20110035 Ver 1_Application_20110106

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
e
,1qN
?D
0th 8 ??>> 0
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION lbl?
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
Gowmm SHCMARY
December 28, 2010
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator

Subject: Reconfiguration of existing rip rap berm in wetland to prevent downstream
scour and washing. Berm was installed in 2007 as part of construction of
widening of SR 3015 (Airport Boulevard) from NC 54 to McCrimmon
Parkway in Wake County (TIP No. U-3344A). Note: U-3344A had
USACE Action ID No. 200320455 and DWO Proiect No. 20060367.
w s 3093'- f, /
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) constructed the widening of
SR 3015 (Airport Boulevard) from NC 54 to McCrimmon Parkway in Wake County in
2007-2009 under TIP No. U-3344A. A rip rap berm was installed in a wetland/riparian
buffer area near 22+00 Rt -L-. This area was depicted on wetland permit drawing 5 of 8
and riparian buffer permit drawing 5 of 8. Recent investigation of the area has indicated
that runoff through the project area was doing the following: 1) Being held back too much
by the rip rap berm and 2) moving around the easternmost portion of the rip rap berm.
This was all causing significant washing and scour downstream of the area on private
property. Personnel from the NCDOT hydraulic unit recently reviewed the area and
determined that some rip rap should be removed from the berm to allow more runoff
through the area and then use this rip rap to extend the berm slightly to the southeast.
The NCDOT Wake County maintenance crew proposes to conduct these activities at the
site. Note that the U-3344A project has been completely closed out by the NCDOT
and these activities are considered as routine maintenance repair. Reconfiguration of
the existing rip rap berm will result in impacts to a wetland and riparian buffer area.
Portions of the necessary impacts were previously permitted as part of the U-3344A
permit. The proposed construction impacts associated with this new activity are noted in
revised wetland permit drawing 5 of 8 and revised buffer permit drawing 5 of 8.
Proposed project impacts include: 0.03 acre temporary fill in wetland, <0.01 acre
permanent fill in wetland, 750 square feet riparian buffer zone 1 impact and 750 square
feet riparian buffer zone 2 impact. Construction information and associated impacts are
addressed in the attached PCN form.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Chas Mun ay, S
Division 5 Environmental Supervisor
2
cc: Rob Ridings, NCDENR-DWQ
C k ,,'r5 -rz)
c?I? }',opal iMP?c?S WE 2GI
EXTEND 24'
/ le... p or ar`1 All ;n UC045
/
(Dr. COA-'I-ru( F/O/1 a« C55 / I BST
fe(n C.AeAf- "111 in LJa0aJf
CC?a/(Q?77Jn OleLtA/kiZQ.Y- EXISTIN(
C?QuT ?19?
A P R T I?
BLVp,
zzzz
F -?
co
9I „1
F
2
GRATE DI'S?-
SR. UL 1.
1
2-DI'S REMOVE ° o
III Ernw - CI
III124• CONC 22+00
LATEDRI C/BASE
?.
A
CLEARING LIMIT. FOR
BERM CONSTRUCTION
DETAIL E
RIP RAP BERM
ror ro Sc
8 top f1EV.• lla ft.
u wvftf? P oL
W/`FUN FABPRK 9 •2.0 Ft.
22+05 -L- RT
EST. & TONS CLASS 'B'
E 7.50 SY F.F.
PLAN VIEW
SITE I
WETLANDS
IMPACT
SCALE 1 99 509
23+0 I
? II sr_
??X15nN? REMOVE
I
HIV KAr -
2
PD
co?C
.
/ Z
y
/ RyEMO'
1 RIP RFr ?:Y 21
_ CB / 34 un
ALT /- - - ?F
I E
\ I
\\ I
3 \ \ I1 \'0%26US
3.
m
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
PROJECT: 9.8051709 (U-3344A)
MORRISVILLE - SR 3015 (AIRPORT
BLVD.) FROM NC 54 TO
M,CRIMMON PARKWAY
R.• 12/04
i> 8T 7 uN u 1/ 13/ ub

40: .(ilZ0/10
a

C?un`??s to
jur15o11 c %0 n51 IMpr.J5 E 2GI
:XTEND 24'
?Je' Zonc I 'lexe?p+11
?7(/?//?? 1 .mil p a C*5
im New Zonc
F///1 I n., pp`C)1s
AIRP=B p- 11 III
5 3 I BST
f --
iL ? i
2-DI's REMOV
CONC _L_ 22t00
- - --u- x+i-- -
11-._I7L?II-_ --
J --
- 41Z
FFI --____-
CONC
y
RIP RAk-
g CONC
?2' F
ATE DI'So-
_? 5
Is' CB C
23 t0
II
-- 1 CB ee" i-24•r
4' Co 3?' DR
FX R /LT`- - -'-_ F
A ?1 \
E
LATERAL BASE 6 `
DITCH \PQ? R?{? R \
D
IP RA
ERM
I
CLEARING LIMIT FOR ( \'.
BERM CONSTRUCTION \ 1
\
DETAIL E \
MP RAP BERM \• `
wr ee J Tor 7w \ \ \ US
Fuv.• ne n. 1 ?L6
3?unri
ayyy?
Y/Aa & r.X B .2.O FT. \ \
22+05 -L- RT \\ CLA ES7.EST 50 SY F 5GS B \
]MILAN VIEW NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SITE 1 WAKE COUNTY
BUFFER PROJECT: 9.8051709 (U-3314A)
MORRISVILLE - SR 3015 (AIRPORT
IMPACT BLVD.) FROM NC 54 TO
McCRIMMON PARKWAXOe 12/04
SCALE 199 a 5®' Re. 11104
Re, 8/19/0
SHEET S OF U 1/13/0
1Zev. 1217-0/l o
? f WarE9o
O ?G
h ?
o s
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: ® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 18 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verged by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification- Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification- Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ? No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information

2a.
Name of project: Reconfiguration of existing rip rap berm in wetland to prevent downstream scour and
washing associated with previously constructed widening of Airport Boulevard (SR
3015) in Wake County (TIP No. U-3344A)
2b. County: Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Cary
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: Previously constructed widening of Airport Boulevard (SR 3015) had TIP No. U-3344A.
USACE Action ID No. 200320455; DWQ Project No. 20060367
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: NCDOT
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
-Sc. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
Latitude: 35.8420868 Longitude: -
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 78.8289455
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: Size of repair area is 0.03 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to UT to Crabtree Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: B; NSW
2c. River basin: Neuse
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Small strip of undisturbed wooded land surrounded by commercial development.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.03
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
0 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Reconstruction of existing rip rap berm in wetland to prevent downstream scour and washing.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Maintenance crew will use a rubber tire backhoe to access the site through an existing utility easement. Plywood will be
placed on natural ground to prevent disturbance of natural ground in wetland and buffer from backhoe access. The crew
will then remove some rip rap to lower the berm in isolated locations and then use this rip rap to slightly extend the berm
to the southeast.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / ®Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: Previously as, part of U-3344A.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ? preliminary ® Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: NCDOT
Name (if known): NCDOT personnel or contractor for DOT Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
USACE conducted verification on May 24, 2002. See attached page 2 of NCDOT permit application for TIP No.
U-3344A dated 3/312006.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ®Yes ? No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
The rip rap berm in wetland was originally constructed as part of widening of TIP No. U-3344A in Wake County.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ®No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ? Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction

2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
? Yes ® Corps
W 1 ? P ®T Construction access Herbaceous
? No
® DWQ 0.03
W2 ®P ? T Fill with rip rap to
extend berm
Herbaceous ? Yes
? No ® Corps
® DWQ
<0.01
? Yes ? Corps
W3 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W4 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W5 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W6 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments: See revised wetland permit drawing Sheet 5 of 8 for wetland impacts. Note that portions of wetland impacts
for this activity were previously permitted for TIP No. U-3344A.

3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 39
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number- (PER) or (Corps-404,10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
feet)
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet)
? PER ? Corps
S1 ? P ? T ? INT ® DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S2 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S3 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S4 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S5 ? P. ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S6 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
' z
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
- Permanent
(P) or
Tem ora T 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03?PEl T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts 0.0
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then com lete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or purpose of 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No if yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. ® Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason for Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) impact Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
T
B1 ®P ? T Construction UT Crabtree Ck ? Yes
® N 750 sf 750 sf
access o
? Yes
B2 ? P ? T ? No
?Yes
B3 ?P?T ? No
6h. Total buffer impacts 750 sf 750 sf
6i. Comments: See revised buffer permit drawing 5 of 8 for buffer impacts. Note that the riparian buffer impacts were not (for
some reason) permitted as part of TIP No. U-3344A.

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to wetland and buffer are to prevent additional downstream scour and washing.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
All efforts will be made during construction to minimize impacts.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3c. Commends:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) -required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impactwithin a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the .
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments: Buffer impacts are associated with construction of temporary access road for construction access and are
considered "exempt" as a temporary road activity.
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan

1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ® Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: Project serves to reconfigure existing rip rap berm No grading of natural ? Yes ® No
ground is anticipated as construciton crew will install plywood to serve as matting
over natural ground.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? (20 % at repair site due to existing
rip rap berm in wetland) %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Impacts are only to reconfigure existing
rip rap berm in wetland.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Construction of this project W ILL NOT add any additional impervioius surf ace at the project.
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ® DWO Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review

3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? N/A
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review

? Coastal counties
? HOW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
? Yes ? No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federallstate/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federaVstate) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes
? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B :0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Project will not generate sewage disposal.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
S. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
? Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
On-site surveys.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b . What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Available mapping.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a . Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b . What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Impacts are only to repair existing rip rap berm in wetland. No additional impacts at site.
6. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b . If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c . What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Available mapping.

J. W. Bowman, PE 1ar
l 12/28/10

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
NCI)®T permit application for widening
of Airport Boulevard from NC 54 to
McCrimmon Parkway in Wake County
(TIP No. U-3344A)
for permitting under a Nationwide Permit 14. The EEP will provide compensatory mitigation.
This project has a let date of August 15, 2006.
y"NEPA Document Status
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and approved July 18, 1996. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was
approved on June 12, 1997. In addition, existing and projected conditions in the study area were
described including natural systems and wetlands. Alignments were evaluated with respect to
costs, social and economic impacts, and environmental consequences. The EA and FONSI have
been provided to regulatory review agencies involved in the approval process. Additional copies
will be provided upon request.
The subject project is in compliance with 23 CFR Part 771.11l(f) which lists the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) characteristics of independent utility of a project:
(1) The project connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
(2) The project is usable and a reasonable expenditure, even if no additional
transportation improvements are made in the area;
(3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements.
Resource Status
Waters of the United States: One unnamed tributary (UT 3) to Crabtree Creek and one wetland
community are the only water resources within the project area. UT 3 is located at Site 2. It is a
perennial stream approximately 10-foot wide at the streambed with 3 to 5-foot banks and that has
a substrate composed of rock, silt and cobble. The wetland located at Site I is associated with
UT 2 and is classified as palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).
Jurisdictional Delineations: On May 24, 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
verified the wetland delineation at Site 1. On January 5, 2006, UT 2 (Site 1) was classified as an
ephemeral channel and is not considered jurisdictional by the USACOE. UT 3 is a jurisdictional
perennial stream. Impacts are reported in Table 1.
Table 1 Stream and Weiland Impacts for TIP Project U-3344A Wake County.
Site Station Stream Name DWQ Index No. ImpStream Weiland
acts feet Impacts (ac)
20+92-L- to
11+11;_l
37+30-L- to UT #3 to Crabtree 27-33-(3.5) 109
37+68-L- Creek
Permanent Impacts: There are two sites in the project area that impact jurisdictional areas. Site l
is located at station 20+92-L to 21+82-L. A lateral base ditch and standard base ditch will be
constructed parallel to the road followed by a rock weir. The impact will be 0.07 acres of
riverine wetland. Site 2 is located at station 37+30-L to 37+68-L. There will be 109 feet of
impacts to the jurisdictional perennial UT 3 due to the removal of a 66" CMP and placement of
an 8' x 8' RCBC. The NCDOT plans to m tigate for the impacts by compensatory mitigation
provided by EEP (see attached EEP Acceptance Letter).
Page 2 of 6
Impacts from dewatering at either Site are not expected. Site 1: the replacement of the 24" and
30" pipe at station 23+00-L with a 42" pipe is expected to be occur during no flow conditions.
Flow through this pipe network is a resultant of stormwater from the surround parking areas and
roadway. Site 2: During the placement of the culvert one side of the roadway will be constructed
at a time to allow traffic flow. A temporary flexible pipe will be used to convey the water during
the phase build.
Neuse Buffers
The proposed road project impacts UT 2 & 3, which are protected by the Neuse Buffer Rules.
UT 2, although considered non-jurisdictional by USACE, is subject to the buffer rules according
to NCDWQ (June 12, 2002 field meeting). Therefore, impacts to stream buffers are comprised
of:
•' Sitel: 2,050 ft2 in Zone I and 1,811 R2 in Zone 2 are exempt impacts. Impacts are a result of
the addition of riprap in the 8-foot section between the end of one pipe conveying UT #2 and
the beginning of the second pipe conveying UT #2. Pipe 1 (24") is being replaced with at
larger 42" pipe. The second pipe (48") is not within the project area.
Site 2: 8,412 ft2 in Zone 1 and 4,921 ft2 in Zone 2 are allowable impacts. Impacts result from
the placement of riprap at the input and outfall of RCBC.
The NCDOT does not plan to mitigate for the buffer impacts due to the impacts being either
exempt or allowable. According to the Neuse Buffer Rules, buffer impacts resulting from road
crossings of streams are exempt if they impact equal to or less than 40 ft and allowable if they
impact greater than 40 linear feet but equal to or less than 150 linear feet or one-third acre of
riparian buffer. Impacts at Site 1 are 0.09 acres (35 ft) - exempt and at Site 2 impacts are 0.31
acres (120 ft) - allowable.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Considering the current and projected population and employment for the project area, this
project is likely to induce land use changes. While the area would likely experience growth
regardless of the project, the project will cumulatively increase the attractiveness of the project
area to industrial businesses and improve the flow of commuter traffic during peak hours. The
increased proportion of the project area devoted to urban land uses will put more strains on the
water resources. Long term, these strains can alter the availability and quality of hydrologic
resources, both groundwater and surface water. Modifications in land use may also affect the
proportions of ground water and surface runoff in rivers and stream. However, the following
federal, state, and local regulations are in place to protect surface water quality and accommodate
future growth.
• EPA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
• North Carolina- Watershed Supply Watershed Protection Act
• North Carolina -Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
• Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules
• North, Carolina - Nonpoint Source Program
• Wake County - Land Use and Stormwater Regulations
Adhering to these regulations for the protection of surface waters should limit direct and indirect
effects to this important resource (see attached Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment).
Page 3 of 6

Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), Proposed Threatened (PT), are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists four federally protected species for Wake County:
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Since the
original EA was prepared no species have been added to or removed from the list. Descriptions
and biological conclusions of "No Effect" were given for each species in the referenced EA.
The project site was revisited on August 26, 2004 and overall habitat conditions have not
changed. Suitable habitat is not present within the project area for bald eagle or red-cockaded
woodpecker. However, suitable habitat is present for Michaux's sumac. All areas containing
suitable habitat were examined for Michaux's sumac. No Michaux's sumac species were found.
Additionally, a review of the Natural Heritage Program database (last updated on March 31,
2005) revealed no occurrences of these three species within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Therefore, the biological conclusion of "No Effect" remains valid for all three species.
In reference to the dwarf wedgemussel, a survey was conducted during the March 1996 natural
resource investigation. No mussel fauna was observed and a biological conclusion of "No
Effect" in the project area was given. NCDOT environmental biologists, Karen M. Lynch and
Logan Williams conducted a re-survey for the dwarf wedgemussel on December 16, 2003. It
was concluded that suitable habitat does not exist for the dwarf wedgemussel and no mussels
were found to occur in the unnamed tributaries. Additionally, a review of the Natural Heritage
Program database (updated March 2005) revealed that no known occurrences of dwarf
wedgemussel exist in the project area. Therefore, the biological conclusion for the dwarf
wedgemussel of "No Effect" remains valid.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological and Historic Resources: According to a memo dated November 9, 1995 from the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), there are no known properties of historical,
architectural, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project (Appendix A
of the EA).
Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensatory Mitigation
Despite the minimization strategies employed for the proposed project, the resulting permanent
wetland and stream impacts will be 0.07 acres and 109 feet. Consequently, the project will
require compensatory mitigation.
Avoidance Minimization, and Mitigation: The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to
provide fill compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts.
Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization
measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize,
and mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the
project's jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by
;ICDC T
Page 4 of 6

Avoidance/M i nimizati on:
• Limited instream activity
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds and the Environmental Sensitive Areas Provision
implementation.
• Use of 2:1 fill slopes in jurisdictional area.
Use of grass swales (11+00 -Y3 to 21+82 -L-RT & 261-00 to 29+00 -L-RT), a level
spreader and preformed scour hole (38+17 -L-RT), and rock weir (22+05 -L-RT) to diffuse
water flow and for treatment before it enters the buffer and wetland areas.
• No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be allowed in
wetlands or near surface waters.
Widening on existing alignment.
• A 16" water line will be placed under the new reinforced concrete box culvert at Site 2
during the time the box culvert is placed. The box culvert is replacing the existing 66"
corrugated metal pipe (CMP).
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed construction in jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and that the proposed action includes
all practicable methods to avoid and/or minimize jurisdictional wetland impacts that may result
from such use.
COMPENSATION: The primary emphasis of the compensatory mitigation is to reestablish a
condition that would have existed if the project were not built. As previously stated, mitigation
is limited to reasonable expenditures and practicable considerations related to highway operation.
Mitigation is generally accomplished through a combination of methods designed to replace
stream loss as a result of construction of the project.
EEP will assume responsibility for satisfying the federal Clean Water Act compensatory
mitigation requirements for NCDOT in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
signed July 22, 2003 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and the NCDOT.
Compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the
federal Clean Water Act will be provided by the EEP. An acceptance letter dated January 4,
2005 from EEP is attached. The offsetting mitigation will derive from an inventory of assets
already in existence within the same 8-digit cataloguing unit. The Department has avoided and
minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible as described above.
The unavoidable impacts to 109 feet ofjurisdictional stream and 0.07 acres of riverine wetland
will be offset by compensatory mitigation provided by the EEP program.
Regulatory Approvals
Application is hereby made for the Department of Army Section 404 Nationwide 14 for the
above-described activities. We are also hereby requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification and
Neuse Buffer Certification from the Division of Water Quality. In compliance with Section
143-215.3D(e) of the NCAC we will provide $200.00 to act as payment for processing the
Section 401 permit application previously noted in this application (see Subject line). We are
providing seven copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Page 5 of 6

V,
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
htip //www.ncdot.ol.L/cloli/pi-econstnict/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Ms. Deanna Riffey at [phone].
Sincerely,
Grego,y Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Joseph Qubain, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Ms. Laurie P. Smith, CPA, NCDOT, Program Management
Page 6 of 6