U-4011

O ?O? W A T?9pG -i
r
>
O
Michael F. Easley, uovernor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
From: Christina Breen
Transportation Permitting Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
SUBJECT: SR 1959 (South Miami Boulevard) Widening from SR 2112 (Methodist Street) to north
of SR 1960 (Bethesda Avenue) in the City of Durham, Federal Aid Project No. STP-
1959(2), TIP Project No. U-4011, Durham County
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certificati6..n for activities that impact Waters of the
U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that there ark potential impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands and streams. The project will have impacts to wetlands, streams, and other surface waters
associated with:
Stream Name River Basin Stream Classification WQ Index No.
UT Stirrup Iron Creek Neuse C; NSW 27-33-4-2
DWQ offers the following comments on the referenced documents:
Project Specific Comments:
1. Stirrup Iron Creek are class C; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with
sedimentation and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that
highly protective sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of
nutrient runoff to Stirrup Iron Creek. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of
the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0224(2) and 15A
NCAC 2H. 1006.
General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Projects
2. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical.
3. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC
2H.0506(b)(6)1, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any
single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be
designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the Environmental
Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)}, the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http•//h2o en r. state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
4. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water will not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, storm water should be designed to drain to a properly
designed storm water detention facility/apparatus to achieve diffuse flow and nutrient,treatment.
5. For watersheds subject to riparian buffer rules, riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0233 for a table of allowable
uses.
6. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
7. Any new culverts must be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms
passage through the crossing.
8. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3.027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
9. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to'protect water resources must be
implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly,
especially following rainfall events.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
11. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to
wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
12. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations
prior to permit approval.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions
or require any additional information, please contact Christina Breen at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Travis Wilson, NC WRC
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
File Copy

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
5
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
FROM: i4?41 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Durham, SR 1959 ( South Miami Boulevard) from south of SR 2112
(Methodist Street) to north of SR 1960 (Bethesda Avenue), Durham
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1959(2), TIP Project No. U-4011,
WBS No. 4022
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for widening SR 1959 (South Miami Boulevard)
from 4 to 5 lanes to provide a center turn lane for a distance of approximately 0.7 miles. The project is
included in 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of
way in federal fiscal year (FFY 2007) and construction in federal fiscal year FFY 2008.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed project.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be
required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT staff to discuss the
proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our materials for this meeting, we
would appreciate your response by July 22, 2005. If you would like to attend the scoping meeting, please
notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Categorical Exclusion will be prepared for this project.
This document will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Marie Sutton, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 262. Please include the TIP Project
Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
?O

LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
PDEA Scoping Procedures
TIP Project:
Design Criteria:
Len h of Proiect Limits:
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Rev 4/4/05
0.7 miles
No control of access/No control of access
Functional Classification: Collector
Strategic Corridor Information:
N/A
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan Major Thoroughfare
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
4-lane / 5-lane
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
Yes ? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing Posted Speed: Proposed Design Speed: I -?
Traffic (AADT): % TTST:
Current Year: (2005) % Dual:
Design Year: (2025) % DHV:
Design Standards Applicable: L J AASHTO 3R
Railroad Involvement:
N/A
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Construction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
975,000 875,000 1,850,000
SHEET 2 OF 5
Mark
End P?j
- - TTh?PPI??
- - S$, - - -
Bethesda '
Bapt. Ch.
Comm.

Bethesda
(8h. °
C ?®
sit
Drewhy
min Projw .09
P
/ m
.008
GGSPM Arden
Mdep®nden? ? ?
Ch.
4e
1,;q
Bethesda
Mem. Sch.

P

l
fl
o?? J
? l }H
.Durham -= .
QW,
?
?j
;,
,
`/ 4

11
Ac" U-4011

WSW .1p
? J

'
=
1 NORTH CAROLINA DFPARTV1 FNT OF
TRANSPORTATION

Q
J. DIVISION OP PLANNING-AND ENVIRONMENT
PROJECT DF.VEI OPMI-.N7 AND
ENVIRONMFNTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
- Durham - SR 1959 (S. Miami Blvd.) Frorn
rr
South Of SR 2112 (Methodist St.) to North
^'lo Of SR 1960 (Bethesda Ave)
Durham County
TIP No. U-401 I
'
`C
BS No. 36330. 1.1
If
INS
End 70 , ??..
Project
lJ r
%
f J0
+¦¦i¦
¦ • s ¦Q M • -f' ¦ f ,may \?a
?r'''-? r 't?¦ 1 '? l? `} M ? ? rs' ¦ •,k i ? : cam' \
r ?? ) i 11 1 r I
? i
i i ? ¦?
IM M
413
JJ
i i ¦ ?'? -??° , NORTH Carolina DEPARTMENTOF
{1 - r "RANSPORT.ATION
¦i j? j ? ? DIV[5iON OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
l BQgjll? PRO:EC7 Di:VELOPMENT AND
ENVIRON"YtE'?T.AL ANALYSIS BRANCF
? Project
Durham -- SR1959 (S. Miami Blvd.) From
• t i . South of SR
2112 (Methodist St.) to North
-?' t????¦ i -?? Of SR 1960 (Bethesda Ave.)
leld, __... + ¦ f ¦ V ?_ '- Durham County
TIP No. L-4011
¦ - * s?
?.. SfAi[h
1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
o?
AFT p ?q y 9
F
N 5,??pST TAR ;?03,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ???9Re
?N
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO PPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Christina Breen
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
FROM: Y-014., Gregory J. 'Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Durham, SR 1959 ( South Miami Boulevard) from south of SR 2112
(Methodist Street) to north of SR 1960 (Bethesda Avenue), Durham
County, Federal Aid Project No. STY-1959(2), TIP Project No. U-4011,
WBS No. 4022
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for widening SR 1959 (South Miami Boulevard)
from 4 to 5 lanes to provide a center turn lane for a distance of approximately 0.7 miles. The project is
included in 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of
way in federal fiscal year (FFY 2007) and construction in federal fiscal year FFY 2008.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed project.
We would appreciate any Information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be
required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT staff to discuss the
proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our materials for this meeting, we
would appreciate your response by July 22, 2005. If you would like to attend the scoping meeting, please
notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Categorical Exclusion will be prepared for this project.
This document will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Marie Sutton, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 262. Please include the TIP Project
Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 2 7699-1 548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEDSITF_: M W.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
PDEA Scoping Procedures
TIP Project:
Rev 4/4/05
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: U-4011
WBS No.: 4022 -?
Federal Aid No: STP-1959(2)
Division: 5
Sent Date: 5110105
Revision Date:
Meeting Date:
County: Durham
Durham - SR 1959 (South Miami Blvd.) from south of SR 2112 (Methodist Street) to north of
SR 1960 (Bethesda Ave.). Widen from 4 to 5 lanes to provide center turn lane.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Area:
NEPA/404 Merger Candidate?: Yes
Feasibility Study Completed?: Yes
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area
No Not sure
?J No Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared /Project Schedule:
T e.
Environmental Document: CE
Right of Way:
Let:
Dates:
10/1/06
10/20/06
10/16/07
Air Quality Status: Non-attainment Maintenance Attainment
SHEET 1 OF 5
PDEA Scoping Procedures
TIP Project:
Design Criteria:
Len h of Proiect Limits:
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Rev 4/4/05
0.7 miles
No control of access/No control of access
Functional Classification: Collector
,
Strategic Corridor Information:
N/A
CTP/Thorou are Plan Major Thoroughfare
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
4-lane / 5-lane
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
Yes ? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing Posted Speed: Proposed Design Speed:
Traffic (AADT): % TTST:
Current Year: El % Dual:
Design Year: % DHV:
Design Standards Applicable: L? AASHTO L?J 3R
Railroad Involvement:
N/A
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Construction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
975,000 875,000 1,850,000
SHEET 2 OF 5
I' l WO L 'ON SHA1
I I0V-fl 'ON dl L
XjunoD Lu~ gin(l
(and Tsz)WO) 0961 NS JO
gpoN of ('IS jslPo' joW) Z I I Z AS 3o ganoS
uio.lA ('PAJO 1U1elW 'S) 6W MS - uIe(I.mO
HJNV2JU SISh'7VNV IV AAMO2EANd
(INV LN3Wd0'IAAT1 L-AfOU
LMIANO2JIANH (1NV ON)NNV"Id d0 NOISL%I(J
NOI LVJ2IOdSNVU
JO J.NJKL2IV,IJQ VNI"I021VJ H.I.WN C?l
® I
Alt
\`' j Ytl':S? D
flot-A
}'' lU?I?JIlQ
e }>
© G1?
co
ul ue
d
(BO' ?o
E
Od ON
?uspuedepq
pdooo.
i
l.?
Cry
?. 1
I L7
1
1 it
V 19
r ? ±
r ,
1
OP/
End
Pro j ect
? ( * t • ? 6. ? `? ?? r ? Iii
'• ¦ ' `+ ¦
'no will 111111
-B M
1 '_ laR ka
P1 49
f
f 6
%
r
k,' IL
3 L+
4
R
.6
if F Carolina DEPARTMENT OF
I
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISiC A OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
j• ¦ Begin wN ?? PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Project
t R , j Durham SRI 959 (S. Miami Blvd.) From
South of SR 112 (Methodist St. ) to ' N orth
r f =` # • r i', et Of SR 1960 (Bethesda Ave.)
?? + • • ¦ '? Durham County
Ud A k- aw TIP No. U-4011
WBS No. 36330.1.'_
27-33-ij-z e....... -
4F
.Ok
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 26, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed widening of SR 1959 (South
Miami Boulevard) from south of SR 2112 (Methodist Street) to north of SR 1960 (Bethesda
Avenue) in Durham County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-4011). These comments provide
scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For road widening projects the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas;
2. Culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
3. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
4. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
5. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
AV
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally.authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected
species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can
be found on our web page at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html .
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any
known occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not
be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. The
NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does
not necessarily mean that such species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not
been surveyed. If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity for any listed species,
surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;

5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Si ly-;
f
Pete > njamm
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson/Christina Breen, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
10
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 26, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed widening of SR 1959 (South
Miami Boulevard) from south of SR 2112 (Methodist treet) o north of SR 1960 (Bethesda
Avenue) in Durham County, North Carolina 4 4Ol; .These comments provide
scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For road widening projects the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas;
2. Culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
3. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
4. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
5. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected
species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can
be found on our web page athttp://ne-es.fws.gov/es/couptyfr.html.
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any
known occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not
be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. The
NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does
not necessarily mean that such species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not
been surveyed. If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity for any listed species,
surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Si I
Pete zjL in
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson/Christina Breen, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC