20100045 Ver 1_401 Application_20100110

www.stewart-eng.com
7-1
,`...7 O ? V ? ? W MrJ
S T E WA R T Division of Water Quality JAN 2 0 2010
401/Wetlands Unit DENR-WIVERQUAuTy
1650 Mail Service Center WETLANDS AND STORMWATERMANCH
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650
Subject: EL-4998C Swift Creek Greenway and Pedestrian Bridge, Cary, NC
Request for Buffer Authorization
The Town of Cary is extending their greenway network to include a bridge over
Swift Creek near Regency Parkway. This project will allow trail users to safely cross
the creek and travel to a signalized crossing of Regency Parkway. In addition to the
78-foot long bridge the project also includes 1,254-feet of 10-foot wide asphalt trail
to connect to the existing trail and the Regency Parkway / Ederlee Drive
intersection. While the design eliminates all stream and wetland impacts there are
impacts to Neuse River Buffers. During the design process all efforts were taken to
avoid jurisdictional waters and minimize all impacts where avoidance was not
possible. Attachments to the PCN include; a) photos of the bridges crossing
location, b) Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (currently under NCDOT review), c)
Natural Systems Report, d) No-Rise Certification, e) SHPO coordination and project
plans.
REGULATORY APPROVALS SOUGHT
DWQ Buffer Authorization: Every effort has been made to minimize buffer impacts
at the stream crossings. However there are impacts to Neuse River Buffers:
• Zone 1 - 361 sf (.008 acre)
• Zone 2 - 1129 sf (.025 acre)
Please contact me (ithomasCastewart-eng com - [phone]) if you have any
question or required further detail.
Sincerely,
STEWART ENGINEERING, INC.
Iona L. Thomas AI6 --
Greenway Design Group Manager
cc: Paul Kuhn, Town of Cary, Parks and Recreation
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS.T" 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH, NC T 919.380.8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380.8752
www.stewart-en9.com
S
S T E WA R T Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650
Subject: EL-4998C Swift Creek Greenway and Pedestrian Bridge, Cary, NC
Request for Buffer Authorization
The Town of Cary is extending their greenway network to include a bridge over
Swift Creek near Regency Parkway. This project will allow trail users to safely cross
the creek and travel to a signalized crossing of Regency Parkway. In addition to the
78-foot long bridge the project also includes 1,254-feet of 10-foot wide asphalt trail
to connect to the existing trail and the Regency Parkway / Ederlee Drive
intersection. While the design eliminates all stream and wetland impacts there are
impacts to Neuse River Buffers. During the design process all efforts were taken to
avoid jurisdictional waters and minimize all impacts where avoidance was not
possible. Attachments to the PCN include; a) photos of the bridges crossing
location, b) Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (currently under NCDOT review), c)
Natural Systems Report, d) No-Rise Certification, e) SHPO coordination and project
plans.
REGULATORY APPROVALS SOUGHT
DWQ Buffer Authorization: Every effort has been made to minimize buffer impacts
at the stream crossings. However there are impacts to Neuse River Buffers:
• Zone 1 - 361 sf (.008 acre)
• Zone 2 - 1129 sf (.025 acre)
Please contact me (ithomas0stewart-eng.com - [phone]) if you have any
question or required further detail.
Sincerely,
STEWART ENGINEERING, INC.
Iona L. Thomas, Al
Greenway Design Group Manager
cc: Paul Kuhn, Town of Cary, Parks and Recreation
JAN n0 2010
DENR - WATaR QUA1.l"IY
Vffi ANDS MIO STORViV ATER BRANCH
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS.T" 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH, NC T 919.380.8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380.8752
e0F W ATFRQG
O Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PC Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
El Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ? No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ? No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ? No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge and Greenway Trail
2b. County: Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Cary
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: EL-4998 C
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Town of Cary
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 0762204660
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Paul Kuhn, RLA, Cary Parks and Recreation
3d. Street address: 316 N. Academy Street
3e. City, state, zip: Cary, NC 27512-8005
3f. Telephone no.: 919-469-4360
3g. Fax no.: 919-469-4344
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Iona L. Thomas, AICP
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Stewart Engineering
5c. Street address: 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, nC 27601
5e. Telephone no.: 919-380-8750
5f. Fax no.: 919-380-8752
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 0762202260, 0762204660
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.72997 Longitude: - 78.79000
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 14.77 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Swift Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-III;NSW
2c. River basin: Neuse River Basin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area consists of maintained roadside bordered by manicured lawn and landscaping north of the existing
greenway and forested areas south of the existing greenway, with a small forested area bordering a stream extending
north of the greenway.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.12 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
399 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The existing trail ends midblock on Regency Parkway with no pedestrian accommodation for crossing the 4-lane road or
the bridge over Swift Creek. The new bridge and trail connection will allow users to safely cross Swift Creek and then
cross Regency Parkway at the signalized intersection with Ederlee Drive.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project includes a 78' long, 12' wide pedestrian bridge over Swift Creek and 1,254' of 10' asphalt trail
which connects
,
to an existing greenway. The project also includes the removal of 182' of existing trail. The contractor selected for this
project will determine the equipment used. However, the bid documents will specify hand clearing where possible
use of
,
construction mats in sensitive areas, small paving machines and generally low impact machines to be used in sensitive
areas.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ®Yes ? No ? Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? ? Preliminary ? Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Environmental Services
Name (if known): Gail Tyner Inc
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ? Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404 width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? ,
other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 0
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
- Permanent
(P) or
Temporary T 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
411 Total open water impacts 0
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID
number 5b.

Proposed use or purpose of 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5L Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
® Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason for Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) impact Stream name mitigation (square feet
)
(square feet)
or Temporary required?
T
B1 ®P ? T Bridge
Approaches Swift Creek ? Yes
® No 361 1129
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts 361 1129
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ? No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) ::?? [Type Quantity
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ? No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ® Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.

Comments: All stormwater from project site will be sheet flow ? Yes No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 2%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project qualifies as Low Density
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Town of Cary
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
apply (check all that apply): ? USMP
? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply [] HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? p Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
f ® Yes ? No
use o
public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ® No
Comments: PCE pending NCDOT signature
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? ? Yes No
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
i ® ? Yes No
mpacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted El Raleigh
. ? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NRTR completed by ESI. Utilized the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?

l Yes ® No
E
F
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NRTR completed by ESI. Utilized the NCDOT Index by County of Waterbodies in which EFH species are found.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
t
t
N
i
? Yes N
s
a
us (e.g.,
at
onal Historic Trust designation or properties significant in o
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Review of the project by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Hydraulic Study found No Rise. See attached letter from Flood
Plain Administrator
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? HEC-RAS Study
Iona L. Thomas /rv
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 1 I of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
www.stewart-eng.com
S
STEWART
TAB A
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS.T" 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH, NC T 919.380.8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380.8752
www.stewart•eng.com
.S
S T E WA R T Exhibit and Photos
.
i? r; 1 x q Sideti alk ?} a Existing Sidewalk Exi tin '
n
} t
Proposed Sidewalk
,w
r '
Prop?sed Siclewatk
lv?
Oft,
ti tua4 Sidewalk j a
Existing
,a?*x• Xi ,.x
1 ? z
NO,
- "? 'fi`r
?1*+ Existing Trail r
S
A4X to be dReinr,ve:i
a k ? ' ..
w ty Qa? Proposed Pedestrian
rc`1 o f Bridge & Trail
ey, +r y aq r d s" N " t At y `ti
.
w
.'k
4 t!
74 it
`
is
S
STEWART
TAB B
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORM
ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
While this form represents the most common level of environmental documentation required for
Enhancement projects, the environmental impacts may be greater than those typically associated with this
level of analysis. Always have a quaked professional determine the scope of environmental impacts and
complete the environmental documentation.
General Information
Project Name: Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge and Greenway Trail
TIP Number (E-X'XX): EL-4998 C
Federal Aid Number: HPP-0503(10)
Project Sponsor: Town of Cary
Project Contact
Name: Paul Kuhn, Cary Parks and Recreation or Iona L. Thomas AICP, Stewart
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: paul.kuhn townofca or
@ rY•9 [e-mail]
Project Description
(Include project scope and location with map)
The projects includes a 78-foot long, 12-foot wide pedestrian bridge over Swift Creek and
1,254-feet of 10-foot wide asphalt trail, which connects to an existing greenway. The project
also includes the removal of 182-feet of existing trail that is being re-aligned.
Purpose And Need
The existing trail ends midblock on Regency Parkway with no pedestrian accommodation for
crossing the 4-lane road or the bridge over Swift Creek. The new bridge and trail connection
will allow users to safely cross Swift Creek and then cross Regency Parkway at the signalized
intersection with Ederlee Drive.
Proposed Improvements
(Provide details attach exhibits as necessary)
The projects includes a 78-foot long, 12-foot wide pedestrian bridge over Swift Creek and
1,254-feet of 10-foot wide asphalt trail, which connects to an existing greenway. The project
also includes the removal of 182-feet of existing trail. (Vicinity Map and plans attached.)
apeciat information
(Include environmental commitments permits)
There are zero stream and wetland impacts. Neuse Buffer impacts are BZ1:.008 AC and
BZ2:.026 AC. -trails are an allowable use within Neuse River Buffers. The proposed bridge
does not cause a rise in water surface elevation and a No-Rise has been certified by the Local
Floodplain Administrator. Local ordinances for stormwater and buffer rules have been met.
Note: This document will be reviewed by the NCDOT and by FHWA
incorrect or incomplete information could delay or disqualifir a project
Rcviscd Format - bfarch 2006
Threshold Criteria
Instructions: Please answer each question. If a correct response falls within an enlaxged bOx then
supporting documentation of the impact must be included.
No. ECOLOGICAL YES NO
1 Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or important natural resource? ?
Does the project involve habitat where federally listed endangered or threatened
2 species may occur? ?
3 Will the project affect anadromous fish? ? ?
If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent and/or temporary
4 wetland taking less than one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable measures to
id
d
?
avo
an
minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
If no wetlands are involved, write "N/A" `z`
5 Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely Impacted by proposed
6 construction activities? ?
Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water Resources and/or
7 High Quality Waters? ? 0
Will the project require fill in waters of the United States in any of the designated
8 mountain trout counties? ? Z(
Does the project involve any known underground storage tanks (UST's) or hazardous ?
materials sites?
PERMITS and COORDINATION

10 If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the Project significantly affect the
coastal zone and/or any "Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
?
??
11 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act Resources?
? ?
12 Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? ?
13 Will the project result in the modification of any existing regulatory floodway?
? ?
14 Will the project require any stream relocations or channel changes? ? ?

Threshold Criteri
a
Instructions: Please answer each question. If a correct response falls within an enlarged box then
supporting documentation of the impact must be included
No. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
15 Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or land use for the area? El 0
16 Will the project require the relocation of any family or business? ? 0
17 Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and

environmental effect on an minority or low-income population? ? z
18 If the project involves the acquisition of Right-of-Way, is the amount of Right-of-Way
ac
uisition
id
d
i © ?
q
cons
ere
m
nor.
19 Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
20 Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land use of adjacent property? ? z?
21 Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? F] Z
22 Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation
Improvement Program (and is therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?

23 Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic volumes? ? 10
24 Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing roads, staged construction
,
or on-site detours?
z
F1
25 If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be replaced at its existing
location (along the existing facility) and will all construction proposed in association with
the bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? El ?
26 Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds
concerning the project? F] W1
27 Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws relating to the
environmental aspects of the project? 0 F1
28 Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties eligible for or listed on the
National Register of Historic Places? R
29 Will the project affect any archaeological remains that are important to history or pre-
history? ?
30 Will the project require the use of Section 4(? resources (public parks
recreation lands
,
,
wildlife and waterfowl Refuges, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section
4(f) of the U. S. DOT Act of 1966)?
?

?
31 Will th
l
e project resu
t in any conversion of assisted public recreation sites or facilities to
non-recreation uses, as defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? ?
21
32 Will
h
t
e project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a river designated as a
component of or proposed For inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers? El 121
Additional Documentation required for unfaMrabk Responses:
• "Checked" ENLARGED boxes indicate UNFAVORABLE responses.
¦ "Checked" smaller boxes indicate favorable responses.
............................................................................................................................................................................
Categorical Exclusion Approval
(Note: Qualified Professional may be required to complete)
Prepared by:
Iona L. Thomas, AICP
Name (print or type)
1/8/2009
Signature
Senior Planner
Title
Stewart Engineering
Company/Agency
018503
Date License Number
.............................................................................................................................
.......................................................................
For Official NCDOT Use Only
Reviewed by:
ovate xeviewer's Signature
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Approved by:
Late Division Administrator's Signature
Federal Highway Administration
..............................................................................................................;
Consultants should submit this completed form to the municipality or organization that engaged their service.
The Municipality or organization should submit to their assigned Transportation Program Consultant.
Please submit completed form within 90 days of the holding of your scoping meeting.
S
STEWART
TAB C
.I
Natural Resources Investigation for the
Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge
Wake County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Stewart Engineering, Inc.
421 Fayetteville Street
Suite 440
Raleigh, NC 27601
Prepared by:

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 South New Hope Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
January 2010
Natural Resources Investigation for the
Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge
Wake County, North Carolina
January 2010
Project Description
The proposed Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge project is located in the Town of Cary, Wake County,
North Carolina. The "Town of Cary proposes to construct a greenway connector and pedestrian bridge
across Swift Creek within the approximately 0.25 mile project study area located adjacent to the east
side of Regency Parkway, north of its intersection with Ederlee Drive (Figure 1).
The project study area is depicted on topographic, soils, and aerial photograph figures (Figures 1, 2,
and 3). The project study area primarily consists of maintained roadside bordered by manicured lawn
and landscaping north of the existing greenway path and forested areas south of the existing greenway
path, with a small forested area bordering a stream extending north of the greenway. Forested areas
south of the existing greenway can be characterized as piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest
bordering Swift Creek, grading into mesic mixed hardwood forest to the south, much of which has
been converted in the past to a pine-dominated stand.
Project Understandinia
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) was tasked by Stewart Engineering, Inc. (SEI), to provide the
following services for the Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge project:
• Jurisdictional wetland, stream, and surface water delineation,
• Non-survey grade GPS data collection,
• Preliminary protected species habitat assessments for federally Endangered and Threatened
species, and
• Report and graphics preparation.
F,SI was asked to delineate all jurisdictional features located within the project study area boundaries.
The project study area boundary was determined using mapping provided by SEI.
Background Research
Prior to the initiation of field efforts, available sources were reviewed, including the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle of Apex, NC (USGS 1993) and Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) soils mapping for Wake County (USDA 1970). Additionally, records
kept by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) concerning any known occurrences of
federally Threatened or Endangered species were reviewed on January 5, 2010 (NCNHP 2010).
Water Resources
The project study area is in subbasin 03-04-02 of the Neuse River Basin and is located in USGS
hydrologic unit 03020201 (USGS 1974, NCDWQ 2010).
A Best Usage Classification (BUC) is assigned to waters of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various bodies of water. The wetland within the project study area is
associated with Swift Creek. Unnamed tributaries to named waterbodies hold the same BUC as the
receiving waters. Swift Creek (SIN # 27-43-1) has a BUC of WS-III; NSW from its source to a point
0.6 mile upstream of Wake County SR 1006. Class WS-III are waters protected as water supplies
which are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds and suitable for all Class C uses. Class
C waters are freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life (including
propagation and survival), and wildlife. Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body
contact with water on an infrequent and incidental basis. The supplemental classification NSW
indicates Nutrient Sensitive Waters, which require limitations on nutrient inputs. None of the
associated streams are listed as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or a High Quality Water
(HQW) (NCDWQ 2010).
Section 404 & 401 Wetlands and Surface Waters
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the
United States". Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has major responsibility for
implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The ACOE regulatory program
is defined in 33 CFR 320-330. Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also
considered "Waters of the United States". Wetlands have been described as:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas."[33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)]
According to the 1987 ACOE Wetland Delineation Manual (DOA 1987), areas must exhibit three
distinct characteristics to be considered jurisdictional wetlands: 1) prevalence of hydrophytic (water
tolerant) plants; 2) presence of hydric soils; and 3) sufficient wetland hydrology indicators within 12
inches of the ground surface. The wetland delineation effort associated with this project occurred on
November 20, 2008. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology data were collected during the field surveys in
order to determine whether the three criteria were satisfied within each potential wetland area. When
present, intermittent and perennial stream channels are also considered Waters of the United States
under Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA. Non-survey grade GPS data collection occurred
concurrently with delineation.
The ACOE "Rapanos" decision allows ACOE and EPA to establish CWA jurisdiction under one of
two standards. The first standard upholds CWA jurisdiction if the water body is "relatively
permanent", and its adjacent wetlands directly abut the water body. The second standard upholds
jurisdiction if a water body, in combination with all wetlands adjacent to that water body, has a
"significant nexus" with traditional navigable waters.
2
• Relatively Permanetrt Waters - A water body is relatively permanent if its flow is year round
or its flow is continuous at least seasonally (e.g., three months). Wetlands adjacent to a
"relatively permanent" tributary are also jurisdictional if those wetlands directly abut such a
tributary.
• Adjacent - Defined by ACOE and EPA as bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands
separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, berms, or dunes and
the like are adjacent.
• Abutting - Wetlands that are not separated from the tributary by an upland feature are
abutting.
• Siguificrrnt Nexus - A water body will be determined to have a "significant nexus" if its
functions affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a downstream traditional
navigable water.
Delineation Results
One (1) jurisdictional wetland area and two (2) stream channels were delineated within the project
study area. The wetland boundary was flagged with sequentially numbered pink-and-black striped and
solid blue flagging and is labeled W l. Stream boundaries were flagged with sequentially numbered
solid orange and solid blue flagged and are labeled S1 (Swift Creek) and S2 (unnamed tributary to
Swift Creek). Non-survey grade GPS based layouts depicting the approximate extent and
approximate location of the wetland and streams were produced. These graphics are not intended to
be a replacement for a traditional survey and are not intended to be used as such.
A General Location Figure is attached as Figure 1. Aerial photography (1" = 400') depicting the
delineated features are attached as Figure 3. ACOE Routine Wetland Determination forms were
completed during the delineation.
Wetland Data
The jurisdictional wetland delineated within the project study area is depicted as Wl on the attached
aerial photograph (Figure 3). W 1 abuts Swift Creek and is classified as a palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS)
wetland pursuant to the Cowardin Classification System (Cowardin et al. 1979). Palustrine wetlands
are defined by Cowardin et al. (1979) as all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent
emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where the
salinity due to occan-derived salts is below 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt). The wetland within the
project study area is dominated by shrubs, thus the PSS designation. Dominant vegetation within the
PSS wetland includes green ash fraxinus Pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), smartweed
(Polygnum spp.), and soft rush (Juncos effuses). Table 1 contains the wetland data collected within
the project study area proposed impact area.
3
Table 1. Wetland Data for the Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge.
Wetland Flagging Cowardin Wetland Approximate Wetland Size within
Project Study Area Riparian
No. (W#) Sequence Classification
Acres ae (Y/N)
w l GA PSS 0.12 Y
'Acreages based on non-survey grade GPS data collected with a Trimble GeoXT and ProXK.
Stream Data
Jurisdictional stream channels within the project study area consist of I perennial stream and I
intermittent stream. These stream channels have been delineated and are depicted on the enclosed
aerial photography. The intermittent channel (Stream S2) is a small, first order stream and flows into
the perennial channel [Stream SI (Swift Creek)]. Table 2 contains the stream data collected within the
project study area.
Table 2. Stream Data for the Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge.
Stream
No.
S# Flagging
Sequence Perennial/
Intermittent Approximate Stream Length' (ft)
Within PSA=
NCDWQ Stream ID
Form Score
S l SGA Perennial 243 38.75
S2A SGB Intermittent 73 20.5
S213 SGB Intermittent 83 20.5
_ Total: 399
Intermittent: 156
Perennial: 243
' Stream lengths within project study area are approximations based on non-survey grade GPS data.
a PSA - Project Study Area
Neuse River Riparian Buffers
The Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules (Buffer Rules) place a restriction on certain development
within 50 feet of stream channels and surface waters that are depicted on the most recent version of the
USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map or on the NRCS soils mapping for Wake County. The riparian
buffer consists of two distinct zones. Zone 1 comprises a 30-foot wide area adjacent to the surface
water that cannot be disturbed except for those specific activities that are allowed by the Neuse River
Riparian Buffer Rules. Zone 2 comprises a 20-foot wide area adjacent to Zone 1 that is to be left
undisturbed except for those specific activities allowed by the Buffer Rules. Grading and re-
vegetating Zone 2 is allowed provided that the condition of Zone I is not compromised.
Two stream chamiels were delineated within the project study area. Both streams are depicted on the
NRCS soils mapping and are subject to the Buffer Rules (Figure 2). S1 (Swift Creek) is also depicted
on the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map (Figure 1).
Town of Cary Urban Transition Buffers
The Town of Cary has additional riparian buffer requirements called Urban Transition Buffers
(UTBs). These UTBs apply to streams within the Neuse and Cape Fear River Basins. Streams (both
intermittent and perennial) mapped on the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map are subject to a 100-foot
4
buffer. Streams depicted only on the NRCS soils mapping for Wake County are subject to a 50-foot
buffer.
In the Neuse River Basin, this 100-foot buffer includes the 50-foot Neuse River Riparian Buffer and
also includes an additional protected Zone 3. Zone 3 extends an additional 50 feet from the outer edge
of the Neuse River Buffer Zone 2.
S1 (Swift Creek) is depicted on both the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map and NRCS soils mapping
for Wake County and is therefore subject to the 100-foot UTB. S2 is not depicted on the USGS 7.5-
minute quadrangle map and is depicted only on the NRCS soil mapping for Wake County and is
therefore subject to a 50-foot UTB. 'fable 3 contains the Riparian Buffer Applicability.
Table 3. Riparian Buffer Applicability for the Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge.
Stream
No. Perennial/ Depicted on Soils and/or USGS Subject to Subject to

(S#) Intermittent Map Neuse Buffer Additional UTB
S1 Perennial Soils and USGS Yes Yes
S2 Intermittent Soils only Yes No
Wetland and Stream Permitting
Dredge and fill activities in "Waters of the United States" must be authorized by ACOE pursuant to
Section 404 of the CWA and also by N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) pursuant to Section
401 of the CWA. Activities authorized by the ACOE are subject to further water quality requirements
per Section 401 of the CWA. In North Carolina, the NCDWQ administers the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification process, which also must include plans on how the applicant proposes to manage
stormwater. Coordination is recommended with ALOE in order to determine the permitting
requirements for this project. Compensatory mitigation can be required by ACOE if the proposed
project is determined to have an adverse effect on Waters of the United States, including wetlands. At
the time of this report, ESI has not contacted ACOE to review the jurisdictional delineation.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Species with the federal classifications of Endangered (E), or Threatened (T), are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Three (3) of the four
(4) species listed in Table 4 carry the federal designation of E or T and are listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) as having ranges that are considered to extend into Wake County based on
the list dated January 31, 2008 (USFWS 2010). The bald eagle was officially delisted and removed
from the federal Endangered Species List on August 9, 2007, but is still protected under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
5
Table 4. Federal Protected Species for the Swift Creek Pedestrian Bride.
Common Name Scientifie Name Federal
Status (TIE)' Habitat
Present (Y/N) Biological
Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA/MBTA N NR`
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E N No Effect
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasinindonta heterdon " E _ N No Effect
Michaux's sutnae Rhus michauxii E Y No Effect
- i nrearenea, r.-rnaangerea, i (wA)- i nreateneci aue to sirruarity of appearance.
b Removed from federal Endangered Species list; remains protected by the BGPA and MBTA.
` NR-Not Required, no biological conclusion required, but project %vill have no effect.
Bald eagle - Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also consume birds and small mammals. In
the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through May (Potter et (il. 1980). Bald eagles
typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near water and forage over large bodies of
water with adjacent trees available for perching (Hamel 1992).
The bald eagle was officially delisted and removed from the federal Endangered Species List on
August 9, 2007, but they are still protected under the BGEPA and the MTBA. The National Bald
Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007) prohibit disturbance to a bald eagle. The Guidelines
define disturb as "to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to
cause, based on the best scientific information available: I) injury to an eagle; 2) a decrease in its
productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior; or 3)
nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior."
The definition also covers impacts that result from human-caused alterations initiated around a
previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagles return, such
alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or interferes with normal
breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior (USFWS 2007).
Under the current Guidelines, USFWS recommends the following measures for roads, trails, canals,
power lines, and other linear utilities. If the eagle nest can be seen from the project site and there is no
similar activity within 660 feet, then USFWS recommends that the project: 1) maintain a buffer of at
least 660 feet between your activities and the nest; 2) maintain any established landscape buffers; and
3) if possible, create additional landscape buffers to screen the new activity from the nest. If these
recommendations cannot be adopted for the project, then coordination is recommended with the local
USFWS office.
Habitat Present: No
The project study area was reviewed on January 6, 2010 by ES1 biologist Kevin Markham.
No large open water habitat is present within the project study area. The section of Swift
Creek within the sturdy area is too shallow to support potential fish prey for bald eagle, and the
streambanks are lined by trees considered too small to provide suitable roosting sites. No bald
eagle nests were observed within the project study area or within trees adjacent to nearby
Regency Lake. A review of NHP records indicates that there are no documented occurrences
6
of bald eagle within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The proposed project will have no
effect on this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Required
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern
pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus tae(la), longleaf (P. pahish-is), slash (P. ellio[ii), and pond
pines (P. echinata). Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older
than 60 years that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees typically occur in
clusters, which are referred to as colonies. Pine flatwoods or pine savannas that are fire maintained
serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this species. Development of a thick understory and
midstory within a given area usually deters nesting and foraging. Potential nest sites for RCW's
include pine and pine/hardwood stands greater than 60 years of age. Hardwood/pine stands (<50%
pine) greater than 60 years of age may also be considered potential nesting habitat if adjacent to
potential foraging habitat (Henry 1989). Foraging habitat is typically comprised of open pine/mixed
hardwood stands over 30 years of age (Henry 1989). Pines must comprise at least 60 percent of the
canopy in order to provide suitable foraging for RCW's. Somewhat younger pine stands may be
utilized if the trees have an average diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than or equal to 9 inches.
Foraging stands must be connected to other foraging areas or nesting areas in order to be deemed a
viable foraging site. Open spaces or unsuitable habitat 200 ft or more in width are considered barriers
to RCW foraging (USFWS 2003).
Habitat Present: No
The project study area was reviewed on January 6, 2010 by ESI biologist Kevin Markham.
The pine stand bordering the southeastern portion of the project study area contains pines
ranging mostly between 12 and 16 inches DBH, with sparse hardwood mistory. However, this
pine stand is too small in areal extent to independently support RCWs and is separated by
more than 200 feet of unsuitable habitat from any other pine stands. The combination of small
stand size and isolation from other potential habitat eliminates this pine stand from
consideration as suitable habitat for RCW. Transects through the pine habitat did not reveal
any evidence of RCW activity. A review of NHP records indicates that the RCW has not been
documented within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The proposed project will have no
effect on this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSTION: No Effect
Dwarf wedgemussel - Habitat for dwarf wedgemussel consists of perennial streams with slow to
moderate current, good water quality with little siltation, and with stable banks and substrate (USFWS
1993a). Within these areas, dwarf wedgemussels are typically found along roomats, around logs, and
under overhangs or other relatively protected microhabitats.
Habitat Present: No
The project study area was reviewed on January 6, 2010 by ESI biologist Kevin Markham.
The streams within the project study area do not provide suitable habitat for dwarf
7
wedgemussel. The unnamed tributary (S2) is too small and does not contain suitable
substrate. Swift Creek (S1) is too disturbed within the project study area to provide suitable
habitat. Swift Creek substrate was characterized by deep deposits of unconsolidated coarse
sands overlain by fine silt deposits. Cobble-sized rip-rap rocks were scattered throughout the
study reach along with several natural boulders. Submerged rocks were coated with organic
growth indicating excessive nutrient input in the stream. Exposed rock surfaces above the
waterline were coated in silt indicating sedimentation occurs during high flow conditions. No
evidence of any mussel fauna (relict shells) was observed along stream banks or scan of
stream bed. The stream banks exhibit evidence of scour and lack root mats at the waterline,
reducing the suitability of the stream banks as suitable substrate. A review of NIP records
indicates that the dwarf wedgemusssel has not been documented within 1.0 mile of the project
study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSTION: No Effect
Michaux's stunac - This shrub tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by
periodic fire or other disturbances and may grow along roadside margins or utility easements (USFWS
1993b). Michaux's sumac appears to prefer sandy or rocky substrates consisting of basic soils.
Habitat Present: Yes
The project study area was reviewed on January 6, 2010 by ESI biologist Kevin Markham.
The majority of the project study area would not be considered potentially suitable habitat for
this species due to the dense canopy cover in the forested areas and thick vegetative growth
along much of ecotone between the maintained roadside and adjacent forest. Potential habitat
consisting of open edge areas is present within limited areas of the project study area. Surveys
were conducted for this species within the potential habitat including utility corridor edges,
trails, and roadsides. No individuals were observed during pedestrian surveys through
potential habitat in the project study area. A review of NIIP records indicates that Michaux's
sumac has not been documented within 1.0 mile of the project study area. No impacts to
Michaux's sumac populations are anticipated as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSTION: No Effect
Sumtnat-y
ESI identified one Section 404 jurisdictional wetland area and two jurisdictional stream channels
within the project study area. Impacts to jurisdictional areas should be avoided and minimized as
much as practicable. ESI has not contacted ACOE or NCDWQ to review the delineation. S1 is
subject to a I00-foot Riparian Buffer and S2 is subject to a 50-foot Riparian Buffer.
The proposed project will have No Effect on any of the protected species listed as having ranges
extending into Wake County, NC.
8
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS/OBS
79/31. U.S. Department of Interior. 131 pp.
[DOA] Department of the Army Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp. + appendices.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta,
Georgia. 13 pp.
[NCDWQ] N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2010. Basinwide Information Management System
(BIMS). Stream Classification. <h2o.enrstate.nc.us/bims>. Accessed January 2010.
[NCNHP] N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Records Review in Raleigh, NC. January5, 2010.
Potter, F.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. "feelings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service. 118 pp + maps.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993a. Dwarf Wedgemussel Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. 52 pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993b. Recovery Plan for Michaux's Sumac (Rhos
Alichnrrxii) Sargent. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 30 pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides bore(lis): second revision. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 23 pp.
9

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and
Federal Species of Concern, by County, in North Carolina: Wake County.
http:/hv%vNv,Avs.gov/ne-es/es/countyfr.htinl. Accessed January 2010.
[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map.
[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 1993. Apex, North Carolina. Topographic 7.5-minute quadrangle
map. United States Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C.
10
???, t11?' \ \?I' ?')i ?s/rrI !J1'{f? ?x?5/R(K•f ?..:.,; -.?? ?"! ( - ` • I :?1?? l u
? 1''!
11.f ?' 1 ,? I 1 \ ,? - ? r a.rl. /??) !,[?? at+1•?, X11 '. J
y't,? f 3 t % l r? HIIQen 11 a] I•} -'. 1 I Ir "tip ..1.•,
cY);A, 1 '•? .- 1r -• l I.td? -+??! Yr , . f ? < ? - ` I) `,1?"s' ? 'iY ??`???'\}?) i,
Wit
.?.1 ! ?% ? ? 1i t?ii .:: 11 ?: , / _ ? ? f ??71/ r? ?, J n?? ? l r• ? _ , ,q,? 1 -,?S
(? \/ :y 1 1 r v S / t?,!'i ) cv -t rs• •.,..` s', I
5utrl??? ??, fit f r Nrr ?°?l)iFl? ?fC ,?fP?, 1 ![ r ` 1 ? 1",t.?'
L.?µ',i.. .?y J ?`}-? ?II, .?? ? ?r I (h,?,f?"?''Y4l>41?.1 1?. ,l ? t r l' i '..? t •?
l \ Y4 / r' 1 tt \L.l I f' . - f,l? / '(? l Jt t .7' _ •r.? ,J
r _
l 1,•'' ?? 41 1 r V '?I 1, <;
? ??•? ?/ , r 1 d t 1 y I f t /? at , )? P ?/r, yLK-+?"?'b-¢ `F i /' ,? it 1 lr ' ?!
r/:'!I L' s )7 J11! l I U/ r /'Ji ( ( [``` L?? >,t.
/ , 'r/ tl\1 t +f 1l. Jr 8f r r r ? v I - r,
\?(r)
ON%
,) d .''% t+ I,? \,'h1 + ? I t FAY/ J? ,?? i( ?d x•11•_ ??rk?'I ? ( ?? ?;? I?? •. \ ?` ?7?-} I? ? . , \\!
•A f'V / % , r[ \\\l1 ?_? [ ,.I ( ? r•?' V' t r? ti tN tS,l 1 ? ? /? 1 t ft t \??? ? ? l??a r ?, 1.`1.
" ttt , S
t r+ ??..?.? s / ? r' 1 Ip .? ??; f,a{ "? 1 ? v 7 ? t, /3•a 1;' ?,. ? , ? ..,.
i `r r(? i / _ I) ti \ r:£.\a.. r , _ • ? f? , , 1 (• `: I ( :e t t t ? / o!'` Il a.
I ?•. ?t yfix? 1 4 f C ", r 4 1 ija C? / e' t? r V. r, t t? •t ? J >?
r ti, i t-. 1t /
1 ??{t•1/ Jllf 2? • /jr.. j ?, .it ?, ,t (( 7 ^?
?
? 1:? 1 I r'?1t- 'It?l )?1?13' .d?"?""'? {1/ .•,?'.?- 4.- ?`,1 ?J;i t ? l?? r1
??j"•. r 1: ! 7 i?• ,. t ?C p f . 4•.(,j<?'?y? ?r;. i') ?y ?y --' 'p.? '!: ?1r1 ? Itr/?
••.- ?•.? ll, i LoCk?iul? ? 1 ?f- ??+i?i ?'_ -?`-:? s ?'1 l\ t a ' B• I a ?t l? t,(1 ,??;
\? , ' 4 AR'3. Ow°°'°?(..a.?`3E ? . r ? ; ?, ? '- / - • f ( f ?......_-,a ... . 466 ? 1 h.?) 1 i ? ?•-
0I 1?
T
1?:? t ?I ?", t f ? (/.'- -?1t1 ? `` ? 'r r •4G>t1 ?r efr ',. ? •h . . r
Project Boundary
'Location and Extent is Approximate. < (r +l t - i?• 1 1 y 't•? % l; r I ,1?. L ?. 3ts? ?? I jC F; e
0 1000 2000 -Cb'[• ,?1_VC,?. ,1??•a;.•? 4 - - - le"
Feet
Sources: Apex Ouadrangla, NC. 1598, Protect % •"t7• i' '?.;` rJ t \
Boundary provided by Stewart Eng-nearing . Inc
The rnlormaBOn depkled on this r9ore is for infonna6,na1
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not auaeDI.
br kaal or enp;neermp purposes. _ Y '= " '. i `? . • ' O •(?
ENVIRONMENTAL Project: ER08160,01
SERVICES, INC. Project Location
Sees ^ar North HQPO Rqad ',& Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge Date: Jan 2010
Ra'e ?2h, Kod Carona 27910
[phone] Drwn/Chkd: JDS/KT
(919212.1707 Pax Wake County, North Carolina
,:;:?envrenrna?!oCSeN.ces"nc ccrn Figure:
F, c P'C ?"G,e Pre,::'s120M160-0 -n+.'Jcaton m•+1 P, oted 01:37'2010 8 Sn a n
r a A O
r` v
0 ?•
_ Af A ,fl apG Cri
4 4 F
a
Ap8
y 't kda
e
a
.
'--M ' Atl
1 .
POSH C
r
ID '
,.
'C,
x
A u
('
A?1 ?a a¦+ e`Y a}?? Yk? * ? ?ijCwf' *q¢u ? p ?1 I'? ? •3 ? ,py?? ? ' , { F
• [ r `' M+ i Grin
.^? r W' r^ In ? ati Y/ ?.. tom.
! 1 "
G, V;
s I GeF
> N
(40 ?.? 7 0183
Meru a ? ?")" .a" + ? m`' ?. ?p^'.• •"` ? ..
t fv kR ??f r? b ° CIC
F•
C:a
--?- Project Boundary{ "
Q NRCS Soil Boundary
Soil Mapping Units,' •a ;
AsB2 - Appling sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded
AsC2 - Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Cm - Chewacla Soils a1
'Location and Extant is Approximate Sources. NRCS Sole Survey of V14ke County, NC, 1970,
Project Boundary provided by Stewart Eng nearing, Inc
0 300 600 The Infom aWn depcled on We fqure is for,nforrnatonal pury)ses oil/
and was not prepared for, and 11 "015" ta6b for regal or any naaring
purposes.
Peet ?Cgb2!
ENVIRONMENTAL NRCS Soils Project: ER08160.01
SERVICES, INC. Date: Jan 2010
511 S, North CaRoad Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge
(9119) 2127760 --_-?---- - - --
R 9) 21 , NM Carona 276'0 Drwn/Chkd: JDS/KT
(019212.1707 Fax Wake County, North Carolina
nx•.venV+oNrMnla+senke s'ccc?m Figure: 2
Fie P'rerGra`Pm,ects'20061160.O1%•q'so's mm Prated 01;0720'01152 iw
S tl
r^. r
rf5` A
VVI
r Y
14
` ,.
41 7.
'Alf
4? _ x
M)a uF?_ a
-qm Mf +w.
u ?
v t?
r
r
u
On w' .^ M ??' A "
f ? i A ,7M3Y?- ? ? _ r
Project Baunciary4w
4- "Af
Jurisdictional Stream*
k?•,
a: x a su aa,? ?
Intermittent Stream Channel
ytl
Jurisdictional Wetland' g
Streams S1 and S2 sub'ec1to a 50.41 buffer on each s,r+=
per Neuse River Butler Rule.
Stream S1 subject loan add tional 50-ft Town of Cary UT FS " k
Location and extent is approximate
a
0 90 100 rtl 711 P W
Feel f tEt
Sources True Color Image provided by NAIP, 2000; Pro,e
Boundary provided by Stewart Eng nearing, Inca
The information depicted on th s %ure is for Infonns[onal purposes c nr X " ''` `+? •?" ` '-
end was not peparod for and is not sulatre for legal or enp'neerir. ,.10r
purposes
el,
- t a id YSiwbei'd'I?rodiaS meu I B riuaOA alA MMIC19iffiY5B>Y?.
ENVIRONMENTAL f1foJect: ER08160.01
SERVICES, INC. Approximate Jurisdictional Areas
Date: Jan 2010
Raleigh 62x NNotrth Csro Caro t o nia a 27610 Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge
, Ko
[phone] Drwn/Chkd: JDS/KT
(919212.1707Fax Wake County, North Carolina
•.? :'I enVlPominrd Salle, be M. Figure: 3
r?e P 1,soGra'Pro;eds'2006d GG 0n•p•;cris mid Pnn•ec 01,072010 1 -01 om
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION GA
NOV C.P. Wetlanrte nelineatinn Manuall
Project/Site: Swift Creek Pedestrian Bride Date: 11/19/2008
Applicant/Owner: Stewart Engineering County: Wake
Investigator: Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI), GT State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? M?' Yes No Community ID: scrub/shrub
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ?Yes ? No Transect ID: wetland
Is the area a potential problem area (If needed, explain)? Data Point GA1
? Yes (] No

VA(1RTAT(C1N
DOMINANT STRATUM INDICATOR DOMINANT STRATUM INDICATOR
PLANT SPECIES PLANT SPECIES
1. green ash shrub FACW 7. #N/A #N/A
Fraxiuus eiuus lvauica #N/A
2. smartweed herb OBL 8. #N/A #N/A
Pol y onuun S PP. 9AM
3. soft rush herb FACW+ 9. #N/A #N/A
Juucus e asus #N/A
4. Black willow shrub OBL 10. #N/A #N/A
Salix ui ra #N/A
5. #N/A #N/A 11. #N/A #N/A
#N/A #N/A
6. #N/A #N/A 12. #N/A #N/A
#N/A 011A
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 100%
Remarks The hydrophytic vegetation criterion has been met.
HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (DESCRIBE IN REMARKS); WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ? Inundated
? Aerial Photographs Q Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Other ? Water Marks
El Drift Lines
Q NO RECORDED DATA AVAILABLE ? Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
FIELD OBSERVATIONS Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: 0 ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12" FAC-Neutral Test
U Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12"
Remarks: The hydrologic criterion has been met.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION GA
(1987 CE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Swift Creek Pedestrian Bride Date: 11/19/2008
Applicant/Owtter: Stewart Engineering County: Wake
Investigator: Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI), GT State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ?Yes Q No Transect ID: upland
Is the area a potential problem area Of needed, explain)? Data Point #: GAI
? Yes Fv] No

VEGETATION
DOMINANT STRATUM INDICATOR DOMINANT STRATUM INDICATOR
PLANT SPECIES PLANT SPECIES
1. Sweetgum tree FAC+ 7. #N/A #N/A
Li uidambar s raci :ra #N/A
2. Red maple tree FAC 8. #N/A #N/A
Acer rubrion #N/A
3. winged elm tree FACU+ 9. #N/A #N/A
Uhnus rubra #N/A
4. green ash tree FACW 10. #N/A #N/A
Fravinus enns lvanica #N/A
5. honeysuckle vine FAC- 11. #N/A #N/A
Lonicera 'a onica #N/A
6. Chinese privet shrub FAC 1 12. #N/A #N/A
Li ush•um sinense #A?/A
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 67%
Remarks The hydrophytic vegetation criterion has been met,
HYDROLOGY
? RECORDED DATA (DESCRIBE IN REMARKS): WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge ? Inundated
? Aerial Photographs ( Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Other ? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
[] NO RECORDED DATA AVAILABLE ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
FIELD OBSERVATIONS Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: 0 ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18" ? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >18"
Remarks: The hydrologic criterion has not been met.
a
,JOrtn caroiina division or water utum it - weam rcentmcauon rorm; version o.
Date: 11/19/2008 Project: Swift Creek Ped. Bridge Latitude:
lEvalualor: ES) (Gail Tyner) Site: Longitude:
are at least fnlermltlent if 38.75
xrennfal ff >=30.
Wake Other:
A. Geomor hold subtotal = 19.5
V. Continuous bed and bank 00 01 02 03
2. Sinuosity 00 0 1 02 03
3. In-channel structure: riffle pool sequence 00 01 (D 2 03
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 00 01 02 03
5. Active/relic floodplain 00 01 02 (D 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 00 C)1 02 03
7. Braided channel d 0 01 02 03
8. Recent alluvial deposits 00 (D 1 02 03
9'. Natural levees 00 01 02 03
10. hieadcuts G) 0 01 02 03
11. Grade controls t`) 0 00.5 01 01.5
12, Natural valley and drains ewa 00 00.5 01 01,5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
ma or other documented evidence.
U No = 0
(D Yes = 3
-r<anmaua u.rcr>as Wu In M&-Val
S. Hvdroloov subtotal = 9.5
14. Groundwater flow/dlschar a 00 01 02 03
5. Water in channel an >48 rs since rain, _qr Water In c anne
- d or growing season
00
01
02
C•3 3
16. Leaflitter 01.5 0 1 00.5 00
17. Sediment on lank 00 00.5 01 01.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles wrack lines) 1 00 0 0.5 01 (D 1.5
19. H dric soils redoxomor hic features) resent? 0 No = 0 a Yes = 1.5
C. Bloloov subtotal = 9.75
20'. Fibrous roots in channel G 3 02 01 00
21*, Rooted plants in channel {D 3 02 01 00
22. Crayfish 00 00,5 01 01.5
23. Bivalves 00 01 Q 2 03
24. Fish Q 0 00.5 01 01.5
25. Amphibians 00 00.15 01 01.5
28. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 00 0 0.5 01 01.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 00 00.5 01 01.5
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us tD 0 00.5 0
1 01.5
29'. Welland plants in streambed Q FAC CD .
.
-
FACW O OBL 0 SAV Q Other
?..?r.> <.. <, r.,w, v„ u,o Na>or w up,arv p:arxs, Run "no m on uw proxraw or aWacc or wevanc pants
Votes: Swift Creek is mapped on both the USGS Wake County Soil Survey
and USGS topographic Quadrangle.

'r .orth Carolina utviston of Water tluallt - Stream loenlntcation rorm; version s..1
Date: 11/19/2008 Project: Swift Creek Ped. Bridge Latitude:
Evaluator: ESI (Gail Tyner) Site: Longitude:
Total points:
Streams are at least lntermillent It Coun !y Wake Other:
7?? S
.>-Igor perennial if >-30.
A r':smm?rnL?n(ntiu e1`rMM.f c 14 1`i '? dti a`ni - FliSr M?a 9r1<jM f ^P M M%
1 *. Continuous bed and bank 00 01 02 Q 3
2. Sinuosity G 0 01 02 03
3. In-channel structure: riffle pool sequence 00 O 1 02 03
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 00 (7 1 02 03
5. Active/relic flood lain 00 U 1 02 03
6. Depositional bars or benches 00 (D 1 02 03
7. Braided channel (D 0 01 02 03
8. Recent alluvial deposits U 0 01 02 03
9*. Natural levees 00 M 1 02 03
10, Headcuts 00 01 02 03
11. Grade controls 00 00.5 01 01.5
12. Natural valley and drains ewa 00 (D 0.5 01 01.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS
map or other documented evidence.
No = Q
(! Yes = 3
'Marrmeoo mimes are M 1`8190; 394 01sw5510na 0 menuar
R. Hvrirnlnnv suhfntal = .5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 00 (D 1 02 03
15, Water In channel an >48 rs since rain, or Water In channel
. d or growing season
00
0 1
02
03
16. Leaflitter 01.6 01 00.6 00
17. Sediment on plants 00 (D 0.5 01 01.6
18.Organic debris lines or piles wrack lines) 00 O 0.5 01 01.5
19. H dric soils redoxomor hic features resent? O No = 0 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloov subtotal = 4
20*. Fibrous roots In channel 03 02 01 00
21*. Rooted plants in channel 03 (D 2 01 00
22. Crayfish 0 0 00.5 01 01.6
23. Bivalves _ U 0 01 02 03
24. Fish 00 00.6 01 01.5
25. Amphibians 00 00.6 01 01.6
26. Macrobenthos pots diversity and abundance 00 00.5 01 01.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton (D 0 00.6 (1 01.6
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriatfungus 00 00.5 01 01.6
29*. Wetland plants In streambed O FAC 0 FACW O OBL Q SAV Q Other
hems 4vz1 rows a1` uw preserxa or Warm prams, item ze lotuses on ure preserxe of aquatic or weuano prams
dotes: This tributary to Swift Creek Is mapped on the USGS Wake County Soil Survey
S
STEWART
TAB D
1871
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
December 18, 2009
Mr. Paul Kuhn
Parks and Recreation Department
Town of Cary
316 N. Academy St.
PO Box 8005
Cary, NC 27513
Mr. Kuhn:
After reviewing the plans for the Swift Creek Greenway and Pedestrian Bridge (dated November
9, 2009 on sheet 9 of 20), I have determined that this project does not impact the FEMA regulated
floodway and therefore does not need a no-rise certification. The bridge abutments do not
intersect the floodplain and the low cord is located greater than 1.0 feet above the FEMA
floodplain elevation, therefore, the bridge spans the FEMA floodplain and no floodplain permits
are needed.
If you have any questions regarding floodplain issues on this project, please give me a call at
[phone] or email me at [e-mail].
Thank you
? c. v o?
Dan Clinton, PE, CFM
Town of Cary Floodplain Manager
TOWN Ot CARY
316 North Academy Street • Cary, NC 27513 • PO Box 8005 • Cary, NC 27512-8005
te1919-469-4030 9 fax [phone] www.townofcary.org
www.stowart-en9.com
S
STEWART
TAB E
?NRR ?Y
QIWA
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 5, 2010
Iona Thomas
Stewart
,421 Fayetteville Street
Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27601
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Swift Creek Pedestrian Bridge and Greenway, Cary, Wake County, ER 09-3004
Dear Ms. Thomas:
Thank you for your letter of December 17, 2009, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
..?.01-a a & L.?
eter Sandbeck
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599