20041060 Ver 1_Scoping Comments_20010709

`; t~~e of North Carolina
~'repartmeni of Environments ~ .;_~ ' °~~
y S
~.nd Natural Resources r` (-,~.~ ,~,~ f, ;
Division of Water Quality r~ ~ _ .- ___',
~:;te: -_ -'-~. 1T if 3< -''--_ ~.k
Michael F. Easley, Governor ~ ~ ;~ ~`'
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Julv 9. 2001
1\~II:It~I O RA N D U 1'I
To: Melba McGee
i
"f hrough: John Dorne~
~~
~'
From: John I/. Henness}~~/~ f1'"
~-
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of NC ~~ from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 19.59
(Miami Boule~~ard) and SR 1973 (Page Road) from NC 54 to I-40 in Durham County, Federal
Aid Project No. S'1P-54(2). State Project No. 8.132701, TIP R-2904, DL'NR No. 011:-0778.
Reference your correspondence dated June ~, 2001 in ~~~hich you requested comments for the referenced
project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams
and jurisdictional wetl~u~ds in the project area. More specifically, impacts to tributaries of the Northeast
Creek (Class C NSW ~-,eaters, DWQ index No. 16-41-1-17 (0.3)) located in the Cape Fear River Basin is
possible. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other
streams and/or iurisdictional wetlands in the area. In th. event that any jurisdictional areas are identil-ied,
the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with axresponding mapping.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is prererable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. R'hile the NCll\y~Q realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requirin~u mitigation, appropriate miti ration plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. Review oC the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Waier Supply Water, I-ligh
Quality y~'aters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. IIowever,
should further analysis reveal the presence of anv of the aforementioned waters, the DWQ requests
that DOT stric(ly adhere to North Carolina re~~u(ations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
~~'atersheds" (1 ~A NCAC 04I3 .0024) throughout design and construction of the project "This would
apple for any area that drains to streams having ~~'S (~V'ater Supply), OR\V (Outstanding Resource
y>v'ater), IIQ~§' (High Quality y~'ater), SA (Shellfish ~y'atcr) or 'Tr ('hrout Water) classifications.
1650 f~%lail Service Center, Raleigh, Nord-~ Carolina 27690-1650 l-elephone 919-733-5083 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action E m~~loyer 50°~ recycled/ 10 ;~o posi-consumer paper

Paec 2
D. When practic~il. the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements f~~r Gena~al 401 Certification ?726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
ConsUuction..lccess and l~ewatering) must he Pollo~~~ed.
I. Re~~iew of the project reveals that no Hi~~h Quality ~~'alers ~~r Water Supply Waters ~~~ill be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
grater resources. the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins he installed at any bridge
crossin~~ a sUeam classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number oicatch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
tlo~~in~~ directl: into the stream.
1'. If applicable. DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
CI. yy~etland and steam impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical If this is not possible, altenritives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts ~~~ill he required by
D«%Q for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feat.
IL Borrr~w/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory miti~~ation ~~~ill
be required if ~~~etlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. llWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. llo~rcver, if the new structure is to be a culvert.
it should he countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic or«anisms passage through the
crossin~~.
J. In accrndance ~~~ith the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules ; I Sn NC~~C 2I1.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any sin~~le perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designee( to replace appropriate lost
functions and ~~alues. In accordance with the NCDWQ y~'etlands Rules { I SA NCAC 2IL0>06
(h)(3) },the A~y'etland Restoration Pro~~ram maybe available for use as stream miti~aation.
K. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
I,. "I'he 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for st~~a~mwater management. More specifically. stonnwater should not be permitted to
dischar~ae dire~dy into the creek. Instead. stormwater should he designed to drain to a properly
desi~an~d stonn~~~ater detention facility/apparatus.
M. While the use ~~i National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent ii~uccuricics require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit appr<,~~al.
"1'hanl: you for requcstin« our input at this lime. "hhe DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that ~ratcr quality standards arc met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. if you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John l lcnnessy at [phone].
cc: Eric ~lismeycr. Corps of ln~~incers
"fom \l~Car(ne~~. USI~~y'S
David Cox, NC~~~'1ZC
Personal Files
bile Cope
(':AncdiaV'r;l' R-~"U-11~~nma~.ui;`J:-"JU1 s,n~~in~> cummrnis ilnc

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form

Project Number: County: Date Received: ++ Date Res~p-once Due (firm deadline):

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area Tn-House Review
^ Asheville fir oil & Water ^ Marine Fisheries
^ Fayetteville ater ^ Coastal Management
^ Mooresville Groundwater ,„~eter Resources
ild~
l
i
f
e
^
~
-
-
ry
~
~~
Leigh ^ Land Quality Engineer ~-Environmental Health
^ Washington ^ Recreational Consultant fca°F"orest Resources ^ Solid Waste Mgmt
^ Wilmington ^ Land Resources ^ Radiation Protection
^ Winston-Salem ~P`arks & Recreation ^ Other
~e''t~Vater Quality 'V
,
^ Groundwater
^ Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
^ No objection to project as proposed.
^ No Comment
^ Insufficient information to complete review
^ Other (specify or attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Otlfice of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs

y.~~~
~; s
~ 1
~ - ~ . V~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
i" ~ lL
t~.r
P
~~~
a1~'
~~~ ~,
~5 ~'
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR June 5, 2001 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration ~,
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Mana e f ~-' ~--
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SL~I3JECT: Proposed Improvements to NC 54, from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR
1959 (Miami Boulevard) and SR 1973 (Page R_oad), from NC 54 to I-40
in Durham County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-54(2), State Project
No. 8.1352701, TIP R-2904
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the proposed
improvements to NC 54. The project is included in the Draft 2002-2008 ivlorth Carolina Transpor~ation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in f seal year 2006 and construction in fiscal year
2008.
The subject project proposes to widen NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami
Boulevard) and to replace the Southern Railroad Bridge. The proposed improvements to SR 1973 (Page
Road) from NC 54 to I-40, will be made under a separate TIP project number, U-3853. The Nortr~
Carolina Railroad will design and build all railroad related improvements associated with this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will only be responsible for the widening of the
highway. Therefore, the actual widening limits of R-2904 are from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959
(Miami Boulevard) (0.8 miles).
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals
which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally
funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by July 23, 2001 so that your
comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Jackie Obediente, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 228.
WDG/plr ~ , ~ ~ ~
Attachment ~~~ ,~ ,~ ~~~~,
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] ',t.v, Sj~,j~. I ~":C!.i~-'+_i r,'~~'~OCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
G
~~
C ~"
C~

~ _ ~
~`~ ui :''III'.'! ,
,f~'~ ~~~.,, ~_
L~?i~c i L~~.ii~ ~. ..

~ i

~/ (~l.,~t~ ~1~=~~~
n ~;h ~cC
i
j
_~
~~ i is
1.
_. _ .,~ t ~~~ .. _ C~ : Il):7 O ?il!i;_ ~ .its I,I;. ~ ~ ~ G~Ci. ~~ i~li _ .... ,~ ~ _., '_I ..
~•
._ .. I i'~'~-?~ ~?l ~-1 i iilll t n'.i`._ ~ t~~~)I 1~' P - i.~~~l: i~ L`'. A~ili ~~~.: I~'C _ ~- i;_i ~ lil[~C.
_ .. ~, _~. l~i~A ~ 1'_ ~_, ii.
.~ ,.
i
~. ~ ~_ ~i` i it :I -(_ _ _i _ _ ~,~, -..

• n (, ,i~h~ <u. ~ ~ i)~,~'(~ rent ~ : tn<<< h~ r!~_i ~ r. ri.; i.t~ : ~I ~; ,.,,i ~~~~ ~ ~,;, ~ ir„ ,_
i i (;i'. ~:- t)f(1~i,:' a~:'.~~n ', ~~.: i ,il c~_.-1;i~.~lil !'~.1~,~!,U~,__ i1. ~It'i'i ~. ,.~ ... ~~ „i, _.... ~ ~..
~~.,, .'i <, iC~ _~r~li -7.~~ ~ Cl~ii ~l~dU(~L ~~' '. ,~iA'lUt~il ,~.:C }~C~ 1151. .U. .`. t .ip~~_1 ~~I; •.,.
X11 '~'~... :~11. ;~.~ ~ a ~i 1)Cl~, ..Cl ill r~ i lU`.l 1', ui~~P-Cll.
~. ` .... i _ ~`...._ _ '~ ,__;~S f~Yl~ ;l!' 1 I'll l )lL ~ „<.1~~.. ~ ~.Lc'( i ~~_ ai:l., ,
'.ili: ~ ... ~! ,...'.I ~~1llU~C~ fUll~l" I <<)1~1~\ 1CV'~„~ ~~~ °~ ~? _,~Ii~C 11 ~lll}" (, 1~1<' ::.t ~fl?I;. il~i~
.... ~_ ili _., ~_ .)~ ~~ ICCI` ~. il5 lil. ~ i ..., ~,-t ~ C~ II ~~.~ ~ft it I;ii~., ,._ ~ ~ ~.~ .. r.
sir ,. 1Ci '1 ~~.' ... .: ~l'. ~ IL C~ S'71 l~~ i~l ~ i?'~.~li Sr,' ~ II; C!l ),1 1.:.; ~tliv ~ ... ~. ~~".'~ .i lil ..T (h~11'
1. .. 'v ll? ~!-CL"ll.
i ?~l~ 4'. ~ ..~.ti.!~ll Cln[ 11:~..L~l 11 ~~.: i ..._. ! In+_ C ~.~. i~ 111 l~~il ,~IllJi11 ~iC.?i
..,. ,~;:i:,. ~..
i~
~I,iL'I .. ~, ,. 'I1.. , ~:, S il)LI Ci Ui. a~ . :i.C~ I. ~ _';t ~ ~.t l:.;i~.. _i C'7~~%~ ~ l ~.(.. i:[: ~.'I
.~~,1s ~. ~Jli1 C[) 1]`: ]li;,Yl'llitT;l ~ 1 .. < _._, i, x.11 ,`. I. 1 ., J i-_.- ~I fi__ 1il L.
i.. ~'I7Ti?. l.~ ~ I,l~J i,::?%l ~~ i ~,.~l Ul.!1C~ ~lC C!1.~. AI _;illill lul '_ I<1~,,,.. ~ l-(~ `, .. i ~ _ _.
;. .. ,~-1 ~;, A ~~.~ _'.i~ ,.2.~it ~ ~il 11O~ `)' r_?C'. ~ i ~: r. A _i~ll: _. L ~~~ .l~ ~I~' l'~~ 1 _~ ~ -. i.' _ i 1 ~1~ ,~ ..~i~
I ~ ~ ._ .~ .~. , 1.. i 1171 _i~~~ i~1 ,i`~, C ,..., ..
1, \i ~ ~. .i~~c'!i li~:l ~,i_L_.;j \, ~~~~~ ,. i'i _. `.'i'I, 'I ~~1=.'., 'V' ., ,. _ ~`~:, ~~~...;IL
...., lli l _. ., li ~,~~Liil~. tiY.~ Il~iC)1V Rl]1ti G ~l ~il ~ I ~,. ~.~I .?C ~':~. C 1 i„_. ~ ~li~i)! i.~l::
CI ...,.
~ dlii'( .i .~ ,. _~ 'il ~ ~.uli'i l,l~ill l~~) I.I;C;!1 i,' !U ~, tillli 1`'". ,. 1 :,. ',It ~_. ,. 1 _ .`Jr _ t~llll
a ~ ~, 'c ..:i. iL. ~ ~~i.tt .pit,, };I< n.~;..i. "c ~I~ r,,._ ., i:'i. _ r , ~i~~ie . .!

t
~l [i`0 i1l14,E i_Ilt. ,~,.~C ,~ ~~, .;fi, _. ~. _ i Ir: ~ i a7' .. ,, ~(~
.._ ~ ..._ .,,'J (`C.. ~.. Ill ~(~~ C `,li? 1., ~. _ Oli~~ i _ ~ _. ~ ,. ... ~~, ! _ i .,
_ ~ ... __ J; 1101] ! _I~l. 1 ~i,,,I;C US~.
~. i~~
,. filP.~.'i? ._~.
i~ t ,j ~i~ ~~ ~,. ~ ., ~. ... ,_ ~ ,. .. ,_ ~ ~..,_ ~ ..ili;
._ 1 ~ 'll. _.,
~.
~lG ~ ,
~ ,., .ti,.,. . ~, .

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Posc Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 24, 2004
Phil Harris, III
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
~~ f~~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~-~
This letter is in response to your letter of June 18, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the proposed widening of NC 54 from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to
SR 1959 (Miami Blvd.) and replacement of the Southern Railroad bridge in Durham County
(TIP No. R-2904) may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered
smooth coneflower (Helianthus laevigata) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). These
comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, a survey was conducted on June 11, 2002 for
smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac. No specimens of either species were observed.
Based on the information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with
your determination that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect smooth
coneflower or Michaux's sumac. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered i£ (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that maybe affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
'C~~~~~~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

1~-83-'~4 12,42 F130M-DEN} EEP 9197152~~1
~~~~
+~*.~~
N~D~I~R
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 1, 2004
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
650$ Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
bear Mr. Aismeyer:
SUBrECT: burham County, R-2904, NC 54 Widening
Cape Fear River Basin, CU 3030002
T-1t~~ F'~Ctr U-,~11
Natural Resources
Wifiiam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide compensatory mitigation far the 49 feet of unavoidable stream impacts
associated with the above referenced project,
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the Norkh Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. 5. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003; therefore, the EEP intends to provide compensatory stream mitigation up to
a ~,:I ratio in Cataloging Unit 3030002 of the Cape Fear River Basin.
If ypu have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone],
Sincerely,
~~~ ~C/
/~~
William D. Crilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Farris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, bivisian of W afar Quality, VVetlands(401 Unit
File: R-2904
NC D~NR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
phone: [phone] F'AX: 919-715-22191 Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrpl
No~rthCarolina
OCT-8-2DD4 FRI 12:16 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 6

~ ~~~~~(~~Ci
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 15, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 2001 requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed improvements to NC 54, from SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami
Boulevard), and SR 1973 (Page Road), from NC 54 to I-40 in Durham County, North Carolina
(TIP No. R-2904). This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance
with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (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.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 54 from
SR 1999 to SR 1959 and to replace the Southern Railroad Bridge. The proposed improvements
to SR 1973 from NC 54 to I-40 will be made under a separate TIP number, U-3853. The North
Carolina Railroad will design and build all railroad related improvements associated with this
project. NCDOT will only be responsible for the widening of the highway. Therefore, the
actual widening limits of R-2904 are from SR 1999 to SR 1959, a distance of 0.8 mile. The
following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review- of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we 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 region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems
should use existing crossings and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is
not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic 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 techniques. Wherever
appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory
bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Southeast Durham 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
indicates there are wetland and stream resources in the specific work area. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon
in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that maybe required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for
this project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the
action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being
considered, including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that maybe 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, or draining. Acres of wetland impact
should be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Vtjet?.and bou:~daries should be determined by
using the 1987 Corns of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include 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;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;

1
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made
to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Durham County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for these federally-listed species be compared with the
available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be conducted. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the
NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve
them if found. 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 during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
~~~~~
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy) ~
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:08/10/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-2904.tip