmental impact
statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) will be required. For
assistance, contact:

H. Franklin Vick, p, E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

Questions in Part C are designed to assist the Engineer in determining
whether a permit or consultation with a state or federal resource agency
may be required. If any question in Part C is answered "yes", refer to
the Environmental Guidance section of this document and contact the
appropriate individual for assistance.

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARlAND B. GARREll JR.
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY

20 December 1995

Memorandum To: Teresa A. Hart, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit

From: James W. Hauser, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit

Subject: Natural resources inventory for the proposed
widening of Capital Boulevard (US 1) between
Spring Forest Road (SR 2041) and Old Wake Forest
Road (SR 3555), Wake County; TIP No. U-3474; State
Project No. 9.8052038.

Attention: Clarence W. Coleman, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit

This report is submitted to assist in assessing whether the
proposed project satisfies Minimum Criteria Thresholds. It
addresses four environmental issues pertinent to the proposed
project: water resources, biotic resources, wetlands, and
federally-protected species, The proposed project calls for the
widening of Capital Boulevard (US 1) between Spring Forest Road
(SR 2041) and Ole Wake Forest Road (SR 3555) in Raleigh, Wake
County. The existing facility is a multi-lane, divided highway
with a grassy median and a curb and gutter, which varies between
four and six lanes. This facility will be widened with the
addition of an extra lane on each side throughout the length of
the project. Project length is 1.6 km (1.0 mi), and right-of-way
(ROW) width varies between approximately 60-90 m (200-300 ft),

The project area is located in a region of widespread
commercial development in the northern part of the city.
Extensive areas have been cleared for commercial development,
resulting in a landscape of lawns and gardens interspersed with
roadways and buildings. Extensive artificial drainage systems
have been installed to facilitate water movement off-site.

A field investigation was conducted on 07 December 1995 by
NCDOT biologist James Hauser to assess natural resources at the
project site. Water resources were identified and described.
Plant communities were surveyed, and wildlife populations were

@

{

predicted using general qualitative habitat assessments. Soils
information for the project site was obtained from the Soil Survey
of Wake County, North Carolina (1970), and information concerning
federally-protected species was obtained from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (March 28, 1995).

WATER RESOURCES

Three streams may be impacted by the proposed project. These
water resources are located within the Neuse River drainage basin
and are unnamed tributaries of Perry Creek, located to the north
of the project area. The exact location of these tributaries with
respect to the project area is indicated in Figure 1. The project
area impacts the headwaters of these tributaries, which originate
slightly to the ~ast of the project area. These tributaries then
combine to the west of the project area and flow northward,
joining with Perry Creek appoximately 2.4 km (1.5 mil north of the
project area. Perry Creek then flows eastward for another 2.4 km
(1.5 mil, until it joins with the Neuse River. Table 1 summarizes
the characteristics of each stream in the project area.

Table 1. Characteristics of streams within the project area.

Width
Stream m (ft)
Tributary 1 0.6 (2.0)
Tributary 2 0.6 (2.0)
Tributary 3 0.9 (3.0)

Depth
cm (in)

Substrate

Flow

riprap dry

12.7 (5.0)
17,8 (7.0)

sand,silt,
riprap
sand,silt,
gravel

moderate

moderate

Note: Tributaries are numbered from south to north

On the west side of the project area, most of the tributaries
are channelized and lined with riprap and grasses. As a result,
they appear very similar to the artificial stormwater ditches
which also drain the west side of the roadway. The tributaries
are culverted under the road for the full width of the existing
ROW, and have their outfal1s 6-12 m (20-40 ft) from the roadside
on the east side.

A small stormwater settling pond also occurs in the project
vicinity, 9 m (30 ft) from the roadside on the west side near
stream crossing three. The pond is approximately 0.02 ha (0.05
ac) in size and receives runoff from one of the many parking lots
in the area. This settling pond should not be affected by
construction of the proposed project unless the shoulder is
significantly widened on the west side.

JNJifED STATES
rENT OF THE INTERIOR
)LOGICAL SURVEY

All of the streams in the project area receive significant
imputs of stormwater runoff from roads and developed areas.
Stormwater ditches and drains are common throughout the project
area, many of which are lined with riprap or concrete. The
streams show evidence of flooding and accelerated flows as a
result of storm events and rapid runoff in the watershed.

Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) which reflects water
quality conditions and potential resource usage. The best usage
classification of unnamed tributaries is the same as the water
body to which they are a tributary. The best usage classification
of Perry Creek (DEM Index No. 27-25-(2)) is C NSW (05-01-88),
which applies to the tributaries, Class C waters are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. NSW is a supplemental
classification indicating nutrient sensitive waters which are
susceptible to degradation from high nutrient inputs. No water
resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are located
within 2.0 km (1.2 mil of the project area.

The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed
by DEM, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring
program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The
program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macro invertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Many
macro invertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water
quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these
organisms are reflections of water quality. There are no BMAN
monitoring sites located in the vicinity of the project area.

Potential impacts to the water resources present in the
project area are dependent on the final project construction
boundary. The existing shoulder along the current facility is 6-9
m (20-30 ft) wide in most places. Existing culvert intakes and
outfalls are 8-12 m (25-40 ft) from the roadside on each side, and
the tributaries are culverted under the full width of the road.
As a result, it is possible to widen the current facility within
the boundaries of the existing shoulder and culverts, greatly
reducing impacts to water resources. Assuming construction
activities occur only on the existing shoulder, without additional
shoulder widening, then only tributary 3 will be impacted by the
proposed project. If the existing shoulder is also to be widened
for the length of the project, then tributaries 1 and 2 may be
impacted also.

Potential impacts to water resources include increased
sedimentation as a result of accelerated soil erosion from exposed
areas. Sedimentation and substrate disturbance occurring during
construction can significantly reduce water clarity and dissolved

oxygen content, in addition to the direct clogging of stream
channels. Effects will be most severe locally but may extend
downstream for considerable distance, with decreasing intensity.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the project
area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection
of Surface Waters should be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the project. This would include:

1) reduction and elimination of direct and non-point
discharges into the water bodies and minimization of
activities conducted in streams.

2) installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth
berms to control runoff during construction.

3) placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of
disturbed sites will reduce runoff and decrease sediment
loadings.

4) elimination or reduction of construction staging areas in
floodplains or adjacent to streams which would reduce the
potential of accidental discharge of toxins into water
bodies.

Stormwater runoff also remains a primary concern with respect
to water resources. Due to the large area of impervious surfaces
in the watershed, runoff during storm events can be high, and the
natural streams already appear to be significantly affected by
increased flooding. Artificial structures which facilitate
stormwater drainage tend to accelerate water flow, increasing its
erosive potential downstream. Increasing the area of impervious
surfaces could exacerbate flooding and stream scouring problems.
In addition, stormwater carries high concentrations of sediment
and toxins (gas, oil, etc.) into waterways and is a primary source
of nonpoint source water pollution. Stormwater management should
be a primary concern for the proposed project, to limit
degradation of water quality.

BIOTIC RESOURCES

Two distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the
project area: urban/commercial development and early succession
piedmont forest. The urban/commercial development community is by
far the more dominant community type found in the project area.
The early succession piedmont forest community occurs only along
one narrow slope on the east side of the roadway at the crossing
of tributary 3. In general, both communities can be considered to
constitute a single habitat with respect to wildlife populations.
Many faunal species are adapted to forest/clearing boundary
conditions, and wildlife within the project area likely utilize
both communities to some extent.

The urban/commercial development community consists of areas
heavily impacted and maintained by human development activities.
The project area consists principally of commercial lawns and
roadside areas, interspersed with buildings and roadways.
Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent
mowing and herbicide application, keep this community in an early
successional state. As a result, the vegetation of the community
is dominated by fescue (Festuca spp.), crab grass (Diqitaria
sanquinalis), and other grasses, along with planted trees and
shrubs such as willow oak (Quercus phellos), wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), red cedar (Juniperus virqiniana), and crepe myrtle
(Laqerstroemia indica).

The early succession piedmont forest community occurs along
the shoulder slope where the roadway crosses tributary 3. This
community occurs as a narrow band approximately 40 m (130 ft) in
length and 10 m (33 ft) in width. At the base of this slope is
the culvert outfall for tributary 3. This community consists of a
young stand (10-15 years old) of mixed hardwood and pine species
which appear to have colonized the slope after construction.
Vegetation is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple
(Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Other subdominant species which
occur are black willow (Salix niqra), privet (Liqustrum sinense)
and winged elm (Ulmus alata), along with patches of dense
blackberry (Rubus arqutus) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica). Grasses and herbs which occur along the margins of the
community include fescue, goldenrod (Solidaqo sp.), aster (Aster
sp.), and brooms edge (Andropoqon virqinicus).

Wildlife found in this community type is limited and consists
primarily of wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited
to coexistence with human development. The landscape immediately
surrounding the project area is occupied to a large extent by
urban and commercial development, such that forests are reduced to
small, isolated fragments. Nocturnal mammals such as raccoon
(Procyon lotor) and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virqiniana) may
travel periodically through the project area, and bird populations
likely include species such as northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (parus carolinensis), mourning
dove (Zenadia macroura), and European starling (Sturnus vulqaris).

Wildlife restricted to the early succession piedmont forest
community is probably minimal due to its small area and proximity
to the existing roadway. In general, wildlife occuring in this
habitat would be similar to that found throughout the project
area, and it is likely that animals in the project vicinity
utilize both habitats on a regular basis. However, some species
such as white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and brown-headed
nuthatch (Sitta pusilla) may use the young forest community to a
greater extent for forage and cover.

Impacts to the terrestrial communities will result from
project construction due to the clearing and paving of portions of
the project area. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities
reflect the relative abundance of each community in the project
area; thus, impacts are highly concentrated in the
urban/commercial development community. Estimated impacts are
derived based on the project length and an assumed construction
area of 10.0 m (32.8 ft) on each side of the existing roadway.
Project construction may not require this entire width and certain
portions of the project area are already paved; therefore, actual
impacts may be somewhat less.

Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities

Impacted Area
Community ha (ac)

Urban/commercial development
Early succession piedmont forest
Total

3.16 (7.81)
0.04 (0.10)
3.20 (7.91)

The projected loss of terrestrial habitat resulting from
project construction will have minimal impact on populations of
native flora and fauna. The existing communities are already
highly altered from their natural state, and residual species are
well adapted to such disturbed conditions. Flora and fauna
occurring in these communities are generally common throughout
North Carolina because of their ability to persist in disturbed
areas. As a result, it is unlikely that existing species will be
displaced significantly from the project area following
construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of
'project construction, all cleared areas along the roadways should
be revegetated soon after project completion to minimize the loss
of wildlife habitat.

In addition to the terrestrial systems, one aquatic community
type will be impacted by the proposed project, and is defined as a
piedmont headwater stream. These streams are located in high
topographic positions and are characterized by narrow channels and
variable water flows. Frequently, water flow ceases and aquatic
habitat is limited to isolated pools which form in depressional
areas. Such streams are important to amphibian species such as
northern dusky salamander (Desmoqnathus fuscus) and southern
leopard frogs (Rana sphenocephalla) which reproduce in isolated
pools to escape predation by fish.

Potential impacts to aquatic communities downstream of the
project area are primarily sedimentation, increased water
discharge during storm events, and toxic input. Effects will be
most severe locally and will progressively diminish downstream.
Construction activities can be a leading source of sedimentation
in rivers and streams which reduces water clarity and light
penetration, affecting the photosynthetic ability of primary
producer species. Suspended particles may also impact filter
feeders inhabiting downstream areas. Such impacts may eventually
be transfered throughout the food chain and ultimately may affect
faunal organisms located in higher trophic levels, such as fish,
mammals, and reptiles.

Construction of the proposed project will likely affect water
discharge due to additions of stormwater runoff. Increasing the
area of impervious surfaces within the watersheds will cause peak
high and low discharges to be more extreme. Thus, stream
discharge variability in the headwaters will be increased, which
may have pronounced effects on the reproduction and life cycle of
aquatic fauna. Toxic runoff from roadways may also result in
mortality to aquatic species.

Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by limiting
the amount of construction on new location and by strict adherence
to BMPs during the construction phase of the project. Stormwater
management practices to reduce peak flows and sediment loads from
roadways should also be applied. Protecting headwater streams
such as those found in the project area is significant to the
protection of water quality in downstream areas.

WATERS OF THE U.S.

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. Any action that
proposes to place fill material into Waters of the U.S. falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Wetland areas are identified based on the presence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions
during all or part of the growing season.

Field surveys revealed that no wetlands are present in the
project area. Hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation are not
present, and there is no evidence of surface or subsurface
saturated conditions. Surface waters, however, are present in the
project area, and permitting by the COE will be required for
impacts to these waters.

In accordance with prov~s~ons of Section 404 of the CWA, a
permit will be required from the COE for discharge of fill

material into "Waters of the United States." Since the project
may satisfy Minimum Criteria, a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5 (a) 23 is likely to be applicable for the proposed
construction. This permit authorizes activities impacting
wetlands which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant environmental effect.

This project will also require a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of the Nationwide
Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United
States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DEM is a
prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.

PROTECTED SPECIES

Threatened or endangered species are species whose
populations are in decline and which face probable extinction in
the near future without strict conservation management. Federal
law under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended,
protects plant and animal species which have been classified as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or
Proposed Threatened (PT). Provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the ESA require that any action which is likely to adversely
affect such federally classified species be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.

As of March 28, 1995, the FWS lists four federally-protected
species for Wake County (Table 3). A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat of each species follows Table 3, along
with a conclusion concerning probable impacts.

Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Wake County

Scientific Name

Common Name Status

Alasmidonta heterodon
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Rhus michauxii

dwarf wedge mussel E
bald eagle E
red-cockaded woodpecker E
Michaux's sumac E

"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).

Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: March 14, 1990
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax,
Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, Warren, Wilson.

Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North
Carolina are found in the Neuse River Basin and in the Tar
River system. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural,
domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable
silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel does not
exist in the project area. The headwater streams impacted by
the project do not have a sufficient, consistent flow
necessary to support these mussels. A review of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no known populations of
dwarf wedge mussels within 2.0 km (1.2 mi) of the project
area. Thus, no impacts to this species are anticipated.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) E
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Brunswick,
Carteret, Chatham, Chowan, Craven, Dare,
Durham, Guilford, Hyde, Montgomery, New
Hanover, Northhampton, Periquimans, Richmond,
Stanley, Vance, Wake, Washington.

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. 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

Habitat for the bald eagle does not exist in the project
area. Water resources impacted by the project are much too
small to provide foraging opportunities for bald eagles, and
other water resources in the project vicinity are likewise of
insufficient area. A review of the NCNHP database or rare
species and unique habitats revealed no known populations of
bald eagles within 2.0 km (1.2 mi) of the project area.
Thus, no impacts to this species are anticipated.

~

Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico"
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne,
Wilson.

The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), 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 hectares (500
acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.

These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees
and usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that
causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-
15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Nesting and foraging habitat for the red-cockaded
woodpecker does not exist within the project area. No pine
forests of sufficient size and density were encountered which
could support a population of this species. A review of the
NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no known populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers within 2.0
km (1.2 mi) of the project area. Thus, no impacts to this
species are anticipated.

Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Columbus, Davie, Durham, Franklin,
Hoke, Lincoln, Moore, Orange, Richmond,
Robeson, Scotland, Wake, Wilson.

...

Michaux's sumac occurs in rocky or sandy open woods.
Michaux's sumac is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy
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 does not exist in the project
area. Soils are primarily disturbed and compacted clays, and
vegetation is selectively maintained for horticultural species.
The one early succession forest which occurs at the crossing of
tributary 3 is too dense and shaded for Michaux's sumac to receive
adequate direct sunlight. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no known populations of
Michaux's sumac within 2.0 km (1.2 mi) of the project area. Thus,
no impacts to this species are anticipated,

SUMMARY

Environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project
should be minimal with appropriate planning. The project vicinity
is already highly developed, and the proposed project simply
involves widening an existing roadway. The primary issue of
environmental concern which must be addressed is protecting water
quality from excessive sedimentation and stormwater input. No
wetlands occur in the project area, and no impacts to endangered
species are anticipated. Impacts to other native flora and fauna
will be insignificant.

cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: U-3474