19970964 Ver 1_Complete File_19970117

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment l? `2
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
RECEIPT
May 19, 1998
Mr. Steve Davenport
Senior Vice President
AAC Real Estate Services, Inc.
333 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27601
A LT.K;qA1
r41
D E N R
MY 2 21998 1
Dear Steve,
The Wetlands Restoration Program have received checks for the total amount of
$25,250.00, check numbers 010360 and 010462, as payment for the compensatory
mitigation requirements of the 401 Water Quality Certification issued for DWQ Project
#970964. This receipt serves as notification that the compensatory mitigation
requirements for this project have been satisfied. Please note that you must also comply
with all other conditions of this certification and any other state, federal or local
government permits or authorization associated with this activity.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact Ron Ferrell at
919-733-7015 ext. 358.
Sincerely,
U4 Z
Ronald E. Ferrell
Program Manager
cc: John Domey
File
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
LT?A
? • 612
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
February 19, 1998
Wake County
DWQProject # 970964
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Frank Vick; NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place
fill material in 0.54 acres of wetlands and 202 feet of perennial streams for the purpose of constructing
the Brier Creek Parkway in Wake County, as you described in your application dated October 28, 1997.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3103. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 14 when it
is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to
send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre,
compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 211.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
1. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds (T 15A:04B .0024) and High Quality Storm Erosion Control Measures.
2. Design Features and commitments listed the in February 3, 1998 letter from Parsons
Brinckerhoff to DWQ shall be implemented in the design, construction, and long-term
maintenance of the Brier Creek Parkway.
We understand that you have chosen to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program in order to
compensate for these impacts to streams. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R..0500, this contribution
will satisfy our compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H .0506(b). According to
15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), 202 feet of stream restoration will be required. Until the Wetland Restoration
Program reccieves and clears your check (made payable to: DENR - Wetland Restoration Program),
wetland or stream fill shall not occur. Mr. Ron Ferrell should be contacted at 919-733-5083 ext. 358 if
you have any questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program. You have one month from the
date of this Certification to make the payment. For accounting purposes, this Certification authorizes
the fill of 202 feet of streams, in the Neuse River and subbasin and 202 feet of stream restoration are
required.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Division of Water Quality - Non-DischargeBranch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
P,Siner
n Howar , Jr. P.E.
970964.1tr
NORTH CAROLINA - DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, NC DOT, DWQ Project # 970964 is authorized to
impact the surface waters of the State of North Carolina as indicated below for the purpose(s) of
constructing the Brier Creek Parkway. All activities associated with these authorized impacts must be
conducted in accordance with the conditions listed in the attached certification transmittal letter. THIS
CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLAND RESTORATION
LOCATION: Brier Creek Parkway
COUNTY: Wake
RIVER/SUBBASIN: Neuse
As required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506, and the conditions of this certification, you are required to
compensate for the above impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of
wetlands and surface waters as outlined below prior to conducting any activities that impact or degrade the
waters of the state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Programs
must be rounded to one-quarter acre increments according to 15A 2R .0503(b).
acres of Class WL wetlands
acres of riparian wetlands
acres of non-riparian wetlands
acres of Class SWL wetlands
202 linear feet of stream channel
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is
through the payment of a fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2R .0503. If you choose
this option, please sign this form and mail it to the Wetlands Restoration Fund at the address listed below.
An invoice for the appropriate amount will be sent to you upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE
ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR
PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED BY THE WETLANDS RESTROATION PROGRAM.
Signature Date
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PO BOX 29535
RALEIGH NC 27626-0535
919-733-5083 ext. 358
WATER QUALITY PLANNING Fax:[phone]
:iC?ADMIN-C.ODE `
t3??; aC?1C!IB 0024, DE8K3N STANnARDS. IN:SENSITIV
i• - ..
15A NCAC :4a..0
:.TITLE. 15.
:,0024 DESIGN
!(a) •Uncov
maxis?um ..total
portion.'ot the
this:Rule. e
with'the;writt
:•iSb) ::'?Ero81?
;within HQW •;zori
protection -frc
peai,rate of i
:..Department. of
• •... Pield. Manual. f
any" other. ages
recognized orq
such: that, the:
the 40 aiicron
:runoit of that
aw `.calculated
Agr> culhire, S0:
ConBervation.-P?
of ' 'hit3 st'ate..c
'at, On.
(cl<) Newly
cbn-9t:ru6te.d • wi
a vegetative.c'
steeper s1'ope'.•
structural;dev
:.for side;;slopee
to• . rest.r'azin. ?.erq
activity`;i'n a..
comppl-etiori:: of
*20319' ,.
`xlitory• Note::
:1990;.. .
"Tditor." s.' note is
`Development;
:..• Hei1.Eh, and Nat
• Was ? pur8?tant •to?
Jun 5 '97 8:56 P.01i01
Post-It" brOd (ax transmittal memo 7611 { # of pages
'?e

cv ?
NORTIi; :CAROLINA ADMINISTRAT CODE
5DEPARZ1='; :OF . ENVIRONMM, HEALTH, •,AND= NATURAL RESOURCES
• '" 'CHAPTER , 9 . •. SEDIIMEIVTATIQIJ C0 OL
SUBCRAPTER •4R. RPOSION AND SEDTbG:i1T CONTROL
iTANDARDS'IN SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS
r-?
rent, areas 7n:HQW zones shall be limitied at any time to a
irea ?witfiin, the: boundaries of the trams of 20 acres. Only the
,:and=disturbing-".activity within a HQF zone shall be governed. by
+gei:Ae eaq'.may be uncovered within the boundaries of the tract
!i`'approv8l of the Director.
-,and? sedimentation. control measures, structures, and devices
e:;oh!a1:be so planned, designed dnd Fonstructed to provide
tha:;runot€ cf the 25 year storm 'which produces the maximum
nof! `as . cglcuatec3 .accardiz?g to procedures in the United States
g'ri:c-biturnl Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering
r.•Conaervation.Practices" or according to procedures adopted by
'ot thii aft to or the United States jor any generally
tizhtida* or association.
i
t-basins kithin HQW zones shall be designed and constructed
sijn' wi'71• hake a settling efficiency ; of At least 70 percent for
i.09iam) size:'soilparticle transported into the basin by the
:wo=year storm which produces the! maximuti peak rate of runoff
4ozdi'nq to.:;.pro6e4ures in the united Statea Department of
;:CrJnserdtition Services "National+' Engineering Field Manual for
01t ices= or according to procedures adopted by any other agency
ah United-States or any generally!recognized organization or
conotUcted:.open channels in HQw zones, shall be designed and
tiff, side, ,slopes; no steeper than twoj horizontal to one vertical if
I.ver`is; used for stabilization unlessisoil, conditions permit a
on where .th`e••.slope's are stabilized by ?u'sing mechanical devices,
idea; or• otfier;acceptable ditch liners.; In any event, the angle
.•MaiT`be: p4riclent to restrain accelerated erosion.
t. to :G.S.' .:123A-57(3) provisions 4or 4k ground cover sufficient
ilonjmust.be provided for any portiori.of a land-disturbing
Q4P..:z6ne 15 working days or 1 60 icalendar trays following
oniikudtioh or. development, whichevgrj period is shorter.
Latu't bxy ,Authority G.S. 113P.-54-(b); 1113A-54 c) (1
,i ( ) . Etc. May 1,
"-Tit1e'„15;;,Department of Natural Resources and Community
hsl,,!been recodified as Title 15A, Department of Environment,
2lResouzges..effective November'l, 11989: The recodification
G'.9,? T43B=279.1.

Eopyri06t- (c) :l7i as Pubtiahin0 Co: 1996 No claim 10 original U.S. Govt. works.

- --700
YFAPS 'i
February 3, 1998
Ms. Cyndi Bell
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Ralviyii, North Carolina 27607
RE: Brier Creek Parkway (R-3619) Design Characteristics
Dear Cyndi:
Parsons
Br/nckerhoff
FEB - 6 Iaaq

991 Aviation Parkway
Suite 500
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-467-7272
Fax: [phone]
Pursuant to our phone conversation of January 29, 1 am writing this letter to describe in more detail the
design aspects of the Brier Creek Parkway project that will contribute to the minimization of water quality
impacts. This information is intended to assist you in the preparation of water quality certification for the
project. I understand that you cannot prepare the certification prior to February 16, the State
Clearinghouse closing date, but I am providing this information in advance to facilitate your review of this
project.
The attached Figure 1 indicates the location of several features of the project that will mitigate water
quality impacts. Figure 2 shows typical sections of the vegetated swales that will be built. The specific
features are as follows:
1. A 32-foot pipe under the existing alignment of Globe Road will be removed from a section of the road
that will be abandoned. Removal of this pipe will restore floodplain function in the area. See the top
of page 7 and section 4.4.3 on page 14 in the SENFONSI for further discussion of the benefits of
removing this pipe, which has altered floodplain function in the area.
2. A 120-foot vegetated swale will be built to connect the flow from pipes under the roadbed to the
headwaters of Brier Creek.
3. A 125-foot, cwveu, vegetated swaie will be built to connect two segn-ie its of the roadway drainage
system. (See Figure 3, Site 3)
4. On the south side of the project, the culvert carrying a perennial stream (a tributary to Little Brier
Creek) under the roadway joins the existing streambed in a tangent to an existing curve in the
streambed. The runoff outlet at this location enters a section of streambed that will be abandoned
because of the culvert. The runoff will travel 120 feet in the abandoned stream bed before it reaches
the main flow of the stream at the end of the culvert. This will reduce the water quality impacts of the
runoff at this point. (See Figure 3, Site 4)
5. A 60-foot curved, vegetated swale will be built to connect two segments of the roadway drainage
system.
The swales described above will be planted with grass. The developer has agreed to sod mat or cocoa
mat these swales to enhance their stability if you so recommend. Also, as I told you previously, the 40-
foot median in the project will be heavily vegetated, largely with trees and shrubs. There will be extensive
tree plantings on the outer edges of the project, some of which may assist with stabilizing the banks of
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
-.-_100
YEARS
February 3, 1998
Ms. Cyndi Bell
Page 2
the ditches and swales in the project, but I cannot provide precise details on this at present because
streetscape plans are under development.
I hope this information is helpful in your consideration of this project for 401 water quality certification.
Please contact me if I may be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.
vI furcA CCU1 C Lv?
Lorna Parkins, AICP,
Project Planner
e-mail: parkins®pbworld.corn
Enclosure
c: Steve Davenport
Byron Brady
(file name)
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
T
LU w
0 D
M
M
1.? ,n
V
CL LL
G
W
W
O
CL
O
GC
CL
N
W O O
a m E
U E Y
N
R v •
t # w .r? ± sY Jr s.. Bd U
off,
,• ? ?r4 w@ ? \ °:. ? :, tom. ; ' ? w ?,? .y,.
: ,? r OY^J
i W *;s w r ; • ?+wwir xi?.?4rir(Ari '?•« • • :,n,• ?. ....
s
A i9Y 0, ? yr°!,,,..•y .< iY ??YiF dt? r r ? ? • • ?""""""'^'•.. •,
E
cv c
a rn
cd
(D
T?
U E
co
a) o ai
m?
m
aa)
o _
_
o 0 c
CL
IL` 3 a.

z ?
W
cm
W
J
a
c C
TYPICAL
LATERAL 'V' DITCH
(Not to Scale )
NATURAL
GROUND
?y 2\ 8%
0
FILL SLOPE
MIN. D = I FT.
TYPICAL
2 FT. BASE DITCH
( Not to Scale )
NATURAL NATURAL
GROUND GROUND
con
-? 2 FT.
MIN. D = I F T.
FIGURE 2
c.
SITE 3
im New Channel
SITE 4
z
O
O
O
tov,
s
r
i - (P
7
k
! p
'? O
••?. •? ` PUXSTRIANO;CUIVERT

.75 Q

•
` \ • '

.
' PROP. GR.
t5• CSP C9 'ry Co
40 CAT-1

r ' r? n? ° W

sr o N

u _? f
- CB x -?
J W
W

C
STA. 58.54.00 /
iS•50 Mt.)
W
Z
J
S
U
F-
Q
_?
Existing Streambed
Culvert/Ditch
Stormwater Pipe
FIGURE 3
f ?
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION PCN 970964
TO: National Marine Fisheries Service _.. _,._..,_..__.._ Pivers Island, NC FAX [phone]
!r,&'
US Fish & Wildlife Service ?r,
Asheville, NC FAX [phone]
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office b-
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Division of Water Quality ..?
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Creedmoor, NC FAX [phone] to
q\
1. ACTION ID: 199700179/19982015321??' I9y,
2. APPLICANT: NCDOT/Brier Creek Parkway ??
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: 11/3/97
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE(5 days from transmittal): 11/7/97
5. COMMENT DEADLINE(10 days from response deadline):11/18/97
6. SEND COMMENTS TO: RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH, NC.
ATTN: Eric Alsmeyer
FAX [phone]
We are also forwarding the attached PCN to the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for review and
comment concerning any likely affect to any threatened or
endangered species or their critical habitat within those
agencies' jurisdiction.
AZICEIVED
LITTLE & LITTLE OCT 2 8 1997
11"IT R O 7R'ANS,11/'17: II.

So S ??S o? ?J?SC ?. _
WE AR1.' S Nl)ING 1011-?Attachetl - I fader s(/)(1rcne corer, Vin
- Shop drawings - Prints - Plans - Samples - Specifications
- Copy of letter - Change order
C01111iS I)A7%: 5111" 7' 1)11S(,R11Y11UN
/ b -27- 9 7 f'.4?- ctyv ria? .von X64 77 Lam!
0oli
7%IE.SL AR/i ?RAN.SRII"17IiD as checked below:

For approval - Approved as submitted
- For your use - Approved as noted
- As requested - Returned for corrections
For review and comment
-
- FOR BIDS DUE 19
REMARKS
_ Resubmit copies for approval
- Submit copies for distribution
- Return corrected prints
PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COPY 77)
enclosures are not as noted, kind!, notch) ns at once
SIGNED:
LAND.SCA11 ARC1I17'hCT1IRIi /PLANNING PO. BOX 1448 RALI:IG11, NOR7'11 CAROLINA 27602 919/821-5645
q q `Z b b( -7 ? "'?Ce1 VP D
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: ry
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT k): ( r4 0 ++ _
y
) I nch
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PEPUMITC THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH TUE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: North Carolina Department of Transportation
2. MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC
ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE) : N/A
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK) :
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFr1CIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: J. Mack Little, Little & Little Landscape Architecture/Planning
PO Box 1448
Raleigh NC 27602
*-[phone]
S. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A FiAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE) :
COUNTY: _Wake NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Raleigh
See Location Map
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.) : Take 1540 South from US 70 - Take Aviation Parkway
Exit north to Globe Road - West end of project begins at this intersection
and goes generally eastward *? itc7n ar nrr Rr,,,1 a..ar[j
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/FIVER: Brier Creek
RIVER BASIN: Neuse River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES ( ] NO (X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES ( ] NO [X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE Lr.ND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
Be. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES (X] NO ( ) IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): Globe Center Fill Permit #3
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IA' THE
FUTURE? YES (X] NO ( ] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
This project is a regional road which traverses a t 1800 acre property which
will develop over the next 15-20 years. Road crossings, fills, stormwater
basins, commercial development, and residential development are anticipated
and will most likely impact jurisdictional wetlands and/or waters.
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: ± 25 Acres
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
Ii
,! 0.58
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING:
FLOODING:
0.54 EXCAVATION:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: o'er
10b. (1) STREAI.1 CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION) :
?• i? ?c.(?AG.f? Z li-v7 )? s -??'A-,-, // /v.3 S?/?", `?l+
LENGTH BEFORE: 1176.8 FT AFTER: - 0 - FT
YT -6 131;Pl- C'ee? ',3 -,1, '°7 /SQ'
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): Varia le - See FT
Delineation Map
WIDTH AFTER:
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER:
(2) STREA4 CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: ?LitiCEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: X CONSTRUCTIYON Or A DAM/ FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? NA
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFA-E AREA? NA
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Work includes construction of ± 12,000 linear feet of public roads.
Equipment to be used will be but not be limited to, Front end lnndprq,
Pans, Motor graders, track & rubber tired back hoes, Tractors, Drilling rigs,
Paving equipment, Dump trucks, Tank trucks, and curbing machines.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED CORK: Construction of Brier Creek Parkway
3
14. STATE REASONS I4HY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS AC'T'IVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): Roadwav alignment h J- t-a rn minimize crossing.
Crossings have been made as perpendicular to the channels/wetlands as possible
Crossings have been made where adjacent wetlands are minimal and/or do not
15. YOU"ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR. -NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR t?
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABIT,-.-
IN THE. PERMIT AREA THAT -'MAY`BE-.AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE
CONTACTED: (ATTACH RESPONSES
FROM, THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARz:,_7ZQUTRED-TO -CONTACT THE STATE h!STORIC _PRESERVAT•ION-DFFICEP,
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY P_DD.RES.SES..SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF H35^ORIC?Y
PROPERTIES IN'"THE PERMIT AREA ,RICH I-MY HE AFFECTED BY T}iE ' PROPOSED
'PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED:-
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LA.'ID?
YES N NO () (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATI-': OF P.N ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES D. NO ( J
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF AD;:IN! _..f:TION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES I] NO 1; Will be submitted at a later date
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRON!-:ENTAL XA11AGEMSNT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY Tl
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, i:Cc.T
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH: EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1
I14CH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE :.LL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH P_ COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAIT IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
RDU Airport & Undeveloped
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL:
City of Raleigh Public System
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN = TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
//,? 4V?ZA
??IER"'S/AGENT'S-SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (189.))
101,111,17
DATE
5

ITEM 22 oo

1. CHANNELS
Site Linear Feet Impacted
I-A 136.31.f.
I-B 1701.f.
I-C S 142.6 If
I-D 1126.8 Lf.
I-E 2
I-F 20
I-G P 130.71.f.
II. WETLANDS
SB of Brier Creek /Ddb Ve/ a -l o I
Tributary SB to Brier Creek
Unconnected water channel on ridge
Unnamed SB to UT to Little Brier Creek
Unnamed SB to UT to Little Brier Creek
SB of UT to Little Brier Creek
SB of Little Brier Creek
Site Acres Impacted
II-A 0.113 acres
*II-B 0.039 acres
II-C 0.205 acres
II-D 0.204 acres
II-E 0.021 acres
Location
Unconnected wetland on side of ridge
Wetland adjacent to UT to Little Brier Creek
Wetland adjacent to Little Brier Creek
Wetland in storm water channel
Unconnected wetland on side of ridge
* Not Impacted
?CWdtlj 4 Sated C

,-t fl , [dln"4

7-? c)
?e
Location
0
• n
tD
gg ?
t . ?S ar
?? gy9l 'tt5?•,"l
W (7 ,? 1 _ ? 75
p 7d rr: L- ..'. o
Z
LL- 0
U. _ +L JlNA it
O i \ t. +:11 . L -! t,• tl\ ! ' l,-,\rr\\\?Vl/ Gf ~? ,yams
ISO ??? ?•__\_?}?? l_•: ? ?•?. %??`t `1 %-, ice„ • . j?':_?.. ?`
'? `?t?t:,••, ..1l7 ; ?•`•' - - ? j - = : ?' ; may.
?. ?/' .iN tiillt?ll I?t?L= '? ? f ' ``\'? • It\•• ?'/?'f .(' -7 7
I • ? ? it l\; n •\ :. ? l .? r ` r , :. /I .i?1 . Ii li / ' '.7/ - fl' l
+c,,.1 •®Y<• `?30' ?-? • ? ?r,p ' .;.I`Jyitl•
' fig 1 ! 1 s l? Ott \i. iij r\ .!,; ;ti _•st ' :"/_. !;•., a. /r'? 'r• '? ?? 1 \'•.'•..
I1 ?Il 1 / _ / 1y-
.?? ;! J, t Vii`^?`ILJIF.'?//`:;l t ?7 ??`•. .?1 -r !? !J/ Y/_ -.`.• .? `t4w.l.
Nit,
/•--' .! ,.._, \\?/ 4, ?/ r, it\..`j /. , l ? / -' ! ? ?"? ? ?!? \??`, i
/i!?^! JJ / ll/ - m / I t/ t- O 1\ ?l/ry ?. 1 \
l L/' t/ ? IL \Z'• _ f /. !1 ?.• 1 ? ? y //??- !rte '????t ? ?/ ' `J\i / ? ? 1
// {(ice ? F ?)ll`t Il ! /1? 1 '. "•-`^`''r /1/1"°!(li ?t ??''- -
ROAD' Uo `t t irt\ it r
???\ \ _.- --.?. ll 1, `.l\ ?! _'l?__?Q-J. 1 't -
- 7-f
j1?? }t_ I. ! \tC..+tt` t. ??'? r !?t??-?',4'????•Qn~/ tl `? ??;? 1 , ..
?!? x ?1L'+ ?I ?'i i \ ''? `1'? l`\ ? rJ^ }+lM1,t f I t- - ?; f r ;\ t`? r •
; ............................. -------.--•----•------.--.---..--------•- ...........------....
nom.30xoa _xz

t

D p- C M X Z
zox z??•
m
mad Crr
-' m z
N m
i ?
/ r r• Pt
l `
i
11 . , ? Y?l J
r -
m
C
m
z
0
rf IT1
L ?`•, D -n
. ? mop
j"
.gym
Jill
I&W
,r? j?.. T I J r

J? \ x m
w
o
,.r' to to
? < ul
m

1 o,
' I
V N Co
/a N

w

' J
`•` 1
i i
\ ` I I
I
1\
.
N
O
V1,
j;8
AI
p 1, I
I
i
`
x„ I
I
'
A ro ,\
?
I
0

4L1-

16
?* 0?* -Im(-) mm-0
D o m M X o D X;o
cnz-Imr?zcn?,o
m-ID oK.
• ? ?zr?cm??
D?Omp ?:**
7 z
N M T
.,Q Cn ?. ? ' ' ? I O I i
i• (?i '-?'?? "Nib o N t"W,
_ N
14 c5
i
oil

o?,aaaa
'o aka oa
gtQ„°aN O
I? 1
J
I --
J
f
v
m 00
?J
o Fn ?
M Z m
m m
z
O D mmm
N m
D D D
z W
D 0) 0
I
1 `,\ \ ? ?\ ? '`\` ? 1111 I \\ \
I tlt? ,/ ?•? . ?
? ? J
O
c"i
\ ? N N ` N N / ? i'? ?I
? O
i
i
Cl-j
,R
1 a. /
1 /_. !
Q N 4(f M N Sf b Sn ??
Ln
- - /? ..
tnN 1111. 01? / I I 00
RQ,
j W I a I
0 In In
o
z W
u z W l ? , j.
W _I J p // \ I / ?i / I,1
-' F-.. Q w " ?? X88 II
z?0O zp o ^ ^r,^^ %' II
_IZ
II
ON 0ZN WF-
X Q O X W J
d W WUW F-? i It
,
/ 11 r I I
1
I
\
W I
11 I
I
1\
II
III ; ,
II '
II ,•
II
I\ ,
II
11
? \ 1
w
I
I ? ? I
t
?w
?w
I,
/
U /
/
,I!
w?
1
i
1
1

N
O
?NIQ ?
z .,
0
VA 0
\ `
11
'111
??I « 11
11J'
? cT V y
1 \
t
t
t
t
w y??000?
l0 lh u.ln

vom - xax?
cnz-imNZo CnNo
? cn r ryl -1 m? u
m-1a O3•
a
\\ n °zr
i cn m z
m
O
I
I
1 d I
1
l i p i
i
1 I
???? a •' ? y
????•..' 11101 y
I$
I_ «
r
m
0
m
z

`i
/I

V L" •/ ?'
FTI
L
i
C7
r_
o tt ' ?` W
w

? N
n1 ? tai
1O w
y

Alu 10
/
/
/
OF
?
/
/
11? 111 \ \

f

i
? .t
i

'63-

,i,/!= s
i a -
l`I w
?m vrnjp?
w

'I
N
a
i ,

/ 111 V
A N lit _J
In w g
a
paa N a
a I? J
--?-?
%
v,ul30 1
1 di O QV,O`i
*-1mnmm-v
mxxovx?
-f m --ZONoo
DmW OK. :
ZEXCMMX
ozoxz"?,
M> i ce r
r r
m z R
m e
c
4 I I
Q I I
Q I I
f I I

I
70
!1t
i I .
o i / 1 I
O
Ln
N
U
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Franklin Vick
NC DOT
Planning and Environmental Branch
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
FILE COPY
Re: 401 Water Quality Certification
Brier Creek Parkway
Wake County
DWQ #970964
On October 27, 1997 you wrote to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requesting a
401 Water Quality Certification for your project to fill wetlands for construction of the Brier
Creek Parkway at RTP in Wake County. We believe that this project is currently under
review by the State Clearinghouse. DWQ cannot issue the 401 Certification until the
project has received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision
(ROD) from the State Clearinghouse in accordance with NCAC 15A: 01C.0402.
Therefore, I must hereby place this project on indefinite hold until the State Clearinghouse
has issued the FONSI or ROD. However we will continue to review the project and make
you aware of any concerns. We recommend that you notify us that the NEPA/SEPA
process is complete so we can reactivate the project. In add non, by copy of this letter, I
am also notifying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that this project should be placed on
hold.
If you believe that this decision is in error, please call me at 919-733-1786 to discuss
the matter.
incerely,
S
2 jN
J hn R. Dorney
Water Quality Ce ifi tion Program
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Office
Central Files
Raleigh Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers
Mack Little; Little and Little
[D FE F=1
December 2, 1997
970964.nocert
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 • Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
'State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Ar4je
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary C) E H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 17, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Through: .Iohn Dornd?
From: Cyndi Bell
Subject: Draft State Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact. for Brier Creek Parkway
Wake County
State project No. 6.804813, T.I.P. No. R-3619; EHNR #98-0329
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. Tile Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of (.he Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of, the state including
wetlands. The project. will involve wetland and/or stream crossings at eleven
loca(ions. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document review:
A) The primary purpose of this project is to serve traffic to he generated
by a proposed development by the Eastern Air Lines pilots retirement
plan, and secondly for traffic movements coming from Westgate Road.
A public need has not been sufficiently explained in the EA. In the EA.
DOT states that six location alternatives were considered, but all except
the preferred were dropped due to traffic and engineering objectives.
Since a scoping meeting was never held for this project, and the new
roadway is primarily to serve private interests, DOT should have
included complete inl'ormation regarding all alternatives in the
document.. The review agencies were not given an opportunity to
review any of these alternatives before they were dropped. Since we
cannot make in informed decision whether or not DOT's preferred
alignment. avoids and minimizes impacts to streams and wetlands, we are
not prepared to endorse the preferred alternative. DOT should include a
full discussion of alternatives in the Final EA.
B) As (his proposed project corridor is located in file Neuse River Basin, it
is crucial that DOT demonstrate avoidance and minimization of wetland
and stream impacts. Section 15A NC:AC 02B .0200(1) of T I SA: 0213 .0233,
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy: Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Areas states:
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer so% recycled/10% post consumer paper

Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
November 17, 1997
Page 2 of 3
Roads, bridges, stormwatcr management. facilities, ponds, and utilities
may be allowed where no practical alternative exists. These structures
shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to have minimal
disturbance, to provide maximum nutrient removal and erosion
protection, to have the least adverse effects on aquatic life and habitat,
and to protect water quality to the maximum extent practical through
the use of best management practices.
The EA does not provide enough information to support. DOT's claim that
the chosen alignment. has no pratical alternatives which would better
avoid streams and wetlands.
C) As this project is located within the Neuse River Basin, we recommend
implementation of High Quality Storm Erosion Control Measures and
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 04B .0024) for the
entire project corridor. Also, Hazardous Spill Catch Basins should be
placed at all perennial stream crossings.
D) The preferred corridor would cross eleven wetlands and streams. The
cumulative wetland impact area is indet.crminatc since sonic of (lie
wetland crossings are listed in linear feet. DOT should provide an
acreage impact area for each wetland so that permit. and wetland
mitigation requirements can be determined. 11' wetland impacts exceed
one acre, mitigation will be required in accordance with DWQ Wetland
Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506(h)(2)j. DOT should be aware that in-kind
mitigation will be required for wetland impacts. Hence, the 404/401
Permit application should include a specific breakdown list and map of
wetlands by cit.her riparian or non-riparian type. The mitigation site
should be planned and developed with respect to this impact assessment.
DOT has suggested that a mitigation opportunity exists where a portion
of Globe Road near headwaters to Brier Creek would be removed. This
mitigation proposal should be thoroughly discussed in the Final FA. I)OT
is also reminded that mitigation of' rivcrinc impacts with in-kind
restoration will he a priority, particularly if rivcrinc impacts are
permitted. 11" DOT cannot demonstrate that mitigation of rivcrinc
wetlands is possible, then DWQ will require bridging of' rivcrinc
wetlands to avoid impacts. DOT should also note that, in accordance with
our rules, the Welland Restoration Program will be available to use for
wetland mitigation for (his project.
E) DOT has included a list of stream crossings within the EA; however, we
cannot. determine which dreams are perennial. This information
should be included in the FONSI, based upon field det.crminations of
perennial versus intermittent streams. UOT is reminded that culverts
and/or channel changes exceeding 150 Iccl linear distance of perennial
stream impacts at any crossing will require mitigation in accordance
with current. I)WQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506(b)(6)1. The Welland
Restoration Program will be available to use for stream mitigation for
this project.

Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
November 17, 1997
Page 3 of 3
F) We encourage NCDOT to investigate whether or not temporary fill will
be required to build haul roads and place culverts. We suggest that. DOT
include this information with the permit application. DOT is advised
that full restoration (including removal of fill material and
planting/monitoring of vegetation) of temporary fill areas exceeding
one acre will be required in accordance with Condition #4 of General
Certification 3114 (Nationwide Permit 33) All temporary fill material
must be removed from construction access areas. On May 27, 1997, DWQ
submitted a draft restoration policy for temporary impact areas to DOT.
We anticipate sending this policy to Public Notice before the end of
November 1977 and finalizing it prior to construction of this
project.
G) In our December 2, 1996 scoping comments for this project, DWQ
expressed our concern over secondary impacts to be incurred by new
roadway. Given the stated purpose and need and developer
involvement with this project, this project would obviously facilitate
secondary impacts by creating access to parcels of land adjacent to
streams and we(lands. This is especially problematic due to Lhc location
of this project within the Neuse River Basin. NCDOT should address (his
issue in the Final FA.
1-1) NCDOT should stipulate that borrow ma(crial will be taken from upland
sources in the construction contract awarded for this project.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, an Individual Water
Quality Certification may
authorization will require
concurrence from DWQ.
upon evidence of avoida?
file extent practical, and
necessary.
be required for this project.. Final permit.
formal application by NCDOT and written
Please be aware that this approval will be contingent
?ce and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to
provision of wetland and stream mitigation where
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide conuncnls on the FA. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certil'ication requires
satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure (hat water quality standards
are met. and no welland or s(ream uses are lost. Qucs(ions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Fnvironmcntal Sciences Branch.
cc: Fric Alsmeycr, COIF, Raleigh
Howard Hall, FWS
David Cox, WRC
R3619EA.DOC
N,4,

S -fc,- 4 -e-

,firm(-f
C te-&?-t?kjc-ls Q,

C, 13
I1GV L.1 V L.-L.0
AW
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
Date: J ol (o ,1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQW)
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
John Dorney (Corps, 401)
;&Cyndi Bell (DOI)
O Eric Galamb
O Eric Fleck
DEC ._' 1997
ENVIRONMEN1ALSUIENCES
DENR # gg f Digs
DWQ# 11f31S
Reg./ Prg Mgmt Coordination Branch
O Ed Buchen (Archdale 9th)
O Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston -Salem
Plannine Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Steve Zoufaly (reclassifications)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
O Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
O Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th) O
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch
PROJECT: A(im
Wei Co
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the environment,
especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please check the appropriate
box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by the date indicated.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
inlsAcircinento - mac version

Brier Creek Parkway
Wake County
State Project No. 6.804813
'TIP No. R-3619
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
' For further information contact;
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
' North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
' Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
2
Dat?
1
Z
Franklin i k, PE
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Brier Creek Parkway
Wake County
State Project No. 6.804813
TIP No. R-3619
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared By:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
in association with:
Environmental Services, Inc.
Little & Little
4??' 4?')
William D. Gilmore, PE
Principal-in-Charge
1JWa POLA
Lorna Parkins, AICP
Environmental Study Manager
111141~,
CAR01
ss?? ti9
'- 6809
Q
IEL
for the:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
' ames A. Bissett, PE, Unit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
' Byro Brady, PE
Project Manager
SUMMARY
1. TYPE OF ACTION
I This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact.
2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following person can be contacted for additional information concerning this action:
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
3. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers are anticipated to be required under the
provisions of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Permits under Section 404 are anticipated to consist of Nationwide Permits No. 14 and No.
26. The project also will require 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality.
4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
The project area is in western Wake County, between US 70 and 1-40 and west of the
Raleigh-Durham International Airport. The project area consists primarily of undeveloped
' woodland at present, but much of the area recently was approved for a mixed-use
development, including residential, commercial, office, and golf course uses.
The project area contains Little Brier Creek and a tributary of Little Brier Creek.
S. PROPOSED PROJECT
Brier Creek Parkway would extend from US 70 on the east to the realigned Aviation
Parkway on the west. It would serve traffic generated by the planned mixed-use
development in the airport area, as well as east-west through movements. The length of
the project is approximately 2 miles. Approximately 2000 feet of Globe Road would be
realigned. The proposed project is designated R-3619 and is included in the 1998-2004
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program for construction in Fiscal Year 1998.
6. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
The proposed project is necessary to serve anticipated traffic and help fulfill the goals of
the Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
Adverse impacts from the proposed project include minor wetland encroachment, loss of
vegetation and wildlife, and habitat fragmentation. As a part of relocating a portion of
Globe Road, the abandonment of 2,000 feet of the existing Globe Road alignment and
restoration to natural contours where the alignment crosses the headwaters of Brier Creek
would improve floodplain function and water quality in the project area. One residence is
directly adjacent to the proposed Parkway and would suffer noise impacts.
7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The typical section being considered for the proposed Brier Creek Parkway is a four-lane
road with curb and gutter and a 40-foot median. This typical section was preferred over an
alternative 16-foot median because it allows for future widening of the roadway with little
disruption to future development and natural resources. A 40-foot median also offers
improved operational characteristics, particularly for turning movements.
Five other location alternatives were considered, but rejected because they did not meet
the purpose and need of the project or violated engineering objectives.
The no-build alternative and postponement of the project were not considered viable
options because the proposed roadway is essential to serve traffic generated by airport
area development, which already has been approved for implementation by the City of
Raleigh.
8. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
An analysis of the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project has
concluded that no significant adverse effects will result to the human or natural
environment from the construction of the proposed Brier Creek Parkway.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. On the section of existing Globe Road that will be abandoned, the crossing of the
headwaters of Brier Creek (just south of the utility lines) will be returned to original
contours and the existing pipe will be removed. This will restore floodplain functions
and reduce sedimentation in Brier Creek.
2. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used during construction to control
erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater runoff.
3. NCDOT will coordinate with NC Geodetic Survey on any impacts to geodetic survey
markers.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
1.3 BENEFITS TO THE REGION AND COMMUNITY
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 GENERAL
2.2 INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND ACCESS CONTROL
2.3 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
2.4 BIKEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS
2.5 PERMITS REQUIRED
' 3. ALTERNATIVES
3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
3.2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
' 3.3 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
3.4 POSTPONEMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3.5 OTHER PARKWAY LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
3.6 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
4. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.1 SOCIAL IMPACTS
4. 1.1 Consistency with Land Use Plan
4.1.2 Neighborhood Impacts
4.1.3 Relocations
4.1.4 Public Facilities and Services
4.1.5 Environmental Justice
4.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
4.4 NATURAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Geology
4.4.2 Soils
4.4.3 Water Quality
4.4.4 Vegetation and Wildlife
4.4.5 Rare/Unique Natural Areas
4.4.6 Protected Species
4.4.7 Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas
4.4.8 Flood Hazard Evaluation
4.5 FARMLANDS
4.6 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
4.6.1 Noise Measurements
4.6.2 STAMINA Modeling
4.6.3 Noise Sensitive Receptors
4.6.4 Project Impact
4.6.5 Project Noise Abatement
4.6.6 Construction Noise
Iff
1
1
1
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
15
19
19
21
24
24
24
24
26
26
26
27
27
v
4.7 AIR QUALITY 28
4.7.1 Analysis Results 28
4.7.2 Compliance with Clean Air Act 28
4.7.3 Construction 30
4.8 POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTES/UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES 30
4.9 VISUAL 30
4.10 CONSTRUCTION 30
4.11 SECONDARY IMPACTS 31
4.11.1 Natural Resource Impacts 31
4.11.2 Community Impacts 32
4.11.3 Summary 32
4.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 33
4.13 PERMITS REQUIRED 33
S. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
33
6. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 34
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service 6
Table 2 Project Area Population Characteristics 12
Table 3 Plant Communities 17
Table 4 Wetland Impact Areas 22
Table 5 Noise Measurement Results 26
Table 6 2010 Noise Levels at Receptors 27
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location Map 2
Figure 2 Proposed Project 3
Figure 3 Thoroughfare Plan in Project Area 4
Figure 4 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes 5
Figure 5 Typical Section 8
Figure 6 Alternative Alignments Considered 10
Figure 7 Plant Communities 16
Figure 8 Wetlands 23
Figure 9 Noise Impact Assessment Sites 25
Figure 10 Worst Case Scenario 29
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Scoping Letters A-1
Appendix B List of References and Technical Report B-1
vi
1 1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1.1 BACKGROUND
Brier Creek Parkway is proposed as the major access road between US 70 and 1-40 and west of
the Raleigh-Durham International Airport. The project area is shown in Figure 1.
' As shown in Figure 2, the proposed Brier Creek Parkway would extend from US 70 on the east
and connect to the realigned Aviation Parkway on the west. The purpose of the project is to
serve traffic generated by planned development in the airport area, as well as east-west through
I movements coming from Westgate Road east of the project area. The current thoroughfare plan
(adopted in December 1996) in the project area is shown in Figure 3. Brier Creek Parkway is
included in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as R-3619 and
' construction is scheduled for fiscal year 1998.
1.2 FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
To determine the traffic need for this project, the Raleigh Urban Area traffic model was utilized in
cooperation with the City of Raleigh and NCDOT. The model was updated to account for
' changes in the roadway network and a more refined subdivision of land use zones. Using this
information, design year 2010 traffic projections were developed for both the Build and No-Build
scenarios. Table 1 and Figure 4 show existing, no-build, and build traffic projections for the
proposed Brier Creek Parkway as well as other local roads.
The forecast 2010 daily traffic for Brier Creek Parkway ranges from 12,000 vpd near US 70 to
34,200 vpd near Aviation Parkway. The level of service similarly ranges from LOS B on Brier
Creek Parkway between US 70 and the Lumley Road intersection to LOS D for sections west to
Aviation Parkway.
' A comparison of the No-Build and Build scenarios demonstrates that the proposed Brier Creek
Parkway would have a significant positive impact on several local roads of regional importance.
Most significantly, the proposed roadway would divert approximately 15,000 vpd from 1-540
(Northern Wake Expressway) improving peak hour operations from LOS E to LOS D. In addition,
the roadway would result in less significant reductions in traffic on US 70 and T.W. Alexander
Road.
In addition to the roadway links, an evaluation of future intersection capacity was conducted at
three intersections. The analysis indicated:
1. Brier Creek Parkway at Aviation Parkway -- This intersection will provide an acceptable level
' of service until local development has been significantly completed. At that time, the
capacity constraint results from the high volumes of traffic on the planned Aviation Parkway
extension and will be resolved as part of Aviation Parkway design development.
' 2. Brier Creek Parkway at Lumley Road -- This intersection would operate at LOS C in 2010 with
the provision of dual left turn lanes on northbound Lumley Road,
' 3. Brier Creek Parkway at US 70 -- This intersection would operate near capacity in 2010
assuming US 70 is widened to an eight-lane arterial. The existing Thoroughfare Plan
includes widening US 70 to either a ten-lane arterial or a six-lane freeway. An interchange
with Brier Creek Parkway would be built as part of improving US 70 to a freeway.
Z .-
CD W

a
Cd
O
J

L
H
V
W
mma
O

a

N
W w

O D
U
CL

C
W
N
O
CL
O
cc
d
N
Ul p 11 LE O I
v E
a)
CC
M
CL _rn
Y ?
(D
U -o
a) o
.C m
co
o 0
C
L
CL
C
Z
W
C9
W
J
11
v VU o
• m '
L
° cz 0..-
rn a
w a
# !? `a a v N1?N Mdd N01
x r - '
uj IRS
'` ?? bbd 1? • ? ? ?? a _ 6a
' LEI
IV

CC W
a oc w
u_ Q CE

CD ? (D
W U.

= o
a
=
?- z

CL

v
0
r
-= Y
Iit u
? • u
tl w
Z • Q
w
cc
o
N n O^ w
9 c
? \ V
,y O Y
O O ?
C
1 N w
co
88JI 8
?IN N `? Y
? M y
1 1 ` Y •.
CV
IMA(+?M ?
N OOQ M N '
.7 1 1 IO ` '
N Y ?-
Z 8
Cl I Cc , I O1 p0
% f'p 6
"1 1 I
Y C Y
.r p 1 1 ? ??G
88 Y
•
%b co C.)
1
`` 8 8 88
c! L
Y '
C
w 'IT
Cn W
Q ? W

O

v
D
Z 6L
U-
a
C
z F-

X
W
i
? Q
7 Q
Q O 7
Q Z m
co O o
T T
Q) O O
T N N
II
O O O
p O O O
Z
W
cm
W
J
Table 1
Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service
Link Description
Brier Creek Pkwy E of Aviation Pkwy
Brier Creek Pkwy E of Globe Rd
Brier Creek Pkwy W of Lumley Rd
Brier Creek Pkwy E of Lumley Rd
Brier Creek Pkwy W of US 70
Lumley Rd N of N. Wake Expressway
Globe Road S of Brier Creek Parkway
Aviation Pkwy N of N. Wake Expressway
Aviation Pkwy N of Brier Creek Pkwy
North Wake Expressway from Aviation
Parkway to Lumley Rd
North Wake Expressway from Lumley Rd
To US 70
US 70 Between TW Alex and ACC Blvd/
Brier Creek Pkwy
US 70 Between N. Wake Expressway
and ACC Blvd/Brier Creek Pkwy
Existing
ADT (1995)
LOS 2010 No Build
- - 33,700 D
1,400 A 10,300 C
- - 53,500 D
- 48,800 E
- 99,700 E
- - 100,500 E
34,300 D 55,300 C
29,000 C 72,800 D
2010 Build
ADT LOS
33,400
34,200
23,000
12,000
16,400
25,300
14,900
63,700
48,300
D
D
C
B
C
C
C
D
E
82,100
87,400
55,900
70,100
D
D
C
D
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
LOS = Level of Service
- Road does not exist today
1.3 BENEFITS TO THE REGION AND COMMUNITY
The airport area is expected to have moderate-to-high density, mixed-use development in order
to fulfill the need for a regional center in the area. Traffic attracted to this area will be served by
the proposed Brier Creek Parkway. With the roadway, this development will be able to serve as
a new regional center because of its location and size. For example, the planned development
is:
• adjacent to Research Triangle Park, which has no commercial or residential
development;
• adjacent to Raleigh-Durham International Airport;
• accessible to key, major thoroughfares including US 70 and the new Northern Wake
Expressway (1-540); and
• in a growing section of Wake County that currently lacks a commercial center.
Preliminary regional plans for rapid transit show a rail stop within the site. The Raleigh
Comprehensive Plan (July 2, 1996), 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (June,
6
1997), and Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan (December 6, 1996) all reflect the City
of Raleigh's desire that the site develop as a regional center.
The existing Globe Road alignment crosses the headwaters of Brier Creek just south of a utility
corridor. The pipe and fill material in this location have altered floodplain function, causing
excess flooding and ponding on the upstream end of the pipe and reduced flooding
downstream. The realignment of Globe Road would enable the removal of this pipe and
associated fill material and the original contours of the area will be restored when this section of v1 v
Globe Road is removed. This will restore the floodplain to a more natural state and improve
water quality in Brier Creek through reduced sedimentation.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 GENERAL
Brier Creek Parkway is a proposed two-mile, multi-lane, urban thoroughfare between the
intersection of US 70 and ACC Boulevard and a relocated Aviation Parkway. It would be
approximately 2,000 feet north of and parallel to the Northern Wake Expressway. Signalized
intersections are planned at relocated Aviation Parkway, Globe Road, Lumley Road, and US 70.
The road will be four lanes with curb and gutter and a 40-foot median. The typical section is
shown in Figure 5. The right-of-way will be a maximum of 120 feet in width with grading
easements as needed. The proposed design speed is 50 mph. The posted speed will be 45
mph.
2.2 INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND ACCESS CONTROL
All intersections will be at-grade, with traffic signals at Aviation Parkway, Lumley Road, Globe
Road, and US 70. The intersection with US 70 will have dual left-turn lanes and a dedicated
right-turn lane on Brier Creek Parkway. Dual left-turn lanes westbound and a dedicated right-
turn lane and continuation of third through-lane east-bound will be added to US 70 at the Brier
Creek Parkway intersection. They will be within existing right-of-way. Between intersections,
access to Brier Creek Parkway will be limited to every 1,000 feet. Approximately 2,000 feet of
Globe Road will be realigned to separate Brier Creek Parkway's intersections with Aviation
Parkway and Globe Road.
2.3 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
The project design calls for a reinforced concrete box culvert at Little Brier Creek and a
reinforced concrete box culvert at a tributary of Little Brier Creek.
2.4 BIKEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS
There are no special accommodations required for bicycles on this project. No sidewalks are
proposed.
2.5 PERMITS REQUIRED
Nationwide Permits 14 and 26 from the USACOE will be required for several small wetland
crossings. Depending on interpretation of new rules adopted in January 1997 by the USACOE,
Z LO
O
w
H ir
V ?
W

W 0
LL
..J
a

a

' individual permits may be required for the project's streambed crossings. The project also will
require 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
3. ALTERNATIVES
3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build alternative would avoid the negative impacts to natural resources, such as stream
crossings, wetland impacts, and habitat fragmentation associated with the proposed road. If the
' No-Build alternative is chosen, the benefits of the proposed roadway would not be realized. The
traffic ramifications of the No-Build alternative include LOS E on parallel segments of 1-540, which
would have LOS D if the proposed project were built.
' 3.2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
' Traffic management strategies or widening existing roads might relieve some congestion in the
area; however, this alternative would not meet the aspect of the project's purpose and need
related to the traffic needs of a planned regional center.
3.3 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
While airport area development is included in long-term regional transit plans as a potential area
' for a transit link, transit alone would not provide sufficient access for development of the area.
The transit line would serve only 7 percent of the trips in the project area (Triangle Transit
Authority, 1995).
1
3.4 POSTPONEMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
' The proposed Brier Creek Parkway would serve traffic generated by airport area development,
which has been approved by the City of Raleigh. Postponement of the road, therefore, would
delay but not alter development plans.
' 3.5 OTHER PARKWAY LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
' Five other alignment alternatives, shown in Figure 6, were considered prior to the selection of the
alignment shown in Figure 2. They all were rejected because they did not meet traffic needs or
engineering requirements. Specifically:
' Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 did not cross Lumley Road in tangent.
• Alternative 4 passed through a stormwater retention area, which was to be left
' undisturbed, per an agreement between the City and the developer.
• Compared to alternative 5, the preferred alternative has greater intersection spacing
' between Aviation Parkway and Globe Road, and the preferred alternative follows more
closely the alignment of the approved site plan.

I- W
z = w
W W
0 ?
0
C'3 Z LL
J O
a C)
W

a
z

W
J
a

U)
N
O O
d
v 'E Y
u
i
'v

aN

C
O
U
Cl)
»- c
a)

E c
c ?
m
Q
Q
N

U) cri
° E
a ?
o
a Q

c ?
z =
LLI

W
J
' 3.6 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES -
' An alternative typical section with a 16-foot median also was considered for the project. The
typical section with a 40-foot median was selected for the following reasons.
• Minimizes future disturbance to natural resources and developments by accommodating
' any future widening to six lanes in the median.
• Stream disturbance associated with installing culverts at Little Brier Creek and a tributary
' of Little Brier Creek need only occur once with a 40-foot median. With a narrow median,
any widening would occur on the outside of the travel lanes, necessitating an extension
of the culverts.
' Grading and wetlands fills also will occur only once if a 40-foot median is used.
4. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.1 SOCIAL IMPACTS
4.1.1 Consistency with Land Use Plan
The limited amount of existing development in the project area is primarily residential. The
majority of the project area is undeveloped but plans are to develop it as a mixed-used
development, in accordance with Wake County growth policy. The City of Raleigh's
Comprehensive Plan revisions adopted July 2, 1996 reflect the proposed site development plans
Brier Creek Parkway is consistent with those development plans.
4.1.2 Neighborhood Impacts
' Traffic volumes would increase adjacent to scattered homes along Globe Road and a home
where the Parkway would cross Lumley Road.
' 4.1.3 Relocations
No residential or business relocations are expected to occur.
' 4.1.4 Public Facilities and Services
' There are no schools, churches, fire stations, or police stations in the immediate vicinity of the
project area.
' 4.1.5 Environmental Justice
The proposed road would not specifically benefit, harm, or disproportionately impact any social
' group. Table 2 describes the characteristics of households in the Cedar Fork Township (the
project area) and compares them to Wake County as a whole.
Table 2
Project Area Population Characteristics
Percent of
Median Families
Percent Percent Age Family Below
Area 1 otal Minority 65 and Over Income Poverty Line
Wake County 423,380 23.3% 7.3% $44,302 5.5%
Cedar Fork Township 2,944 16.5% 8.4% $43,043 5.0%
Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing
The data indicate that minority residents, elderly residents, and households with incomes below
the poverty line are not represented disproportionately in the project area. The township's
median family income is $43,043 and the percent of families with incomes below the poverty line
is 5.0 percent compared to $44,302 and 5.5 percent, respectively, for Wake County. Cedar
Fork Township has a minority population comprising 16.5 percent of total population, compared
to 23.3 percent for Wake County. The percent of persons 65 years of age and older in Cedar
Fork Township is 8.4 percent compared to 7.3 percent for the County as a whole. Given that
there are no relocations associated with the project, and minority, elderly and low income
residents are not concentrated in the project area, these groups would not be expected to
receive disproportionate impacts from the proposed road.
4.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project would have both short-term and long-term economic
impacts. In the short-term, the local economy would be affected by the employment of
contractors and workers during the construction period, resulting in additional income
generation. Also in the short-term, property tax revenues would be reduced because of the
removal of some parcels of land from property tax rolls for project right-of-way.
In the long-term, the proposed project would provide increased access through previously
undeveloped land. This access is necessary for the planned development of the area that has
been approved by the City of Raleigh. This development will create numerous permanent jobs.
It also would have a substantial positive impact on the local tax base through the generation of
property, sales, and income taxes. After development, the real property values will increase.
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
In a letter dated December 4, 1996, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer stated that he
was aware of no properties of historical, architectural, or archaeological importance within the
project area (see Appendix A). It was recommended, therefore, that no historic resource surveys
be conducted.
12
' 4.4 NATURAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Geology
Geologically, the project area is in the Durham Triassic Sub-basin. A Triassic Basin is a rift basin,
' filled with exposed sedimentary and igneous rocks, believed to have formed along a fault zone as a
result of continental drift. This particular basin is oriented in a northeast-southwest direction. The
project corridor is near the eastern boundary of the basin, which is bounded by the Jonesboro fault
system. The Triassic sedimentary rocks are part of the Chatham Group, and consist of
' conglomerate, arkosic sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and mudstone (Olsen et al., 1991, SCS
1970).
4.4.2 Soils
¦ Characteristics
The project corridor extends through the Creedmore-White Store soil association, which is
' characterized by firm, clayey subsoils derived from sandstone, shale, and mudstone on gently
sloping to hilly landscapes (SCS, 1970). Soils that may occur in the project corridor include the
non-hydric series Creedmore, Mantachie, Mayodan, and Chewacla. There are no listed hydric
' series mapped within the project corridor (SCS, 1991); however, small inclusions of the hydric
series Wehadkee may be found along drainage ways in the Chewacla soil series (SCS, 1991).
' The Creedmore series (Aquic Hapludults) is a moderately well drained soil that occurs on gentle to
moderately steep slopes. This series forms from weathered sandstone, mudstone, and shale of the
Triassic age. Permeability of the subsoil is low, which often leads to perched water tables during
the wet seasons. The shrink-swell potential of this series is high, especially in the clayey subsoils.
' The Mantachie series (Aeric Fluventic Haplaquepts) is a deep, somewhat poorly drained soil in
depressions and draws of Piedmont uplands. This series occurs on nearly level or gently sloping
' uplands formed in coarse loamy deposits of local alluvium. The shrink-swell potential is low and the
seasonal high water table is about 2.0 feet below the soil surface. This soil is frequently flooded for
brief periods because of precipitation and runoff.
The Mayodan series (Typic Hapludults) is a well-drained soil that occurs over rock. This series
occurs on shallow, rounded divides. Mayodan soils form from weathered sandstone, mudstone,
and shale of the Triassic age. Permeability and shrink-swell potential are moderate and the water
table remains below the solum.
The Chewacla series (Aquic Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts) is a nearly level, somewhat poorly
drained, very deep loam, with hydric inclusions. This series forms in recent alluvial deposits
washed largely from soils formed in residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other
metamorphic and igneous rocks. Permeability is moderate and flood frequency ranges from rarely
to frequently. Shrink-swell potential is low. Unweathered bedrock is found at depths greater than
6.6 feet below the soil surface. The seasonal high water table is between 0.5 foot and 1.6 feet
below the soil surface in undrained conditions. This soil is mapped along the bottoms of Little Brier
Creek and the unnamed tributaries.
The Wehadkee series (Typic Fluvaquents) is a poorly drained, fine sandy loam. This very deep
hydric soil is found on floodplains and forms in loamy alluvial deposits. Permeability is moderate to
moderately rapid, and some areas flood frequently in winter. Shrink-swell potential is low.
Unweathered bedrock is found at depths greater than 6.6 feet below the soil surface. The seasonal
high water table typically occurs within 1.0 foot of the soils surface in undrained conditions. Within
the project corridor, this series is present only as inclusions within the Chewacla soil series.
13
Impacts
Impacts on soils are expected to be restricted to localized changes in micro-relief. The gently
rolling to moderately steep topography of the project corridor represents minor to moderate
potential for disturbances such as mass soil movement or flooding as a result of roadway
construction. To avoid these impacts, the road is designed to cross steams in a perpendicular
fashion and avoid the sides of hills. During construction, an erosion control plan and best
management practices will be followed.
4.4.3 Water Quality
Characteristics
The project corridor intersects Little Brier Creek, an unnamed tributary to Little Brier Creek, and the
headwaters of Brier Creek. These streams are within the upper Neuse River Basin (USGS
Hydrologic Unit #03020201).
Both Brier Creek (DEM Index No. 27-33-4) and Little Brier Creek (DEM Index No. 27-33-4-1) have a
best usage classification of C NSW. This classification indicates suitability for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes activities involving human body contact with water in an infrequent or incidental
basis (DEM, 1993). The NSW designation indicates the system is classified as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters, and requires limitations on nutrient inputs. Primary sources of long-term water quality
degradation in the project area are roadways, maintained utility line rights-of-way, and erosion
resulting from periodic timber harvesting.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring stations through sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM,
1989). BMAN stations currently do not exist on Little Brier Creek or Brier Creek, the nearest BMAN
location is approximately 6 miles downstream of the project corridor crossings on Crabtree Creek.
Water quality at the Crabtree Creek site has an overall rating of Fair.
The streams proposed for crossing have been designated with the supplemental classification NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) because they are currently subjected to excessive growth of aquatic
vegetation, most likely as a result of an overabundance of nutrient inputs. The State will not allow
increases in nutrient levels (primarily phosphorous and nitrogen) over background levels in waters
so designated. The State Division of Water Quality will assist in developing nutrient management
strategies for streams with this designation.
One possible source of excessive nutrient inputs is the utility corridor in the project area. The utility
corridor crosses the headwaters of Brier Creek where the proposed Brier Creek parkway would be
constructed. Where existing Globe Road crosses the headwaters of Brier Creek, a pipe under the
roadway constricts downstream flow, causing periodic flooding and wetter conditions in the utility
corridor than would be expected to occur naturally. The utility corridor is mowed periodically which
likely causes additional sedimentation in Brier Creek. The pipe under Globe Road also has caused
a reduction in downstream floodplain function.
Impacts
Construction impacts to stream channels will be temporary and localized during road construction.
Long-term impacts to streams as a result of road construction are expected to be negligible.
Temporary construction impacts because of erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best management practices.
The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined
14
in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution"
(NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include: the use of dikes,
berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction
staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on
disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with
potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into steams by
catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The existing utility corridor crossing of the headwaters of Brier Creek includes an unpaved
access road for utility line maintenance. Vegetation maintenance and vehicular traffic on this
access road have resulted in the formation of tire ruts and subsequent erosion of surface
sediments into Brier Creek. Construction of the proposed Parkway would allow for stabilization of
the ground surface in this portion of the utility line corridor, resulting in a decrease of
sedimentation into Brier Creek.
4.4.4 Vegetation and Wildlife
Description of Plant Communities
The project right-of-way comprises approximately 34.9 acres, 31.1 acres within the Brier Creek
Parkway proper and 3.8 acres within the Globe Road relocation. The project corridor is in a region
of relatively homogeneous land use and vegetation coverage. Within the project right-of-way, four
broad classifications of plant communities are recognized. These communities include hardwood
forest (HF), mixed pine/hardwood forest (MF), pine forest (PF), and urban/disturbed area (UD).
These communities are shown on Figure 7, and acres of each in the project right-of-way are
summarized in Table 3. The forested areas occur at various successional stages because of past
disturbances such as logging.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest (MF). Mixed pine/hardwood forest is characterized by a canopy
dominated by a mixture of pines (greater than 30 percent) and hardwoods. Approximately 11.2
acres of mixed pine hardwood forest are scattered throughout the project right-of-way. Common
canopy species include southern red oak (Quercus falcata), blackjack oak (Q, marilandica), white
oak (Q. alba), black oak (Q. velutina), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea) loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Virginia
pine (P. virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and scattered
hickories (Carya spp.). The subcanopy consists of eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana),
flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), and sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum). The
sparse shrub layer includes arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), silver-
berry (Elaeagnus umbellate), and blueberry (Vaccinium sp.). Common herbs include Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Some areas characterized by mixed pine hardwood forest appear to have been thinned selectively
within the past 8 to 15 years. Recently-timbered areas are dominated by loblolly pine, sweetgum,
flowering dogwood, eastern red cedar, and blueberry.
Hardwood Forest (HF). Hardwood forest is characterized as a mature climax community
' dominated by a mixture of hardwoods and includes occasional pines. Approximately 12.1 acres of
the project right-of-way support hardwood forest. Species composition varies from nearly pure
hardwoods to a pine component approaching 30 percent of the canopy. On ridges and lower
' slopes above floodplains, the canopy includes American beech, tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera),
post oak (Quercus stellata), northern red oak (Q. rubra), white oak, black oak, swamp chestnut oak
(Q. michauxii), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), loblolly pine, sourwood, and various hickories. The
' 15

ik: P.

t
t \ `

!!W LL
M

w ?
W
w
p
Z ?

LL

O
V
F-
Z

CL
N
O O
a a e
cn E '?
N
U)
N
O
L
O
U-
'0
O
a
RS
J
ca O
O N
c ? N
`O •-
N a
? ?ioc
3 2
u
c c
?
LL a= u
II II J
a u;Uie

LU
'cm
W
J
Table 3
Plant Communities
Acres
in Project
Plant Community Right-of-Way
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 11.2
Hardwood Forest 12.1
Pine Forest 8.4
Urban/Disturbed Areas 3.2
TOTAL 34.9
subcanopy is dominated by American holly and flowering dogwood. The shrub and herb
components tend to be sparse because of dense canopy cover.
There is a slight change in species composition of hardwood forest in riparian areas, primarily
because of a moderation in temperature extremes and increased moisture resulting from the
proximity of adjacent waters. Dominant canopy species include American beech, white oak, tulip
tree, American elm (Ulmus americana), water oak, red maple, willow oak, sweetgum, river birch
(Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxil), and
shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). American holly, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), river birch, and
several species of vines occur in the shrub layer.
Pine Forest (PR The canopy of the pine forest is composed almost entirely of loblolly and Virginia
pine. Approximately 8.4 acres of the project right-of-way support pine forest, occurring as isolated
pockets. This community is commonly the result of some type of urban/commercial disturbance
such as abandoned easements or recently timbered land. Shrub and herb layers are commonly
sparse because of the dense overstory, and include wax myrtle and Japanese honeysuckle.
A small portion of pine forest has been selectively timbered within the past 10 years. These areas
primarily support pines and other pioneer species. Understory species include loblolly pine,
sweetgum, flowering dogwood, American holly, Japanese honeysuckle, and common greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia).
Urban/Disturbed Areas (UD). Urban/disturbed areas have been disturbed by periodic mowing or
surface earthwork. Approximately 3.2 acres of the project right-of-way are characterized as
urban/disturbed areas. These areas support early successional communities. Examples of sites
with this designation include powerline rights-of-way, maintained road sides, and topsoil borrow
areas. Species occurring on these areas include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), lespedeza
(Lespedeza sp.), Nepal microstegium (Eulalia vimineum), broom panic grass (Dichanthelium
scoparium), asters (Asterspp.), and golden rods (Solidago spp.). Wet pockets contain rushes
(Juncus spp.), wool-grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and straw-colored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus).
Description of Characteristic Animal Communities
Terrestrial. The project corridor generally supports a contiguous forest system that offers
necessary components (food, water, cover) to support a number of animal species typical of the
17
Piedmont region of the state. Mammals noted or expected within the proposed alignment include
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped
skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), woodchuck
(Marmota monax), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon
cineareoargenteus), and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) (Webster et al., 1985).
Common bird species that occur in the project corridor are typical of Piedmont forest. Because of
the minimal amount of habitat fragmentation, and resulting buffering effect from human activity, the
vicinity of the project corridor supports forest interior species that typically avoid such disturbances.
Such forest interior species include American woodcock (Scolopax minor), red-shouldered hawk
(Buteo lineatus), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus
pileatus), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea),
wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus), yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and
scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea). Other common species that occur within the project corridor
include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), great horned owl
(Bubo virginianus), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), ruby-crowned kinglet
(Regulus calendula), golden-crowned kinglet (R. satrapa), northern junco (Juncus hyemalis),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) (Potter
et al., 1980).
Reptiles and amphibians known to occur in the region include eastern box turtle (Terrapene
caroling), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), rough green snake
(Opheodrys aestivus), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), American toad (Bufo americana),
northern cricket frog (Acris creations), spring pepper (Pseudacris crucifer), two-lined salamander
(Eurycea bislineata), and northern dusky salamander (Desmognanthus fuscus) (Palmer and
Braswell, 1995, Martof eta/., 1980, Conant and Collins, 1991).
Aquatic. Little Brier Creek and its unnamed tributary are the only sources of permanent water within
the project corridor. Species of fish expected to inhabit these streams most likely will be limited in
size and diversity because of regular fluctuations in water level. Expected species include bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (L. cyanellus), pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), blue-spotted
sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus), banded sunfish (E. obesus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus
sayanus), Carolina madtom (Notorus furiosus), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), bluehead
chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), white shiner (Notropis albeolus), creek chub (Semotilus
atromculatus), greenfin shiner (Notropis chloristius), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas),
eastern mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki), and Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum) (Menhinick,
1991, Rohde et al., 1994).
Wildlife commonly associated with aquatic environments in this region of the state include mink
(Mustela vison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta),
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), pickerel frog
(Rana palustris), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife
Plant Community Impacts. Potential impacts to plant communities resulting from roadway
construction depend on the relative amount of each community in the project corridor. Impact
areas for each community have been discussed within the community descriptions. The region
18
traversed by the proposed project is presently relatively undisturbed and plant communities occur
in large contiguous blocks. The project would fragment this large block of forest. Beyond
fragmentation, however, the clearing of the project corridor for construction will have a minor impact
on plant communities in the immediate vicinity
Wildlife Impacts. Fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat is an unavoidable consequence of
roadway development on new location. Short-term displacement of local wildlife populations will
occur during initial construction of the road. Many local species are habituated to anthropogenic
disturbances and are expected to return to the construction area. Movement through the area will
become more dangerous for many transient species because of the new facility.
Some wildlife species occurring within the proposed corridor may be displaced through permanent
habitat reduction and fragmentation. Localized large mammal populations, such as deer, may
experience disruptions in mating, feeding, or migratory patterns as a result of roadway construction.
Increased urbanization already has resulted in diminished habitat opportunities as woodlands are
committed to development. Many migratory and resident bird species that require forest interiors
for nesting may be displaced because of the edge effects associated with bisecting a wooded area
with the proposed project. These species also will be affected by further fragmentation within
upland hardwood tracts because of secondary impacts associated with site development. (See
section 4.11.)
In the headwaters of Brier Creek, the proposed project would enable a section of streambed to be
restored. Specifically, the section of Globe Road that would be abandoned contains a pipe where it
crosses the headwaters of Brier Creek. As part of the proposed project, this pipe would be
removed and the natural contours of the area would be restored. This would allow the streambed to
revert to a more natural state that, once again, could support wildlife.
4.4.5 Rare/Unique Natural Areas
There are no designated rare or unique natural areas identified within the project area according to
NHP records (December, 1996). There are no water bodies deserving of special attention as
denoted under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906;
codified and amended at 16 U.S.C. 1217-1287 (1982) or under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of
1971 (G.S. 113A-30). Because rare or unique resources were not identified within the project
corridor, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
4.4.6 Protected Species
Federal Species
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The USFWS list of
federally protected species as of May 2, 1997 is as follows:
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T
These species are described briefly in the following paragraphs.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW). This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches long) has a black
head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white barred back. Males often have red
19
markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et
al., 1980). Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with
little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed
hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry, 1989). Suitable habitat was not found within the
project area
Biological Conclusion. This project is expected to have no effect on RCWs. No suitable nesting
habitat (stand-size pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 60 years old) is
present within the project corridor. No birds were observed during the site visit and, currently, no
colonies have been documented in Wake County.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Dwarf wedge mussel. The dwarf wedge mussel is relatively small, averaging 1.0 to 1.5 inches long
The shells are olive-green to dark brown in color and are sub-rhomboid ally shaped. The shells of
females are swollen posteriorly, while males are generally flattened (TSCFTM, 1990). The preferred
habitats are streams with moderate flow velocities and bottoms varying in texture from gravel and
coarse sand to mud, especially downstream of debris and on banks of accreting sediment. This
species was previously known only from a few, disjunct populations in the Neuse River basin
(Johnston Co.) and Tar River basin (Granville Co.). State-wide surveys conducted since 1992 have
expanded this species' range in North Carolina, but the dwarf wedge mussel has not been
documented in any streams within the vicinity of the project corridor.
Biological Conclusion: This project is expected to have no effect on the dwarf wedge mussels. This
species has not been found to occur within the project corridor. A 1991 NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) survey of Brier Creek and Little Brier Creek failed to locate evidence of dwarf
wedge mussels in the system (WRC, 1991). No mussel shells were observed in or adjacent to
project corridor streams during the site visit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac. Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub,
usually less than 2 feet high. The alternate, compound leaves consist of 9-13 hairy, round-based,
toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may be slightly winged (Radford et al., 1968). Small
male and female flowers are produced during June on separate plants; female flowers are
produced on terminal, erect clusters followed by small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and
September. Michaux's sumac tends to grow in areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire
or other disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility rights-of-way. In the
Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soils derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil
derived from granite (Weakley, 1993). Michaux's sumac ranges from southern Virginia through
Georgia in the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
Biological Conclusion: This project is expected to have no effect on Michaux's sumac. Road sides
and utility line rights-of-way within the project corridor are maintained regularly and do not provide
suitable habitat for sumac. Michaux's sumac was not observed during the site visit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Bald Eaale. The bald eagle occurs throughout North America, primarily in association with large
lakes and coastal bays and sounds where food is plentiful. Mature eagles (usually 4 to 6 years and
older) are identified by a white tail and head, dark brown to black body and wings (wingspread to 6
feet), and yellow eyes, bill, and feet. Juveniles are uniformly chocolate-brown and sometimes have
whitish mottling on their tail, belly, and wing linings. As the birds mature they become lighter in
color and the mottling increases until they acquire their adult plumage pattern. Nesting sites occur
20
close to feeding grounds and nests are constructed in large trees (predominately pine or cypress),
either living or dead. Eagles are opportunistic hunters and scavengers, feeding on a wide variety of
aquatic-dependent organisms including fish, snakes, small mammals and large water birds. Their
primary source of food is carrion and fish taken from ospreys (Potter et al. , 1980).
Biological Conclusion: This project is expected to have no effect on the bald eagle. No suitable
habitat exists within the project corridor, and no eagles were observed during the site visit
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern
The May 2, 1997 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal species of
concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection for the species listed.
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat

Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis No
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus No*
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius No
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolate No
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni No
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus No
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana No*
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata Yes
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum No
*Historic record-the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
No FSC-designated species have been documented in the vicinity of the project corridor according
to NHP records (December, 1996). The typical habitat of most of these species does not occur in
the project corridor; however, habitat for sweet pinesap does occur within the project corridor.
Sweet pinesap typically occurs on dry slopes and bluffs supporting deciduous forests. Sweet
pinesap was not observed during the site visit.
State Species
Species with the North Carolina status of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC)
receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.)
and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). No state-listed
species are known to occur within two miles of the project corridor.
4.4.7 Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas
Characteristics
Wetlands are defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) (33 CFR 328.3) 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."
In accordance with this definition, wetlands must possess three essential parameters:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetlands hydrology (COE Wetlands
Delineation Manual, 1987).
21
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), now referred to as the Clean Water
Act, authorized the USACOE, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), to regulate the disposal of dredged or fill material into
"waters of the United States." The term "waters of the United States" has broad meaning and
incorporates both deepwater aquatic habitats and special aquatic sites, including wetlands
(COE Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987). Executive Order 11990 requires that new
construction in wetlands be avoided to the extent possible, and that all practical measures be
taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands.
The wetland and streambed areas within the project corridor were delineated in 1996 and 1997,
based on the methodology outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(1987). Field reconnaissance was conducted in December 1996 and June and July, 1997, to
confirm the wetland delineations and streambeds that may be disturbed during construction
within the project corridor. Areas within the project corridor that are subject to Section 404
permit review include 1) water and streambed limits of Brier and Little Brier Creeks and
associated tributaries, 2) wetlands systems immediately adjacent to these creeks, and 3) isolated
pockets of wetlands not connected to any stream or floodplain that are considered jurisdictional
based upon the three-parameter methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. Figure 8 shows the location of the wetlands identified in the project corridor.
Impacts
Table 4 lists the map reference number for each wetland site as shown on Figure 8 and the area
of impact at these sites.
Wetland crossings for sites A through M will be submitted for Nationwide Permits 14 and 26 from
the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers. These permits will be obtained and will be used or
modified as part of the roadway construction project. Crossings will be accommodated by the
use of culverts.
Table 4
Wetland Impact Areas

Wetland Site
Location Acres/Linear Feet
Impacted Permit
Status
A SB of Brier Creek 136.3 I.f. in preparation
B Tributary SB to Brier Creek 170 l.f. in preparation
C Unconnected wetland on side of ridge 0.113 acres in preparation
D Unconnected wetland/water on ridge 151.6 I.f. in preparation
E Unnamed SB to UT to Little Brier Creek 126.8 11 in preparation
F Unnamed SB to UT to Little Brier Creek 269.2 11 in preparation
H SB of UT to Little Brier Creek 201.2 l.f. in preparation
J Wetland adjacent to Little Brier Creek 0.205 acres in preparation
K SB of Little Brier Creek 130.7 I.f. in preparation
L Wetland in storm water channel 0.204 acres in preparation
M Unconnected wetland on side of ridge 0.021 acres in preparation
UT = Unnamed Tributary
SB = Streambed
22
W
Q
W

Q
J w

W
W
U
a LL
z
0

v
W

et
0

N
N
N
J O LM L1 p
w
U) 'E Y
cn
m
C cn
N rn
cn C
o •6
U cn
0
? U
a?
c
E
?
CO
C
O O II
D
Z
W
C3
W
J
Avoidance and Minimization
In accordance with Executive Order 11990, this project has been designed to avoid new
construction in wetlands to the extent possible, and employ all practical measures to minimize or
mitigate impacts to wetlands. Scattered small wetlands exist throughout the project area, mainly
as a result of prior land disturbance (e.g. farming troughs). The proposed alignment avoids
these wetlands as much as possible. Because streams cross the entire site, complete avoidance
of stream crossings is not practicable. Measures have been employed in the initial planning of
the proposed alternatives to minimize potential impacts through route location (avoidance),
design, and construction practices. No rechannelling of Brier Creek, Little Brier Creek, or their
tributaries is planned other than at the designated crossings. Sedimentation and erosion control
practices will be utilized to minimize construction impacts. The project is expected to generate
10,000 to 20,000 cubic yards of waste, which will be used within the project corridor and will not
affect wetland areas. Where wetland crossings are unavoidable, the proposed alternative
crosses the wetland sites at their narrowest points and as close to perpendicular as possible to
minimize impacts. The fill or cut slopes are as steep as the design criteria allow in these
locations, also to minimize wetland impacts. Drainage structures will be placed under the
roadway as necessary to maintain wetland function.
Mitigation
Final discretionary authority regarding mitigation rests with the USACOE and NCDWQ. The
potential for on-site mitigation exists where an existing stream bed crossing in the abandoned
section of Globe Road can be returned to its original state.
4.4.8 Flood Hazard Evaluation
A floodplain evaluation was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 11988 "Floodplain
Management" and 23 CFR 650, Subpart A "Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on
Floodplains." The proposed project will cross Little Brier Creek (Basin 18, Stream 15).
The proposed project will not result in a significant encroachment on the floodway or the
floodplain for the creek. The project will not increase the extent or level of flood hazard risk.
4.5 FARMLANDS
The project corridor consists of areas that are planned to be urbanized, and, therefore, are
exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
4.6 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
4.6.1 Noise Measurements
Ambient Noise Measurements
A noise measurement survey was conducted in the project area on December 23, 24, and 26,
1996 to document existing (ambient) noise levels. Sites selected were representative of noise
sensitive receptors within the project area. Figure 9 shows the sites, R3 and R4. Table 5 lists the
measurements. Ambient noise measurements were taken with and without airplanes to
document the impact of airplanes on noise at the measurement sites. The measurements show
that, with airplanes, noise levels are 0 to 4 dBA higher.
24
•?
C A '?; ?•?x •?
I .off:
Y
r
V
I
IfIgAIIII,
\I
4e?
.
S
• y
coo
''" .•
Ain
I.D
` 35p i o M E
•,• •I
I
C 10- S.. o .:..
`? z I
c: ."Wo
•
coo
' , _ • d
,? ". ? / ? RolobaUpQ I
o r
? OSC i
fi e ? .? ? ' uo?lel?b
41.0
coo
W
w
cl:
co
?
Z
W LL

VI
?/?
VI
W

co
Q

a

W
y_
G
z
LO

N

J 0 LM LA O I
a " s
v E

cc

c
m
co

c E
cu c
cz
a
.

c
co
?
Y

Q ?cu

?
z Q)
O
U %
CL c
w
E
:3
00

N cn ll co
0 C7
0
) 0 L
z? a
.

v .

.
z •
W i

W
J
Table 5
Noise Measurement Results
Noise Noise
Site Level Level (w/Airplanes)"
Number Location Description (d8A) (d8A)
R3 Residence off SR Wooded area 55.2 59.1
1739
R4 Business off of Roadside 44.0 44.3
US 70
`Peak measurement: measurement taken during a peak air travel time.
Noise measurements were recorded for 20-minute periods. The noise meter used for this project
was a Type-1 Noise Level Analyzer B&K 2230. Accessories included a B&K 4231 calibrator and
a B&K 1565 microphone and windshield. The microphone was placed five feet above the
ground.
Prediction of Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future traffic noise levels was the noise Barrier Cost Reduction
(BCR) procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). This procedure is based
on the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Model results take
into account the number and type of vehicles on the roadway, their speeds, receptor location
and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
4.6.2 STAMINA Modeling
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was used to determine the number of land uses (by type) that
would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria
during the peak hour in the 2010 design year. Those land uses where a substantial noise
increase would occur also were determined.
4.6.3 Noise Sensitive Receptors
Noise levels for receptors at distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1,600 feet from the
center of the nearest travel lane were modeled. These results were used to identify the 67 dBA
and 72 dBA noise contours. STAMINA model output is provided in the Noise Report.
Six receptors whose noise levels could be influenced by traffic on the proposed Brier Creek
Parkway (see Figure 9) also were modeled. The measurement and modeling results were used
to determine worst-case noise levels at these receptors (see Table 6).
4.6.4 Project Impact
The findings presented in Table 6 show that noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed roadway
will exceed or approach the Federal Highway Administration's noise abatement criteria (NAC) of
26
Table 6
2010 Noise Levels at Receptors
Distance
to Measured Lei, 2019 L,,
Brier Distance
Creek to Globe Peak Noise Change
Parkway Road Off- Modeled Level from
Site No. Land Use (in feet) (in feet) Peak Peak' Traffic at Receptor2 1997
R13 Residence 920 520 55 59 52 60 1
R23 Residence/ 850 670 55 59 51 60 1
Business
R3 Residence 840 N/A 55 59 47 59 0
R4 Business 710 N/A 44 44 46 48 4
R5 Business 820 N/A 44 44 45 48 4
R6 Residence 100 N/A 55 59 68 68 9
'With airplanes
2Existing modeled Brier Creek traffic plus peak (with airplanes) measured Leq
3Globe road relocation noise impact included
67 dBA (category B land uses) at one residential receptor. Fhe 72 dBA NAC (category C land
uses) will not be exceeded. Table 6 also shows that no substantial increases in noise levels (10
dBA or greater when the existing noise level is greater than 50 dBA) will occur for any receptor.
The 67 dBA and 72 dBA noise contours for the project are approximately 120 feet and 60 feet,
respectively, from the edge of the proposed road west of Lumley Road and 70 feet and 35 feet,
respectively, from the edge of the proposed road east of Lumley Road.
4.6.5 Project Noise Abatement
' Noise abatement would not be feasible at the residence where FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
would be approached or exceeded. North Carolina State Noise Abatement Guidelines (May,
1990) state that it is not prudent or reasonable to consider noise abatement for isolated
I receptors. Hence, no physical abatement measures are considered feasible and none are
recommended for the Brier Creek Parkway.
4.6.6 Construction Noise
Construction noise would vary greatly with the type of equipment in use at any particular time and
the phase of construction activity. Noise levels during construction therefore would fluctuate
greatly from day to day and hour to hour. High noise levels of combustion-engine-powered
equipment would be the main contributor to the higher noise levels. Higher noise levels also
could result from impact pile driving, if this method is used during construction of the proposed
roadway
Construction operations, and associated noise, generally would be restricted to daytime hours.
Control of construction noise at the source is the most effective approach to reducing noise.
Construction equipment would comply with the noise standards adopted by Occupational Safety
27
and Health Administration (OSHA). Construction equipment would be required to have effective
muffler, have efficient silencers on air intakes of equipment, and be properly maintained.
4.7 AIR QUALITY
The US Environmental Protection Agency's MOBILE 5a air quality model was used to estimate
CO emissions in 2010. CAL30HC was used to predict CO concentrations at two "worst-case"
sites, the sites with the greatest potential to suffer violations of NAAQS with the proposed project.
These sites are shown Figure 10.
4.7.1 Analysis Results
The peak one-hour computed CO concentrations for year 2010 (design year) would be:
12.9 ppm at Aviation Parkway.
11.7 ppm at US 70.
The peak eight-hour computed CO concentrations for year 2010 (design year) would be:
7.9 ppm at Aviation Parkway.
7.1 ppm at US 70.
A comparison with the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (1-hour - 35 ppm; 8-hour - 9
ppm) indicates no violation of these standards would occur.
4.7.2 Compliance with Clean Air Act
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area for
ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment areas for 03 and CO.
However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for
03 on June 17, 1994, and "maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995. Section 176 (c) of the
CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the
state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation
control measures for Wake County. The Capital Area 1996 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date for the TIP
is July 20, 1995. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is October 4, 1997. The current
conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Part 51.
There have been no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the
conformity analyses.
The air quality project level CO analysis described above determined that National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (1-hour - 35 ppm; 8-hour - 9 ppm) would not be exceeded in the project
design year 2010. This project is not anticipated to create an adverse effect on air quality.
28
Z
Y
F

w O
W T

y

0

W
L?
W

W
coo
a
v

y

O
3

i
zl
g
it

N
N
N
O
Q d
r, E
N
O
L
? "
c
m
c
m
cn CL rn
o

U
C a) O

a) r- M
im
co -0.n
U
+- W O
00
CL
s

? a 3

W I
??
cm
W
J ?
4.7.3 Construction
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition, or other operations would be removed from the project corridor, burned or otherwise
disposed of by the contractor. Any burning would be in accordance with applicable local laws
and ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air
quality and in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520, North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15,
Chapter 2, "Environmental Management (NCDEHNR), Control and Prohibition of Open Burning."
Care would be taken to ensure burning would be done at the greatest distance practicable from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning would be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures would be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction when the control of dust
is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
4.8 POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTES/UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
SITES
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted at the airport assemblage site between the
terminus of the newly constructed Aviation Parkway and the US 70/ACC Boulevard intersection.
A file search of all appropriate federal and state agencies also was conducted to determine if
any known environmental hazards were present along the proposed project corridor.
Based on this research, there do not appear to be any sites within the project limits that have the
potential for underground storage tank involvement. The research also shows that no regulated
landfills or unregulated dump sites occur within the project corridor. Therefore, there should not
be any environmental conflicts with the proposed project.
4.9 VISUAL
The study area is predominantly wooded and undeveloped with no high quality views. The
proposed roadway would be clearly visible from one home at Lumley Road.
4.10 CONSTRUCTION
Short-term construction impacts may occur in the areas of water quality, air quality, natural
resources, and noise. The potential impacts can be minimized by careful adherence to
established construction methods. These methods are described below:
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right-of-way and provided
by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or unless
disposal within the right-of-way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of waste or debris
in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by
the engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer, it
will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
2. During construction of the proposed project, all material resulting from clearing,
grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, and disposed
of by the contractor. Any merchantable timber will be salvaged. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520 and GS 113-60.24. Additionally, trees outside of the construction limits will be
30
protected from construction activities to prevent skinning tree trunks from heavy
equipment, exposing roots, smothering trees from fill dirt around the base, or
accidentally spilling petroleum.
1 3.
Borrow pits and ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes.
4. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
5. There will be strict adherence to erosion control plan by the contractor, including limiting
areas and duration of exposed earth and stabilizing exposed areas as quickly as
possible (see discussion of impacts in section 4.4.3).
6. Measures will be taken to alleviate the dust generated by construction when the control
of dust is necessary for the protection, safety, and comfort of motorists and nearby
residents.
7. Although the high equipment noise levels are expected to be the main contributor to the
construction activity noise emissions, noise impacts during project construction are of
short duration. Peak noise levels from highway construction equipment as measured at
a distance of 50 feet may vary from 70 dBA to 100 dBA. It is anticipated that the major
sources of construction noise will be from earth removal, hauling, grading, pile driving,
and paving. General construction noise impacts that can be expected are temporary
speech interference for passersby and those individuals working near the project. Such
noise will be limited to daylight hours as much as possible.
4.11 SECONDARY IMPACTS
Construction of the Brier Creek Parkway and the extension of Globe Road will have little direct
natural resource and community impacts. However, the development that would be served by
this roadway would result in secondary impacts to these resources.
4.11.1 Natural Resource Impacts
Wetlands
Development of the property surrounding Brier Creek Parkway could result in a loss of some
wetlands. Wetland maps indicate that the area of wetlands on the site is small and that they tend
to occur in and around floodplains. Since these areas are typically unsuitable for development, it
is expected that wetland loss would be minimal. All developers would have to seek permits for
wetlands filled from the USACOE under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, now referred to as the Clean Water Act.
Water Resources
As the project area develops, the streams in the area will be affected. In the short-term, the
impacts of runoff and clearing for the road will increase temperature and turbidity in the stream,
causing increases in aquatic vegetation, decreases in oxygen, and declines in water quality.
With the development of the site as a whole, particularly the golf course in the floodplain, further
clearing of trees can increase water temperature, and sedimentation in the streams also can
increase. Increased sedimentation will impede the growth of aquatic vegetation, but it also will
increase sediment loads into the flood control pond downstream. Development plans will need
to have adequate planning to minimize erosion and sediment loads entering streams. Planting
31
trees along the streams would help minimize water quality impacts by providing shade,
stabilizing banks and deterring erosion.
The streams proposed for crossing have been designated with the State supplemental
classification Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW); the State will not allow increases in nutrient levels
(primarily phosphorous and nitrogen) over background levels. Developers are required to have
nutrient management strategies for streams with this designation.
Biological Resources
Contiguous, mature forest tracts typically provide greater diversity of habitats for both plants and
animals than smaller, isolated, and younger tracts. Development will continue the trend in forest
size reduction, disturbance, and habitat fragmentation that is occurring throughout the Triangle
region because of growth and associated development. This development could decrease
species diversity in the project area.
Current development plans include a minimum 200-acre set aside for open space and
recreation. This area will include greenway space and buffers adjacent to waterways, which
would reduce somewhat secondary impacts on the area ecology.
Protected species as discussed in section 4.4.6 would not be affected by development of the
airport assemblage property. Suitable habitat for these species does not exist on the site, and
none of the species has been documented in or near the site.
4.11.2 Community Impacts
Development would change the character of the existing communities immediately adjacent to
the site (along Globe Road and Lumley Road). These areas, which are fairly isolated and
primarily residential, would become part of a "mini" urban center, with office, commercial, and
industrial uses. There will be an influx of population, which could alter the demographics of the
existing community, as people come into the area to live and/or work. Residents currently living
in the area would experience a loss in the tranquillity and serenity associated with isolated, rural
areas.
The existing community also could benefit from the development. For example, services that
currently are not close by would be more accessible to residents as the area became urbanized.
In addition, new job opportunities would be available within the community. Third, development
plans call for a 235-acre public golf course, an amenity currently not available in the existing
community.
No historic resources are in the study area, as indicated in the letter from the SHPO in Appendix
A; thus, the development of the site would not affect this type of community resource.
4.11.3 Summary
Although the proposed project would have certain negative secondary impacts associated with
development of the airport assemblage property, it is reasonable to conclude that development
of the site is imminent given its proximity to major thoroughfares,such as US 70 and the Northern
Wake Expressway. While a road is a necessary component of the development, it is not the
catalyst for the development. The development already has been approved by the City of
Raleigh and its impacts are consistent with city and county plans. If the road is not funded
publicly, it can be assumed that private funds will be used and the above impacts will occur
anyway.
32
4.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts associated with the project would consist solely of the combination of the
project's direct and secondary impacts for four reasons. First, the ability of the Brier Creek
Parkway project to fulfill its purpose is not dependent on additional reasonably foreseeable future
local, state, or federal government actions except for a possible future widening of a portion of
the parkway. The direct impact of that widening was accounted for in the direct impact
assessment. Second, the foreseeable future widening of a portion of the parkway assumes the
site's current development plan is implemented, resulting in the impacts described in the
secondary impact assessment. Third, the Brier Creek Parkway and the associated development
of the airport area are included in approved local and state plans. The secondary impacts
assessment assumes the development of the area in the manner anticipated by those plans.
Fourth, local and state land use and transportation plans for adjoining areas were considered in
the development plans for the area. Thus, implementation of foreseeable actions in surrounding
areas would not be likely to cause a change in the character or intensity of development.
4.13 PERMITS REQUIRED
Section 404 permits will be required from the USACOE for any activities that encroach into
jurisdictional wetlands or "waters of the United States." In addition, Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be violated for
activities that: 1) involve issuance of a federal permit or license, or 2) require discharges into
"waters of the United States. The USACOE cannot issue a 404 permit until 401 water quality
certification is approved by the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management.

S. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A scoping letter regarding construction of Brier Creek Parkway was sent to regulatory agencies
on November 6, 1996. Issues described in these letters were addressed in this document. A
copy of the comments is included in Appendix A. The following agencies sent comments.
US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
US Fish and Wildlife Service

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
' Division of Forest Resources
Division of Land Resources
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
33
t
6. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT I
Based on the assessment of potential environmental impacts contained in this document and '
consideration of the comments received from federal, state, and local agencies, it is the finding
of the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will not have a
significant impact on the human and natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement or further environmental assessment is not required for this action. '

I
I

jl
II

34
F1
APPENDIX A
SCOPING LETTERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
December 20, 1996
IN REPLY HEh EH IU
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 2501
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201

EIV O
DEC 2 7 1996
i
?,VISIG"IOF
' HIGHWAYS
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of November 6, 1996, requesting comments on
the "Proposed Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and Aviation Parkway, Wake
County, TIP No. R-3619" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199700179).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
--C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
A-3
December 20, 1996
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Proposed Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and Aviation Parkway, Wake County,
TIP No. R-3619" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199700179
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional limits of the city of Raleigh,
which participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. From your site map and
Panel 115 of the March 1992 Wake County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
Flood Insurance Rate Map, it appears that the proposed project will cross Little Brier
Creek (Basin 18, Stream 15). This is a detail study stream with 100-year flood
elevations determined and a floodway defined. Enclosed for your information is a copy
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise'
Certification For Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways." In addition, we
suggest coordination with the city of Raleigh for compliance with their flood ordinance
and any changes, if required, to the flood insurance maps and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone], Extension 23
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work involves the discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands. Potentially affected water bodies
include Brier, Little Brier Creek, their unnamed tributaries, and adjacent wetlands,
above headwaters.
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated
or fill material into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project, including the
disposal of construction debris.
We recommend that NCDOT begin coordination with the Corps as soon as possible
in developing a formal statement of purpose and need for the proposed project. This
will allow the Corps to concur with the project purpose and need that is stated in the
environmental documentation for this project. If the purpose is related to private
development, the Corps will likely consider the secondary effects of this development in
making permit decisions on the project.
Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or
minimized. Based on a preliminary wetland determination of the Eastern Pilots' site
that was completed with input from NCDOT's consultant, Environmental Services Inc.,
most of the required crossing are channels only, with few adjacent wetlands.
Avoidance and minimization should specifically include alternative alignments to avoid
impacts to any wetland areas.
A-4
I
December 20, 1996
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
'
' "Proposed Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and Aviation Parkway, Wake County,
TIP No. R-3619" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199700179
t 2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
' After maximum avoidance and minimization is accomplished, we will then consider
compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed,
including the extent and location of any work within waters of the United States and
wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. It is possible, if the impacts from the proposed project are minor, that the
' work could be authorized under one or more nationwide or regional general permits.
Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Alsmeyer.
I
I

I
I
I
A-5
Y hf
A'ccc
w
ody- ?,j
o a
R-4
PROCEDURES FOR "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN REGULATORY FLOODWAYS
1/92
Section 60.3 (d) (3y of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
regulations states that a community-shall "prohibit encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it
has-been demonstrated -through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the
proposed encroachment would not result-in any increase in flood
levels within the community during the occurrence of the base (100-
year) flood discharge."
Prior to issuing any building grading or% development permits
involving activities in a regulatory, floodway, the community must
obtain a certification stating the proposed development will not
impact the pre-project base flood elevations, floodway elevations,
or floodway data widths. The certification should be obtained from
the permittee and be signed and sealed by a professional engineer.
The engineering or "no-rise' certification must be supported by
technical data. The supporting technical data should be based upon
the standard step-backwater computer model utilized to develop the
100-year floodway shown on : the community's effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) and
the results tabulated in the community's Flood Insurance Study
(FIS).
Although communities are required to review and approve the "no-
rise" submittals, they may request technical assistance and review
from the FEMA regional office. However, if this alternative is
chosen, the community must.review the technical submittal package
and verify that all supporting data, listed in the following
paragraphs, are included in the package before forwarding to FEMA.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
A-6
I

-2-
To support a "no-rise" certification for proposed developments
encroaching into the regulatory floodway, a community will require
that the following procedures be followed:
Currently Effective Model

I
1. Furnish a written request for the step-
backwater computer model for the specified
stream and community, identifying the limits
of the requested data. A fee will be assessed
for providing the data. Send data requests
to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
1371 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 735
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
or to:
FIS Information Specialist
Dewberry & Davis
8401 Arlington Boulevard
Fairfax, Virginia 22031-4666
Duplicate Effective Model
2.; Upon receipt of the step-backwater computer
model, the engineer should run the original
-step-backwater model-to duplicate the data*in
the effective FIS.
Existing Conditions Model
3. Revise the original step-backwater model to
reflect site specific existing conditions. by'
adding new cross-sections (two or more) •in the
vicinity of the proposed development, without
the proposed development in place. Floodway
limits should be manually. set at the new
cross-section locations by measuring from the
effective FIRM or FBFM. The cumulative reach
lengths of the stream should also.'remain
unchanged. The results of these analyses will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
revised existing conditions at the proposed
project site.
1 A-7
-3-
Proposed Conditions Model
4. Modify the revised existing conditions model
to reflect the proposed development at the new
cross-sections, while retaining the currently
adopted floodway widths. The overbank
roughness coefficients should remain the same
unless a reasonable explanation of how the
proposed development will., impact Manning's "n"
values should be included with the supporting
data. The results. of this floodway run will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
proposed conditions at the project site.
These results must indicate NO impact on the
100-year flood elevations, floodway
elevations, or floodway widths shown in the
Duplicate`Effective Model or in the Existing
Conditions Model.
The original FIS model, the duplicate effective FIS model, the
revised existing conditions model, and the proposed conditions
model should all produce'the same exact results.
The "no-rise" -supporting data and -a copy of the engineering
certification must be submitted to and reviewed by the appropriate
community official prior to issuing a permit:
The "no-rise" supporting data should include, but may not be
limited to:
a. Duplicate of the original FIS step-backwater model
printout or floppy disk.
b. 'Revised existing conditions. step-backwater model.
C. Proposed conditions step-backwater model.
d'. FIRM and topographic map, showing floodplain and
floodway, the , additional cross-sections,- the
site location with the proposed topographic
modification superimposed onto the maps, and. a
photocopy of the effective FIRM or FBFM showing the
current regulatory floodway.
e. Documentation clearly stating analysis procedures.
All modifications made to the original FIS model to
represent revised existing conditions, as well as
A-8

-4--
those made to the revised existing conditions model
to represent proposed conditions, should be well
data.
documented and submitted with all supporting
' f. Copy of effective FloodWay Data Table copied from
the FIS report.
q. Statement defining source of additional cross-
section topographic ddta and supporting information.
' h. Cross-section plots, of the added cross sections,
for revised existing and proposed conditions.
i.. Certified planimetric (boundary survey) information
indicating the location of structures on the
property.
J. Copy of the microfiche, or other applicable source,
from which input for original FIS HEC-2 model was
taken.
k. Floppy disk with all input.fi.les.
t 1. Printout of output files :..from EDIT runs. for all
three floodway models.
' The engineering."no-rise" certification and supporting technical
data must stipulate NO impact on the 100-year flood elevations,
floodway elevations, or floodway widths at the new cross-sections
' and. at :..all -existing cross-sections anywhere in the model.
Therefore, the revised computer .model should be run for a
sufficient distance (usually one mile, depending on hydraulic slope
' of the. stream) , upstream .and downstream of. the development site to.
insure proper "no-rise" certification.
Attached is `a sample. "no-rise" certification form that can be
completed by. a registered professional engineer and supplied to the
community along with the. supporting. technical data when applying
for a development permit.

A-9
? _ .t .....4i ?r%c.?. ?:- c?b?.,.. ?..±ldP,?ti_'r. tir #ab ,?.-..4 t.?1..4: °r: :b4-•SL^..-i.,:.?1? L?]x??'?4.3`?n: ?iYP:??+.?=4i!??Ci:t?::a:r.`1A7?i:'itcs.r:"ctt5?r??A?++T??i????s?
ENT OF ly
Q?pP : F?ym
N - s_ 9
O
A
4RCH 3 19
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ,+ 1
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726 i "
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 r
November 22, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Brier Creek Parkway, TIP No. R-3619,
Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Vick:
1446
This responds to your letter of November 6, 1996, requesting
information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the above-
referenced project. This report provides scoping information and
is provided 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). This report also serves as initial scoping comments
to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Your letter indicates that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to build a multi-lane urban
thoroughfare from the intersection of US 70 and ACC Boulevard to
the relocated Aviation Parkway. The proposed facility would be a
four-lane, curb-and-gutter roadway with a 40-foot median. The
median would be adequate for the latter addition of two lanes.
The length of the project would be approximately two milers.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations,
we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations should help guide
the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practical as outlined in the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. If unavoidable
wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be
made to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance.
Opportunities to protect target areas in perpetuity, preferably
via conservation easement, should be explored at the outset.
A-10

Regarding avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally
recommend that proposed highway projects be aligned along or
adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use
existing crossings and/or occur on structure wherever feasible.
Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and circulation regimes without scouring or
impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed. Highway
shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized
by using appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques.
Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside the seasons of fish spawning and migratory bird
nesting.
We reserve the right to review
' permits at the time of public
coordination should occur earl
resolve land use conflicts and

any required Federal or State
notice issuance. Resource agency
y in the planning process to
minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the
following (the level of detail should be commensurate with the
degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project
including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that
were considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
the action area of the proposed project which may be
directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling, dredging,
clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact
acreages should be differentiated by habitat type based on
the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and
permanent, that would be likely to occur as a direct result
of the proposed project. Also, an assessment should be
included regarding the extent to which the proposed project
would result in secondary impacts to natural resources and
how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
A-11
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct
wetland crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore,
enhance, or create wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
and,
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid,
minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with the project. These measures should
include a detailed compensatory mitigation plan for
offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered and
threatened species that are known to occur in Wake
County/Counties. Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available
habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present
within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed, and survey methodologies and results
included in the environmental documentation for this project. In
addition to this guidance, the following information should be
included in the environmental document regarding protected
species (the level of detail should be commensurate with the
degree of environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be
considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used
in the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed
species and of the associated habitat that may be affected
by the action, including the results of an onsite
inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed
species and associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed
species. Indirect effects are those that are caused by
the proposed action and are later in time but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which
includes interrelated, interdependent, past and present
impacts of Federal, State, and private activities in
the project and cumulative effects area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a
larger action and depend on the larger action for their
justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private
activities (not requiring Federal agency involvement)
A-12
that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;

1
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of
potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect
any listed species or associated habitat including project
proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects; and,
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the
project is not likely to adversely affect or may affect
threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which
the Service has sufficient information on their biological status
and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no
statutory protection under the ESA, Federal agencies are required
to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may
destroy or modify proposed critical habitat. Federal species of
concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does
not have enough scientific information to support a listing
proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present
time. These species receive no statutory protection under the
ESA, but could become candidates in the future if additional
scientific information becomes available indicating that they are
endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species
under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new
survey if its status in the project corridor is unknown.
Therefore, it would be prudent for the project to avoid any
adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project. Please continue to advise us of the progress made in
the planning process, including your official determination of
the impacts of this project.
Sincerely,

Howard F. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Attachment
FWS/R4:HHall:11/22/96:WP:A:wakr3619.n96
A-13
FEDERALLY-LISTED, CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL OF CONCERN
(revised August 23, 1996)
WAKE COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolate FSC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
Vascular Plants
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum FSC
KEY:
Status of ti n
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
to support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing.).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) - species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section7 consultation.
EXP A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental, non-
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
* Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
** Obscure record, the date and/or location of the specis observation is uncertain.
*** Incidental/migrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
**** Historic, obsure and incidental record.
A-14
Q w ?
? o
yf L . ,?2c
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resource
' James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
' December 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
19961
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
' TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
' Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook fiistotdic G?'?..6-
Deputy State Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and
Aviation Parkway, Wake County, R-3619,
97-E-4220-0329
t We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no properties of
historical, architectural, or archaeological importance located within the planning
area. Therefore, we recommend that no historic resource surveys be conducted for
this project.
' These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI.
If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
' environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
' cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
Wake County Historic Preservation Commission
A-15
v
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
1`1 timn< renarrfinn these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
lans and permits are available from the same
formation and guidelines relative to these
i
i
i
p
n
ons,
All appl
cat Normal Process
Regional Office. Tome
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Or REQUIREMENTS (statutory lime
limiq

Permit to construct d operate wastewater treatment
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
30 days I
? facilities, sewer system extensions, d sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPOES - permit (o discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
? discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater'Ireatmen( facility-granted alter NPOES. Reply (N/A)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit -whichever is later.
30 days
El Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary (NIA
) I
7 days

? Well Construction Permit Complete application muyt be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 daysl
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days I
? Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
artment of
N
Fill f
C
D
(90 da
si
.
rom
.
ep
may require Easement to y
and Fill Permit.
Federal Dre
nd
Administration a
dgge I
Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement "
?
/
,
?(? /iX?pw Tv 60 nays
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A Og (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal

must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20 .
i 6
17 I
'
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
? NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA I
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733-0820. (90 days)
? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sedimenlalio I
? control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect l at least 30 29 days
days before beginning activity A lee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or art must accomoan the tan 130 davst
f-1
l! The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: 13C days) _
On•sile inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR Bond amount
? Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued. _
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-sole inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more )day

El
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
than live acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
(NrA) I
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90 120 days
? Oil Relining Facilities NIA (NIA) _ I
_ It permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must more N.C. qualified engineer lo: prepare plans. IG says
? Dam Safety Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR soorov

ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program And '
IEG GAYS)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is neces
sary to verify Hazard Classification, A minimum lee of 5200.00 must do
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a i
percentage or the total project cost will be reouired uDon completion
Continued on reve,se
A- 16
?.vn nd? true e'.s
?
?
C
C
C
C

CIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory lint:
li
PERMITS SPE mr
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to Slate of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. (NIAI
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least io days prior to Issue of permit
lication by letter. No standard application torn.
A 10 days
(NIA(
pp I
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
tions 3 drawings of structure b proof of ownership
i 1!-20 days
(NIA(
p
descr
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Ouslity Certification NIA (130 days)
55 Bays
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 lee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 lee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. Please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 days
Compliance with ISA NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
I
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment aulhonty):
LA) 6!?
NC 0°i's M?'-4P7 7
_
t , j A,,1A1J
lam, r it
1-4
n
..-- J l-c_. ? S?!-LS ^ s ? ?`-r4 w/F?? Ge AJ V r£i-J/b?lc?? ?` D t! r??T
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
i
l Offi
h
ill
R
? A ? Fayetteville Regional Office
ev
ona
e
eg
ce
s
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street. P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Mooresville. NC 28115 Raleigh. NC 27609
[phone] (9191 1'33-2314
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington. NC 27889 Wilmington- NC 28405
[phone] (9191 3953900
? Winston-Salem Realonal Office
8025 North Point blvd
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(9191 896-7007
A-17
EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
2D .0800
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-213;
143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
.0803 IGHWAY PROJECTS
Envy'xronmental assessments regarding highway projects shall be
rev?e'wed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
`tte North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. If there is no assessment
,
or if an assessment shows that there may be a problem in complying with
an ambient air quality standard, or if the environmental impact
assessment fails to show that the highway project will not result in
violations of applicable portions of the control strategy, and will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national standard, then
the following regulatory provisions shall apply:
(1) A person shall not construct or modify any highway if that
highway will result in a contravention of ambient air quality
standards;
(2) Before construction or modification of any highway with an
expected maximum traffic volume of 2,000 vehicles per hour or
more within 10 years, a person shall apply for and have
received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600 , and shall
comply with any terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1);
143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
.0804 AIRPORT FACILITIES
Before constructing or modifying any airport facility designed to
have at least 100,000 annual aircraft operations, or at least 45
peak-hour aircraft operations (one operation equals one takeoff or one
landing) , the owner or developer of the airport facility shall apply
for and have received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600, and
shall comply with all terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary
March 8, 1994 for a
Until the Permanent
Whichever is Sooner;
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
S 27
Amendment Eff.
Period of 180 Days or
Rule is Effective,
D-800-2
A-18

I

I
I
I
I
I

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
November 20, 1996
MEMORANDUM
[DEHNR
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester _ n#1<1
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for Proposed Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and Aviation
Parkway in Wake County
PROJECT #: 97-0329 and TIP #R-3619
DUE DATE: 12-2-96
We have reviewed the above subject scoping document of November 6, 1996, and have the
following comments concerning potential impacts to woodland:
We are very concerned here because the proposed road and the 1,863 acre site for the proposed
Eastern Air Lines Pilots Development Plan will have a heavy serious impact to woodland in that
area. It also appears to us that the proposed road will duplicate existing roads and thus we have
questions on the need for the road. Also is any environmental documentation being done for the
proposed development?
Type of Information that we would like to see in this Environmental Document to Address Impacts
to Woodland - The following should be addressed for each alternative or project.
1. The total forest land acreage by types and merchantability aspects that would be taken out of
forest production or removed as a result of new right-of-way purchases, easements, and all
construction activities. Emphasis needs to be directed towards reducing impacts, whenever
possible to the following types of woodland in the following order of priority -
a. High site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
b. Productive forested wetlands.
c. Lower site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
d. Unique or unusual forest ecosystems.
e. Unmanaged, fully stocked woodland.
f. Unmanaged, cutover rural woodland.
g. Urban woodland.
A-19
P. O. Box 29581, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0581 ? A C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Ni W
Voice 919-733-2162 FAX [phone]% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved within
the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber or woody material
that is to be removed. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products first, including energy
chips. If wood products cannot be sold, then efforts should be made to haul the material off
or run through a tub grinder and turned into mulch. This practice is encouraged to accomplish
the following -
a. Minimize the need for piling and burning debris during construction.
b. To reduce the danger of escaped fires and smoke on nearby highways.
c. Reduce smoke management problems to the traveling public, towns and cities.
5. Woodland. Land Clearing and Open Burning - If any open burning is needed, the contractor
should comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning. The regulation of
open fires are covered under G.S. 113-60.21 thru 113-60.31 all inclusive. Land clearing
contractors should make particular note of G.S. 113-60.23 High Hazard Counties requiring a
special permit from our local county rangers and 113-60.24 for Open Burning in Non-High
Hazard Counties requiring a regular burning permit from our local burning permit agents.
Wake County is a non-high hazard counties and G.S. 113-60.24 would apply. Certain
conditions may exist at the time that would prevent the issuance of this permit. Also there may
be other local requirements such as most cities do not now allow any burning and some
counties now have a burning ordnance that would take precedence.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent erosion,
sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way and construction
limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from construction activities to
avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
c. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over the root
systems of trees.
7. Water and sewer lines and treatment plants -
a. Normally new water distribution lines do not impact much woodland because they are
generally placed within existing rights-of-ways. We think this is a good idea.
b. New sewer lines do impact woodland and productive woodland because they normally run
adjacent to creeks and streams of water.
c. WWTP are normally larger facilities and can have higher impacts to woodland.
d. Water plants can impact woodland if they are constructed next to rivers and/or streams.
e. We would mainly be concerned if any master plans proposed new construction of facilities
that in turn would have the potential to impact any woodland, if any construction was
proposed for any existing woodland acres. Therefore, the Master Plans should take the
following into consideration:
1. Avoid woodland if at all possible.
2. If woodland cannot be avoided, then address all impacts to this woodland.
A-20

' 8. Any cumulative impacts to woodland as a result of the new road and expansion to the water
and sewer or other improvements or developments in the service area. Of particular concern
would be a good estimate of future loss of woodland acres from future development coming
' into the service area as a result of the road and development from these improvements.
Efforts should be made to address the above items and to reduce impacts to woodland. We would
' hope that the improvements would have the least impact to forest and related resources in that
area.
' pc: Derryl Walden, Mike Thompson, Larry Such, Warren Boyette - CO
Ken Jeffries - R2
' Whit Stallings - D11
Alton Perry - Wake County
File

A-21
State of North Caroli
Department of Enviri
Health and Natural I
Division of Land Resourc
James B. Hunt, Jr., Go,
Jonathan B. Howes, SE
Charles H. Gardner, P.
Director and State Ge
nment,RECEIVED
esources DEHNR
S
10
Nf1V I g Ad
?rnor
retary
E.
14AND QUALITY SECTI,,_)!.;
Ew coru?NTs
its
OA4
F= F1
r
f
Project
Project Number: f ?JC%
Name: FftEil..6d I0 r I o' l rQ? ? P( r County:
LAD(?_c44 yViC? I?_

NC Office of State Planning - Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Surve office at 919/733-3836.
? a M
-6
Reviewer 1
'Erosion and Sedimentation Control•'._.
No comment
(I I I',& I 6/6a
Date I I
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of: the project is located within a High Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan.required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
d Qualify Section
Geological Survey SR wr
[phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
A-22
//- zU - 96
Date Geodetic Survey Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
P,O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Faual Oooortunity Affirmative Action Employer 500k recycled/ 10% pcst•consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 2, 1996
D E H N R
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE: Comments on EA # 97-0329
Brier Creek Parkway, Between US 70 and Aviation Parkway,
Wake County
' The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be discussed in
the EA/EIS document:
t

A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream classifications
and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This information is available
from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream banks
were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins be
placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-23
DEHNR #97-0329
12/2/96
page 2
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
1. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not (if
applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the traffic
problems in the study area?
L. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the environmental review. The
mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly banking.
DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full
control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for wetland
mitigation.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA Process) are
met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or
Record of Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the document. It
is recommended that if the 401 Certification application is submitted for review prior to
the sign off, the applicant states that the 401 should not be issued until the applicant
informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General
Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that
401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please give me a call at [phone], ext. 567 if you should have any questions.
cols:\970329ea.doc
cc: Eric Galamb - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
A-24
NUWKI. , r11-r , r HLL..J LNNr- I LL . y 17-JLO-700 V Vck. vv ;Iv + +•• ..... . --- . . --

'North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission n
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.1188, 919-733.3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEN, 10 RANDO M
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and. Intergovernmental Affairs, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co ' for ,
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 3, 1996
SUBJECT: Rc(lUeSt for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the projc)sed Brier
Creek Parkway, from US 70 to Aviation Parkway, Wake County, North
Carolina, TIP No. R-3619, SCH Project No. 97-0329.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of'the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed project, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-
1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
At this time, we have no specific recommendations regarding the subjcet project.
llowevcr, to help facilitate document preparation, our general informational heeds are
outlined below:
1 i . Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endungcred,
or special concern species, Potential borrow areas to be used for project
' construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
' N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
' [phone]
and,
' A-25

I.I.-- 1 11-1 ! I I IL-v ..-. I.I-
Memo
December 3, 1996
NCDA Plant Conservation Progra?n
P. U. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
21 Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the UI SI Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the C:OE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4 Cover type amps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. '1 he extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation lbr avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indireot
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A disciLssion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with rather state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. IN can further assist your office. please contact me at [phone].
A-26

I
I

I
APPENDIX B
LIST OF REFERENCES AND TECHNICAL REPORTS

I

I

APPENDIX B
LIST OF REFERENCES AND TECHNICAL REPORTS
B1. REFERENCES
City of Raleigh. July 1996. Ordinance (1996) 929 ZC 392.
City of Raleigh. July 1996. Raleigh Comprehensive Plan.
Conant, Roger and J.T. Collins. 1991. Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern and Central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York. 450 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987 Rpt. 89-08, NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin. NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. The 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. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
PP.
Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar Company,
Charlotte, NC for North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. December 1996. Greater Raleigh Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. June 1997. 1998-2004 Transportation
Improvement Program.
Olsen, P.E., A.J. Froelich, D.L. Daniels, J.P. Smoot, and P.J.W. Gore. 1991. "Rift Basins of Early
Mesozoic Age," Geology of the Carolinas, J.W. Horton, Jr. and V.A. Zullo Eds.
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. Pp. 142-170.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC for the NC State Museum of Natural Sciences. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
DRAFT B-3 10/17/97
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina. US
Department of Agriculture.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1991. Hydric Soils: Wake County, North Carolina. Technical
Guide Section II-A-2. US Department of Agriculture. 2 pp.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A Report on the
Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna.
Triangle Transit Authority. February 1995. Triangle Fixed Guideway Study Phase 111 Report.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of
November 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 1991. Annual Report 1990-91. North Carolina Nongame
and Endangered Wildlife Program, Freshwater Mussel Survey Results. NC Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. 90 pp.
82. TECHNICAL REPORTS
Craig Davis Properties, Inc. June 1996. Eastern Air Lines Property Traffic Impact Statement.
Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. July 1997. Air Quality Report. Prepared by
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. July 1997. Natural Resources Report.
Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. July 1997. Noise Report. Prepared by
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
DRAFT B-4 10/17/97

I

. IF
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A 1 0WMA,
D E H N R RECEIVED
DEC G 4 1996
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 2, 1996
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch 4-5
RE: Comments on EA # 97-0329
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Brier Creek Parkway, Between US 70 and Aviation Parkway,
Wake County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be discussed in
the EA/EIS document:
A-
B.
C.
E.
dgQS?
Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream classifications
and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This information is_ available
from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream banks
were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be revegetated.
Number of stream crossings.
Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins be
placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
I iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
?? O"1JL
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

DEHNR #97-0329
12/2/96
page 2
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not (if
applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussionfor mass-transit as an option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the traffic
problems in the study area?
L. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the environmental review. The
mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly banking.
DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur -
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full
control of acc"s to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parses or we:.an
r
zrnnganon.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA Process) are
met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or
Record of Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the document. It
is recommended that if the 401 Certification application is submitted for review prior to
the sign off, the applicant states that the 401 should not be issued until the applicant
informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General
Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that
401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please give me a call at [phone], ext. 567 if you should have any questions.
mis. \970329ea.doc
cc: Eric Galamb - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: I County: I Date:
is
? Project located in 7th floor library
I 1 iF21
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewe_t as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone I Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
t
? F 'KAir _ ? Coastal Management 'E?Water_ Planning
tev
aye
e Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health
? Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
Raleigh y Land Ouality Engineer kForest Resources ?Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant .Land Resources ? David Foster
i
on
ng
as ? Coastal Management Consultant ??
Ll Parks and Recreation El Other (specify)
El Wilmington
?Others
-,Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date:
fz z In-House Reviewer/Agency:

G v
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
?pNEPA and SEPA
L?Qther (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

Q i?- ? ? I ti CL, I ? CAk.C I.I ['4A
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 6, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager '
Planning and Environmental Bran
SUBJECT: Proposed Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and
Aviation Parkway; Wake County, TIP No. R-3619.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to construct Brier Creek Parkway (R-3619), a two-mile-long multi-
lane urban thoroughfare between the intersection of US 70 and ACC Boulevard and a
relocated Aviation Parkway in northwestern Wake County, North Carolina. Brier Creek
Parkway would be approximately 2,000 feet north of and parallel to the North Wake
Expressway. Signalized intersections are planned at relocated Aviation Parkway,
Globe Road, Westgate Road, and US 70. (See Figures 1 and 2.) The project will be
funded by a combination of state and developer funds. The NCDOT is preparing a State
Environmental Assessment for the project. Construction is scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Year 1999. The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments and initiate coordination for
the subject project.
Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to serve traffic generated by the proposed
development of an approximately 1,863-acre site owned by the Eastern Air Lines pilots
retirement plan (see Figure 2), as well as to serve east-west through movements coming
from Westgate Road east of the site. The Eastern Air Lines site is roughly bordered by
US 70, the North Wake Expressway, and the Wake/Durham County line.
0
Status of Site Development Planning
A mixed-use development is planned for the Eastern Air Lines site. A conceptual
site plan has been developed, and site zoning has been approved by the City of Raleigh.
Zoning approval was not opposed by members of the public. The ultimate development
mix will depend in part on market demand and the desires of developers. The currently
proposed mix of development is:
Residential -- 600 acres.
Office/Public Facilities -- 299 acres.
Commercial -- 155 acres.
Industrial -- 270 acres.
Public golf course -- 235 acres.
Open space/buffers/right-of-way -- 510_acres.
Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
The forecast 2020 average daily traffic for Brier Creek Parkway is 12,000 to
34,200 vehicles, with the higher volumes occurring at the west end of the parkway. The
2010 peak hour level of service is expected to range from B to D with a four-lane
parkway. The City of Raleigh plans to widen the parkway to six lanes west of Westgate
Road when warranted by the level of service.
Design Characteristics
The parkway will be four lanes with curb and gutter and a 40-foot median. The
40-foot median will be adequate to accommodate the later addition of two lanes noted
above. The design speed would be 50 mph, posted speed 45. The goal is to contain the
parkway within a 120-foot right-of-way, although some regrading will occur outside the
right-of-way.
Primary parkway location parameters are:
1. On the east, connect to US 70 at ACC Boulevard.
2. On the west, connect to relocated Aviation Parkway at its intersection with Globe
Road. The Globe Road intersection would be realigned to connect to the
parkway.
3. Meet NCDOT geometric design criteria.
4. Avoid using parcels not owned by the Eastern Air Lines pilots retirement plan.
5. Cross streams perpendicular to the stream.
6. Avoid Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands.
Environmental Impact Potential
Social and Economic
The Eastern Air Lines site is mostly undeveloped. Relocation of homes and
businesses is not expected with the proposed parkway. Planned development on the
Eastern Air Lines site includes: 2,631 gross square feet of office and public facilities
space, 1,699 gross square feet of commercial space, and 3,528 gross square feet of
industrial space.
Natural Resources
The following is currently known about natural resources in the project area and
their relation to the proposed project:
The parkway corridor is generally either within hardwood forest or mixed
hardwood/evergreen forest. This is generally true for the Eastern Air Lines property as a
whole. The full site does include some recently clear cut areas and scattered developed
areas.
The parkway would cross Brier Creek and three unnamed tributaries. Only Brier
Creek has a designated floodway. Wetlands on the Eastern Air Lines property are within
the 100-year floodplain.
The potential exists for the use of wetlands as the parkway crosses two tributaries
near Globe Road.
Notices and Schedules
In order that we may fully evaluate the impact of the proposed project, it is
requested that you respond to this letter in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse
impacts of the project relating to the interest of your agency. In order for our study team
to stay on schedule, it will be appreciated if you can respond by December 2, 1996.
If you have any questions concerning this project, Please contact Mr. Byron
Brady, PE, project planning engineer, at [phone].
HFV/beb
vi
2
98 C" 9 „ 98
loyland 0 Oak Grove ° a ?a4 roREST RD °
WAKE 0 I
A Qp
Rok
e
4, 99 0
c
' 'I?, ? 4?CFa OO
LOVE 9 i
L
SCALE: N.T.S. RD Eastern ?
t? o Air Lines Site s =
4,
Bethesda 4e" LEESVrLL
m /
RD. Rpy?' F y
r 000
I
Brassfield m q ?°
ew RESEARCH ° cF DAR e ,
t : Hq
O SOUTNERN ?= -COUNTY r / R
LM PKWY RD. 4k
O I m t
2 ( m - r ed r-j W ACC -Z W BLVD.
-Leesville STRICK?
vWESTGATE RD
© V
I F r OFF
low s Grov RALEIGH s`
i ,• j
yA °1 RD Nelson T3ner FASte
so L '70 LYN
Creek Park',
f r- Lake r. _
/ of
? cI
6
r
m
n =
x r
MorrisviII kl/
ARPENTER
Carpenter RD
NS
Lake -' 1
Crabtree
v/ESTON 'PKWY
GARY PKWr
?L
,y
S
A
O
RD
Eastern Air Lines
Site Location
0
W ?
C
l.?
2
RF
FO
Y
%r
9 rlr5:
?rrn? A?
Guord RO
* Ce'r r e'
F
AYE
one'
F!nley Stud
?LINITY, R9
Figure
1

SCALE: N.T.S.
ite Rd.
_ Eastern Air Lines Pilots Association Site Boundary
(internal out-parcels not shown)
Brier Creek Parkway and its Figure
Relation to the Proposed 2
Thoroughfare Network
0.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMLS B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RAIT1611, N.C. 27611-5201
November 6, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
i ECLIVC.i
NOV 12 1996
f:iNVIKOWE:NIAL SUIENC:FS
GARLAND B. GARRI.I I I R.
SIVRI:IARY
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branc
SUBJECT: Proposed Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and
Aviation Parkway, Wake County, TIP No. R-3619.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to construct Brier Creek Parkway (R-3619), a two-mile-long multi-
lane urban thoroughfare between the intersection of US 70 and ACC Boulevard and a
relocated Aviation Parkway in northwestern Wake County, North Carolina. Brier Creek
Parkway would be approximately 2,000 feet north of and parallel to the North Wake
Expressway. Signalized intersections are planned at relocated Aviation Parkway,
Globe Road, Westgate Road, and US 70. (See Figures 1 and 2.) The project will be
funded by a combination of state and developer funds. The NCDOT is preparing a State
Environmental Assessment for the project. Construction is scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Year 1999. The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments and initiate coordination for
the subject project.
Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to serve traffic generated by the proposed
development of an approximately 1,863-acre site owned by the Eastern Air Lines pilots
retirement plan (see Figure 2), as well as to serve east-west through movements coming
from Westgate Road east of the site. The Eastern Air Lines site is roughly bordered by
US 70, the North Wake Expressway, and the Wake/Durham County line.

Status of Site Development Planning
A mixed-use development is planned for the Eastern Air Lines site. A conceptual
site plan has been developed, and site zoning has been approved by the City of Raleigh.
Zoning approval was not opposed by members of the public. The ultimate development
mix will depend in part on market demand and the desires of developers. The currently
proposed mix of development is:
Residential -- 600 acres.
Office/Public Facilities -- 299 acres.
Commercial -- 155 acres.
Industrial -- 270 acres.
Public golf course -- 235 acres.
Open space/buffers/right-of-way -- 510 acres.
Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
The forecast 2020 average daily traffic for Brier Creek Parkway is 12,000 to
34,200 vehicles, with the higher volumes occurring at the west end of the parkway. The
2010 peak hour level of service is expected to range from B to D with a four-lane
parkway. The City of Raleigh plans to widen the parkway to six lanes west of Westgate
Road when warranted by the level of service.
Design Characteristics
The parkway will be four lanes with curb and gutter and a 40-foot median. The
40-foot median will be adequate to accommodate the later addition of two lanes noted
above. The design speed would be 50 mph, posted speed 45. The goal is to contain the
parkway within a 120-foot right-of-way, although some regrading will occur outside the
right-of-way.
Primary parkway location parameters are:
1. On the east, connect to US 70 at ACC Boulevard.
2. On the west, connect to relocated Aviation Parkway at its intersection with Globe
Road. The Globe Road intersection would be realigned to connect to the
parkway.
3. Meet NCDOT geometric design criteria.
4. Avoid using parcels not owned by the Eastern Air Lines pilots retirement plan.
5. Cross streams perpendicular to the stream.
6. Avoid Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands.
Environmental Impact Potential
Social and Economic
The Eastern Air Lines site is mostly undeveloped. Relocation of homes and
businesses is not expected with the proposed parkway. Planned development on the
Eastern Air Lines site includes: 2,631 gross square feet of office and public facilities
space, 1,699 gross square feet of commercial space, and 3,528 gross square feet of
industrial space.
Natural Resources
The following is currently known about natural resources in the project area and
their relation to the proposed project:
The parkway corridor is generally either within hardwood forest or mixed
hardwood/evergreen forest. This is generally true for the Eastern Air Lines property as a
whole. The full site does include some recently clear cut areas and scattered developed
areas.
The parkway would cross Brier Creek and three unnamed tributaries. Only Brier
Creek has a designated floodway. Wetlands on the Eastern Air Lines property are within
the 100-year floodplain.
The potential exists for the use of wetlands as the parkway crosses two tributaries
near Globe Road.
Notices and Schedules
in order that we may fully evaluate the impact of the proposed project, it is
requested that you respond to this letter in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse
impacts of the project relating to the interest of your agency. In order for our study team
to stay on schedule, it will be appreciated if you can respond by December 2, 1996.
If you have any questions concerning this project, Please contact Mr. Byron
Brady, PE, project planning engineer, at [phone].
HFV/beb
SCALE: N.T.S.
98 ~
a 9 ?, 98
Joy and H Oak Grove ° a Q? Ro o
r FOREST
VR
Figure
Eastern Air Lines
Site Location 1

vl
i+
Q.T.S.
ace Rd.
_ Eastern Air Lines Pilots Association Site Boundary
(internal out-parcels not shown)
Brier Creek Parkway and its Figure
Relation to the Proposed 2
Thoroughfare Network
1-:? I-97
Al d ---,-/p -(? l -- -
f3,-;e,,- Creek- 1?3611
7q /rew -Ao •dn 3re?? y - "I if
"4/q? re ve -l j / gdal Y 40°t-`K
vs ?n d (-4?? 40 p e?o'e ?i9, f ?;
,-
Cav'P--1' 4V" GvQY;4-i
C) I'd
-j iY1 % ? i Z A ? dL? C 0-y' C .J, ?S ? 04
/,'j X12&21
av e't- f? e_ 4 #,,1 e- -7o c dam,
S 6 e-? A el-,V477'
w s, l -{(l l al ?7 ,1," -r`o 9 mac- J Ui?.
-?k P.y o?r`? C c%S 3 i??-,l?4c "f,: r rlilh Al)
ie ?ec f ne..J joG-)Q i rvJcs . JAd?l&l y P--7-'
dar { -? Z-A -/-4 e c lea's, 4 d v`sle
ar?Scvs.5e-el- -f4,J
I"e f
o vf c

I l
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWO - Water Oualixv Section RL/I/,en
MEMORANDUM
TO: Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORw/HQW)
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
* Wetlands (WQ Lab)
k John Dorney (Corps, 401)
' - dyndi Bell (DOT)
O Eric Galamb
E??l?o ? ' 199TH
Reg./ Prg. Mgmt Coordination Branch
O Farrell Keough (Archdale 9th)
O Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
* Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston -Salem
Planning Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
O Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
O Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th) O
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch
RAE:
;?q A?-?Z
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by
the date indicated.
RESPONSE DEADLINE:
NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date: ?-
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
Notes:
an be reached at:
ne: [phone], ext. 567
cmemo - inac version
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]

Brier Creek Parkway
Wake County
State Project No. 6.804813
TIP No. R-3619
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
ID
RAIrr
In compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
Date
For further information contact:
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
H. Franklin Vick, PE
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation

Brier Creek Parkway
Wake County
State Project No. 6.804813
TIP No. R-3619
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared By:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
in association with:
Environmental Services, Inc.
Little & Little
William D. Gilmore, PE
Principal-in-Charge
Lorna Parkins, AICP
Environmental Study Manager
for the:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
James A. Bissett, PE, Unit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
Byron Brady, PE
Project Manager

' SUMMARY
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact.

2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following person can be contacted for additional information concerning this action:
' H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
' 3. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers are anticipated to be required under the
' provisions of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Permits under Section 404 are anticipated to consist of Nationwide Permits No. 14 and No.
26. The project also will require 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality.
4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
The project area is in western Wake County, between US 70 and 1-40 and west of the
Raleigh-Durham International Airport. The project area consists primarily of undeveloped
' woodland at present, but much of the area recently was approved for a mixed-use
development, including residential, commercial, office, and golf course uses.
The project area contains Little Brier Creek and a tributary of Little Brier Creek.
5. PROPOSED PROJECT
Brier Creek Parkway would extend from US 70 on the east to the realigned Aviation
' Parkway on the west. It would serve traffic generated by the planned mixed-use
development in the airport area, as well as east-west through movements. The length of
the project is approximately 2 miles. Approximately 2000 feet of Globe Road would be
realigned. The proposed project is designated R-3619 and is included in the 1998-2004
' NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program for construction in Fiscal Year 1998.
DRAFT iii 10/17/97
6. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
The proposed project is necessary to serve anticipated traffic and help fulfill the goals of
the Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
Adverse impacts from the proposed project include minor wetland encroachment, loss of
vegetation and wildlife, and habitat fragmentation. As a part of relocating a portion of
Globe Road, the abandonment of 2,000 feet of the existing Globe Road alignment and
restoration to natural contours where the alignment crosses the headwaters of Brier Creek
would improve floodplain function and water quality in the project area. One residence is
directly adjacent to the proposed Parkway and would suffer noise impacts.
7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The typical section being considered for the proposed Brier Creek Parkway is a four-lane
road with curb and gutter and a 40-foot median. This typical section was preferred over an
alternative 16-foot median because it allows for future widening of the roadway with little
disruption to future development and natural resources. A 40-foot median also offers
improved operational characteristics, particularly for turning movements.
Five other location alternatives were considered, but rejected because they did not meet
the purpose and need of the project or violated engineering objectives.
The no-build alternative and postponement of the project were not considered viable
options because the proposed roadway is essential to serve traffic generated by airport
area development, which already has been approved for implementation by the City of
Raleigh.
8. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
An analysis of the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project has
concluded that no significant adverse effects will result to the human or natural
environment from the construction of the proposed Brier Creek Parkway.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. On the section of existing Globe Road that will be abandoned, the crossing of the
headwaters of Brier Creek (just south of the utility lines) will be returned to original
contours and the existing pipe will be removed. This will restore floodplain functions
and reduce sedimentation in Brier Creek.
2. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used during construction to control
erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater runoff.
3. NCDOT will coordinate with NC Geodetic Survey on any impacts to geodetic survey
markers.
DRAFT iv 10/17/97

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 SUMMARY
' 1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1.1 BACKGROUND
' 1.2 FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
1.3 BENEFITS TO THE REGION AND COMMUNITY
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 GENERAL
2.2 INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND ACCESS CONTROL
' 2.3 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
2.4 BIKEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS
2.5 PERMITS REQUIRED
t

1

3. ALTERNATIVES
3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
3.2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
3.3 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
3.4 POSTPONEMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3.5 OTHER PARKWAY LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
3.6 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
4. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.1 SOCIAL IMPACTS
4. 1.1 Consistency with Land Use Plan
4.1.2 Neighborhood Impacts
41.3 Relocations
4.1.4 Public Facilities and Services
4.1.5 Environmental Justice
4.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
4.4 NATURAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Geology
4.4.2 Soils
4.4.3 Water Quality
4.4.4 Vegetation and Wildlife
4.4.5 Rare/Unique Natural Areas
4.4.6 Protected Species
4.4.7 Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas
4.4.8 Flood Hazard Evaluation
4.5 FARMLANDS
4.6 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
4.6.1 Noise Measurements
4.6.2 STAMINA Modeling
4.6.3 Noise Sensitive Receptors
4.6.4 Project Impact
4.6.5 Project Noise Abatement
4.6.6 Construction Noise
DRAFT v
1
1
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
15
19
19
21
24
24
24
24
26
26
26
27
27
10/17/97
4.7 AIR QUALITY 28
4.7.1 Analysis Results 28
4.7.2 Compliance with Clean Air Act 28
4.7.3 Construction 30
4.8 POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTES/UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES 30
4.9 VISUAL 30
4.10 CONSTRUCTION 30
4.11 SECONDARY IMPACTS 31
4.11.1 Natural Resource Impacts 31
4.11.2 Community Impacts 32
4.11.3 Summary 32
4.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 33
4.13 PERMITS REQUIRED 33
5. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 33
6. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 34
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service 6
Table 2 Project Area Population Characteristics 11
Table 3 Plant Communities 17
Table 4 Wetland Impact Areas 22
Table 5 Noise Measurement Results 26
Table 6 2010 Noise Levels at Receptors 27
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location Map 2
Figure 2 Proposed Project 3
Figure 3 Thoroughfare Plan in Project Area 4
Figure 4 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes 5
Figure 5 Typical Section 8
Figure 6 Alternative Alignments Considered 10
Figure 7 Plant Communities 16
Figure 8 Wetlands 23
Figure 9 Noise Impact Assessment Sites 25
Figure 10 Worst Case Scenario 29
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Scoping Letters A-1
Appendix B List of References and Technical Report B-1
DRAFT vi 10/17/97

t

t

1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1.1 BACKGROUND
Brier Creek Parkway is proposed as the major access road between US 70 and 1-40 and west of
the Raleigh-Durham International Airport. The project area is shown in Figure 1.
As shown in Figure 2, the proposed Brier Creek Parkway would extend from US 70 on the east
and connect to the realigned Aviation Parkway on the west. The purpose of the project is to
serve traffic generated by planned development in the airport area, as well as east-west through
movements coming from Westgate Road east of the project area. The current thoroughfare plan
(adopted in December 1996) in the project area is shown in Figure 3. Brier Creek Parkway is
included in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as R-3619 and
construction is scheduled for fiscal year 1998.
1.2 FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
To determine the traffic need for this project, the Raleigh Urban Area traffic model was utilized in
cooperation with the City of Raleigh and NCDOT. The model was updated to account for
changes in the roadway network and a more refined subdivision of land use zones. Using this
information, design year 2010 traffic projections were developed for both the Build and No-Build
scenarios. Table 1 and Figure 4 show existing, no-build, and build traffic projections for the
proposed Brier Creek Parkway as well as other local roads.
The forecast 2010 daily traffic for Brier Creek Parkway ranges from 12,000 vpd near US 70 to
34,200 vpd near Aviation Parkway. The level of service similarly ranges from LOS B on Brier
Creek Parkway between US 70 and the Lumley Road intersection and LOS D for sections west to
Aviation Parkway.
A comparison of the No-Build and Build scenarios demonstrates that the proposed Brier Creek
Parkway would have a significant positive impact on several local roads of regional importance.
Most significantly, the proposed roadway would divert approximately 15,000 vpd from 1-540
(Northern Wake Expressway) improving peak hour operations from LOS E to LOS D. In addition,
' the roadway would result in less significant reductions in traffic on US 70 and T.W. Alexander
Road.
In addition to the roadway links, an evaluation of future intersection capacity was conducted at
' three intersections. The analysis indicated:
1. Brier Creek Parkway at Aviation Parkway -- This intersection will provide an acceptable level
of service until local development has been significantly completed. At that time, the
capacity constraint results from the high volumes of traffic on the planned Aviation Parkway
extension and will be resolved as part of Aviation Parkway design development.
' 2. Brier Creek Parkway at Lumley Road -- This intersection would operate at LOS C in 2010 with
the provision of dual left turn lanes on northbound Lumley Road,
' 3. Brier Creek Parkway at US 70 -- This intersection would operate near capacity in 2010
assuming US 70 is widened to an eight-lane arterial. The existing Thoroughfare Plan
includes widening US 70 to either a ten-lane arterial or a six-lane freeway. An interchange
' with Brier Creek Parkway would be built as part of improving US 70 to a freeway.
DRAFT 1 10/17/97

Z T
O LLI

a D
o CD

J LL.
H
V
W
2
O

a
t

MY.
ITS
F-
V
W
O
O..
O
W
y
O
a
cm
a
cm
W
cr
D
0
LL
D
z
W
cm
W
J
N
N
N
J O O
a m ?
v E
w
Co 'r
C
E
C
Y ro
CD
mm
U?
a? o
m?
(D 0
U) C7
OL L
o
a 3
v yU
why ? - :,
lot
.00, a
000
• m` 5c z
a /
co CL
c j
acv ' Q? N?73N ?',??tld N01
00 -
44 A ilil so
Q H?? H ?tp?9
Q? Jbd N _ 6a
'?by
SS
i
.a
L, a . ?..%
W a co
cr. W

CC w
°C

C7
= W LL

o CL

x
?- z

z z

C
x

V
t
t
t
t
V
i- Y t
Z O
v
W Z s
8 w
"J? ?pgpgND C c
NI I? In
' \ C ? V
O ?
1 I LO V
U
?s
888
JII `
N M V
C71 ? ?. .
L
n I rIc
y ? I l?7 IN I
? rl r I? ` I
r r N ' YO
~ IM y0 ,I?
Q p?{
I
.Vi O r r Q /? ? ?
? ? ` r pgp Cgp ? `r?
u p
?` le!'V < g8S r
8p8
LR
.__
C V
C
r
v
!-- co It
W
Q m C?
V Z)

O LL

v
D
Z U-
U-
cc
c7 CC
z F-
_
P
y

W

O
a ?
? o
°a z m'
co 0 0
N N
II
D O l O l o
'D C, o
Z
W
c3
W
J
Table 1
Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service

Link Description Existing (1995)
ADT LOS 2010 No Build 2010 Build
ADT LOS
Brier Creek Pkwy E of Aviation Pkwy - - - - 33,400 D
Brier Creek Pkwy E of Globe Rd - - - - 34,200 D
Brier Creek Pkwy W of Lumley Rd - - - - 23,000 C
Brier Creek Pkwy E of Lumley Rd - - - - 12,000 B
Brier Creek Pkwy W of US 70 - - - - 16,400 C
Lumley Rd N of N. Wake Expressway - - 33,700 D 25,300 C
Globe Road S of Brier Creek Parkway 1,400 A 10,300 C 14,900 C
Aviation Pkwy N of N. Wake Expressway - - 53,500 D 63,700 D
Aviation Pkwy N of Brier Creek Pkwy - - 48,800 E 48,300 E
North Wake Expressway from Aviation
Parkway to Lumley Rd - - 99,700 E 82,100 D
North Wake Expressway from Lumley Rd
To US 70 - - 100,500 E 87,400 D
US 70 Between TW Alex and ACC Blvd/
Brier Creek Pkwy 34,300 D 55,300 C 55,900 C
US 70 Between N. Wake Expressway
and ACC Blvd/Brier Creek Pkwy 29,000 C 72,800 D 70,100 D
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
LOS = Level of Service
- Road does not exist today
1.3 BENEFITS TO THE REGION AND COMMUNITY
The airport area is expected to have moderate-to-high density, mixed-use development in order
to fulfill the need for a regional center in the area. Traffic attracted to this area will be served by
the proposed Brier Creek Parkway. With the roadway, this development will be able to serve as
a new regional center because of its location and size. For example, the planned development
is:
• adjacent to Research Triangle Park, which has no commercial or residential
development;
• adjacent to Raleigh-Durham International Airport;
• accessible to key, major thoroughfares including US 70 and the new Northern Wake
Expressway (1-540); and
• in a growing section of Wake County that currently lacks a commercial center.
Preliminary regional plans for rapid transit show a rail stop within the site. The Raleigh
Comprehensive Plan (July 2, 1996), 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (June,
DRAFT 6 10/17/97

' 1997), and Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plar (December 6, 1996) all reflect the City
of Raleigh's desire that the site develop as a regional cent Dr.
The existing Globe Road alignment crosses the headwate,s of Brier Creek just south of a utility
corridor. The pipe and fill material in this location have alt:red floodplain function, causing
excess flooding and ponding on the upstream end of the )ipe and reduced flooding
downstream. The realignment of Globe Road would enatr le the removal of this pipe and
associated fill material and the original contours of the arEa will be restored when this section of
Globe Road is removed. This will restore the floodplain tc a more natural state and improve
water quality in Brier Creek through reduced sedimentation.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 GENERAL
Brier Creek Parkway is a proposed two-mile, multi-lane, urban thoroughfare between the
intersection of US 70 and ACC Boulevard and a relocated Aviation Parkway. It would be
approximately 2,000 feet north of and parallel to the Northern Wake Expressway. Signalized
intersections are planned at relocated Aviation Parkway, Globe Road, Lumley Road, and US 70.
The road will be four lanes with curb and gutter and a 40-foot median. The typical section is
' shown in Figure 5. The right-of-way will be a maximum of 120 feet in width with grading
easements as needed. The proposed design speed is 50 mph. The posted speed will be 45
mph.

2.2 INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND ACCESS CONTROL
All intersections will be at-grade, with traffic signals at Aviation Parkway, Lumley Road, Globe
Road, and US 70. Between intersections, access will ba limited to every 800 feet.
Approximately 2,000 feet of Globe Road will be realignE?d to separate Brier Creek Parkway's
' intersections with Aviation Parkway and Globe Road.
2.3 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ?- c, I) ?
' The project design calls for a reinforced concrete box culvert at Little Brier Creek and a
reinforced concrete box culvert at a tributary of Little Brier Creek.
I
2.4 BIKEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS
There are no special accommodations required for bicycles on this project. No sidewalks are
proposed.

2.5 PERMITS REQUIRED
Nationwide Permits 14 and 26 from the USACOE will be required for several small wetland
crossings. Depending on interpretation of new rules <<dopted in January 1997 by the USACOE,
individual permits may be required for the project's streambed crossings. The project also will
require 401 Water Quality Certification from the North :;arolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Division of Water Quality.
DRAFT 7 10/17/97
Z u
o
P c
ci -
W
COO
u
J
a
v
a

fS z
C` i J
N
3JNIH lnl Y
a

u:
p ?:??
-
"?i F
yW?
C7
N ?: O Z

O
J
J

°
N'
LO ?
o
a
C s
V Q' O
` w O
+
t lT H N
\ C
CE CE O N
0 o
U) ill w
W
L

-O

o O
LL
1-
N ?
j N
N W /LI J
i Q J
?
J
O

a -1
(-'
N
ll W
w r O o
a r
,
J _
F+1 +
Z W N O
O,.
a
? a J
3 U
tY ? .r
N
0 o 0 1 h?l
D
i?l
-? ^
ltJ
++ ? N
J
?1
V N

30NIH '1113 o

-f

t

t

3. ALTERNATIVES
3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build alternative would avoid the negative impacts to natural resources, such as stream
crossings, wetland impacts, and habitat fragmentation associated with the proposed road. If the
No-Build alternative is chosen, the benefits of the proposed roadway would not be realized. The
traffic ramifications of the No-Build alternative include LOS E on parallel segments of 1-540, which
would have LOS D if the proposed project were built.
3.2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Traffic management strategies or widening existing roads might relieve some congestion in the
area; however, this alternative would not meet the aspect of the project's purpose and need
related to the traffic needs of a planned regional center.
3.3 TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
While airport area development is included in long-term regional transit plans as a potential area
for a transit link, transit alone would not provide sufficient access for development of the area.
The transit line would serve only 7 percent of the trips in the project area (Triangle Transit
Authority, 1995).
3.4 POSTPONEMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed Brier Creek Parkway would serve traffic generated by airport area development,
which has been approved by the City of Raleigh. Postponement of the road, therefore, would
delay but not alter development plans.
3.5 OTHER PARKWAY LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
Five other alignment alternatives, shown in Figure 6, were considered prior to the selection of the
alignment shown in Figure 2. They all were rejected because they did not meet traffic needs or
engineering requirements. Specifically:
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 did not cross Lumley Road in tangent.
Alternative 4 passed through a stormwater retention area, which was to be left
undisturbed, per an agreement between the City and the developer.
Compared to alternative 5, the preferred alternative has greater intersection spacing
between Aviation Parkway and Globe Road, and the preferred alternative follows more
closely the alignment of the approved site plan.
DRAFT 9
10/17/97

^. 4 1

cn G co
z
W

Z

C 7 =
W
2
co

Z W
D

C3
U-
J C
a C-1
W

a
z
cr.
W
J
a
N
J p
d E
N E Y
.0
a)
N
c
O
U
cn
.? c
m m
E c
c ?
rn Q
Q
-o >
a).
a)
c?
CO o (1)
a
C3
U
W

3.6 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
An alternative typical section with a 16-foot median also was considered for the project. The
typical section with a 40-foot median was selected for the following reasons:
• Minimizes future disturbance to natural resources and developments by accommodating
any future widening to six lanes in the median.
Stream disturbance associated with installing culverts at Little Brier Creek and a tributary
' of Little Brier Creek need only occur once with a 40-foot median. With a narrow median,
any widening would occur on the outside of the travel lanes, necessitating an extension
' of the culverts.
• Grading and wetlands fills also will occur only once if a 40-foot median is used.

4. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 SOCIAL IMPACTS
' i
ith L
d U
Pl
4
1
1 C
t
ency w
an
se
an
.
.
ons
s
The limited amount of existing development in the project area is primarily residential. The
majority of the project area is undeveloped but plans are to develop it as a mixed-used
development, in accordance with Wake County growth policy. The City of Raleigh's
Comprehensive Plan revisions adopted July 2, 1996 reflect the proposed site development
plans. Brier Creek Parkway is consistent with those development plans.
4.1.2 Neighborhood Impacts
' Traffic volumes would increase adjacent to scattered homes along Globe Road and a home
where the Parkway would cross Lumley Road.
'
4.1.3 Relocations
No residential or business relocations are expected to occur.
4.1.4 Public Facilities and Services
There are no schools, churches, fire stations, or police stations in the immediate vicinity of the
project area.
4.1.5 Environmental Justice
The proposed road would not specifically benefit, harm, or disproportionately impact any social
group. Table 2 describes the characteristics of households in the Cedar Fork Township (the
project area) and compares them to Wake County as a whole.
DRAFT 11 10/17/97
Table 2
Project Area Population Characteristics
Percent of
Median Families
Percent Percent Age Family Below
Area Total Minority 65 and Over Income Poverty Line
Wake County 423,380 23.3% 7.3% $44,302 5.5%
Cedar Fork Township 2,944 16.5% 8.4% $43,043 5.0%
Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing
The data indicate that minority residents, elderly residents, and households with incomes below
the poverty line are not represented disproportionately in the project area. The township's
median family income is $43,043 and the percent of families with incomes below the poverty line
is 5.0 percent compared to $44,302 and 5.5 percent, respectively, for Wake County. Cedar
Fork Township has a minority population comprising 16.5 percent of total population, compared
to 23.3 percent for Wake County. The percent of persons 65 years of age and older in Cedar
Fork Township is 8.4 percent compared to 7.3 percent for the County as a whole. Given that
there are no relocations associated with the project, and minority, elderly and low income
residents are not concentrated in the project area, these groups would not be expected to
receive disproportionate impacts from the proposed road.
4.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project would have both short-term and long-term economic
impacts. In the short-term, the local economy would be affected by the employment of
contractors and workers during the construction period, resulting in additional income
generation. Also in the short-term, property tax revenues would be reduced because of the
removal of some parcels of land from property tax rolls for project right-of-way.
In the long-term, the proposed project would provide increased access through previously
undeveloped land. This access is necessary for the planned development of the area that has
been approved by the City of Raleigh. This development will create numerous permanent jobs.
It also would have a substantial positive impact on the local tax base through the generation of
property, sales, and income taxes. After development, the real property values will increase.
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
In a letter dated December 4, 1996, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer stated that he
was aware of no properties of historical, architectural, or archaeological importance within the
project area (see Appendix A). It was recommended, therefore, that no historic resource
surveys be conducted.
DRAFT 12 10/17/97
1
'
4.4 NATURAL RESOURCES
' 4.4.1 Geology
Geologically, the project area is in the Durham Triassic Sub-basin. A Triassic Basin is a rift basin,
filled with exposed sedimentary and igneous rocks, believed to have formed along a fault zone as a
result of continental drift. This particular basin is oriented in a northeast-southwest direction. The
project corridor is near the eastern boundary of the basin, which is bounded by the Jonesboro fault
system. The Triassic sedimentary rocks are part of the Chatham Group, and consist of
conglomerate, arkosic sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and mudstone (Olsen et al., 1991, SCS
1970).
t 4.4.2 Solis
Characteristics
' The project corridor extends through the Creedmore-White Store soil association, which is
characterized by firm, clayey subsoils derived from sandstone, shale, and mudstone on gently
sloping to hilly landscapes (SCS, 1970). Soils that may occur in the project corridor include the
non-hydric series Creedmore, Mantachie, Mayodan, and Chewacla. There are no listed hydric
series mapped within the project corridor (SCS, 1991); however, small inclusions of the hydric
series Wehadkee may be found along drainage ways in the Chewacla soil series (SCS, 1991).
' The Creedmore series (Aquic Hapludults) is a moderately well drained soil that occurs on gentle to
moderately steep slopes. This series forms from weathered sandstone, mudstone, and shale of the
Triassic age. Permeability of the subsoil is low, which often leads to perched water tables during
' the wet seasons. The shrink-swell potential of this series is high, especially in the clayey subsoils.
The Mantachie series (Aeric Fluventic Haplaquepts) is a deep, somewhat poorly drained soil in
depressions and draws of Piedmont uplands. This series occurs on nearly level or gently sloping
uplands formed in coarse loamy deposits of local alluvium. The shrink-swell potential is low and the
seasonal high water table is about 2.0 feet below the soil surface. This soil is frequently flooded for
brief periods because of precipitation and runoff.
The Mayodan series (Typic Hapludults) is a well-drained soil that occurs over rock. This series
occurs on shallow, rounded divides. Mayodan soils form from weathered sandstone, mudstone,
and shale of the Triassic age. Permeability and shrink-swell potential are moderate and the water
table remains below the solum.
The Chewacla series (Aquic Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts) is a nearly level, somewhat poorly
drained, very deep loam, with hydric inclusions. This series forms in recent alluvial deposits
' washed largely from soils formed in residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other
metamorphic and igneous rocks. Permeability is moderate and flood frequency ranges from rarely
to frequently. Shrink-swell potential is low. Unweathered bedrock is found at depths greater than
6.6 feet below the soil surface. The seasonal high water table is between 0.5 foot and 1.6 feet
below the soil surface in undrained conditions. This soil is mapped along the bottoms of Little Brier
Creek and the unnamed tributaries.
1
The Wehadkee series (Typic Fluvaquents) is a poorly drained, fine sandy loam. This very deep
hydric soil is found on floodplains and forms in loamy alluvial deposits. Permeability is moderate to
moderately rapid, and some areas flood frequently in winter. Shrink-swell potential is low.
Unweathered bedrock is found at depths greater than 6.6 feet below the soil surface. The seasonal
high water table typically occurs within 1.0 foot of the soils surface in undrained conditions. Within
the project corridor, this series is present only as inclusions within the Chewacla soil series.

DRAFT 13 10/17/97

Impacts
impacts on soils are expected to be restricted to localized changes in micro-relief. The gently
rolling to moderately steep topography of the project corridor represents minor to moderate
potential for disturbances such as mass soil movement or flooding as a result of roadway
construction. To avoid these impacts, the road is designed to cross steams in a perpendicular
fashion and avoid the sides of hills. During construction, an erosion control plan and best
management practices will be followed.
4.4.3 Water Duality
Characteristics
The project corridor intersects Little Brier Creek, an unnamed tributary to Little Brier Creek, and the
headwaters of Brier Creek. These streams are within the upper Neuse River Basin (USGS
Hydrologic Unit #03020201).
Both Brier Creek (DEM Index No. 27-33-4) and Little Brier Creek (DEM Index No. 27-33-4-1) have a
best usage classification of C NSW. This classification indicates suitability for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes activities involving human body contact with water in an infrequent or incidental
basis (DEM, 1993). The NSW designation indicates the system is classified as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters, and requires limitations on nutrient inputs. Primary sources of long-term water quality
degradation in the project area are roadways, maintained utility line rights-of-way, and erosion
resulting from periodic timber harvesting.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring stations through sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM,
1989). BMAN stations currently do not exist on Little Brier Creek or Brier Creek, the nearest BMAN
location is approximately 6 miles downstream of the project corridor crossings on Crabtree Creek.
Water quality at the Crabtree Creek site has an overall rating of Fair.
The streams proposed for crossing have been designated with the supplemental classification
NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) because they are currently subjected to excessive growth of
aquatic vegetation, most likely as a result of an overabundance of nutrient inputs. The State will not
allow increases in nutrient levels (primarily phosphorous and nitrogen) over background levels in
waters so designated. The State Division of Water Quality will assist in developing nutrient
management strategies for streams with this designation.
One possible source of excessive nutrient inputs is the utility corridor in the project area. The utility
corridor crosses the headwaters of Brier Creek where the proposed Brier Creek parkway would be
constructed. Where existing Globe Road crosses the headwaters of Brier Creek, a pipe under the
roadway constricts downstream flow, causing periodic flooding and wetter conditions in the utility
corridor than would be expected to occur naturally. The utility corridor is mowed periodically which
likely causes additional sedimentation in Brier Creek. The pipe under Globe Road also has caused
a reduction in downstream floodplain function.
Impacts
Construction impacts to stream channels will be temporary and localized during road construction.
Long-term impacts to streams as a result of road construction are expected to be negligible.
Temporary construction impacts because of erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best management practices.
The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined
DRAFT 14 10/17/97

in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution"
(NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include: the use of dikes,
' berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction
staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on
disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with
potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into steams by
catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The existing utility corridor crossing of the headwaters of Brier Creek includes an unpaved
access road for utility line maintenance. Vegetation maintenance and vehicular traffic on this
access road have resulted in the formation of tire ruts and subsequent erosion of surface
sediments into Brier Creek. Construction of the proposed Parkway would allow for stabilization of
the ground surface in this portion of the utility line corridor, resulting in a decrease of
sedimentation into Brier Creek.
t 4.4.4 Vegetation and Wildlife
Description of Plant Communities
The project right-of-way comprises approximately 34.9 acres, 31.1 acres within the Brier Creek
Parkway proper and 3.8 acres within the Globe Road relocation. The project corridor is in a region
of relatively homogeneous land use and vegetation coverage. Within the project right-of-way, four
broad classifications of plant communities are recognized. These communities include hardwood
forest (HF), mixed pine/hardwood forest (MF), pine forest (PF), and urban/disturbed area (LID).
These communities are shown on Figure 7, and acres of each in the project right-of-way are
summarized in Table 3. The forested areas occur at various successional stages because of past
' disturbances such as logging.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest (MF). Mixed pine/hardwood forest is characterized by a canopy
dominated by a mixture of pines (greater than 30 percent) and hardwoods. Approximately 11.2
acres of mixed pine hardwood forest are scattered throughout the project right-of-way. Common
canopy species include southern red oak (Quercus falcata), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), white
oak (Q. alba), black oak (Q. velutina), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea) loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Virginia
' pine (P. virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and scattered
hickories (Carya spp.). The subcanopy consists of eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana),
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), and sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum). The
sparse shrub layer includes arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), silver-
berry (Elaeagnus umbellata), and blueberry (Vaccinium sp.). Common herbs include Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium
' sempervirens), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Some areas characterized by mixed pine hardwood forest appear to have been thinned selectively
within the past 8 to 15 years. Recently-timbered areas are dominated by loblolly pine, sweetgum,
flowering dogwood, eastern red cedar, and blueberry.
Hardwood Forest (HR Hardwood forest is characterized as a mature climax community
dominated by a mixture of hardwoods and includes occasional pines. Approximately 12.1 acres of
the project right-of-way support hardwood forest. Species composition varies from nearly pure
hardwoods to a pine component approaching 30 percent of the canopy. On ridges and lower
slopes above floodplains, the canopy includes American beech, tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera),
post oak (Quercus stellata), northern red oak (Q. rubra), white oak, black oak, swamp chestnut oak
(Q. michauxil), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), loblolly pine, sourwood, and various hickories. The

DRAFT 15 10/17/97

40
n

... !(66?
?E
(Yt J
.. ?'
`
fy ?
..
wa ?
Vo
'¦ ; IR 't' /' G I '

i
C4 r`
W
w
!- cc
Z D
0
U_

0
V

Z
Q
J
CL
N u
I?i o <
a m
Q E
?
N
O
a
U_
O
O 'D
C
'O J
cd
.o
2 ?
y 'e

d 0 •N
N
C
X 0
O 0
U_ 3 .n
u c
Via= n
II II J
aLLU'e
LZIJ
G7
W
J

1-1

Table 3
Plant Communities
Acres
in Project
Plant Community Right-of-Way
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 11.2
Hardwood Forest 12.1
Pine Forest 8.4
Urban/Disturbed Areas 3.2
TOTAL 34.9
subcanopy is dominated by American holly and flowering dogwood. The shrub and herb
components tend to be sparse because of dense canopy cover.
There is a slight change in species composition of hardwood forest in riparian areas, primarily
because of a moderation in temperature extremes and increased moisture resulting from the
proximity of adjacent waters. Dominant canopy species include American beech, white oak, tulip
tree, American elm (Ulmus americans), water oak, red maple, willow oak, sweetgum, river birch
(Betu/a nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), and
shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). American holly, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), river birch, and
several species of vines occur in the shrub layer.
Pine Forest (PR The canopy of the pine forest is composed almost entirely of loblolly and Virginia
pine. Approximately 8.4 acres of the project right-of-way support pine forest, occurring as isolated
pockets. This community is commonly the result of some type of urban/commercial disturbance
such as abandoned easements or recently timbered land. Shrub and herb layers are commonly
sparse because of the dense overstory, and include wax myrtle and Japanese honeysuckle.
A small portion of pine forest has been selectively timbered within the past 10 years. These areas
primarily support pines and other pioneer species. Understory species include loblolly pine,
sweetgum, flowering dogwood, American holly, Japanese honeysuckle, and common greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia).
Urban/Disturbed Areas (UD). Urban/disturbed areas have been disturbed by periodic mowing or
surface earthwork. Approximately 3.2 acres of the project right-of-way are characterized as
urban/disturbed areas. These areas support early successional communities. Examples of sites
with this designation include powerline rights-of-way, maintained road sides, and topsoil borrow
areas. Species occurring on these areas include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), lespedeza
(Lespedeza sp.), Nepal microstegium (Eulalia vimineum), broom panic grass (Dichanthelium
scoparium), asters (Aster spp.), and golden rods (Solidago spp.). Wet pockets contain rushes
(Juncus spp.), wool-grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and straw-colored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus).
Description of Characteristic Animal Communities
Terrestrial. The project corridor generally supports a contiguous forest system that offers
necessary components (food, water, cover) to support a number of animal species typical of the
DRAFT 17
10/17/97
Piedmont region of the state. Mammals noted or expected within the proposed alignment include
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped
skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), woodchuck
(Marmota monax), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon
cineareoargenteus), and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) (Webster et at, 1985).
Common bird species that occur in the project corridor are typical of Piedmont forest. Because of
the minimal amount of habitat fragmentation, and resulting buffering effect from human activity, the
vicinity of the project corridor supports forest interior species that typically avoid such disturbances.
Such forest interior species include American woodcock (Scolopax minor), red-shouldered hawk
(Buteo lineatus), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus
pileatus), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea),
wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus), yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and
scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea). Other common species that occur within the project corridor
include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), great horned owl
(Bubo virginianus), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), ruby-crowned kinglet
(Regulus calendula), golden-crowned kinglet (R. satrapa), northern junco (Juncus hyemalis),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) (Potter
et at, 1980).
Reptiles and amphibians known to occur in the region include eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), rough green snake
(Opheodrys aestivus), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), American toad (Bufo americana),
northern cricket frog (Acris creations), spring pepper (Pseudacris crucifer), two-lined salamander
(Eurycea bislineata), and northern dusky salamander (Desmognanthus fuscus) (Palmer and
Braswell, 1995, Martof et al., 1980, Conant and Collins, 1991).
Aquatic. Little Brier Creek and its unnamed tributary are the only sources of permanent water
within the project corridor. Species of fish expected to inhabit these streams most likely will be
limited in size and diversity because of regular fluctuations in water level. Expected species
include bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (L. cyanellus), pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus),
blue-spotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus), banded sunfish (E. obesus), pirate perch
(Aphredoderus sayanus), Carolina madtom (Notorus furiosus), brown bullhead (Ictalurus
nebulosus), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), white shiner (Notropis albeolus), creek chub
(Semotilus atromculatus), greenfin shiner (Notropis chloristius), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), eastern mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki), and Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum)
(Menhinick, 1991, Rohde et al., 1994).
Wildlife commonly associated with aquatic environments in this region of the state include mink
(Mustela vison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta),
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), pickerel frog
(Rana palustris), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife
Plant Community Impacts. Potential impacts to plant communities resulting from roadway
construction depend on the relative amount of each community in the project corridor. Impact
areas for each community have been discussed within the community descriptions. The region
DRAFT 18 10/17/97

traversed by the proposed project is presently relatively undisturbed and plant communities occur
in large contiguous blocks. The project would fragment this large block of forest. Beyond
' fragmentation, however, the clearing of the project corridor for construction will have a minor impact
on plant communities in the immediate vicinity.
Wildlife Impacts. Fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat is an unavoidable consequence of
roadway development on new location. Short-term displacement of local wildlife populations will
occur during initial construction of the road. Many local species are habituated to anthropogenic
disturbances and are expected to return to the construction area. Movement through the area will
' become more dangerous for many transient species because of the new facility.
Some wildlife species occurring within the proposed corridor may be displaced through permanent
habitat reduction and fragmentation. Localized large mammal populations, such as deer, may
experience disruptions in mating, feeding, or migratory patterns as a result of roadway
construction. Increased urbanization already has resulted in diminished habitat opportunities as
woodlands are committed to development. Many migratory and resident bird species that require
forest interiors for nesting may be displaced because of the edge effects associated with bisecting
a wooded area with the proposed project. These species also will be affected by further
fragmentation within upland hardwood tracts because of secondary impacts associated with site
' development. (See section 4.11.)
In the headwaters of Brier Creek, the proposed project would enable a section of streambed to be
restored. Specifically, the section of Globe Road that would be abandoned contains a pipe where it
' crosses the headwaters of Brier Creek. As part of the proposed project, this pipe would be
removed and the natural contours of the area would be restored. This would allow the streambed
to revert to a more natural state that, once again, could support wildlife.
1
4.4.5 Rare/Unique Natural Areas
There are no designated rare or unique natural areas identified within the project area according to
NHP records (December, 1996). There are no water bodies deserving of special attention as
denoted under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906;
codified and amended at 16 U.S.C. 1217-1287 (1982) or under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of
1971 (G.S. 113A-30). Because rare or unique resources were not identified within the project
corridor, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

4.4.6 Protected Species
Federal Species
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The USFWS list of
federally protected species as of May 2, 1997 is as follows:
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T
These species are described briefly in the following paragraphs.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW). This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches long) has a black
head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white barred back. Males often have red
DRAFT 19
10/17/97
markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et
al., 1980). Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with
little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed
hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry, 1989). Suitable habitat was not found within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: This project is expected to have no eff ect on RCWs. No suitable nesting
habitat (stand-size pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 60 years old) is
present within the project corridor. No birds were observed during the site visit and, currently, no
colonies have been documented in Wake County.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Dwarf wedge mussel. The dwarf wedge mussel is relatively small, averaging 1.0 to 1.5 inches long.
The shells are olive-green to dark brown in color and are sub-rhomboidally shaped. The shells of
females are swollen posteriorly, while males are generally flattened (TSCFTM, 1990). The preferred
habitats are streams with moderate flow velocities and bottoms varying in texture from gravel and
coarse sand to mud, especially downstream of debris and on banks of accreting sediment. This
species was previously known only from a few, disjunct populations in the Neuse River basin
(Johnston Co.) and Tar River basin (Granville Co.). State-wide surveys conducted since 1992 have
expanded this species' range in North Carolina, but the dwarf wedge mussel has not been
documented in any streams within the vicinity of the project corridor.
Biological Conclusion: This project is expected to have no effect on the dwarf wedge mussels.
This species has not been found to occur within the project corridor. A 1991 NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) survey of Brier Creek and Little Brier Creek failed to locate evidence of dwarf
wedge mussels in the system (WRC, 1991). No mussel shells were observed in or adjacent to
project corridor streams during the site visit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac. Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub,
usually less than 2 feet high. The alternate, compound leaves consist of 9-13 hairy, round-based,
toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may be slightly winged (Radford et al., 1968). Small
male and female flowers are produced during June on separate plants; female flowers are
produced on terminal, erect clusters followed by small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and
September. Michaux's sumac tends to grow in areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire
or other disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility rights-of-way. In the
Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soils derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil
derived from granite (Weakley, 1993). Michaux's sumac ranges from southern Virginia through
Georgia in the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
Biological Conclusion: This project is expected to have no effect on Michaux's sumac. Road sides
and utility line rights-of-way within the project corridor are maintained regularly and do not provide
suitable habitat for sumac. Michaux's sumac was not observed during the site visit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Bald Eaale. The bald eagle occurs throughout North America, primarily in association with large
lakes and coastal bays and sounds where food is plentiful. Mature eagles (usually 4 to 6 years and
older) are identified by a white tail and head, dark brown to black body and wings (wingspread to 6
feet), and yellow eyes, bill, and feet. Juveniles are uniformly chocolate-brown and sometimes have
whitish mottling on their tail, belly, and wing linings. As the birds mature they become lighter in
color and the mottling increases until they acquire their adult plumage pattern. Nesting sites occur
DRAFT 20 10/17/97

I

close to feeding grounds and nests are constructed in large trees (predominately pine or cypress),
either living or dead. Eagles are opportunistic hunters and scavengers, feeding on a wide variety
of aquatic-dependent organisms including fish, snakes, small mammals and large water birds.
Their primary source of food is carrion and fish taken from ospreys (Potter et al. , 1980).
Biological Conclusion: This project is expected to have no effect on the bald eagle. No suitable
habitat exists within the project corridor, and no eagles were observed during the site visit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern
The May 2, 1997 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal species of
concern' (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection for the species listed.
Common Name
Bachman's sparrow
Southern hognose snake
Southeastern myotis
Yellow lance
Atlantic pigtoe
Green floater
Diana fritillary butterfly
Sweet pinesap
Carolina least trillium
Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis No
Heterodon simus No'
Myotis austroriparius No
Elliptio lanceolata No
Fusconaia masoni No
Lasmigona subviridus No
Speyeria diana No"
Monotropsis odorata Yes
Trillium pusillum var. pusillum No
"Historic record-the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
No FSC-designated species have been documented in the vicinity of the project corridor according
to NHP records (December, 1996). The typical habitat of most of these species does not occur in
the project corridor; however, habitat for sweet pinesap does occur within the project corridor.
Sweet pinesap typically occurs on dry slopes and bluffs supporting deciduous forests. Sweet
pinesap was not observed during the site visit.
State Species
Species with the North Carolina status of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC)
receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.)
and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). No state-listed
species are known to occur within two miles of the project corridor.
4.4.7 Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas
Characteristics
Wetlands are defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) (33 CFR 328.3) 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."
In accordance with this definition, wetlands must possess three essential parameters:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetlands hydrology (COE Wetlands
Delineation Manual, 1987).
DRAFT 21 10/17/97

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), now referred to as the Clean Water
Act, authorized the USACOE, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), to regulate the disposal of dredged or fill material
into "waters of the United States." The term "waters of the United States" has broad meaning
and incorporates both deepwater aquatic habitats and special aquatic sites, including wetlands
(COE Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987). Executive Order 11990 requires that new
construction in wetlands be avoided to the extent possible, and that all practical measures be
taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands.
The wetland and streambed areas within the project corridor were delineated in 1996 and 1997,
based on the methodology outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(1987). Field reconnaissance was conducted in December 1996 and June and July, 1997, to
confirm the wetland delineations and streambeds that may be disturbed during construction
within the project corridor. Areas within the project corridor that are subject to Section 404
permit review include 1) water and streambed limits of Brier and Little Brier Creeks and
associated tributaries, 2) wetlands systems immediately adjacent to these creeks, and 3)
isolated pockets of wetlands not connected to any stream or floodplain that are considered
jurisdictional based upon the three-parameter methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Figure 8 shows the location of the wetlands identified in
the project corridor.
Impacts
Table 4 lists the map reference number for each wetland site as shown on Figure 8 and the area
of impact at these sites.
Wetland crossings for sites A through M will be submitted for Nationwide Permits 14 and 26 from
the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers. These permits will be obtained and will be used or
modified as part of the roadway construction project. Crossings will be accommodated by the
use of culverts.
Table 4
Wetland Impact Areas

Wetland Site
Location Acres/Linear Feet
Impacted Permit
Status
A SB of Brier Creek 136.3 I.f. in preparation
B Tributary SB to Brier Creek 170 I.f. in preparation
C Unconnected wetland on side of ridge 0.113 acres in preparation
D Unconnected wetland/water on ridge 151.6 l.f. in preparation
E Unnamed SB to UT to Little Brier Creek 126.8 I.f. in preparation
F Unnamed SB to UT to Little Brier Creek 269.2 I.f. in preparation
H SB of UT to Little Brier Creek 201.2 I.f. in preparation
J Wetland adjacent to Little Brier Creek 0.205 acres in preparation
K SB of Little Brier Creek 130.7 I.f. in preparation
L Wetland in storm water channel 0.204 acres in preparation
M Unconnected wetland on side of ridge 0.021 acres in preparation
UT = Unnamed Tributary
SB = Streambed
DRAFT 22 10/17/97

y
a
W
cr.
a
a
z
0
P
C.)
C
S2
cr
d'
Q
d
i
s>
4
?" r ?'w ,?' ' s i, '? a , is •
£ k 3. Q
z
} i W
Q
LLJ
w
m
D
0
ui
L
N
UJ O O
fA
N
an
C
cn v>
cn C
O N
U p
° U
a>
c
E
co cri
00
i voidance and Minimization
n accordance with Executive Order 11990, this project has been designed to avoid new
construction in wetlands to the extent possible, and employ all practical measures to minimize or
mitigate impacts to wetlands. Scattered small wetlands exist throughout the project area, mainly
\? S as a result of prior land disturbance (e.g. farming troughs). The proposed alignment avoids
these wetlands as much as possible. Because streams cross the entire site, complete
avoidance of stream crossings is not practicable. Measures have been employed in the initial
U? planning of the proposed alternatives to minimize potential impacts through route location
(avoidance), design, and construction practices. No rechannelling of Brier Creek, Little Brier
Creek, or their tributaries is planned other than at the designated crossings. Sedimentation and
erosion control practices will be utilized to minimize construction impacts. The project is
expected to generate 10,000 to 20,000 cubic yards of waste, which will be used within the
project corridor and will not affect wetland areas. Where wetland crossings are unavoidable, the
proposed alternative crosses the wetland sites at their narrowest points and as close to
perpendicular as possible to minimize impacts. The fill or cut slopes are as steep as the design
criteria allow in these locations, also to minimize wetland impacts. Drainage structures will be
placed under the roadway as necessary to maintain wetland function.
Mitigation
Final discretionary authority regarding mitigation rests with the USACOE and NCDWQ. The
potential for on-site mitigation exists where an existing stream bed crossing in the abandoned
section of Globe Road can be returned to its original state.
4.4.8 Flood Hazard Evaluation
A floodplain evaluation was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 11988 "Floodplain
Management and 23 CFR 650, Subpart A "Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on
Floodplains." The proposed project will cross Little Brier Creek (Basin 18, Stream 15).
The proposed project will not result in a significant encroachment on the floodway or the
Floodplain for the creek. The project will not increase the extent or level of flood hazard risk.
4.5 FARMLANDS
The project corridor consists of areas that are planned to be urbanized, and, therefore, are
exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
4.6 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
4.6.1 Noise Measurements
Ambient Noise Measurements
A noise measurement survey was conducted in the project area on December 23, 24, and 26,
1996 to document existing (ambient) noise levels. Sites selected were representative of noise
sensitive receptors within the project area. Figure 9 shows the sites, R3 and R4. Table 5 lists the
measurements. Ambient noise measurements were taken with and without airplanes to
document the impact of airplanes on noise at the measurement sites. The measurements show
that, with airplanes, noise levels are 0 to 4 dBA higher.
DRAFT 24 10/17/97

I
? r
44
Dow
C 1.5 I
?' ,--?'+• ? vat ?? „? ? ,? B? .i
••? - ?.1? ?? ?*10 ,?.. u7 1 1
Val a Q' . D e
mm 110
X,
t mfil1??e??
?:? w Helo?atlon` 1i
,¢? • ? Via,' ? (pejg?o?e ?; ?, ?? • %? ?
4- L
r .
i v • ?\
epH tiA t.
r`) • Food,
W

~ W
cc
COD
0
Z
ui
G
W
COD
W
COD
COD

CJ
a

W
C07
G
Z
N
N

C4
ou u o I
a
8
v E
N
d'
cc

m

o
c
CD C
,
I- to
co
?
c
c
I?
t
c c`o c
Co
a rn
? Y N

U)
U
Q w
U N C CC
E

CL
m
w

m m
N 00
at
`
z? a
3

W
c
W
J
Table 5
Noise Measurement Results
Noise
Site Level
Number Location Description (dBA)
Noise
Level (w/ Airplanes)*
(dBA)
R3 Residence off SR Wooded area 55.2
1739
R4 Business off of Roadside 44.0
US 70
"Peak measurement: measurement taken during a peak air travel time.
59.1
44.3
Noise measurements were recorded for 20-minute periods. The noise meter used for this project
was a Type-1 Noise Level Analyzer B&K 2230. Accessories included a B&K 4231 calibrator and
a B&K 1565 microphone and windshield. The microphone was placed five feet above the
ground.
Prediction of Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future traffic noise levels was the noise Barrier Cost Reduction
(BCR) procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). This procedure is based
on the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Model results take
into account the number and type of vehicles on the roadway, their speeds, receptor location
and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
4.6.2 STAMINA Modeling
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was used to determine the number of land uses (by type) that
would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria
during the peak hour in the 2010 design year. Those land uses where a substantial noise
increase would occur also were determined.
4.6.3 Noise Sensitive Receptors
Noise levels for receptors at distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1,600 feet from the
center of the nearest travel lane were modeled. These results were used to identify the 67 dBA
and 72 dBA noise contours. STAMINA model output is provided in the Noise Report.
Six receptors whose noise levels could be influenced by traffic on the proposed Brier Creek
Parkway (see Figure 9) also were modeled. The measurement and modeling results were used
to determine worst-case noise levels at these receptors (see Table 6).
4.6.4 Project Impact
The findings presented in Table 6 show that noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed roadway
will exceed or approach the Federal Highway Administration's noise abatement criteria (NAC) of
DRAFT 26 10/17/97

Table 6
2010 Noise Levels at Receptors
Site No. Land Use
Distance
to
Brier Distance
Creek to Globe
Parkway Road
(in feet) (in feet)
Measured Leo 2010 Leo
Peak Noise Change
Off- Modeled Level from
Peak Peak' Traffic at Receptorz 1997
R13 Residence 920 520 55 59 52 60 1
R23 Residence/ 850 670 55 59 51 60 1
Business
R3 Residence 840 N/A 55 59 47 59 0
R4 Business 710 N/A 44 44 46 48 4
R5 Business 820 N/A 44 44 45 48 4
R6 Residence 100 N/A 55 59 68 68 9
'With airplanes
2Existing modeled Brier Creek traffic plus peak (with airplanes) measured Leq
3Globe road relocation noise impact included
67 dBA (category B land uses) at one residential receptor. The 72 dBA NAC (category C land
uses) will not be exceeded. Table 6 also shows that no substantial increases in noise levels (10
dBA or greater when the existing noise level is greater than 50 dBA) will occur for any receptor.
The 67 dBA and 72 dBA noise contours for the project are approximately 120 feet and 60 feet,
respectively, from the edge of the proposed road west of Lumley Road and 70 feet and 35 feet,
respectively, from the edge of the proposed road east of Lumley Road.
' 4.6.5 Project Noise Abatement
Noise abatement would not be feasible at the residence where FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
would be approached or exceeded. North Carolina State Noise Abatement Guidelines (May,
' 1990) state that it is not prudent or reasonable to consider noise abatement for isolated
receptors. Hence, no physical abatement measures are considered feasible and none are
recommended for the Brier Creek Parkway.

1

4.6.6 Construction Noise
Construction noise would vary greatly with the type of equipment in use at any particular time
and the phase of construction activity. Noise levels during construction therefore would fluctuate
greatly from day to day and hour to hour. High noise levels of combustion-engine-powered
equipment would be the main contributor to the higher noise levels. Higher noise levels also
could result from impact pile driving, if this method is used during construction of the proposed
roadway.
Construction operations, and associated noise, generally would be restricted to daytime hours.
Control of construction noise at the source is the most effective approach to reducing noise.
Construction equipment would comply with the noise standards adopted by Occupational Safety
DRAFT 27 10/17/97
and Health Administration (OSHA). Construction equipment would be required to have effective
muffler, have efficient silencers on air intakes of equipment, and be properly maintained.
4.7 AIR QUALITY
The US Environmental Protection Agency's MOBILE 5a air quality model was used to estimate
CO emissions in 2010. CAL3QHC was used to predict CO concentrations at two "worst-case"
sites, the sites with the greatest potential to suffer violations of NAAQS with the proposed project.
These sites are shown Figure 10.
4.7.1 Analysis Results
The peak one-hour computed CO concentrations for year 2010 (design year) would be:
12.9 ppm at Aviation Parkway.
11.7 ppm at US 70.
The peak eight-hour computed CO concentrations for year 2010 (design year) would be:
7.9 ppm at Aviation Parkway.
7.1 ppm at US 70.
A comparison with the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (1-hour - 35 ppm; 8-hour - 9
ppm) indicates no violation of these standards would occur.
4.7.2 Compliance with Clean Air Act
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area
for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment areas for 03 and
CO. However, because of improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as
"maintenance" for 03 on June 17, 1994, and "maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995.
Section 176 (c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform
to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain
any transportation control measures for Wake County. The Capital Area 1996 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The
USDOT re-approval date of the programmed projects in the FY 1996 TIP is September 26, 1996.
The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR
Part 51. The proposed project is in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (June
1996). There have been no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as
used in the conformity analyses.
The air quality project level CO analysis described above determined that National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (1-hour - 35 ppm; 8-hour - 9 ppm) would not be exceeded in the project
design year 2010. This project is not anticipated to create an adverse effect on air quality.
DRAFT 28 10/17/97
t
VD o
W •-
~ W

O 0
F-- LL
CL
W
V
W

W
N
a
v

C4

O
3

Ui
N

J p lJ lJ p
a .2 E
(? 'S Y
N C

C
N
E
CD ca C
cn a .rn

0 (D 0)

o
U U
a) ca
c o
cr.
(D ca
?j 4) o
o 0
CL =
0 o
y
? a 3

W I
W ?r
W
J
4.7.3 Construction
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition, or other operations would be removed from the project corridor, burned or otherwise
disposed of by the contractor. Any burning would be in accordance with applicable local laws
and ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air
quality and in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520, North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15,
Chapter 2, "Environmental Management (NCDEHNR), Control and Prohibition of Open Burning."
Care would be taken to ensure burning would be done at the greatest distance practicable from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning would be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures would be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction when the control of dust
is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
4.8 POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTES/UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
SITES
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted at the airport assemblage site between the
terminus of the newly constructed Aviation Parkway and the US 70/ACC Boulevard intersection.
A file search of all appropriate federal and state agencies also was conducted to determine if
any known environmental hazards were present along the proposed project corridor.
Based on this research, there do not appear to be any sites within the project limits that have the
potential for underground storage tank involvement. The research also shows that no regulated
landfills or unregulated dump sites occur within the project corridor. Therefore, there should not
be any environmental conflicts with the proposed project.
4.9 VISUAL
The study area is predominantly wooded and undeveloped with no high quality views. The
proposed roadway would be clearly visible from one home at Lumley Road.
4.10 CONSTRUCTION
Short-term construction impacts may occur in the areas of water quality, air quality, natural
resources, and noise. The potential impacts can be minimized by careful adherence to
established construction methods. These methods are described below:
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right-of-way and provided
by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or unless
disposal within the right-of-way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of waste or debris
in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by
the engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer, it
will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
2. During construction of the proposed project, all material resulting from clearing,
grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, and disposed
of by the contractor. Any merchantable timber will be salvaged. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520 and GS 113-60.24. Additionally, trees outside of the construction limits will be
DRAFT 30 10/17/97

t

protected from construction activities to prevent skinning tree trunks from heavy
equipment, exposing roots, smothering trees from fill dirt around the base, or
accidentally spilling petroleum.
3. Borrow pits and ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes.
4. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
5. There will be strict adherence to erosion control plan by the contractor, including limiting
areas and duration of exposed earth and stabilizing exposed areas as quickly as
possible (see discussion of impacts in section 4.4.3).
6. Measures will be taken to alleviate the dust generated by construction when the control
of dust is necessary for the protection, safety, and comfort of motorists and nearby
residents.
Although the high equipment noise levels are expected to be the main contributor to the
construction activity noise emissions, noise impacts during project construction are of
short duration. Peak noise levels from highway construction equipment as measured at
a distance of 50 feet may vary from 70 dBA to 100 dBA. It is anticipated that the major
sources of construction noise will be from earth removal, hauling, grading, pile driving,
and paving. General construction noise impacts that can be expected are temporary
speech interference for passersby and those individuals working near the project. Such
noise will be limited to daylight hours as much as possible.
4.11 SECONDARY IMPACTS
Construction of the Brier Creek Parkway and the extension of Globe Road will have little direct
natural resource and community impacts. However, the development that would be served by
this roadway would result in secondary impacts to these resources.
4.11.1 Natural Resource Impacts
Wetlands
Development of the property surrounding Brier Creek Parkway could result in a loss of some
wetlands. Wetland maps indicate that the area of wetlands on the site is small and that they tend
to occur in and around floodplains. Since these areas are typically unsuitable for development, it
is expected that wetland loss would be minimal. All developers would have to seek permits for
wetlands filled from the USACOE under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, now referred to as the Clean Water Act.
Water Resources
As the project area develops, the streams in the area will be affected. In the short-term, the
' impacts of runoff and clearing for the road will increase temperature and turbidity in the stream,
causing increases in aquatic vegetation, decreases in oxygen, and declines in water quality.
With the development of the site as a whole, particularly the golf course in the floodplain, further
clearing of trees can increase water temperature, and sedimentation in the streams also can
' increase. Increased sedimentation will impede the growth of aquatic vegetation, but it also will
increase sediment loads into the flood control pond downstream. Development plans will need
to have adequate planning to minimize erosion and sediment loads entering streams. Planting
1
DRAFT 31 10/17/97
trees along the streams would help minimize water quality impacts by providing shade,
stabilizing banks and deterring erosion.
The streams proposed for crossing have been designated with the State supplemental
classification Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW); the State will not allow increases in nutrient levels
(primarily phosphorous and nitrogen) over background levels. Developers are required to have
nutrient management strategies for streams with this designation.
Biological Resources
Contiguous, mature forest tracts typically provide greater diversity of habitats for both plants and
animals than smaller, isolated, and younger tracts. Development will continue the trend in forest
size reduction, disturbance, and habitat fragmentation that is occurring throughout the Triangle
region because of growth and associated development. This development could decrease
species diversity in the project area.
Current development plans include a minimum 200-acre set aside for open space and
recreation. This area will include greenway space and buffers adjacent to waterways, which
would reduce somewhat secondary impacts on the area ecology.
Protected species as discussed in section 4.4.6 would not be affected by development of the
airport assemblage property. Suitable habitat for these species does not exist on the site, and
none of the species has been documented in or near the site.
4.11.2 Community Impacts
Development would change the character of the existing communities immediately adjacent to
the site (along Globe Road and Lumley Road). These areas, which are fairly isolated and
primarily residential, would become part of a "mini" urban center, with office, commercial, and
industrial uses. There will be an influx of population, which could alter the demographics of the
existing community, as people come into the area to live and/or work. Residents currently living
in the area would experience a loss in the tranquillity and serenity associated with isolated, rural
areas.
The existing community also could benefit from the development. For example, services that
currently are not close by would be more accessible to residents as the area became urbanized.
In addition, new job opportunities would be available within the community. Third, development
plans call for a 235-acre public golf course, an amenity currently not available in the existing
community.
No historic resources are in the study area, as indicated in the letter from the SHPO in Appendix
A; thus, the development of the site would not affect this type of community resource.
4.11.3 Summary
Although the proposed project would have certain negative secondary impacts associated with
development of the airport assemblage property, it is reasonable to conclude that development
of the site is imminent given its proximity to major thoroughfares such as US 70 and the Northern
Wake Expressway. While a road is a necessary component of the development, it is not the
catalyst for the development. The development already has been approved by the City of
Raleigh and its impacts are consistent with city and county plans. If the road is not funded
publicly, it can be assumed that private funds will be used and the above impacts will occur
anyway. -A
DRAFT I0\-O
\0 U?
32/ N\j 4
10/17/97

4.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts associated with the project would consist solely of the combination of the
' project's direct and secondary impacts for four reasons. First, the ability of the Brier Creek
Parkway project to fulfill its purpose is not dependent on additional reasonably foreseeable future
local, state, or federal government actions except for a possible future widening of a portion of
the parkway. The direct impact of that widening was accounted for in the direct impact
assessment. Second, the foreseeable future widening of a portion of the parkway assumes the
site's current development plan is implemented, resulting in the impacts described in the
secondary impact assessment. Third, the Brier Creek Parkway and the associated development
' of the airport area are included in approved local and state plans. The secondary impacts
assessment assumes the development of the area in the manner anticipated by those plans.
' Fourth, local and state land use and transportation plans for adjoining areas were considered in
the development plans for the area. Thus, implementation of foreseeable actions in surrounding
areas would not be likely to cause a change in the character or intensity of development.
1 4.13 PERMITS REQUIRED
Section 404 permits will be required from the USACOE for any activities that encroach into
' jurisdictional wetlands or "waters of the United States." In addition, Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be violated for
activities that: 1) involve issuance of a federal permit or license, or 2) require discharges into
"waters of the United States. The USACOE cannot issue a 404 permit until 401 water quality
' certification is approved by the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management.

S. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
'
A scoping letter regarding construction of Brier Creek Parkway was sent to regulatory agencies
on November 6, 1996. Issues described in these letters were addressed in this document. A
' copy of the comments is included in Appendix A. The following agencies sent comments.
US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
' US Fish and Wildlife Service
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
' North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management

Division of Forest Resources
t Division of Land Resources
Division of Water Quality
' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

DRAFT 33 10/17/97
6. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on the assessment of potential environmental impacts contained in this document and
consideration of the comments received from federal, state, and local agencies, it is the finding
of the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will not have a
significant impact on the human and natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement or further environmental assessment is not required for this action.
DRAFT 34 10/17/97

C

1

APPENDIX A
SCOPING LETTERS
i
i
i
i
i
i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
December 20, 1996
IN REPLY REFER TO
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

Q EI
O
DEC 2 7 1996
Z
LIvISIC•N OF
`.i HIGHWAYS
This is in response to your letter of November 6, 1996, requesting comments on
the "Proposed Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and Aviation Parkway, Wake
County, TIP No. R-3619" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199700179).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
-J tr . E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
A-3

December 20, 1996
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Proposed Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and Aviation Parkway, Wake County,
TIP No. R-3619" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199700179
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional limits of the city of Raleigh,
which participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. From your site map and
Panel 115 of the March 1992 Wake County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
Flood Insurance Rate Map, it appears that the proposed project will cross Little Brier
Creek (Basin 18, Stream 15). This is a detail study stream with 100-year flood
elevations determined and a floodway defined. Enclosed for your information is a copy
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Procedures for' No Rise
Certification For Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways." In addition, we
suggest coordination with the city of Raleigh for compliance with their flood ordinance
and any changes, if required, to the flood insurance maps and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Eric Alsmeyer Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Branch at [phone], Extension 23
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work involves the discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands. Potentially affected water bodies
include Brier, Little Brier Creek, their unnamed tributaries, and adjacent wetlands,
above headwaters.
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated
or fill material into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project, including the
disposal of construction debris.
We recommend that NCDOT begin coordination with the Corps as soon as possible
in developing a formal statement of purpose and need for the proposed project. This
will allow the Corps to concur with the project purpose and need that is stated in the
environmental documentation for this project. If the purpose is related to private
development, the Corps will likely consider the secondary effects of this development in
making permit decisions on the project.
Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or
minimized. Based on a preliminary wetland determination of the Eastern Pilots' site
that was completed with input from NCDOT's consultant, Environmental Services Inc.,
most of the required crossing are channels only, with few adjacent wetlands.
Avoidance and minimization should specifically include alternative alignments to avoid
impacts to any wetland areas.
A-4

' I---
December 20, 1996
Page 2 of 2
1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
' "Proposed Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and Aviation Parkway, Wake County,
TIP No. R-3619" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199700179
1 2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
1 After maximum avoidance and minimization is accomplished, we will then consider
compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed,
including the extent and location of any work within waters of the United States and
' wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. It is possible, if the impacts from the proposed project are minor, that the
' work could be authorized under one or more nationwide or regional general permits.
1 Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Alsmeyer.

I
I
I
I
A-5
<,Y M
w
?o .
a o
R-4
PROCEDURES FOR "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN REGULATORY FLOODWAYS
1/92
of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Section 60.3 (d)•'(3)`
regulations states that a community-shall "prohibit encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it
has-been demonstrated -through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the' ease
flood
proposed encroachment
community during result-In nce incrthe b se (100-
levels within th y
year) flood discharger"
Prior to issuing any building grading or%. development permits
involving activities in a regulatory, floodway, the community must
obtain a certification stating the proposed development will not
impact the pre-project base flood elevations, floodway elevations,
or floodway daand b hi. The acertif ication should be
sealed by a professional t engineer.
the permittee signed
The engineering or "no-rise" certification must be supported by
technical date. The supporting technical data should be based upon
the standard step-backwater computer model utilized to develop the
100-year floodway shown on: the community's effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFH) and
the results tabulated in the community's Flood Insurance Study
(FIS).
Although communities are required to review and approve the "rio-
rise" submittals, they may request technical
from the FEMA regional office. However, if this alternative is
chosen, the community must.review the technical submittal package
and verify, that all supporting data, in he package beforedforin the wa ding to 1FEMAg
paragraphs, are included
A-6
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309

Currently Effective Model
1. Furnish a written request for the step-
backwater computer model for the specified
stream and community, identifying the limits
of the requested theadata data. fee will be assessed
data requests
for providing
to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
1371 Peachtree Street N.E.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
or to:
To support a "no-rise" certification for proposed developments
encroaching into the regulatory floodway, a community will require
that the following procedures be followed:

I
I
FIS Information Specialist
Dewberry & Davis
8401 Arlington Boulevard
Fairfax, Virginia 22031-4666
i
i
i
i
i
Duplicate Effective Model
2. Upon receipt -of the
model, the engineer
-step-backwater model
the effective FIS.
-2-
step-backwater computer
should run the original
to duplicate the data'in
Existing Conditions Model
3. Revise the original step-backwater model to
reflect site specific existing conditions- by
adding new-cross-sections (two or more)- in the
vicinity of the proposed development, without
the proposed development manually. set eat the dnew
limits should be
cross-section locations by measuring cumulative from thereach.
effective FIRM or FBFM.
lengths of the stream should also.'remain
unchanged. The results of these analyses will
indicate 100-year f yconditionsaat elevations for
revised existing
project site.
A-7

-3-
Proposed Conditions Model
model
4o Modify the revised existing
devel development at the new
to reflect the proposed
cross-sections, while retaining the currently
adopted floodway widths. The overbank
roughness coefficients should remain the same
unless a reasonable explanation of how the
proposed development will. impact Manning's "n"
values should be included with the supporting
data. The results. of this floodway run will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
proposed conditions at the project site.
These results must indicate NO impact
flon the
100-year flood elevations, y
elevations, 'or floodway widths shown in the
Duplicate`Effective Model or in the Existing
Conditions Model.
The original FIS model., the meffective FIS model, the
thec proposed conditions
revised existing conditions
model should all produce *the same exact results.
The "no-rise" supporting data and -a copy of the engineering
certification must be submitted to and reviewed by the appropriate
community official prior to issuing a permit.
The "no-rise" supporting data should include, but may not be
limited to:
a. Duplicate of the original FIS step-backwater model
printout or floppy disk. ,
b. 'Revised existing conditions. step-backwater model.
C. Proposed conditions step-backwater model.
d•. FIRM and topographic map, showing floodplain and
floodway, the • additional cross-sections,- the
site location with the proposed *topograapdhicc
modification superimposed onto the maps,
photocopy of the effective FIRM or FBFM showing the
current regulatory floodway.
e. Documentation clearly stating analysis procedures.
All modifications made to the original FIS model to
represent revised existing conditions, as well as
A-8

_q r
those made to the revised existing conditions model
to represent proposed conditions, should be well
data.
documented and submitted with all supporting
' f. Copy of effective FloodWay Data Table copied from
the FIS report.
of additi onal cross-
q. Statement defining source
section topographic d and supporting information.
h. Cross-section plots, of the added cross sections,
for revised existing and proposed conditions.
i.. Certified planimetric (boundary survey) information
indicating the location of structures on the
property.
Copy of the microfiche, or other applicable source,
'
j.
from which input for original FIS HEC-2 model was
taken.
k. Floppy disk with all Input-files.
1. Printout of output files:.-from EDIT runs. for all
three floodway models.
' The engineering. "no-rise" certification and supporting technical
data must stipulate NO impact on the 100-year flood elevations,
floodway elevations, or floodway widths at neWicross-Sections
and. at all -existing cross-sections anywhere
Therefore, the revised computer model should be run for a
sufficient distance (usualnla downs?e? ofentdrie development siteoto
' of the- stream)., upstream a .
insure proper "no-?:ise" certification.
Attached is "a sample. "no-rise" certification form that can the
' completed by. a registered professional engineer and supplied
community along with the. supporting. technical data when applying
' for a development permit.

A-9
? ? ? ?? `i'aUf?-"'fr'?'?iCat?fr.:c'st?itr?:csat••
i •.. .i. .v.. .. .?: !?4ik-..i-. .N^:c..L3 .. ?.?'?,'4?L-T4'e.'tA° rv.4?1aa G..('=r,?f'?:a:'i?.0?@
ENT OF ty
p?QQP - F?ym
7
QCH 3 `16a
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 22, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Brier Creek Parkway, TIP No. R-3619,
Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Vick:
Cjr
T RRi
1996
This responds to your letter of November 6, 1996, requesting
information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the above-
referenced project. This report provides scoping information and
is provided 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). This report also serves as initial scoping comments
to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Your letter indicates that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to build a multi-lane urban
thoroughfare from the intersection of US 70 and ACC Boulevard to
the relocated Aviation Parkway. The proposed facility would be a
four-lane, curb-and-gutter roadway with a 40-foot median. The
median would be adequate for the latter addition of two lanes.
The length of the project would be approximately two miles.
wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be
made to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance.
Opportunities to protect target areas in perpetuity, preferably
via conservation easement, should be explored at the outset.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations,
we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations should help guide
the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practical as outlined in the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. If unavoidable
A-10

I
I
I
Regarding avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally
recommend that proposed highway projects be aligned along or
adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use
existing crossings and/or occur on structure wherever feasible.
Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and circulation regimes without scouring or
impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed. Highway
shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized
by using appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques.
Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside the seasons of fish spawning and migratory bird
nesting.
We reserve the right to review any required Federal or State
permits at the time of public notice issuance. Resource agency
coordination should occur early in the planning process to
resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the
following (the level of detail should be commensurate with the
degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project
including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that
were considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
the action area of the proposed project which may be
directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling, dredging,
clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact
acreages should be differentiated by habitat type based on
the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 ores of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and
permanent, that would be likely to occur as a direct result
of the proposed project. Also, an assessment should be
included regarding the extent to which the proposed project
would result in secondary impacts to natural resources and
how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
A-11
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct
wetland crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore,
enhance, or create wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
and,
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid,
minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with the project. These measures should
include a detailed compensatory mitigation plan for
offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered and
threatened species that are known to occur in wake
County/Counties. Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available
habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present
within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed, and survey methodologies and results
included in the environmental documentation for this project. In
addition to this guidance, the following information should be
included in the environmental document regarding protected
species (the level of detail should be commensurate with the
degree of environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be
considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used
in the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed
species and of the associated habitat that may be affected
by the action, including the results of an onsite
inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed
species and associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed
species. Indirect effects are those that are caused by
the proposed action and are later in time but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which
includes interrelated, interdependent, past and present
impacts of Federal, State, and private activities in
the project and cumulative effects area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a
larger action and depend on the larger action for their
justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private
activities (not requiring Federal agency involvement)
A-12
I
' that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of
potential effects;
' 6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect
any listed species or associated habitat including project
proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects; and,
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the
project is not likely to adversely affect or may affect
t threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which
the Service has sufficient information on their biological status
' and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no
statutory protection under the ESA, Federal agencies are required
' to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may
destroy or modify proposed critical habitat. Federal species of
concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does
not have enough scientific information to support a listing
proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present
time. These species receive no statutory protection under the
' ESA, but could become candidates in the future if additional
scientific information becomes available indicating that they are
endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species
under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new
survey if its status in the project corridor is unknown.
Therefore, it would be prudent for the project to avoid any
adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat. The North
' Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
' project. Please continue to advise us of the progress made in
the planning process, including your official determination of
the impacts of this project.
Sincerely, 1
Howard F. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Attachment
FWS/R4:HHall:11/22/96:WP:A:wakr3619.n96
A-13
FEDERALLY-LISTED, CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL OF CONCERN
(revised August 23, 1996)
WAKE COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel
Alasmidonta heterodon
Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
Vascular Plants
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
to support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing.).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) - species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section7 consultation.
EXP A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental, non-
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
* Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
** Obscure record, the date and/or location of the specis observation is uncertain.
*** Incidental/migrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
**** Historic, obsure and incidental record.
A-14
r
u .. 1996
1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
' James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
r December 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
' Department of Transportation /
1 t . 1
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
' SUBJECT: Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and
Aviation Parkway, Wake County, R-3619,
' 97-E-4220-0329
' We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no properties of
' historical, architectural, or archaeological importance located within the planning
area. Therefore, we recommend that no historic resource surveys be conducted for
this project.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI.
If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
r DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
' Wake County Historic Preservation Commission

1
A-15
1
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?
1
Slate of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Project Number: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS ? -7 -e--) ' I? I
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
h Id b dd d lh Re ional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
Questions regarding these permits s ou e a resse to e g
ns and permits are available from the same
l
a
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these p Normal Proce
Regional Office. Time
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory tin
PERMITS limn)
Permit to construct d operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
? facilities, sewer system extensions, b sewer construction contracts on-site inspection. Post application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 1130 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
? discharging into stale surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
]0 days
El Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary INIA)
7 days
? Well Construction Permit Complete application installation (ion of must received and permit issued (15 days(
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre•appfication conference usual. Filling
? may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Depanment of 190 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement (21(?LQ ( 60 Days
(00 da
s)
L?N facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA U y
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
.
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.eJ2T
• t D
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
? NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820 190 daysl
? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturoing activity, An erosion & sedimentatio
? control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Oualiiy Sea ) at feast 30 20 days
days before beginning activity A lee of S30 for the first acre and 52000 for each additional acre or art must accomoan Ine fan 430 davsi
r1
t_! The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: OC dayst
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR Bond amount
? Mining Permil varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permiled. The appropriate bond (60 Days/
must be received before the permit can be issued. _
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit t pay
(NIA)
exceeds a days
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required '*if more i day
? counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than live acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
' (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.
90 120 days
? Oil Refining Facilities NIA (NIA)
It permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N C. qualified engineer lo: prepare plans. 3C Bays
? Dam Salety Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR aoorov
160 Gaysl
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program And
a a0a permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verily Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac
company the application. An additional processing lee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon Completion
»'W
Continued on reverse
A-16

I
I
I

I
Time
-? (sralutorv limn.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUlrtthntN 15 limit)
File surety bond of 55.000 with EHNR running to Slate of N.C. 10 tlays
? Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon
abandonment. be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. (NIA)
Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include
ns i drawings of structure d proof of ownership
ti
i 1!-20 days
(NIAI
? p
o
descr
of riparian properly.
fill days
? 401 Water Ouality Certification NIA (1]0 tlaysl
55 days
? CAMA Permit for MAJOR development !250.00 fee must accompany aoolicallon (150 days)
22 days
? CAMA Permit for MINOR development LW.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. Please notify:
? N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
? Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
? Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
?: tlays
? Compliance wilh 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. (NIAI
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authonty):
srv ?.1 Qr?N ?-'c. /--y s

l/`(` S(V of r` ?? ??st-1 N'?..?-/L ??"?J(/1'l ? ?` ,V i?r? ? N J- (J!?' / "r"' ?l D,C'?y)

' REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville ReqTonal Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
i
59 Woodfin Place ng
Suite 714 Wachovia Build
'
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
Suite 101
3800 Barrett Drive
919 North Main Street. P O. Bo
' Mooresville. NC 28115 x 950 .
Raleigh. NC 27609
[phone] (9191 733-2314
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drove Extension
I
Washington. NC 27889 Wilmington. INC 28405
[phone] (919) 3953900
? Winston-Salem Re8;onal Office
8025 North Point vd
Suite 100
' Winston-Salem. NC 27106
[phone]
I A-17
EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2D .0800
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-213;
143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
0803 ?IGHWAY PROJECTS
Environmental assessments regarding highway projects shal
rev' ed in accordance with the National Environmental Polic
e North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. If there is no
or if an assessment shows that there may be a problem in com
an ambient air quality standard, or if the environmental imp
result in
assessment fails to show that the highway project will not
and will not
violations of applicable portions of the control strategy,
interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national stand
the following regulatory provisions shall apply:
(1) A person shall not construct or modify any highway
highway will result in a contravention of ambient a
standards;
(2) Before construction or modification of any highway
expected maximum traffic volume of 2,000 vehicles p
more within 10 years, a person shall apply for and
received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600
comply with any terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1);
143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
1 be
y Act and
assessment,
plying with
act
ard, then
if that
it quality
with an
er hour or
have
, and shall
.0804 AIRPORT FACILITIES
Before constructing or modifying any airport facility designed to
have at least 100,000 annual aircraft operations, or at least 45
peak-hour aircraft operations (one operation equals one takeoff or one
landing) , the owner or developer of the airport facility shall apply
for and have received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600, and
shall comply with all terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary
March 8, 1994 for a
Until the Permanent
Whichever is Sooner;
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
S 27
Amendment Eff.
Period of 180 Days or
Rule is Effective,
D-800-2
A-18

I
I
I
I
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
November 20, 1996
MEMORANDUM
EDEHN
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester _ n e
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for Proposed Brier Creek Parkway between US 70 and Aviation
Parkway in Wake County
PROJECT #: 97-0329 and TIP #R-3619
DUE DATE: 12-2-96
We have reviewed the above subject scoping document of November 6, 1996, and have the
following comments concerning potential impacts to woodland:
We are very concerned here because the proposed road and the 1,863 acre site for the proposed
Eastern Air Lines Pilots Development Plan will have a heavy serious impact to woodland in that
area. It also appears to us that the proposed road will duplicate existing roads and thus we have
questions on the need for the road. Also is any environmental documentation being done for the
proposed development?
Type of information that we would like to see in this Environmental Document to Address Impacts
to Woodland - The following should be addressed for each alternative or project.
1. The total forest land acreage by types and merchantability aspects that would be taken out of
forest production or removed as a result of new right-of-way purchases, easements, and all
construction activities. Emphasis needs to be directed towards reducing impacts, whenever
possible to the following types of woodland in the following order of priority -
a. High site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
b. Productive forested wetlands.
c. Lower site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
d. Unique or unusual forest ecosystems.
e. Unmanaged, fully stocked woodland.
f. Unmanaged, cutover rural woodland.
g. Urban woodland.
A-19
P. O. Box 29581, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0581 N%4F C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2162 FAX [phone]% recycled/100k post-consumer paper
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved within
the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber or woody material
that is to be removed. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products first, including energy
chips. If wood products cannot be sold, then efforts should be made to haul the material off
or run through a tub grinder and turned into mulch. This practice is encouraged to accomplish
the following -
a. Minimize the need for piling and burning debris during construction.
b. To reduce the danger of escaped fires and smoke on nearby highways.
c. Reduce smoke management problems to the traveling public, towns and cities.
5. Woodland. Land Clearing and Open Burning - If any open burning is needed, the contractor
should comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning. The regulation of
open fires are covered under G.S. 113-60.21 thru 113-60.31 all inclusive. Land clearing
contractors should make particular note of G.S. 113-60.23 High Hazard Counties requiring a
special permit from our local county rangers and 113-60.24 for Open Burning in Non-High
Hazard Counties requiring a regular burning permit from our local burning permit agents.
Wake County is a non-high hazard counties and G.S. 113-60.24 would apply. Certain
conditions may exist at the time that would prevent the issuance of this permit. Also there may
be other local requirements such as most cities do not now allow any burning and some
counties now have a burning ordnance that would take precedence.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent erosion,
sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way and construction
limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from construction activities to
avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
c. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over the root
systems of trees.
7. Water and sewer lines and treatment plants -
a. Normally new water distribution lines do not impact much woodland because they are
generally placed within existing rights-of-ways. We think this is a good idea.
b. New sewer lines do impact woodland and productive woodland because they normally run
adjacent to creeks and streams of water.
c. WWTP are normally larger facilities and can have higher impacts to woodland.
d. Water plants can impact woodland if they are constructed next to rivers and/or streams.
e. We would mainly be concerned if any master plans proposed new construction of facilities
that in turn would have the potential to impact any woodland, if any construction was
proposed for any existing woodland acres. Therefore, the Master Plans should take the
following into consideration:
1. Avoid woodland if at all possible.
2. If woodland cannot be avoided, then address all impacts to this woodland.
A-20

S. Any cumulative impacts to woodland as a result of the new road and expansion to the water
and sewer or other improvements or developments in the service area. Of particular concern
would be a good estimate of future loss of woodland acres from future development coming
' into the service area as a result of the road and development from these improvements.
Efforts should be made to address the above items and to reduce impacts to woodland. We would
t hope that the improvements would have the least impact to forest and related resources in that
area.
' pc: Derryl Walden, Mike Thompson, Larry Such, Warren Boyette - CO
Ken Jeffries - R2
' Whit Stallings - D11
Alton Perry - Wake County
File
I

A-21
State of North Caroli
Department of Envirii
Health and Natural I
Division of Land Resourc
James B. Hunt, Jr., Go,
Jonathan B. Howes, SE
Charles H. Gardner, P.
Director and State Ge
nment,RECEIVED
esources DEHNR
s
rnor Nnv 19 6%
retary
.,P.E.
QUALITY SECTRI- i.;
Q=_RF .3EW COMMEMS
E RHNR
Project Number: County: Ck I
Project Name:
Nc office of State Planning - Geodetic SSuurve
This project will impact 3 geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodet C c Surve office at 919/733-3836. I
O C/
Reviewer Date I
-Erosion and Sedimentation Control-
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of.the project is located within a High Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan.required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality section at 919/733-4574.
Geological Survey Section ewer Land Quality Section
[phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
A-22
//- z e - 561
Date Geodetic Survey Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Eaual ODDortunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recyclod/ 10% pest-consumer paper

1
I
I

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 2, 1996
A74
D E H N R
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE: Comments on EA # 97-0329
Brier Creek Parkway, Between US 70 and Aviation Parkway,
Wake County
' The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be discussed in
the EA/EIS document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream classifications
and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This information is available
from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream banks
were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins be
placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-23
DEHNR 097-0329
12/2/96
page 2
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
1. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not (if
applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the traffic
problems in the study area?
L. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the environmental review. The
mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly banking.
DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full
control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for wetland
mitigation.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA Process) are
met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or
Record of Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the document. It
is recommended that if the 401 Certification application is submitted for review prior to
the sign off, the applicant states that the 401 should not be issued until the applicant
informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General
Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that
401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please give me a call at [phone], ext. 567 if you should have any questions.
mis.\970329ea.doc
cc: Eric Galamb - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
A-24
i?(.hlKl.. Hl_N , h HL_b LHNL I tL • y l ?-JLO-?V.' 9 -

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
tea--rte:--.?--
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, Notch Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3.391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director

MENMO RANDU M
1'U: Melba McGee
(')ftice of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DLHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co tar
Ilabilat Conservation Program
DA'Z'E: December 3, 1996
1
I
I
SUBJECT: Rcilurst for information from the N. C. Department of'1'ransportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the pro?x?scd Brier
Creel: Parkway, from US 70 to Aviation Parkway, Wake County, North
Carolina, TIP No. R-3619, SCH Project No. 97-0329.
I
I
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commnssion
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed project, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-
1 et sal., its amended; 1 NCAC 25).
I
At this time, we have no specific recommendations regarding the subject project.
Bowever, to help facilitate document preparation, our general informational deeds are
outlined below:
' 1. Description of* fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
t consiniction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
' N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
' [phone]
and,
' A-25
1'4 .,WKl. o r1k_r f t' L_J Lnnr- I LL. • ?, L J J?V
Memo 2 Deccmber 3, 1996
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P, U. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2, Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may he accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4 Cover type reaps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradatio , or
t'ragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation lbr avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
R. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
't'hank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early plaltning stages for
this Project. 11 *1 can further assist your office. please contact meat [phone].
A-26
I

APPENDIX B
LIST OF REFERENCES AND TECHNICAL REPORTS

1

I
I

APPENDIX B
LIST OF REFERENCES AND TECHNICAL REPORTS
B1. REFERENCES
City of Raleigh. July 1996. Ordinance (1996) 929 ZC 392.
City of Raleigh. July 1996. Raleigh Comprehensive Plan.
Conant, Roger and J.T. Collins. 1991. Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern and Central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York. 450 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. Rpt. 89-08, NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin. NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. The 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. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
PP.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar Company,
Charlotte, NC for North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. December 1996. Greater Raleigh Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. June 1997. 1998-2004 Transportation
Improvement Program.
Olsen, P.E., A.J. Froelich, D.L. Daniels, J.P. Smoot, and P.J.W. Gore. 1991. "Rift Basins of Early
Mesozoic Age," Geology of the Carolinas, J.W. Horton, Jr. and V.A. Zullo Eds.
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. Pp. 142-170.
Palmer, W.M. and A. L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC for the NC State Museum of Natural Sciences. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
DRAFT B-3 10/17/97
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina. US
Department of Agriculture.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1991. Hydric Soils: Wake County, North Carolina. Technical
Guide Section II-A-2. US Department of Agriculture. 2 pp.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A Report on the
Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna.
Triangle Transit Authority. February 1995. Triangle Fixed Guideway Study Phase 111 Report.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of
November 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 1991. Annual Report 1990-91. North Carolina Nongame
and Endangered Wildlife Program, Freshwater Mussel Survey Results. NC Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. 90 pp.
1132. TECHNICAL REPORTS
Craig Davis Properties, Inc. June 1996. Eastern Air Lines Property Traffic Impact Statement.
Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. July 1997. Air Quality Report. Prepared by
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. July 1997. Natural Resources Report.
Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. July 1997. Noise Report. Prepared by
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
DRAFT B-4 10/17/97

1

r. X
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1Lr!W'J
00% 00
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 26, 1998
Wake County
DWQProject # 970964
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Steve Davenport
333 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 300
Raleigh NC 27601
Dear Mr. Davenport:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
place fill material in 0.54 acres of wetlands and 202 feet of perennial streams for the purpose of
constructing the Brier Creek Parkway in Wake County, as you described in your application dated
October 28, 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by
General Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This certification allows you to use Nationwide
Permit Number 14 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any
other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited
to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply
Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit
expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required
to send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one
acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and
(7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification
and any additional conditions listed below.
1. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds (T 15A:04B .0024) and High Quality Storm Erosion Control Measures.
2. Design Features and commitments listed the in February 3, 1998 letter from Parsons
Brinckerhoff to DWQ shall be implemented in the design, construction, and long-term
maintenance of the Brier Creek Parkway.
We understand that you have chosen to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program in
order to compensate for these impacts to streams. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R..0500, this
contribution will satisfy our compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h).
According to 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), 202 feet of stream restoration will be required. Until the
Wetland Restoration Program reccieves and clears your check (made payable to: DENR - Wetland
Restoration Program), wetland or stream fill shall not occur. Mr. Ron Ferrell should be contacted at
919-733-5083 ext. 358 if you have any questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program .
You have one month from the date of this Certification to make the payment. For accounting
purposes, this Certification authorizes the fill of 202 feet of streams, in the Neuse River and
subbasin and 202 feet of stream restoration are required.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Division of Water Quality - Non-DischargeBranch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Sincerely,
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
C ti7P-i
est ow- E
.
970964.1tr
w • +
NORTH CAROLINA - DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERM TTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500, N T DWQ Project # 970964 is authorized to impact the surface waters
of the State of North Carolina as indicated below for the purpose(s) of constructing the Brier Creek Parkway. All activities
associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted in accordance with the conditions listed in the attached
certification transmittal letter. THIS CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENT FOR WETLAND RESTORATION
LOCATION: Brier Creek Parkway
COUNTY: Wake
BASIN/SUBBASIN: Neuse
As required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506, and the conditions of this certification, you are required to compensate for the
above impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of wetlands and surface waters as outlined
below prior to conducting any activities that impact or degrade the waters of the state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Programs must be
rounded to one-quarter acre increments according to 15A 2R.0503(b)
acres of Class WL wetlands
acres of riparian wetlands
acres of non-riparian wetlands
acres of Class SWL wetlands
202 linear feet of stream channel
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is through the payment of a
fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2R.0503. If you choose this option, please sign this form and mail it
to the Wetlands Restoration Fund at the address listed below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be sent
to you upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU
RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED BY THE WETLANDS RESTORATION
PROGRAM.
Signature Date
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
[phone] ext. 358
A
. .
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
v4 OF
!-DAYS NCDPvNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTME
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURC
February 19, 1998
Wake County
DWQPrcject # 970964
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Frank Vick; NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place
fill material in 0.54 acres of wetlands and 202 feet of perennial streams for the purpose of constructing
the Brier Creek Parkway in Wake County, as you described in your application dated October 28, 1997.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3103. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 14 when it
is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to
send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre,
compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
1. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds (T 15A:04B.0024) and High Quality Storm Erosion Control Measures.
2. Design Features and commitments listed the in February 3, 1998 letter from Parsons
Brinckerhoff to DWQ shall be implemented in the design, construction, and long-term
maintenance of the Brier Creek Parkway.
We understand that you have chosen to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program in order to
compensate for these impacts to streams. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R..0500, this contribution
will satisfy our compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h). According to
15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), 202 feet of stream restoration will be required. Until the Wetland Restoration
Program reccieves and clears your check (made payable to: DENR - Wetland Restoration Program),
wetland or stream fill shall not occur. Mr. Ron Ferrell should be contacted at 919-733-5083 ext. 358 if
you have any questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program. You have one month from the
date of this Certification to make the payment. For accounting purposes, this Certification authorizes
the fill of 202 feet of streams, in the Neuse River and subbasin and 202 feet of stream restoration are
required.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Division of Water Quality • Non-DischargeBranch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
PnnSiner Howar , Jr. P.E.
970964.1tr
NORTH CAROLINA - DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500, NC DOT, DWQ Project # 970964 is authorized to
impact the surface waters of the State of North Carolina as indicated below for the purpose(s) of
constructing the Brier Creek Parkway. All activities associated with these authorized impacts must be
conducted in accordance with the conditions listed in the attached certification transmittal letter. THIS
CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLAND RESTORATION
LOCATION: Brier Creek Parkway
COUNTY: Wake
RIVER/SUBBASIN: Neuse
As required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506, and the conditions of this certification, you are required to
compensate for the above impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of
wetlands and surface waters as outlined below prior to conducting any activities that impact or degrade the
waters of the state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Programs
must be rounded to one-quarter acre increments according to 15A 2R .0503(b).
acres of Class WL wetlands
acres of riparian wetlands
acres of non-riparian wetlands
acres of Class SWL wetlands
202 linear feet of stream channel
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is
through the payment of a fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2R .0503. If you choose
this option, please sign this form and mail it to the Wetlands Restoration Fund at the address listed below.
An invoice for the appropriate amount will be sent to you upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE
ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR
PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED BY THE WETLANDS RESTROATION PROGRAM.
Signature Date
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PO BOX 29535
RALEIGH NC 27626-0535
919-733-5083 ext. 358
-C 2'InT_CNn_ rn %T7: ^ ?'Cnn
C:.QS.: _-,_IT G..
--_- ??=-_- c-? -e•..--ter - '- ?iC_=: C==C=-^= -_v_C_oi: C:
_= C-' C,-= car--s C:-,
:d) .T_c_:C_
c-0ss_: C =.= -=
=Zaz
1 - c 'n=Z anu
c_- C'
r
_ _ C= w = Cc.c= rf C- = L-}3:==CC= C_ _. c
_?.
c_ --
7V C
c: chE az CZ-117

- e=r - C. McC---C=- of we.I: Cr
C;. wal.
:•=`W--- C- t"= --? = -= =---=° LC Cam= - - i r1L"ii L =-=- ---
C_ 7-L?._ r?GL tc
scr s: ?s ncc to = acc=c I-== neve7e c;
c '"`•- - = .?c='? Tic»= c'C Eres:= cCr.C=OI cract C-=
c= E.'CC:=_'r_' C CSe CLtI? ? t e 'NCCC^
-.^s_C: a»C Design F.=--?=s Cr
'?iCrt C=r^?_»_ Ci:r..c. :C ML_ (ava7.Ia.1. f-C«
C= =---
C•C=_s1 a=- to _==';'':C cCC =-=:C _ 0= t=_
??sc::aErns =d -:vEZ_ r.CC Ccs_??tE as t-CL'c wat=-- hv. Lr'iQi 25-
lV? .;s L. a_ ? sa- Nat=_ CIL S:.Gs, C::%.- all __C- C^.C rasaz, C---;
G» C 1-0 Dr-us z_- t=c t wa-_S-_) i
se`. =a =t arc eres_cn c===01 me=s - _s 011 aced _n w_=__:cs
er wet=_-s s:.-=! he removed a:.- the grace re=cc= _
: ==GU=c=s has =clews t
a==e- th=_ c- Land
! . M=__s z-a-: s%a11 he taken to p-_;Ent 1=vs or fresh core==_a
Z_-?..'u CC- ,C _.cc cCAtcCt We =-s c--' the state uniS t'-e
^r:,: -
har^-n
C...aC_ C---= hC.s \. L-. ed I
ciz
is us=--Z tc
, C C%c_ --
L----- C? :== C==---- C=--=-T-C=-= 1E
-_-_ =--- = - -'?- T--'
C c C.-c_ C== ?C=-C:-C_V cC_ __=w?CC•+C?E? i''C_
---
Z' =E- fc
C====-
- C1C C.__ maV t.= =_c_ CC
WE?-= Cu
-2 ___.:: L"Alm t C..?'---C
-- C=.C=
C-
..._. _??•-..__ ?.w_- Lw_ ?._ L-__ ?.G. _-.\.?..'V ? 'mot `- -'' / __ __ _- J
c_ C-= war!=!--- C= E_= C=EC1LTC_ . -
t- E icr- C-
U
F: p
=

w = 3 _o3
10

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RAITIGI I. N.C. 27011-5201 E. NOIZIZIS TO LSON
C O VI?RN(?R SIICRI'1ARY
March 16, 1998
Mr. John R. Dorney 7
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
This is to follow-up on our recent conversation regarding the 401 Water Quality Certification
for the Brier Creek Parkway. I am returning the February 19, 1998 letter of approval and
additional conditions so that you can reissue it to the developer. Please forward the
certification to:
Brier Creek Associates Limited Partnerships
Attention: Steve Davenport
333 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. I appreciate
your assistance in reissuing and forwarding the certification to the developer.
Sincer y,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/lh
Attachment
9
Cyndi_B
From: Gordon Cashin [GCashin0mail.dot.state. nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 11:09 AM
To: cyndi_bell®h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Project update, R-3619 Wake County
I have news on the Brier Creek Parkway near the airport (R-3619). This project is being done in
cooperation with a private developer. NWP 14 tearsheet was issued by Eric on December 3,
1997 (Action ID Nos 199700179 and 199820153). The 401 was issued March 26, 1998 (DWO
Project 970964). 1 have copies of both permits on file, but not the application or any other
correspondence. I think the developer or their consultant handled it.
Anway, they have redesigned the western end of the road between Aviation parkway and Lumley
Road and shifted the alignment. This has reduced the impacts of the project. Stream impacts
went from 853.9 feet to 495 feet, and wetlands from 0.338 to 0.194 acres. Stream mitigation was
apparently provided via the WRP in accordance with the 401.
1 have a table showing the impact changes, a site sketch showing the wetlands and old and new
alignments. Since the alignment has changed, do you want a revised PCN with the new
numbers? It looks like it should still go as NWP 14. They want to let this one in March.
Just let me know so we can get on it. Thanks.