U-4447

? Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date Received: Date Du (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville Air ? Soil &. Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville Water ? Coastal Management

? Mooresville y?Groundwater *ildlife ? Water Resources
eigh 1"d Quality Engineer ? Environmental Health
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem ? Parks & Recreation ? Other
?aat+el?Quality?'. Vk.
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-OXRegion: Date: In-Hose Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
o No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
a Other (specify or attach comments)
WETLANDS i 401 CROUP
JUL 0 8 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
AZI V.1, l%J;
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
. MSG7Fq -
. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNOR
June 16, 2004
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
FROM: -QL. Gail Grimes, P.E., Manager
Consultant Engineering Group
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Hillsborough Street Reconstruction from SR 1733 (Oberlin Road) to
SR 1729 (Faircloth Street / Gorman Street) in the City of Raleigh, State
Project No. 6403003R, WBS No. 35870, TIP Project No. U-4447,
Wake County
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing environmental documentation and engineering studies for the
reconstruction of Hillsborough Street from SR 1733 (Oberlin Road) to SR 1729 (Faircloth Street /
Gorman Street). This project will investigate alternatives to improve pedestrian and motorist safety,
including alternatives to reduce Hillsborough Street from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with -roundabouts at several
intersections. Your input is needed so that we may fully evaluate beneficial and potentially adverse
impacts of these proposed improvements.
Proiect Description
The proposed project is located along Hillsborough Street between Gorman Street and Oberlin Road,
along Pullen Road between Stinson Drive and Hillsborough Street including an extension of Pullen Road
north of Hillsborough Street to intersect. Oberlin Road at Grove Avenue, along Oberlin Road between
Hillsborough Street and Clark Avenue, along Clark Avenue between Oberlin Road and Horne Street, and
along Horne Street between Clark Avenue and Hillsborough Street. The attached map shows the project
study area with the limits of the project highlighted and the immediate surrounding areas. The study area
is an urban area with a diverse mix of residential, retail, office and university uses. The proposed project
is included in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program as Project No. U-4447 and is
programmed for planning and environmental studies only.
Background Information
Kimley-Horn and Associates was retained by the Hillsborough Street Partnership to prepare a feasibility
report for the Hillsborough Street Reconstruction project in 2001. The report evaluated reducing
Hillsborough Street from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with roundabouts at designated intersections and found that
these improvements would provide a safer, more aesthetically pleasing corridor for pedestrians and
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

-, _ ?
• .a
2
motorists. More detailed information from the Final Report on the Feasibility Study / Conceptual Plans
for the Reconstruction of Hillsborough Street (December 2001) and the New Vision for Hillsborough
Street report prepared in October 1999 is available at http://www.raleijzh-
ne.orWplanning/hillsboroujzh/home.htm.
Mapping. The proposed project is located in the Raleigh West USGS topographic quadrangle. GIS data
is available for the project study area.
Streams and Rivers. An environmental resources screeni as conducte a proposed study area.
The preliminary results show that the study area contai no jurisdictional streams. o 303 (d) streams
listed on the Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessme?fi Impairedateist (2002 Integrated
305 (b) and 303 (d) Report) are present in the project vicinity.
Water Resources. There are no high quality waters or outstanding resource waters within the project
vicinity. However, drainage from the project area flows into Crabtree Creek and Walnut Creed, both 303
(d) streams. The project area lies within the Neuse River drainage basin and Neuse River Buffer Rules
are applicable. The nearest NPDES permitted facility (City of Raleigh/Public Works Garage) is located
approximately one and one-half miles northeast of the project area and drains away from the City of
Raleigh. Impacts to water quality will be minimized by adherence to NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (June 1991).
Wetla/n&s. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project vicinity.
Soils. Base on m orma ion o ame rom a CS office for Wake County, the soils within the
project area are composed of five soil series: Appling sandy loam, Cecil sandy loam, Colfax sandy loam,
Made land, and Mantachie. There are no hydric soils within the project area.
Endangered and Threatened Species. No essential fish habitat is designated within the project study
area. No federally listed threatened, endangered, or species of concern listed by the USFWS have been
documented within a one mile radius of the proposed project according to North Carolina's Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP's) database.
Please provide any human or natural environmental input your agency has available and note issues of
special concern to your agency so that we may conduct a comprehensive study. Please provide your
input in writing by August 1, 2004.
Attachment
cc: Mr. Ron Hairr, Project Director, K1 4A
Mr. Eric Lamb, City of Raleigh
Mr. Scott Blevins, Roadway Design, NCDOT
,. A
s
?.}y A Sil17p o
P y?R
?? pMr M?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
` R QUALITY SECTIot,
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
June 16, 2004
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS 1401 rR )p
JUN 2 4 2004
WATE
FROM: Gail Grimes, P.E., Manager
Consultant Engineering Group
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Hillsborough Street Reconstruction from SR 1733 (Oberlin Road) to
SR 1729 (Faircloth Street / Gorman Street) in the City of Raleigh, State
Project No. 6403003R, WBS No. 35870, TIP Project No. U-4447,
Wake County
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing environmental documentation and engineering studies for the
reconstruction of Hillsborough Street from SR 1733 (Oberlin Road) to SR 1729 (Faircloth Street /
Gorman Street). This project will investigate alternatives to improve pedestrian and motorist safety,
including alternatives to reduce Hillsborough Street from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with roundabouts at several
intersections. Your input is needed so that we may fully evaluate beneficial and potentially adverse
impacts of these proposed improvements.
Proiect Description
The proposed project is located along Hillsborough Street between Gorman Street and Oberlin Road,
along Pullen Road between Stinson Drive and Hillsborough Street including an extension of Pullen Road
north of Hillsborough Street to intersect Oberlin Road at Grove Avenue, along Oberlin Road between
Hillsborough Street and Clark Avenue, along Clark Avenue between Oberlin Road and Horne Street, and
along Horne Street between Clark Avenue and Hillsborough Street. The attached map shows the project
study area with the limits of the project highlighted and the immediate surrounding areas. The study area
is an urban area with a diverse mix of residential, retail, office and university uses. The proposed project
is included in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program as Project No. U-4447 and is
programmed for planning and environmental studies only.
Background Information
Kimley-Horn and Associates was retained by the Hillsborough Street Partnership to prepare a feasibility
report for the Hillsborough Street Reconstruction project in 2001. The report evaluated reducing
Hillsborough Street from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with roundabouts at designated intersections and found that
these improvements would provide a safer, more aesthetically pleasing corridor for pedestrians and
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
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
t
4
2
motorists. More detailed information from the Final Report on the Feasibility Study / Conceptual Plans
for the Reconstruction of Hillsborough Street (December 2001) and the New Vision for Hillsborough
Street report prepared in October 1999 is available at http://www.raleigh-
nc.org(planning,/hillsborough/home.htm.
Mapping. The proposed project is located in the Raleigh West USGS topographic quadrangle. GIS data
is available for the project study area.
Streams and Rivers. An environmental resources screening was conducted for the proposed study area.
The preliminary results show that the study area contains no jurisdictional streams. No 303 (d) streams
listed on the Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2002 Integrated
305 (b) and 303 (d) Report) are present in the project vicinity.
Water Resources. There are no high quality waters or outstanding resource waters within the project
vicinity. However, drainage from the project area flows into Crabtree Creek and Walnut Creed, both 303
(d) streams. The project area lies within the Neuse River drainage basin and Neuse River Buffer Rules
are applicable. The nearest NPDES permitted facility (City of Raleigh/Public Works Garage) is located
approximately one and one-half miles northeast of the project area and drains away from the City of
Raleigh. Impacts to water quality will be minimized by adherence to NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (June 1991).
Wetlands. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project vicinity.
Soils. Based on information obtained from the NRCS office for Wake County, the soils within the
project area are composed of five soil series: Appling sandy loam, Cecil sandy loam, Colfax sandy loam,
Made land, and Mantachie. There are no hydric soils within the project area.
Endangered and Threatened Species. No essential fish habitat is designated within the project study
area. No federally listed threatened, endangered, or species of concern listed by the USFWS have been
documented within a one mile radius of the proposed project according to North Carolina's Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP's) database.
Please provide any human or natural environmental input your agency has available and note issues of
special concern to your agency so that we may conduct a comprehensive study. Please provide your
input in writing by August 1, 2004.
Attachment
cc: Mr. Ron Hairr, Project Director, KHA
Mr. Eric Lamb, City of Raleigh
Mr. Scott Blevins, Roadway Design, NCDOT
,.-
r. ,__
A ?
V ?
? w
m .y o
O y o
?? O O i_ ? ? ? .r o o ?* M01y160
C/1 000 a .? fi N g r? ??
0
7M7
0 (t
tc DO
W O V ?tY1B AQ•tJ
N CJ -"
O ?r
. r
Lai. i `l r v ?a ,i . .? v?`?? V r
tom"
rr

--rte---,
v

.

OJI
r rt
?f')+ '? le+f rr{?'
,L` is ?' ?lL 1
? a

fi
? ¦
? 55
z

?..........
Merger 01 Screening Meeting
U-4447 (Hillsborough Street Reconstruction)
November 9, 2004
A Merger 01 Screening Meeting for Senate Bill 1005 Project U-4447 (Hillsborough Street
Reconstruction) was held on November 9, 2004 at 1:00 pm in Room 452 of the Transportation
Building in Raleigh, NC.
In attendance were the following:
Ms. Gail Grimes NC DOT--Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Mr. John Hennessy NC DENR--Division of Water Quality
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Ron Hairr Kimley-Horn and Associates
Ms. Grimes opened the meeting with a brief explanation of the Senate Bill 1005 projects. She
further discussed the need to consult with the merger process team members to determine the
most appropriate way to screen the thirty five (35) SB 1005 projects under the Merger 01
process. These projects have begun and will be moving forward quickly. The type of project
information to present and the format of that information was discussed and agreement reached.
NCDOT will provide a copy of the Screening Report, which was previously completed on each of
the SB 1005 projects, along with a summary of available data (possibly in table format) to the
merger team members prior to the scheduled Merger 01 Meeting.
Mr. Ron Hairr (KHA) then presented the aerial mapping of the U-4447 project and reviewed the
findings of the environmental screening report to those present. No wetlands, jurisdictional
streams, High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) are found within
the project study area. In addition, no habitat exists for any federally protected species within the
project study area, nor have any federally listed threatened, endangered, or species of concern
been documented within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project corridor and no individual 404
permit is expected to be required.
After discussion the project team determined that SB 1005 Project U-4447 was a non-merger
project and no further merger review was required.
i
U-4447
(HILLSBOROUGH STREET RECONSTRUCTION)
FROM SR 1733 (OBERLIN RD) TO SR 1729 (FAIRCLOTH ST/GORMAN ST)
RALEIGH, WAKE COUNTY
STATE PROJECT No. 6403003R
WBS No. 35870
MERGER 01 SCREENING MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
0
U-4447 (HILLSBOROUGH STREET RECONSTRUCTION)
FROM SR 1733 (OBERLIN ROAD) TO SR 1729 (FAIItCLOTH STREET / GORMAN STREET)
IN THE CITY OF RALEIGH, WAKE COUNTY
STATE PROJECT No. 6403003R
WBS No. 35870
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing environmental documentation and engineering studies for the
reconstruction of Hillsborough Street. The project will investigate alternatives to improve pedestrian and
motorist safety, including alternatives to reduce Hillsborough Street from four lanes to two lanes with
roundabouts at several intersections.
The approximately 2-mile study corridor is located within the city limits of Raleigh and runs adjacent to
North Carolina State University's main campus. The project also includes Pullen Road between Stinson
Drive and Hillsborough Street and an extension of Pullen Road north of Hillsborough Street to intersect
Oberlin Road at Groveland Avenue, and Oberlin Road between Hillsborough Street and Clark Avenue,
along Clark Avenue between Oberlin Road and Home Street, and along Horne Street between Clark
Avenue and Hillsborough Street. The study area is an urban area with a diverse mix of residential, retail,
office, and institutional uses.
Status
Environmental Features in U-4447 Information Sources
Stud Area
USDA 1991 Hydric Soils of the United States, USDA 1976 Soil
Hydric Soils None Survey of Wake County, NC Geologic Survey 1985 maps, Wake
County Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS)
Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired
303(d) Waters None Waters List (2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report)
Trout Streams/Anadramous Fish None NC Wildlife Resource Commission, US Fish and Wildlife
Spawning Areas Service Species Accounts (2000)
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural
High Quality Waters or Outstanding None Resources 1995 DWQ Water Quality Plan, 2000 Stream
Resource Waters Classifications by Hydrologic Unit Report
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Point Source Discharges None program data
Schafale and Weakley, Classification of the Natural Communities
Distinct Biotic Communities None of North Carolina, Third Approximation
USGS Topographic Maps, USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation
Streams and/or Wetlands None Manual, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory Ma quadrangle
Neuse River Buffers None NCDWQ Neuse Buffer Rules
NC Natural Heritage Program database, United States Fish and
Threatened/Endangered Species None Wildlife Service, Species Accounts (2000).
Archaeological Sites None North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Hazardous Materials Sites None (CGIA) GIS database
Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. Phase II Historic Report,
Historic Properties Listed on map National Register of Historic Places, North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office
Local Landmarks, Public
Listed on map Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. Phase II Historic Report,
Parks/Facilities North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Underground Storage Tanks North Carolina CGIA GIS database
Contaminated Properties North Carolina CGIA GIS database
Stormwater Drainage Channels Requested from the City of Raleigh
i?
Summary of Findings
Kimley-Hom conducted an Environmental Resource Screening for the Hillsborough Street
Reconstruction, TIP U-4447 from SR 1733 (Oberlin Road) to SR 1729 (Faircloth Street / Gorman
Street). The findings in this document are based on visual observations and available research
data.
Water Resource/Water Quality
• The project study area contains no jurisdictional streams. There are no streams within the
study area that are listed as a 303(d) streams on the Draft North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report.
However, drainage within the northern portion of the site would be anticipated to flow to
the north-northeast towards Southwest Prong/Beaverdam Creek, which flows into
Crabtree Creek, a 303 (d) stream. Drainage within the southern portion of the site would
be anticipated to flow to the south-southwest towards Rocky Creek, which flows into
Walnut Creek, a 303 (d) stream.
• The Neuse River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B.0259) are in effect within the vicinity of
the project study area. No waterbodies requiring Neuse River buffers are located within
the project study area.
• There are no streams within the study area that are classified as C-TR (Trout) streams and
Wake County is not one of the 25 mountain counties designated by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) as containing Mountain Trout Waters
(MTWs). There are no streams within the study area that support trout and anadromous
fish. The NC Wildlife Commission will determine if there a requirement for an in-stream
moratorium for warm water fish species any of the streams within the surrounding area of
the project study area. No essential fish habitat has been designated within the project
study area.
• There are no High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Water Resources (OWR)
within the project study area.
Biotic Resources
• The terrestrial species found within the project study area are not likely to be negatively
affected as a result of project construction.
i

I
Waters of the United States
• No jurisdictional wetlands or streams were identified within the project study area.
Federally Protected Species/Federal Species of Concern
• No habitat exists within the project study area for the four federally protected species
listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Critical habitat, as defined by the
USFWS, is not designated for any species listed in Wake County. In addition, according
to North Carolina's Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP's) database, no federally listed
threatened, endangered, or species of concern listed by the USFWS that have been
documented within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project corridor.
Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Sites
• Identification of hazardous substances and petroleum products sites that may exist within
the project study area will be assessed at a later date and submitted as an addendum to
this report. The findings will be in accordance with the 2000 ASTM Standard for
Environmental Site Assessments federal and state database search radii.
11

Environmental Screening
Hillsborough Street Reconstruction Study
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
State Project No.6403003R, T.I.P. No. U-4447
VWBS No. 35870
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
COPY
October 2004
yqoo
Table of Contents
Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................................I .......i
Water Resource/Water Quality ..........................................................................................................i
Biotic Resources ................................................................................................................................i
Waters of the United States ..............................................................................................................ii
Federally Protected Species/Federal Species of Concern .................................................................ii
Hazardous Substances an Petroleum Products Sites ....................................:..................................ii
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description .............................:.......................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................2
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigators ....................................................................................3
2.0 Physical Resources ...........................................................................................................................4
2.1 Geology ......................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Soils ...........................................................................................................................................5
2.2.1 Soil Classifications ...................................................................................................5
2.2.2 Hydric Soils ..............................................................................................................6
2.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................6
2.3.1 Water Resource Characteristics ................................................................................7
2.3.2 Water Quality ............................................................................................................7
2.3.3 Physical Resource Impacts .......................................................................................8
3.0 Biotic Resources ...............................................................................................................................9
3.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities ..................................................................................................9
3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife .....................................................................................................................9
3.3 Aquatic Communities ..............................................................................................................10
3.4 Biotic Resource Impacts ..................................................:.......................................................10
4.0 Waters of the United States ............................................................................................................10
4.1 Surface Waters .........................................................................................................................11
4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................................................................................................11
4.3 Impacts to Waters of the United States .................................................................................... 11
4.4 Permit Requirements ................................................................................................................ 11
4.5 Buffer Rules .............................................................................................................................12
5.0 Rare and Protected Species .............................................................................................................12
5.1 Federally Protected Species .....................................................................................................12
5.1.1 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker ...................................................................................13
5.1.2 Bald Eagle ...............................................................................................................14
5.1.3 Dwarf Wedge Mussel .............................................................................................14
5.1.4 Michaux's Sumac ...................................................................................................15
5.2 Federal Species of Concern .....................................................................................................16
6.0 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Sites .....................................................................18
7.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................18
8.0 References ......................................................................................................................................19
L .Y
List of Tables
Table 1. Federally Protected Threatened and Endangered Species for Wake County,
North Carolina
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern for Wake County, North Carolina
List of Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figures 2A Project Study Area
and 2B
Appendix A Site Photographs
F 49b,
Summary of Findings
Kimley-Horn conducted an Environmental Resource Screening for the Hillsborough Street
Reconstruction, TIP U-4447 from SR 1733 (Oberlin Road) to SR 1729 (Faircloth Street / Gorman
Street). The findings in this document are based on visual observations and available research
data.
Water Resource/Water Quality
• The project study area contains no jurisdictional streams. There are no streams within the
study area that are listed as a 303(d) streams on the Draft North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report.
However, drainage within the northern portion of the site would be anticipated to flow to
the north-northeast towards Southwest ProngBeaverdam Creek, which flows into
Crabtree Creek, a 303 (d) stream. Drainage within the southern portion of the site would
be anticipated to flow to the south-southwest towards Rocky Creek, which flows into
Walnut Creek, a 303 (d) stream.
• The Neuse River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B.0259) are in effect within the vicinity of
the project study area. No waterbodies requiring Neuse River buffers are located within
.the project study area.
• There are no streams within the study area that are classified as C-TR (Trout) streams and
Wake County is not one of the 25 mountain counties designated by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) as containing Mountain Trout Waters
(MTWs). There are no streams within the study area that support trout and anadromous
fish. The NC Wildlife Commission will determine if there a requirement for an in-stream
moratorium for warm water fish species any of the streams within the surrounding area of
the project study area. No essential fish habitat has been designated within the project
study area.
• There are no High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Water Resources (OWR)
within the project study area.
Biotic Resources
• The terrestrial species found within the project study area are not likely to be negatively
affected as a result of project construction.
1
Waters of the United States
• No jurisdictional wetlands or streams were identified within the project study area.
Federally Protected Species/Federal Species of Concern
• No habitat exists within the project study area for the four federally protected species
listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Critical habitat, as defined by the
USFWS, is not designated for any species listed in Wake County. In addition, according
to North Carolina's Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP's) database, no federally listed
threatened, endangered, or species of concern listed by the USFWS that have been
documented within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project corridor.
Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Sites
• Identification of hazardous substances and petroleum products sites that may exist within
the project study area will be assessed at a later date and submitted as an addendum to
this report. The findings will be in accordance with the 2000 ASTM Standard for
Environmental Site Assessments federal and state database search radii.
11

1.0 Introduction
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) was retained by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to complete an environmental screening for the Hillsborough Street
Reconstruction (SR 3007), TIP U-4447 from SR 1733 (Oberlin Road) to SR 1729 (Faircloth
Street/ Gorman Street) (Figure 1). This report was prepared in accordance with the Natural
Resources Environmental Screening Protocol provided to KHA by the NCDOT. The following
Environmental Screening Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of alternatives and is a
basis for an Environmental Assessment for the proposed project.
1.1 Project Description
The objective of the Hillsborough Street Reconstruction Study TIP No. U-4447 in Raleigh, North
Carolina is to investigate alternatives to improve pedestrian and motorist safety, including
alternatives to reduce Hillsborough Street from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with roundabouts at several
intersections.
The approximately 2-mile study corridor is located within the city limits of Raleigh in Wake
County, North Carolina and runs adjacent to the N.C., State University campus (Figure 1). The
study area is west of downtown Raleigh. The proposed project is located on Hillsborough Street,
between Gorman Street/Faircloth Street and Oberlin Road, and also includes Pullen Road
between Stinson Drive and Hillsborough Street and an extension of Pullen Road north of
Hillsborough Street to intersect Oberlin Road at Grove Avenue, and Oberlin Road between
Hillsborough Street and Clark Avenue, along Clark Avenue between Oberlin Road and Horne
Street, and along Horne Street between Clark Avenue and Hillsborough Street. The project study
area is an urban area with a diverse mix of residential, retail, office and institutional uses.
The following terminology is used to define the limits of the natural resource investigations.
Project study area - refers to the following areas: Hillsborough Street, between Gorman
Street/Faircloth Street and Oberlin Road; also along Pullen Road between Stinson Drive
and Hillsborough Street; and an extension of Pullen Road north of Hillsborough Street to
intersect Oberlin Road at Grove Avenue, along Oberlin Road between Hillsborough Street
and Clark Avenue, along Clark Avenue between Oberlin Road and Horne Street, and along
1
V _a
Horne Street between Clark Avenue and Hillsborough Street (Figure 2A/2B). The project
study area is approximately 2-miles long and 100-200 feet wide. This area encompasses
approximately 98-acres.
Project vicinity - refers to the Hillsborough Street area. The corridor extends from the
Gorman Street/Faircloth Street to Oberlin Road.
Project region - is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle
map with the project study area occupying the central portion.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this Environmental Screening is to conduct an investigation of the project study
area to provide information on environmentally sensitive areas. Specifically, the evaluations
conducted for this study include: 1) an assessment of physical resources, including geology, soils,
and water resources; 2) an assessment of biotic resources including plant communities, aquatic
habitats, terrestrial wildlife, and aquatic species; 3) an evaluation of waters of the U.S., including
surface waters and wetlands, along with likely impacts to water resources; and 4) an assessment
of known federally protected species.
Identification of hazardous substances and petroleum products sites that may exist within the
project study area will be assessed at a later date and submitted as an addendum to this report.
The findings will be in accordance with the 2000 ASTM Standard for Environmental Site
Assessments federal and state database search radii.
1.3 Methodology
A variety of resources were consulted prior to conducting field surveys, including: 2003 aerial
photography (1:1200 scale); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles (Raleigh
West, North Carolina); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
Map quadrangle; soils information provided by the Wake County Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS); information obtained from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) and USFWS databases regarding federal/state rare and protected species lists;
2
watershed and water quality information obtained from the North Carolina Department of the
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR); and preliminary concept plans.
Field surveys of the Hillsborough Street project study area were performed by KHA
environmental scientists on April 23, 2004. Terrestrial and aquatic communities within the
proposed reconstruction study area were visually surveyed to identify community types and
dominant flora. Potential jurisdictional wetlands and streams were assessed utilizing the
methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
No vegetation communities, based on Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation, were identified in the field within the project study area.
Wildlife identification involved active searching of known or suspected species, incidental visual
observations, incidental auditory indicators (such as bird song and other sounds), and secondary
indicators of species presence or site utilization (such as scat, tracks, and burrow). Predictions
regarding wildlife community composition were supplemented using a general qualitative habitat
assessment based of vegetation communities and aquatic habitat.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigators
Investigator: Norton Webster, Environmental Scientist (KHA)
Education: BS in Business, Wake Forest University, 1989
MS in Forestry, North Carolina State University, 1999
Experience: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (December 2000 to present)
Environmental Scientist, ARCADIS, Inc. (June 1997 to December 2000)
Specialty: Wetland/stream delineation, permitting, and threatened and endangered
species surveys
Investigator: Ian McMillan, Environmental Scientist (KHA)
Education: BS in Environmental Geography-Biogeography Emphasis, Austin Peay
State University, 1997
BS in Landscape Horticulture, North Carolina State University, 1981
Experience: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (August 2003 to present)
3
a ?
GIS Analyst/Environmental Scientist, MACTEC (August 2001 to
August 2003)
Environmental Scientist, S&ME, Inc., (June, 1997 to August 2001)
Specialty: Geographic Information Systems, wetland/stream delineation,
environmental assessments
2.0 Physical Resources
The project study area is located in Wake County within the Piedmont physiographic province. A
small area in the southern part of Wake County is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province.
The parts of the county which lie north and west of Raleigh, including the study area, are rolling
hills containing major drainageways bordered by steep slopes. The areas east and south of
Raleigh are gently sloping to rolling and contain drainageways that are bordered by moderately,
steep slopes. The average elevation above mean sea level (MSL) of Wake County is
approximately 434 feet MSL, with a high elevation of 545 feet MSL. Elevations in the project
study area generally range from approximately 450 feet MSL within the western portion of the
study area to approximately 400 feet MSL within the eastern portion of the project study area.
The lands use surrounding and within the project study area primarily consist of commercial
development adjacent to the north of Hillsborough Street, N.C. State University adjacent to the
south of Hillsborough Street, and a mix of commercial and residential properties adjacent to
Oberlin Road. The majority of the project area is built out with little new growth and
development occurring.
2.1 Geology
The geologic features within the project study area are located within the Raleigh Belt of the
Piedmont physiographic region. The study area lies within the Kyanite and Staurolite facies
zone. The injected gneiss of the study area is composed of biotite gneiss and schist, intruded by
numerous sills and dykes of granite, pegmatite and aplite, with minor hornblende gneiss. (North
Carolina Division of Land Resources, 1985).
4

2.2 Sons
Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community. Factors influencing soil formation include parent materials,
climate, biota, time, and topography. This section describes the soil characteristics of the project
study area.
2.2.1 Soil Classifications
Based on information obtained from the NRCS office for Wake County, the soils within the
project study area are composed of five soil series: Appling sandy loam, Cecil sandy loam,
Colfax sandy loam, Made land, and Mantachie. The following is a brief description of each soil
series located in the project study area.
2.2.1.1 Appling sandy loam
The Appling series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on ridges and
side slopes of the Piedmont uplands. They are deep to saprolite and very deep to bedrock. The
soils formed in residuum weathered from felsic igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont
uplands. Slopes range from 0 to 25 percent.
2.2.1.2 Cecil sandy loam
The Cecil series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on ridges and
side slopes of the Piedmont uplands. They are deep to saprolite and very deep to bedrock. The
soils formed in residuum weathered from felsic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks of
the Piedmont uplands. Slopes range from 0 to 25 percent.
2.2.1.3 Colfax sandy Loam
Soils of the Colfax series are very deep and somewhat poorly drained. They are on uplands and
formed in materials weathered from granitic rocks. Permeability is moderate in the upper part of
the solum and slow in the fragipan. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent.
5
3
2.2.1.4 Made Land
Made land is a miscellaneous soil type in which the areas have been altered by man to the extent
that the profile of the original soils cannot be recognized. The altered soil material does not
function as did the original soil, and in many places it does not resemble the original soil. The
areas included in this land type are so diverse in characteristics that general statements cannot be
made about them. This association comprises approximately 7 percent of soils in Wake County.
This association consists of well-drained upland soils, characterized by a brownish loamy and
sandy surface with yellowish clay to reddish sandy subsoil. Slope and depth to bedrock are
important limitations to use for these soils.
2.2.1.5 Mantachie
The Mantachie series consists of somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable soils formed in
loamy alluvium. These soils are on floodplains. They usually flood late. in winter and early in
spring. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 1 to 1.5 feet. Slope is predominantly less
than 1 percent but ranges to 3 percent.
2.2.2 Hydric Soils
The NRCS defines a hydric soil as one that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil. Such soils
usually support hydrophytic vegetation.
Based on information obtained from the soil survey for Wake County, there are no hydric soils
within the project study area.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be impacted by the project.
Water resource information encompasses the resource's relationship to major water systems, its
physical aspects, best usage classification, and water quality of the resources.
6

2.3.1 Water Resource Characteristics
The project study area lies within the Neuse River drainage basin. The Neuse River basin
encompasses 6,192 square miles in North Carolina. No water resources were identified within
the study area.
The project study area contains no jurisdictional streams. There are no streams within the study
area that are listed as a 303(d) streams on the Draft North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and
Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). However, drainage within the
northern portion of the site would be anticipated to flow to the north-northeast towards Southwest
Prong/Beaverdam Creek, which flows into Crabtree Creek, a 303 (d) stream. Drainage within the
southern portion of the site would be anticipated to flow to the south-southwest towards Rocky
Creek, which flows into Walnut Creek, a 303 (d) stream. The Neuse River Buffer Rules (15A
NCAC 02B.0259) are in effect within the vicinity of the project study area.
There are no streams within the study area that are classified as C-TR (Trout) and Wake County
is not one of the 25 mountain counties designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission (NCWRC) as containing Mountain Trout Waters (MTWs). There are no streams
within the study area that support trout and anadromous fish. The NCWRC will determine if
there a requirement for an in-stream moratorium for warm water fish species for any of the
streams surrounding the project study area. No essential fish habitat has been designated within
the project study area. Finally, there are no High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I or U (WS I, WS Il) waters within the project study
area.
2.3.2 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins
in the state. Based on information obtained from the Neuse Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan (DWQ 2001), over 80 percent of the freshwater streams in the basin that have
been monitored are either "impaired" or rated as "fully supporting but threatened." A major
cause of this impairment, especially in the upper basin, is population growth and urbanization,
and every indication is that this strong growth will continue for decades to come.
7

2.3.2.1 Point Source Discharges
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to
register for a NPDES permit. The nearest NPDES permitted facility (City of Raleigh/Public
Works Garage) is located approximately one and one-half miles northeast of the proposed project
and drains away from the project study area.
2.3.2.2 Non-point Source Discharges
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater,
snowmelt, or atmospheric deposition. In urban settings, land use activities such as land
development, construction, landfills, roads, and parking lots are the major contributors of non
point source pollutants. The land uses surrounding and within the project study area consists of
residential, commercial/retail, and institutional. Sediment is the most widespread cause of non-
point source pollution in North Carolina.
2.3.3 Physical Resource Impacts
The proposed project. is expected to impact both soils and topography, however, no adverse long-
term impacts to soils and topography are expected from the proposed project. The primary
sources of water-quality degradation in urban areas are non-point-source discharges and
stormwater runoff. Potential impacts associated with construction of the proposed project
primarily involve increased sedimentation within nearby streams resulting in stormwater runoff
potentially degrading water quality and increasing turbidity during reconstruction activities. Even
though no streams are located in the project study area, measures to minimize potential short-term
impacts to adjacent off-site receiving waters include formulation of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan, provision for waste material and storage, stormwater management measures, and
appropriate road-maintenance measures. Additionally, impacts to off-site water quality will be
minimized by adherence to NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters (June 1991). In addition, a detailed sediment and erosion control plan consisting of best
management practices will be developed for the proposed project.
8

3.0 Biotic Resources
This section describes those biotic resources, including aquatic and terrestrial communities,
encountered in the project study area, as well as the relationships between flora and fauna within
those communities. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
study area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses.
Descriptions of the terrestrial communities are present in the context of plant community
classifications based on Schafale and Weakley, Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. Also, representative animal species that were observed
directly/indirectly or are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions)
are cited.
Scientific and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities
The project study area is characterized as an urban landscape with variable maintained-disturbed
vegetated areas. No distinct biotic communities were identified within the project study area.
Maintained disturbed land does not correspond- to any Schafale and Weakley community
classification because the native vegetation has been altered or removed.
3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Wildlife species of the project study area were those typical of an urban environment. Certain
species can be expected to be found throughout the project study area.
Wildlife species expected to be found in the project study area include Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humulis), house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
9

Common reptiles and amphibians expected to be found in the project study area include the
ground skink (Scincella lateralis), American toad (Bufo americanus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta),
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), rough earth snake (Virginia striatala), and eastern
kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula).
Common bird species expected to be found in the project study area include the northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), northern
flicker (Colaptes auratus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), rock dove (Columba
livia), and the red bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus).
3.3 Aquatic Communities
This category includes streams, wetlands, and waterbodies. There were no streams, wetlands, or
waterbodies observed within the project study area.
3.4 Biotic Resource Impacts
The terrestrial species expected to be found within the project study area are not likely to be
negatively impacted as a result of project construction.
4.0 Waters of the United States
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the United
States." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal administrative
agency of the Clean Water Act; however, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has the
responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The
USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Wetlands, streams, and open waters are regulated by the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. The North Carolina DENR-DWQ also has regulatory input through Section
401 Water Quality Certification. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
10

support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Any actions that propose to place fill into these areas fall
under the jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
4.1 Surface Waters
The DWQ defines a perennial stream as a clearly defined channel that contains water for the
majority of the year. These channels usually have some or all of the following characteristics:
distinctive streambed and bank, aquatic life, and groundwater flow or discharge. There are no
jurisdictional surface waters in the project study area.
4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The project study area was surveyed for jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with guidelines for
wetland delineation as outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
This approach incorporates three criteria in delineating wetlands: (1) the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation, (2) the presence of hydric soils, and (3) evidence of wetland hydrology. All three
criteria must be present in a given location for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland.
No jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the project study area.
4.3 Impacts to Waters of the United States
No surface waters, including streams and wetlands were identified in the project study area.
4.4 Permit Requirements
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), permits are required from the
USACE for any activities that encroach into jurisdictional wetlands or "Waters of the U.S." In
addition, Section 401 of the CWA requires each state to certify that state water quality standards
will not be violated for activities which 1) involve issuance of a federal permit or license; or 2)
require discharges into "Waters of the United States". The USACE cannot issue a 404 permit
until the N.C. Department of the Environment and Natural Resources approves a 401 water
quality certification. Since no surface waters, including streams and wetlands, were identified in
11
t
the project study area, no USACE or NCDWQ permits are anticipated to be required for the
project.
4.5 Buffer Rules
The NCDWQ Neuse River Buffer Rule applies within the project study area. The. rule mandates
the preservation of a 50-foot wide buffer on all sides of any water, body, including intermittent
streams, located in the Neuse River Basin. No water bodies requiring Neuse River buffers are
located in the project study area. ,
5.0 Rare and Protected Species
Federal law under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended, requires that any action likely to adversely affect a federally protected species be
subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may warrant protection, under separate state
laws.
5.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA.
"Critical habitat," as defined in the ESA, is a term for habitat given special protection for the
benefit of a listed species. Critical habitat, as defined by the USFWS, is not designated for any
species listed in Wake County. In addition, according to North Carolina's Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP's) database, no federally listed threatened, endangered, or species of concern
listed by the USFWS that have been documented within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project
corridor
According to the February 25, 2003 USFWS internet listing, four federally listed species (Table
1) are listed for Wake County. A description of the species and their habitat requirements are
discussed below.
12
. dhI
Table 1. Federally Protected Threatened and Endangered Species for
Wake County, North Carolina
Scientific Name Common Federal State Habitat Requirements Habitat
Status Status Available
Name
Picoides borealis Red- E E Pine or pine/hardwood forest, 80+ No
Cockaded years of age with sparse understory
Woodpecker
Haliaeetus Bald eagle T T Mature forests near large bodies of No
leucocephalus water (for nesting); lakes and sounds
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedge E E Tar and Neuse drainages, mainly No
Mussel near Fall Line
Rhus michauxii Michaux's E E Sandhills, sandy forests, woodland, No.
Sumac woodland edges
*E= endangered; T= threatened
Federally listed endangered species are species that are threatened with extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. Federally listed threatened species are species that are likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
5.9.1 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker, a federally listed endangered and state endangered species, is
found in small isolated populations throughout the southeastern United States. This bird is a small
woodpecker with black wings, a black cap, a black and white back with a "zebra" or "ladder
back" appearance, and a large white cheek patch on either side of the head. The cheek patches
distinguish red-cockaded woodpeckers from all others in their range. The woodpecker habitat is
open pine woodlands and savannahs with large old pines for nesting and roosting. Cavities are
excavated out of live, large pine trees. Cavity trees must be in open stands with little or no
hardwood midstory and few or no overstory hardwoods. No suitable habitat was found within the
project study area. Based on the information above and field reconnaissance, there is no potential
habitat within the project study area. No impacts to this species from project construction are
anticipated (USFWS 2004).
13
5.1.2 Bald Eagle
The mature bald,eagle (usually 4+ years in age) can be identified by its large white head and short
white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. Bald eagles can easily
be distinguished from other birds by their flat wing soar. They are primarily associated with large
bodies of water where food is plentiful. Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water
(usually within 0.5 mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area,
with an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause nest abandonment.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December and January. Fish are the major food
source, although forage items include coots, herons, wounded ducks, and carrion (USFWS 2004).
As of July 6, 1999, this species is currently under consideration by the USFWS for a proposed de-
listing of their threatened status. However, this raptor will still be protected under the Migratory-
Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and populations will continue to
be monitored for at least another five years under provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Suitable habitat for the bald eagle consisting of large bodies of water is not present within the
project study area. Based on the information above and field reconnaissance, there is no potential
habitat within the project study area. No impacts to this species from project construction are
anticipated.
5.1.3 Dwarf Wedge Mussel
The dwarf wedge mussel is relatively small, rarely exceeding 1.5 inches in length. The shell's
outer surface (periostracum) is usually brown or yellowish brown in color, with faint green rays
that are most noticeable in young specimens. Unlike some mussel species, the male and female
shells differ slightly, with the female being wider to allow greater space for egg development. A
distinguishing characteristic of this mussel is it's dentition pattern; the right valve possesses two
lateral teeth, while the left valve has only one. This trait is opposite of all other North American
species having lateral teeth (USFWS 2004).
This mussel is considered to be a long-term brooder, with gravid females reportedly observed in
fall months. Like other freshwater mussels, this species' eggs are fertilized in the female as sperm
are taken in through their siphons as they respire. The eggs develop with the female's gills into a
14
t
larvae (glochidia). The females later release the glochidia which then attach to the gills or fins of
specific host fish species. Based on anecdotal evidence, such as dates when gravid females are
present or absent, it appears that release of glochidia occurs primarily in April in North Carolina.
Recent research has confirmed at least three potential fish host species for the dwarf wedge
mussel to be the tessellated darter, Johnny darter, and mottled sculpin.
The dwarf wedge mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to moderate current and a
sand, gravel, or muddy bottom.
Based on the information above and field reconnaissance, there is no potential habitat within the
project study area. No impacts to this species from project construction are anticipated.
5.1.4 Michauks Sumac
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from 1 to 3 feet in
height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate leaflets.
Most plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants with both
male and female flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal, erect, dense
cluster, and colored greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from June to July; while
the fruit, a red drupe, is produced through the months of August to October.
Michaux's sumac is historically thought to be endemic to the coastal plain and piedmont of the
Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the species as
endangered on September 28, 1989, due to its rarity and vulnerability to thfeats. Only 36 extant
populations are known, with 31 in North Carolina, three in Virginia, and two populations in
Georgia. Currently, the plant is documented in the following North Carolina counties: Richmond,
Hoke, Moore, Scotland, Franklin, Davie, Robeson, and Wake.
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils.
Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an
open area. At least twelve of the plant's populations in North Carolina are on highway rights-of
way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. Two other populations are in
areas with periodic fires, and two populations exist on sites undergoing natural succession. One
population is situated in a natural opening on the rim of a Carolina bay.
15

Perhaps the most crucial factor endangering this species is its low reproductive capacity. A low
percentage of the plant's remaining populations have both male and female plants. The NCNHP
wrote: "... because of the clonal nature of this species and the scarcity of populations containing
both male and female plants, the remaining populations may actually consist of only about two
dozen genetic individuals". The plant is also threatened by fire suppression and habitat
destruction due to residential and industrial development. Two of the plant's historic populations
were destroyed by development, one by the construction of a water tower, and one by the
conversion of the site to pine plantation.
Based on the information above and field reconnaissance, there is no potential habitat within the
project study area. No impacts to this species from project construction are anticipated.
5.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Federally listed species of concern are defined as species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing as
Threatened or Endangered. No assessment for habitat for state listed species was conducted.
This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future. Therefore, consideration should be given to potential occurrences within
the project study area. There are fourteen federal species of concern for Wake County. These are
listed in the table below.
16
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern for
Wake County, North Carolina
Scientific Name Common Name State Habitat Requirements Habitat
Status{" Available
Vertebrates
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's SC Open longleaf pine forests, old
1 No
?
1 1 sparrow fields (breeding season only
Etheostoma collis Carolina darter Not Sluggish to small creeks and No
lepidinion listed rivers
Noturus furiosus "Neuse" madtom S Tar River drainages (endemic No
population 1 1 11to North Carolina)
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner SR ar and Neuse drainages
r No
d emic to North Carolina)
(en
Myotis austroriparius
1 Southeastern
1
1 SC
1 Roosts in buildings, hollow
1 No
1
myotis trees; forages near water
Heterodon simus Southern
SC Sandy woods, particularly pine- No
1 1hognose snake oak sandhills
Invertebrates
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe E Most Atlantic drainages, in No
lower Piedmont and upper
Coastal Plain; also in Black
River in lower Coastal Plain
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary SR Rich woods and adjacent No
butterfly edges and openings; believed
extirpated from the lower ,
Piedmont; host plants -- violets
(Viola spp.)
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E Tar, Neuse, and Cape Fear
systems downstate; New and
Watauga systems in mountains No
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance E r and Neuse systems, mainly
r No
the Fall Line
nar
Vascular Plants
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush Streamhead pocosins, white No
cedar swamps, bogs
Trillium pusillum var. Carolina least E Ecotones between savannas No
pusillum trillium and nonriverine wet hardwood
forests, over marl
Panicum lithophilum Flatrock panic Not Soil islands on granitic flatrocks No
grass listed and domes
Monotropsis odorata sweet pinesap SR-T Dry forests and bluffs No
* Historical record
**E (Endangered), T (Threatened), SR (Significantly Rare), SC (Special Concern)
17
6.0 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Sites
Identification of hazardous substances and petroleum products sites that may exist within the
project study area, in accordance with the 2000 ASTM Standard for Environmental Site
Assessments federal and state database search radii, will be assessed at a later date and submitted
as an addendum to this report.
7.0 Conclusions
The project study area contains no jurisdictional streams. There are no streams within the study
area that are listed as a 303(d) stream. There are no High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) within the project study area. There are no streams within the study -
area that support trout and anadromous fish. No essential fish habitat has been designated within
the project study area.
The terrestrial species found within the project study area are not likely to be negatively affected
as a result of project construction.
No jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project study area.
No federally listed threatened, endangered, or species of concern listed by the USFWS that have
been documented within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project corridor. Also, no potential
habitat exists for any listed threatened, endangered, or species of concern listed by the USFWS.
Identification of hazardous substances and petroleum products sites will be assessed at a later date
and submitted as an addendum to this report. `
18
8.0 References
Amoroso, J.L. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation; N.C.
Department Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Coe, James. 1994. A Guide to Field Identification of North American Species of Eastern Birds.
Golden Press, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V.Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitat of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Martof, Bernard S., William M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey and Julian R. Harrison, 1111980.
Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 1990. Plant Conservation Program List of North
Carolina's Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quality. 2001. Neuse Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quality. 2004. Stream Classifications by Hydrologic Unit.
http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/sftTiiclass/
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality.
2004. Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303 (d) Report),
19
Public Review Draft. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2004IRCCategories4-
7.PDF. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Land Resources. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. North
Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2000. List of Rare Plant and Animal Species in North
Carolina. http://www.neparks.net/nhp/
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
University of Chapel Hill Press, Chapel Hill.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, A Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1976. Soil Survey of Wake County. U.S. Department
of Agriculture Press.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1995. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Press.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map -Raleigh West,
North Carolina Quadrangle. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. County Lists.
http://southeast.fws.gov/es/county%201ists.htm
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2004). Species Accounts.
http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html
20
United States Geologic Survey. 1981. Topographic Map - Raleigh West, North Carolina
Quadrangles. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland._ The University of Chapel Hill Press, Chapel Hill.
21
Jbd

16
a r ,tea ?: 1 M
1r13>tF z i s ' C (r r at szrayac;
' J 1 (tll t ts`? r Irr 6 iYa y Pa,k
I
mo
i.. J
40
Be inProect
+
,? r r r ?r},
??? ,,? •
"..? 4r ,7 ?k ? A •.,* + .?:.
.
i..
fY•K1?.i,
?•? - - '?I ?, •i ? ? a?F,? '?t?-f''
..N?
1
`
?
`
T
y
air
tt
.
....
il
k 4.;,i 3•
??
?
~t
f
,
`
t
+r.
?
hft' t_ rJ
:
• ' bif R ?" , zy?. - 1? 'rr
i? a.. ` 1d i41') w? - 1 rir? [ A 6 r f ? . u • M
r?? ¢ ?? ?,y i rhr3wj '4%
?ac trnR r •_ _ Si

,?' III?'? Q ' _ ?l'"? Lf 1.14.E ?9I_ .7'•#_? • - , I > r ?J r,::."__
:' 3 - ! Ate` - ?_t•-y yf` ,f ?y^ _
r ?i 's••! 75 i
~M
/
?Y t • y' --. i u *
.
? 'N'ina`,,
P'•
'-
1,
- 4
:
.
?
fit. " } N? =
) `` 4 7u /? +tie}
? g r eee AAA t "
f4V
- z >r - j. a ; . a l End Project
i -wit
t s= F1 _ ?- !1 }

l
.
w IQ
l ?
1 ' •' " ",,, :°
"
a i ' ,l ' ?1
t {
'
'
°
"
y
u rr1+
? j
4
i
f' t??
Cr
I
}J 1
Y.}'. i f" .u 1 f ?f } cl ?_ 1 ?r? r fay 39* P ?.,5.•? t? -„ iY (t}!??/i' • -.-,.~~~'+,.. i. _ ?a Y `j ?j ?? Y.. ?.
?i1I ?"vy , n?Si 1' $ i r ??Cll.r1 i t y _1. ?. t ?7 -: # rly # ! J a
f a N . I ?ti •'
T
'
t ,fir ff. 1 ?I.•
{r ., t. ? / ?
? "
J!'' k -9.ihRl ti I.
,
j , t` ? Is . t •fi-e'?) ` .l. "- 1'1 ?',' ?I ?,- J ?' _ '. Ta
, f ' >•?"` a 4. Sd
} i 1
IS

Legend

Study Area
'F7- TT

_? r l?
E -
W
.
0 1,000 2,000 Feet 1
Title Vicinity Map (USGS Raleigh West, North Carolina 1968, Photorevised 1981)
o+ N
??
Project U-4447 - Hillsborough Street Reconstruction
Wake County, North Carolina
?
m.
I.V? Date TIP # Figure
10/11/04 U-4447 1
11 .
Z• .)L
?
?
' • E
" 3"
? ??'?
?f?':.i/
'
?
? k
!+
l
a t s .?.Y1 s
?
y.e_: O
? .
i j ? ?I?
I
AW

t
a

4
?) T
0 4,,
!C

A

. ?t? r:?rc3c J •0 x
-_ i

R
L ue?-
a
'
.
w - y ? is ?. ?
-" •? ? Q?
?
_y w . e
i 1
Y `R ?w
0.4

- M ILL

a
i

F
? cU
,?1
?
?
-
_ y
,
_ r ?.. ;
N
?
{?
.? ¦.r
7
_
.

U
NalY?
E
v
d o V E
co o
co cC $ $

T
O
.? DS?

co Z

d C I
o

i

Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Project: U-4447 Prepared by: DNW
Wake County
Client: North Carolina Department Job Number 011036094
of Transportation
Page 1 of 6
Photo 1: View looking south along Gorman Street.
Photo 2: View looking west at intersection of Hillsborough Street and Shepherd Street.

Elm
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Prepared by: DNW
Job Number: 011036094
Page 2 of 6
\ d
Photo 3: View looking east of intersection of Hillsborough Street and Dixie Trail.
Project: U-4447
Wake County
Client: North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Photo 4: View looking east of intersection of Hillsborough Street and Dan Allen Drive.
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Prepared by: DNW
Job Number: 0 1 1 03 6094
Page 3 of 6

m
Photo 5: View looking east of intersection of Hillsborough Street and Brooks Avenue.
Project: U-4447
Wake County
Client: North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Photo 6: View looking west of intersection of Hillsborough Street and Brooks Avenue.
CIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
KimleyHorn
and Associates, Inc.
/411?.
i
4
Photo 7: View looking east of intersection of Hillsborough Street and Enterprise.
?.Y
Photo 8: View looking south of intersection of Hillsborough Street and Pullen Road.
Project: U4447
Wake County
Client: North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Prepared by: DNW
Job Number: 011036094
Page 4 of 6
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Project: U-4447
Wake County
Client: North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Prepared by: DNW
Job Number: 011036094
Page 5 of 6
,MEN
Photo 9: View looking east of intersection of Hillsborough Street and Oberlin Road.
t..-
Photo 10: View north of intersection of Oberlin Road and Groveland Avenue.
CHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IGmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Project: U-4447
Wake County
Client: North Carolina Department
of Transportation
?o
N.
I
Prepared by: DNW
Job Number: 011036094
Page 6 of 6
Photo 11: View looking south of intersection of Hillsborough Street and Horne Street.

Photo 12: View looking west of intersection of Clark Street and Horne Street.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
June 24, 2004
Gail Grimes
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Grimes:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed reconstruction of Hillsborough
Street from SR 1733 (Oberlin Road) to SR 1729 (Faircloth Street / Gorman Street) in the City of
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-4447). 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).
Due to the highly disturbed and urban nature of the project area, only minimal fish and wildlife
habitat is present. The project is not likely to affect any federally protected species. Based on
the available information, we do not believe that the proposed activities will have significant
adverse and/or irreversible effects on fish and wildlife resources or natural environments. The
Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC