20231689 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20231210

DW R
DHlsloo of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
October 2, 2023 Ver 4.3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?
Yes No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes No
Change only If needed.
Does this project involve maintenance dredging funded by the Shallow Draft Navigation Channel Dredging and Aquatic Weed Fund or involve the distribution or transmission of energy or
fuel, including natural gas, diesel, petroleum, or electricity?
Yes No
BIMS # Assigned Version# *
20231689 1
Is a payment required for this project?*
No payment required
Fee received
Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Raleigh Regional Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
la. Name of project:
Town of Fuquay-Varina Southern Oaks Sewer
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Rick Toone
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
12/10/2023
Nearest Body of Water
Kenneth Creek
Basin
Cape Fear
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
35.566230
A. Processing Information
Is this project connected with ARPA funding?
Yes No
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Wake
Is this a NCDMS Project
Yes No
Longitude:
-78.810073
What amount is owed?*
$240.00
$323.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Zachary Thomas:zachary.thomas
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
$570.00
$767.00
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes No

1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
Yes
No
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
Yes No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
58 - Utility Line Activities for Water and Other Substances (frequently used)
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application? *
Yes No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
fig. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
Yes No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
Yes No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
Owner Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
Yes No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Various
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Contact Person:
2d. Address
Street Address
Various
Address Line 2
City
Fuquay-Varina
Postal / Zip Code
27526
401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Riparian Buffer Authorization
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
Yes No
Yes No

2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:'
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Michael Wagner
3b. Business Name:
Town of Fuquay-Varina
3c.Address
Street Address
134 N. Main Street
Address Line 2
City
Fuquay-Varina
Postal / Zip Code
27526
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Rick Trone
4b. Business Name:
WithersRavenel
4c.Address
Street Address
115 MacKenan Drive
Address Line 2
City
Cary
Postal / Zip Code
27511
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:'
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality / town:
Fuquay-Varina
2. Project Identification
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:
2a. Property Identification Number: 2b. Property size:
±75.20
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Postal / Zip Code Country
3. Surface Waters

3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:
Kenneth Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:"
C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Cape Fear
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030300040501
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:
Most of the proposed sewer line alignment is vacant and wooded with the exception of some existing utility infrastructure. General land use in the vicinity of the project is residential.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Yes No Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
17.56
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
29,538
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: *
The proposed project is a major upgrade to the Town of Fuquay-Varina's Southern Oaks Sewer Basin which is currently operating at full capacity. Additionally, the existing Southern Oaks
Pump Station and Hwy 42 No. 2 Pump Station are over capacity to serve the current and future peak flow for the sewer basin. To solve this problem, the Town proposes to construct a new
gravity sewer outfall to handle the sewer basin's current and future needs. This proposed solution will also allow the Town to decommission the Southern Oaks Pump Station and Hwy 42
No. 2 Pump Station, which will ultimately save the Town's taxpayers money in both capital infrastructure costs and long-term operation and maintenance costs.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used: *
Phase I of the project consists of the installation of approximately 8,683 linear feet (LF) of 24-inch gravity sewer and 1,515 If of 12-inch gravity sewer generally parallel to Kenneth Creek
from the existing Southern Oaks Pump Station off SR1100 (Wagstaff Road) to an existing 36-inch gravity sewer outfall south of SR2772 (Bowling Road). Phase II of the project consists of
the installation of approximately 6,600 If of 18-inch gravity sewer and 1,380 If of 12-inch gravity sewer generally parallel to Kenneth Creek from just north of Phelps West Road to the
existing Southern Oaks Pump Station off Wagstaff Road. The project also consists of re-routing the existing sewer to the new outfall with approximately 40 If of 8-inch gravity sewer and 48
If of 18-inch gravity sewer. The gravity sewer will be constructed within permanent utility easements purchased by the Town of Fuquay-Varina and existing Town property. Several
temporary construction easements will also be purchased for the contractor's use as well. The topography of the proposed project area varies from gently sloping residential and paved
areas to sloping watershed areas with various natural features, including rocky bluffs.
The proposed improvements to the Southern Oaks Sewer Basin consist of approximately 18,266 linear feet of gravity sewer. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases,
however, impacts for both phases are included in this submittal.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
Yes No Unknown
Comments:
Onsite wetlands and streams were delineated by WithersRavenel (WR) in June, July, August, and
November of 2023.
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?
Preliminary Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Alyssa Ricci
Agency/Consultant Company: WithersRavenel
Other:
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
Yes O No
6b. If yes, explain.
The proposed improvements to the Southern Oaks Sewer Basin consist of approximately 18,266 linear feet of gravity sewer. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases,
however, impacts for both phases are included in this submittal.
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
No
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory O

1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams -tributaries Buffers
Open Waters Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type* (?)
2c. Type of W. *
2d. W. name
2e. Forested*
2f. Type of Jurisdicition *
?)
2g. Impact
area
W1
Construction Access IT
Unknown
Wetland T
No
Both
1.169
(acres)
W2
Construction Access
T
Unknown
Wetland R
No
Both
0.411
(acres)
W3
Construction Access IT
Unknown
Wetland R
No
Both
0.841
(acres)
W4
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown
Wetland P
No
Both
0.001
(acres)
W5
Construction Access
T
Unknown
Wetland G
No
Both
0.043
(acres)
W6
Construction Access
T
Unknown
Wetland F
No
Both
0.181
(acres)
W7
Construction Access
T
Unknown
Wetland V
No
Both
0.051
(acres)
W8
Construction Access IT
Unknown
Wetland C
No
Both
0.195
(acres)
W9
Construction Access
T
Unknown
Wetland B
No
Both
0.231
(acres)
W10
Construction Access
T
Unknown
Wetland A
No
Both
0.124
(acres)
W11
Construction Access
T
Unknown
Wetland A
No
Both
0.068
(acres)
W12
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown
Wetland T
Yes
Both
0.399
(acres)
W13
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown
WetlandR
Yes
Both
0.060
(acres)
W14
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown
Wetland R
Yes
Both
0.049
(acres)
W15
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown
Wetland
Yes
Both
0.060
(acres)
W16
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown
Wetland v
Yes
Both
0.022
(acres)
W17
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown
Wetland C
Yes
Both
0.062
(acres)
W18
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown
WetlandB
Yes
Both
0.077
(acres)
W19
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown
Wetland A
Yes
Both
0.062
(acres)
W20
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown
Wetland A
Yes
Both
0.041
(acres)
[21
Sewer Crossing
T
Unknown 7]fetland
G
Yes
Both
0.014
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
4.161
2g. Total Wetland Impact
4.161
2i. Comments:
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.000
3. Stream Impacts

F
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact"
3d. S. name"
3e. Stream Type *
Type of
3g. S. width
3h. Impact
(?)
�3f.
Jurisdiction*
length*
S1
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
26
51
Average (feel)
(linear feet)
S2
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 19
Intermittent
Both
94
Averege (feet)
(linear feet)
S3
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 16
Perennial
Both
15
41
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
S4
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
25
75
Averege (feeq
(linear feet)
S5
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
23
47
Averege (feet)
(linear feet)
S6
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
23
51
Averege (feet)
(linear feet)
g7
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
24
48
Averege (feet)
(linear feet)
gg
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
27
40
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
S9
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
23
46
Averege (feeq
(linear feet)
S10
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 9
Intermittent
Both
59
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
S11
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
31
61
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
S12
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
22
46
Averege (feet)
(linear feet)
S13
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
22
86
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
S14
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 4
Perennial
Both
16
40
Averege (feeq
(linear feet)
S15
Construction Access
Temporary
Workpad/Causeway I
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
20
21
Averege (feet)
(linear feet)
S16
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
16
41
Average (feeq
(linear feet)
F7]�Sewer
Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
15
41
Averege (feeq
(linear feeq
S18
Construction Access
Temporary
Workpad/Causeway I
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
21
20
Averege (feet)
(linear feet)
F91
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
25
42
Averege (feeq
(linear feeq
S20
Sewer Crossing
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
18
49
Averege (feet)
(linear feet)
Et=
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
21
30
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
1029
3j. Comments:
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
1.029
O

la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Prior to site plan design, the applicant requested that a detailed wetland delineation be conducted so that impacts to wetlands and "waters" could be
minimized. Due to the location of the wetlands within the corridor, as well as site constraints dictating design, impacts could not be avoided completely.
These are gravity sewer lines which require very specific slope/gradient in order to function properly. The alignment of the sewer line was dictated by the
natural topography of the area and existing residential dwellings/structures. Due to many steep rocky hills in the area around Kenneth Creek the sewer
alignment was set to reduce the overall depth of the sewer and the amount of high compressive strength rock that must be removed by blasting for the
installation. In order to construct the sewer line within the slope to avoid wetland impacts, the sewer line would be substantially deeper and would require
blasting of rock, which significantly increases the cost of construction. This also results in very deep manholes which are a future maintenance issue.
Additionally, to a lesser extent, the sewer alignment was set to also reduce the number of permanent and temporary construction easements needed for
the project and the number of easements that would need to be obtained through eminent domain.
In some areas, there are separate proposed crossings of Kenneth Creek near one another, however, this is required for the aforementioned reasons and
to ultimately reduce the impacts to the local environment and property owners. Through careful planning and meetings with property owners and
stakeholders, the proposed route shown in the application will result in the least amount of impact to the local environment and surrounding
citizens/property owners.
In original designs, each stream and wetland crossing were a standard 40-foot-wide construction corridor. However, due to the number of impacts, each
crossing was re-evaluated for possible reduction. As a result, the permanent maintenance corridor was reduced to a 10-foot width in all areas. This
adjustment reduced the wetland conversion amount greatly.
Due to the relatively flat topography of the proposed corridor, and the relatively steep topography of areas adjacent to the corridor, the sewer crossings
of wetlands and streams could not be designed as aerial crossings while still achieving the necessary grade to maintain positive flow.
Installation will need to be conducted using an open -cut technique, which will ensure the elevation and slope of the line meets the required
specifications. It is not possible for these specifications, with tolerances set within tenths of inches, to be met using alternative methods.
Each stream impact was evaluated for potential horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and Jack and Bore. Due to the remote locations of the crossings, it
was determined that 1) there would be more overall impact (including upland clearing) in providing access for the equipment, and 2) the accuracy of the
installation would not meet design specifications for proper gravity flow, requiring potential future impacts for maintenance and repair purposes. Jack and
Bore is not feasible due to the terrain and high compressive strength rock in the area. For these reasons, it was determined that HDD and Jack and Bore
were not a feasible option for avoiding stream crossings.
Streams crossings will be conducted in the dry. A schematic of the typical pump around is included with this submittal. For crossings stabilized with
biodegradable matting, the channel will be restored to pre -construction elevations of the channel prior to installation of the matting.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Upon completion of the installation of the proposed sewer line, the disturbed wetland areas will be returned to natural grade and seeded with a wetland
seed mix to restore wetland vegetation. Only the 10' permanent access/maintenance corridor will be regularly mowed/maintained, and the temporary
construction easement will be left undisturbed to return to forested wetlands.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes
No
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
DWR
Corps
2d. If yes, which mitigation option(s) will be used for this project?
Mitigation bank Payment to in -lieu fee program Permittee Responsible Mitigation
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
Yes No
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
(linear feet)
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWR only):
(square feet)
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4h. Comments
See attached NCDMS acceptance.
4c. If using stream mitigation, what is the stream temperature:
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
0.845
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Yes
No
0
If no, explain why:
Project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin outside of the Jordan Lake watershed and is not subject to state -regulated buffers.

2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NC DOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250? *
Yes No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
Yes No
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?
Yes No
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 (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?*
Yes No
Comments: *
Proposed project does not meet the requirements for an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of NEPA or SEPA.
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
Yes No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
Yes No
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?
Yes No N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?
Yes No
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
Yes No Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
Yes No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
Yes No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
Yes No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
Yes No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
Yes No

5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
WR generated the official species list on 6/1/2023 using USFWS' Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), located at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipact.
This species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and designated critical habitat, that may occur
within the boundary of the project and may be affected by the project. The IPaC list specified that there are five species (Tricolored bat, Red -Cockaded
Woodpecker, Cape Fear Shiner, Atlantic Pigtoe, and Michaux's Sumac) that may be within the project area or affected by the project. There is no
designated critical habitat within the review area. The 6/1/2023 IPaC list has been provided as an attachment.
WR submitted a review request on 6/1/2023 to the NCNHP through their Data Explorer webpage, located at: https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/, to identify
known occurrences of federally listed threatened or endangered species within 1.0 mile of the review area. The NCNHP project review did not identify
any known occurrences of federally listed species within the review area or within 1.0 miles, as documented in the attached letter from NCNHP dated
6/1/2023.
On 6/27/2023, 7/12/2023 and 8/3/2023, WR conducted a pedestrian survey to assess vegetative communities and identify potential habitat for, or
occurrences of federally listed species within or immediately adjacent to the review area. The review area contained three vegetative communities
(mowed/maintained, early successional, and mixed hardwood/pine forest) as discussed in the attached Threatened and Endangered Species Report.
Per USFWS, occurrence of red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) in Wake County is a mistake and
surveys are not required for RCW in Wake County.
The review area does contain potential habitat for the Tricolored Bat. The USFWS proposed to list the Tricolored Bat as an endangered species under
the ESA on September 13, 2022, largely because of white -nose syndrome, a disease that affects cave dwelling bats and is decimating hibernating bat
species. There has been no critical habitat designated for the Tricolored Bat at this time. The USFWS has no definitive guidance on Tricolored Bat but is
working towards developing guidelines by the time the listing is finalized.
Based on the review of the NCNHP GIS data there are no known occurrences of the Tricolored Bat within 1.0 miles of the review area. Potential habitat
for the Tricolored Bat exists within the mixed hardwood/pine forest as these communities contain mature trees. Because the Tricolored Bat can roost
among man-made structures there is potential roosting habitat near the review area consisting of the residential housing. The project does not propose
the demolition of any man-made structures that could potentially serve as roosting habitat. Targeted surveys were not conducted for Tricolored Bat.
Based on the lack of known nearby occurrences and limited tree clearing, WR concludes that the proposed activities are not likely to adversely affect the
Tricolored Bat. Any restrictions on tree clearing will not be known until the USFWS releases the final guidance for the Tricolored Bat. Upon listing,
USFWS is expected to provide habitat descriptions and an area of influence/distribution range for Tricolored Bat. When this information is provided, it will
help to inform determinations on habitat that could be impacted by proposed actions. However, based on the lack of nearby known occurrences, and
limited tree clearing WR concludes that the proposed activities will not adversely affect the Tricolored Bat.
There is potential habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner. The intermittent streams (Streams 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, & 21) located within or
adjacent to the review area were not considered potential habitat due to their small size (1-2ft) and absence of water during various times of the year.
Streams 2, 3, 18, and 20 were classified as small perennial streams and were not considered potential habitat due to their small size (3 - 10 ft wide) and
low velocity flow which does not meet habitat requirements for Cape Fear Shiner. Streams 1 (Kenneth Creek), 4, and 16 are large perennial streams
averaging 15-25 ft wide. During the pedestrian survey the substrate in Streams 1, 4, and 16 consisted of sand, gravel, and some cobble. Targeted
surveys for the presence/absence of a population were not conducted within onsite streams. Photos portraying typical conditions of the intermittent and
perennial streams are included in the attached Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment Report.
Potential habitat for Cape Fear Shiner exists in the larger perennial streams. However, based on being outside and downstream of the Critical Habitat
Designation, and outside of its known range, WR concludes that the project will Not Likely Adversely Affect the Cape Fear Shiner.
There is potential habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe. The intermittent streams (Streams 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, & 21) located within or
adjacent to the review area were not considered potential habitat due to their small size (1-2 ft) and absence of water during various times of the year.
Streams 2, 3, 18, and 20 were classified as small perennial streams and were not considered potential habitat due to their small size (3-1Oft wide) and
low velocity flow which does not meet habitat requirements for Atlantic Pigtoe. Streams 1 (Kenneth Creek), 4, and 16 were large perennial streams
averaging 15-25ft wide.
During the pedestrian survey the substrate in Streams 1, 4, and 16 consisted of sand, gravel, and some cobble, however this project is not within either
USFWS critical habitat designations in the Cape Fear River basin. Targeted surveys for the presence/absence of a population were not conducted within
onsite streams. Photos portraying typical conditions of the intermittent and perennial streams are included in the attached Threatened and Endangered
Species Report. Potential habitat for Atlantic Pigtoe exists in the larger perennial streams. However, based on being outside the Critical Habitat
Designations for the Atlantic Pigtoe, WR concludes that the project will Not Likely to Adversely Affect the Atlantic Pigtoe.
There was potential habitat for Michaux's Sumac. The mowed/maintained community was not considered habitat as it was mowed frequently enough to
prevent the growth of vegetation over 5". The mixed hardwood/pine forest community was not considered suitable habitat due to dense overstory. The
early successional community was considered habitat for Michaux's Sumac. Targeted surveys for the presence/absence of a population were conducted
throughout the early successional community and along the edges of the mixed hardwood/pine community where sufficient sunlight was present. The
results of the pedestrian survey were negative for the presence of Michaux's sumac. Based on the lack of nearby known occurrences, and the results of
the pedestrian survey during the optimal survey window, WR concludes that the proposed activities will have no effect on Michaux's Sumac.
Based on our findings and best professional judgement, the development of the municipal sewer line
will not adversely affect the federally listed threatened or endangered species.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?
There are no waters classified as EFH in Wake County.
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 status?
Yes No

7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? *
WR reviewed the NC State Historic Preservation Office's online database, located at: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/, to determine if there were any known
historic or cultural resources within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. The database review did not identify any known resources within or in the
vicinity of the proposed project.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
Yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The proposed project is a subsurface sewer line and the construction area will be restored to natural grade upon completion, and will not result in
displacement of floodwaters or rise in the floodplain elevation.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?"
FEMA flood maps.
Miscellaneous
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one file when
possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Cover Letter and Attachments.pdf 55.08MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Comments
See included Cover Letter and Attachments.
Signature
By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief'; and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Rick Trone
Signature
A W All"
Date
12/10/2023
O