Elizabeth Brady Rd Extension (2)

~s,~
r~ n~
RECEIVEC .
~.~~~. N.C. Dept of ENR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Q
DEPART~VIENT OF TRANSPORTATI , N Wlnsc°°'~`~'``
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Memorandum
To: Mr. Chris Militscher, EPA
Ms. Gary Jordan, US F&WS
Ms. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Sue Homewood, DENR-DWQ
Mr. Felix Davila, PE, FHWA
Mr. Todd Tugwell, ACOE
Fro incent J. Rhea, PE
roject Development Engineer
roject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Subject Hillsborough, Elizabeth Brady Road Extension, from south of US 70 Business
to north US 70 Bypass at SR 1002 (Saint Mary's Road), Orange County, Federal-Aid
Project No. STP-0711 (1), State Project No. 8.2501901, TIP Project No. U-3808
A copy of the Executive Summary of the final Natural Resources Technical Report for
the subject project is attached for your files.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] ext. 261.
VJR/vjr
Attachment
February 6, 2006
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Cc: Douglas Smith, Parsons Brinkerhoff
files
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to provide a bypass of Hillsborough
between NC Highway 86 (NC 86)/US 70 Business (US 70) and US 70 Bypass, in the vicinity of
Elizabeth Brady Road in Orange County, NC (Figure 1).
INTRODUCTION
The project region is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. Land
use within the project region is characterized by residential and urban development, forest land
(including Eno River State Park), and agriculture. The project study area is located in a
moderately developed area southeast of the City of Hillsborough and is dominated by
maintained right-of-ways, residential and commercial development, and disturbed plant
communities. Elevations range from a low of 500 feet above sea level along the Eno River to a
high of 767 feet at Occoneechee Mountain near the western boundary of the project study area.
No soils present within the project study area are classified as hydric in Orange County.
Three alternative corridors are under study (Alternates 3, 4, and 6). Each alternative is oriented
on an approximately north-south axis (Figure 2).
Alternate 3 extends from a southern terminus on NC 86, approximately 600 feet north of the
intersection with NC 85, in anorth-northeastward direction across a former automobile race
track, the Eno River, Highland Loop Road, and US 70 Bypass (Figure 1). The northern
terminus of Alternate 3 occurs on St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) at a point approximately 1440 feet
northeast of the intersection of St. Mary's Road and US 70 Bypass (Figure 1).
Alternate 4 utilizes a southern section shared with Alternate 6, a northern section shared with
Alternate 3, and an exclusive middle section. Alternate 4 breaks from the Alternate 6 corridor
along the Eno River floodplain slope at a point approximately midway between US 70 and US
70 Bypass (Figure 1). This alternate extends northwestward across the Eno River, through a
residential portion of Hillsborough to a junction with Alternate 3 approximately 600 feet south of
the Alternate 3 crossing of US 70 Bypass (Figure 1).
Alternate 6 extends from a southern terminus on NC 86; approximately 600 feet north of the
intersection with NC 85, and extends in a northeastward direction across US 70, along the
southern slope of the Eno River floodplain, and along US 70 Bypass (Figure 1). The northern
terminus of Alternate 6 occurs on US 70 Bypass approximately 1700 feet west of the
intersection with St. Mary's Road (Figure 1).
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The project study area is located within the sub basin 03-04-01 of the Neuse River Basin. This
area is part of the USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020201 or the South Atlantic/ Gulf Region. The Eno
River (DWQ Index No. 27-2-(7)) (NCDWQ 2004) is the largest named stream within the project

study area. The Eno River enters the project vicinity from the west, and meanders southward
and then northward before exiting the project vicinity to the east. Cates Creek (NCDWQ Index
No. 27-2-8) (NCDWQ 2004) is the only named tributary of the Eno River within the project study
area. Cates Creek flows north from its source and crosses the western portion of the project
study area before discharging into the Eno River.
The Eno River (from Lake Ben Johnston to SR 1561) and Cates Creek have a water quality
best usage classification of C, NSW. No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), Water Supply II (WS-II) waters, or watershed
Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Biotic Resources
The study corridor is located in a region of developing residential and industrial land use. Five
broad classifications of plant communities are recognized: 1) pine uplands, 2) Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest, 3) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype), 4) Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest, and 5) urban/disturbed land.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Within the project study area, 25 streams are considered to be jurisdictional surface waters.
The project study area also contains four jurisdictional wetland areas. The characteristics of
these streams and wetlands occurring within the project study area are summarized in Table 1.
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers for the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0232) provides a designation for
uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B
.0233). The Neuse River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers (measured
perpendicular to the stream) directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin.
Designated surface waters are indicated on USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps and county soil
surveys. Within the project area, 2S2, 3S1, 4S1, 5S2, 6S1, 7S1, 9S1A/B, 10S1, 11S1, 11S2,
12S 1, 13S 1, 14S 1, 14S2, 15S 1, and 16S 1 are subject to the Neuse River Basin Rules (Figure
2).
Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the jurisdictional area and riparian buffer impacts for each
alternative. Anticipated impacts resulting from this project are presented with respect to cut-fill
limits. Based on the USACE field verification of section 404 jurisdictional areas, impacts to any
jurisdictional stream will require mitigation.
Permits
Due to the inclusion of multiple streams and wetlands within project alternatives, permits will be
required for encroachment into these jurisdictional areas. On linear highway projects, each
wetland/stream system crossing may be considered a "single and complete" project for

permitting purposes. Consideration should be given to the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14
(Linear Transportation Projects); which allows a filled area of no more than 0.5 acre of waters of
the United States. Since each crossing can be considered a "single and complete" project, it is
possible to have multiple NWP 14s along the proposed highway alignment, assuming that the
combined adverse effects are minimal. Another possibility is the use of USACE General Permit
(GP) 031 that authorizes jurisdictional area impacts associated with NCDOT bridge projects.
The USACE may also exert discretionary authority and require an Individual Permit if avoidance
and minimization have not been adequately addressed, if appropriate mitigation is inadequate,
or if the combined impacts of all crossings are not considered to be minimal. Section 401 of the
CWA requires each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be violated for
activities which 1) involve issuance of a federal permit or license, or 2) require discharges to
waters of the United States. The USACE cannot issue a Section 404 permit until 401 water
quality certification is issued by NCDWQ. Therefore, NCDOT must apply fora 401 water quality
certification as part of the permit process. Each "single and complete" project will require
notification to NCDWQ for general certification. NCDWQ has made available a General 401
Water Quality Certification for NWP 14 and GP 031 (GC 3404).
Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed
(P) for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term
"Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16
U.S.C. 1532).
Four federally protected species are listed as Endangered for Orange County as of September
6, 2005: Red-cockaded woodpecker, dwarf wedge mussel, Michaux's sumac, and smooth
coneflower.
Red-cockaded woodpecker:
Suitable breeding habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker is discounted in the project study area
due to the absence of mature pine forests. Pine forest within the project study area provides
only minimal foraging habitat. NCNHP records (reviewed June 3, 2005} document no
occurrence of red-cockaded woodpecker within 2.0 miles of the project study area. No red-
cockaded woodpeckers were observed during field investigations. Based on NCNHP records
and field observations, there will be No Effect on red-cockaded woodpecker as a result of this
project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Dwarf wedge mussel:
Suitable habitat for dwarf wedge mussel does exist within the project study in perennial streams
2S3, 3S1, 4S1, 5S1, 6S1, 7S1, 9S1, 10S1, 11S1, 13S1, and 14S1. Although NCNHP records
(reviewed June, 3 2005) document no occurrence of dwarf wedge mussel within 2.0 miles of the

project study area, the presence of dwarf wedge mussel cannot be discounted until a systematic
survey is conducted.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Michaux's sumac:
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac does occur within the project study area in the form of
disturbed areas along roadsides and developed areas. NCNHP records (reviewed June 3,
2005) document no occurrence of Michaux's sumac within 2.0 miles of the project study area. A
systematic plant-by-plant survey was conducted within suitable habitat by EcoScience
Corporation biologists in early May 2005. This survey determined that no individuals of
Michaux's sumac occur within the project study area; subsequently, the proposed project will
have No Effect on Michaux's sumac. However, because this species is likely to migrate if new
habitat is created due to clearing, an additional survey will be needed prior to LET.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Smooth coneflower:
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower does exist within the. project study area in the form of
disturbed areas along roadsides. NCNHP records (reviewed June 3, 2005) document no
occurrence of smooth coneflower within 2.0 miles of the project study area. A systematic plant-
by-plant survey was conducted within suitable habitat by EcoScience Corporation biologists in
early May 2005. This survey determined that no individuals of smooth coneflower occur within
the project study area; subsequently, the proposed project will have No Effect on smooth
coneflower. However, because this species is likely to migrate if new habitat is created due to
clearing, an additional survey will be needed prior to LET.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
CONCLUSIONS
No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water
Supply I (WS-I), Water Supply II (WS-II) waters, or watershed Critical Areas (CA) occur within
1.0 mile of the project study area.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 have impacts to surface waters. Alternatives 4 and 6 have impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands. Overall, Alternate 3 contains the least amount of jurisdictional area
impacts with the shortest linear distance of streams. Alternate 3 also contains the shortest
linear distance and area of riparian buffer impacts. Section 404 permits likely to be required for
this project study area include Section 404 NWP 14 or GP 031, in addition to the corresponding
Section 401 Water Quality Certifications.
No federally protected species are projected to be impacted by this project, but a systematic
survey is necessary to fully discount the presence dwarf wedge mussel.

Table 1: Streams and Wetlands within Project Study Area Alternatives

System

Description*
Cowardin
Classification

Substrate Average
width
(feet DEM
Wetland
Ratin
1W1 Wetland IS PFO1F N/A N/A 54
2S1 UT Eno River I R4S64 silUsand/ ravel 1 N/A
2S2 UT Eno River t R4SB4 silUsand/ ravel 4 N/A
2W1 Wetland R PSS1E N/A N/A 18
3S1 Eno River P R3UB1 silUsand/ ravel/boulder 50 N/A
4S1 Cates Creek P R2U61/2 sand/ ravel/cobble 10 N/A
5S1 UT Cates Creek I R4S63/4 silUsand/ ravel 3 N/A
5S2 UT Cates Creek P R2U61 ravel/cobble 6 N/A
6S1 Eno River (P) R3UB1 silUsand/gravel/boulder 50 NIA
6W1 Wetland R PFO1F N/A N/A 25
7S1 UT Eno River P R2U61/2 silUsand/ ravel 6 N/A
7S2 UT Eno River I R4S63/4 silUsand/ ravel 2 N/A
7S3 UT Eno River P R2UB1/2 silUsand/ ravel 6 N/A
7W1 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A 11
8S1 UT Cates Creek I R4SB3/4 sitt/sand/ ravel/cobble 3 N/A
9S1A UT Cates Creek P R2UB2 silUsand 6 N/A
9S1B UT Cates Creek P R2UB2 silUsand 6 N/A
9S2 UT Cates Creek I R4S83/4 silUsand/ ravel 6 N/A
10S1 UT Cates Creek I R4S64 sand/ ravel 5 N/A
11S1 UT Eno River I R4SB3 ravel/cobble/boulder 6 N/A
11S2 UT I R4S64 silUsand 3 N/A
12S1 UT Eno River I R4SB3 ravel/cobble/boulder 3 N/A
13S1 Cates Creek P R2UB1/2 sand/ ravel/cobble 10 N/A
13S2 UT P R2U62 silUsand 4 N/A
13S3 UT I R4SB4 sand/ ravel 2 N/A
13W1 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A 42
13W2 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A 42
14S1 Eno River P R3U61 silUsand/ ravel/boulder 50 N/A
14S2 UT P R2U61/2 sand/ ravel/cobble 5 N/A
14W1 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A 15
15S1 UT I R4SB4 silUsand 4 N/A
15W1 Wetland (R PFO1E N/A N/A 19
15W2 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A 23
16S1 UT I R4S64 silUsand 3 N/A
16W1 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A 25
16W2 Wetland R PFO1E N/A N/A 25
*UT =Unnamed Tributary; P =Perennial stream; I =Intermittent stream, R= Riverine Wetland;
IS= Isolated Wetland

Table 2: Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Alternate 3 Alternate 4 Alternate 6

System
Description** Linear
Distance
(feet)
Area
(acres Linear
Distance
(feet
Area
(acres) Linear
Distance
(feet)
Area
(acres)
1 W 1 Wetland IS -- -- -- -- -- --
2S1 UT I -- -- -- -- -- --
2S2'` UT (I 148 0.01 159 0.01 -- --
2W 1 Wetland R -- -- -- -- -- --
3S1'` Eno River P -- -- -- -- -- --
4S1* Cates Creek P -- -- -- -- -- --

5S2" UT P -- -- - -- -- --
6S1' Eno River P -- -- -- -- -- --
6W1 Wetland R -- -- -- -- -- --
7S1 * UT P -- -- 202 0.03 470 0.06
7S2 UT I -- -- -- -- 52 0.01
7S3 UT P --~ -- -- -- -- --
7W1 Wetland R -- -- -- 0.02 -- 0.02
8S1 UT (I -- -- 219 0.02 236 0.02
9S1A* UT P 65 <0.01 109 0.01 109 0.01
9S1 B' UT P -- -- 209 0.03 209 0.03
9S2 UT I -- -- 271 0.04 265 0.04
10S1* UT (I -- -- -- -- -- --
11S1'' UT I -- -- -- -- 576 0.08
11 S2" UT I 20 <0.01
12S1' UT I -- -- --
13S1" Cates Creek (P) 124 0.03 124 0.03 124 0.03
13S2 UT P -- -- - -- -- --
13S3 UT I -- -- -- -- -- --
13W 1 Wetland R - -- -- -- -- --
13W2 Wetland R) -- -- -- -- -- --
14S1'' Eno River P - -- -- -- -- --
14S2'` UT P -- -- -- -- 304 0.02
14W 1 Wetland R -- -- -- -- -- --
15S1" UT (I -- -- -- -- 125 <0.01
15W1 Wetland R - -- -- -- -- --
15W2 Wetland R -- -- -- -- -- 0.03
16S 1' UT I -- -- -- -- 36 <0.01
16W1 Wetland (R) -- -- --
16W2 Wetland R -- -- -- -- -- --
'Subject to Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules
"`'`UT=Unnamed Tributary; P =Perennial Stream; I =Intermittent Stream; R=Riverine Wetland;
IS=Isolated Wetland

Table 3: Anticipated Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas and Riparian Buffers*
Alternate 3 Alternate 4 Alternate 6
Number 0 1 2
Riverine Wetlands Area 0 0.02 0.05
Number 0 0 0
Isolated Wetlands Area 0 0 0
Number 2 4 5
Linear
Distance 189 644 1216
Perennial Streams Area 0.04 0.1 0.15
Number 2 3 7
Linear
Distance 245 649 1310
Intermittent Streams Area 0.02 0.07 0.18
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2
Linear
Distance 1316 1425 2641 2598 4801 3602
Riparian Buffers Area 0.74 0.62 1.7 1.1 3.0 1.4
'Area is expressed in acres; linear distance is expressed in feet

r
Y Le end
r,.
~~
= ~
•~ ~ [~ Project Study Area
_ •.
a'a t

'
1 -
~ ~..
«,
't
.. i

.
T uA~,
r ~/' , t s .. p1'

e..n

~ • L.HiA~I~ ti.. ~ ' 1 ~ ,

•'
}. ~. .r.r M Hli ~ j ;yf
•
..
.. ~ ~ ,,, ,~, , _ ry s
. _ _;
..

~St. Ma Ro
•

d
•
.. ,,

-. -

..
S
,. -
{{
- •
~ S • Y~

~
. a ~
, t
Highland Loop Road ~ r_
_~~ ~~ r x '

.
.
•
1
. .
_ _
.. F ::..
-~:4 •. • ~ - •.
.
.: ~ Hillsborough E~~;
1 , _ ., i,,
? = 4
. .,~„
...h Rive
~ rside Drive

#
~~ '~
__
,~ ~
r..t ~
.~ ~j~~S~OPOIIfr~l ! ,.~~
- •_
.
•
~
.,
, ..
rf
~
~ _ ~t < ~ ~ ~?ieu•

_
~
~
S ~
:
. _
:
Y _ .. _; ~_ _~ --`._
.4. 'K
' ~ US 70 Bypass
,
e
Elizabeth Brady Road
Y ~r„, •
,~~
a E`
a.
:
~'
q
r
~ :

- a 7anr.• Y\v
.
.
~
• US 70 oif r:
__t
•
•, ;
.•
• i L

j 1
s
1.
it ~
V}°" ~ ,.
w:dP
Interstate 85
J
u i
.. •

. c ..
..
• ..
,~.
. •..
r
. .
. .
;~
.
,
0.5 Ord; 0.5 1 ~"~5 ~ ~ 2 Miles .
•;

Drawn by: MG FIGURE
Site Vicinity Map Checked by: SD
EcoSci ence

Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Date:
2006
D
-= ~~- corporation
~~ `~ ~ ~ ec

® 04-197 TIP U-3808
P
t
Raleigh, Norlh Carolina
:~ cltirii,i~rr rojec
:
04-197

.,
ALTERNATIVES
SYSTEM t3
uss ulrt
x4151
1311
~~~-
Tf~ i T~2»t;C A
~, a ,~, 1152 X51
55t ~_
ALTERNATE 3
------ ALTERNATE 4
-•-•-• ALTERNATE 6
LEGEND
-»------- PROJECT STUDY AREA
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM
' JURISDICTIDNAL WETLAND
°' "" SYSTEW S ~ TF •ts g.?Erm~.t~vt 5
yu .- SYSTEW 4 /~~'S'7~`u°7
` -" '1. ~' ~ F .
~ SYSTEM 9 ~ ~ `<. 552 ~ ~ `
~t / _...,.95u
,, .. ,~ `,
"',• - ` ~ ,`'ss~e SYSTEM g '. ~_ ~ -_.. /
,.... ~° `-1051 ~
~~ \ ~ _~' SYSTEW 3
` ~\• 1
T r f i ! , / 2w1 /
..
,~ _ ,. 251 /
• ~ •- •,..
751- ~„ ,,. ,.• ~.. „_ ~ ~ ~ _ j ~ ~
rw1= ~ 651 ' ~ `° ~ ~• ~ ,'
SYSTEM 2 •
SYSTEM 7 ~ ~ j \ ~ ` ~ ~ ,i ~ •! ~
.~ ~.".
~....
~ ® ,
~ ~~~ ~• /°
~~
/_ ~~ SY$TEM 6 / ~ ~~
f f . j,'.
1111-~i p
/•
6M1 ~'
SYSTE4 t ~
1i nsl - ~' \
,, ~- ~•• ~. =15x1
No to115taucrloN KrEelur 3
\ ~ •~t5r12
0 ,•.
~~ SYSTEM 15
SYSTEM 11 wrt ~:
( ~.
j /••
$Y$TEAI 14
f~ H51
~ 11$1
C T i T RNAT Ct ~•• -' ` ~' Project; D.n Bye
N40 87
800 0 800
SCALE IN FEET
.~L.
SYSTEM t'
r ~ -1151
16112-~ •~'f~ '-162
r
SYSTEM i6