20081741 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment_20081218

I
!m
1
I
lff
it
I
0
I
0

I
\ 0 Sl7?/,„.re-
NORTH CAROLINA STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
DECEMBER ZOOB
LITTLE DRIVE & LOUIS STEPHENS DRIVE EXTENSIONS
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NUMBER U-441 OF
RESPONSIBLE STATE AGENCY:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Gregory Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
919-733-3141
IN COORDINATION WITH:
Research Triangle Foundation
Elizabeth Rooks
Executive Vice President
PO Box 12255
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
DOCUMENT PREPARER:
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
919-858-1912
Ut ? 18 TO
?;R.Wq 08
m PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Little Drive & Louis Stephens Drive Extensions
Wake County, North Carolina
Research Triangle Foundation Project No. 9
TIP Project No. U-4410F
I There are no environmental project commitments.
LI-44 1 DF
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/Fm DING or No S/GNIFICANT IMPACT PAGE 7 OF 7
DECEmoER ZDDS
GREEN SHEET
F
0 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Length of Roadway Section Studied ............................................................................................2
2) Existing Typical Section .................................................................................................................2
3) Speed Limits .......................................................................................................... ..........................2
4) Sidewalks ................................................................................................................ ..........................2
5) Right of Way .......................................................................................................... ..........................2
6) Railroad Crossings ....................................:........................................................... ..........................2
7) Intersecting Roads ......................................................................._.._................... .........................2
8) Structures ............................................................................................................... ..........................2
9) Utilities .................................................................................................................... ..........................2
10) Bicycle Routes ....................................................................................................... ..........................3
11) School Bus Data. ................................................................................................... ................ ......... 3
12) Greenways .............................................................................................................. ..........................3
13) GeoEnvironmental Sites ...................................................................................... ..........................3
14) Topography ........................................................................................................... ..........................3
15) Soils ......................................................................................................................... ..........................3
16) Land Use.. ................................................................................................
.........
..... ..........................4
.
................................................................................................
17) Wetlands ... ..........................4
18) Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands .................................................................. ..........................4
19) Public Lands and Scenic, Recreation, and State Natural Areas ..................... ..........................4
20) Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value ....................................................... ..........................5
21) Air Quality ............................................................................................................. ..........................5
22) Noise Levels .......................................................................................................... ..........................5
23) Water Resources .................................................................................................... ..........................5
24) Forest Resources ................................................................................................... ..........................6
25) Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats .................................................................. ..........................7
m 26) Invasive Species ..................................................................................................... ..........................7
27) Wildlife and Natural Vegetation ......................................................................... ..........................7
E. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................... ............ 10
1) Length of Proposed Project ................................................................................ ........................10
2) Typical Section Description ................................................................................ ........................10
3) Right of Way .......................................................................................................... ........................10
4) Access Control ...................................................................................................... ........................10
5) Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ................................................... ........................10
6) Speed Limit and Design Speed ........................................................................... ........................10
7) Noise Barriers ........................................................................................................ ........................I1
8) Sidewalks ......................................................................... .................................... ........................11
9) Bicycle Accommodations ................................................................._................. ........................11
10) Structures ............................................................................................................... ........................11
m 11) Greenways ............................................................................................................... ........................11
12) Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................... ........................11
F. PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT ................ ............ 1 1
1) Topography ............................................................................................................ ........................11
2) Soils ......................................................................................................................... ........................11
3) Land Use ................................................................................................................. ........................12
4) Community Impacts ......................................................................................................... ............12
5) Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. ............12
6) Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands .............................................................................. ............12
7) Public Lands and Scenic, Recreation, and State Natural Areas .................................. ............13
8) Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value .................................................................... ............13
9) Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... ............13
10) Noise Levels ....................................................................................................................... ............13
11) Water Resources ................................................................................................................ ............13
12) Forest Resources ............................................................................................................... ............14
13) Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats .............................................................................. .............14
14) Invasive Species ................................................................................................................. ............14
15) Wildlife and Natural Vegetation ..................................................................................... ............14
16) Introduction of Toxic Substances ................................................................................. .............14
17) Indirect and Cumulative Effects ....................._............................................................. .............15
G. MITIGATIVE MEASURES ........................................................... ..... 1 6
H. STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS REQUIRED ................................... ..... Is
1. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................ ..... 16
J. CONCLUSION STATEMENT ........................................................ ..... 1 7
K. REFERENCES ........................................................................ ..... 18
FIGURES .................................................................................. ..... 19
Figure 1 -Project Vicinity ..................................................................................................... ............21
Figure 2 - Preliminary Design Altematives With Stream and Wetland Locations ....... ............23
Figure 3 - USGS Quad .......................................................................................................... ............25
Figure 4 - Project Area Soils ................................................................................................. ............27
Figure 5 - Vegetative Communities ..................................................................................... ............29
APPENDIX A : AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B : WETLAND FORMS
TABLES
Table 1 - Project Area Soil Information ....................................... ........................3
Table 2 - Wedand Characteristics.. ................................................................... .................................. 4
Table 3 - Stream Characteristics ............................................... ..............................6
Table 4 - Federally Protected Species in Wake County ........................ ............................8
Table 5 - Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands ..................................................... ................................12
Table 6 -Anticipated Impacts to Streams ....................................................... ................................14

A. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project combines the extension of Little Drive from Louis Stephens Drive to the
eastern right-of-way of the CSX Railroad, and the extension of Louis Stephens Drive from Little
Drive to the southern Research Triangle Park (RTP) property boundary (Figure 1).
Little Drive Extension is proposed as a four-lane divided roadway from Louis Stephens Drive to the
eastern right-of-way of the CSX railroad The design speed of Little Drive Extension will be 45
miles per hour (mph) allowing for a posted speed limit of 40 mph. The 45 mph design speed will
provide a transition between the future extension of O'Kelly Chapel Road, which is planned to have
a design speed of 40 mph, and existing Little Drive, which has a design speed of 50 mph. A 200-
foot right-of-way is expected.
Louis Stephens Drive Extension is proposed as a two-lane roadway on a four-lane right-of-way from
Little Drive to the southern RTP boundary. Grading for future lanes is not anticipated at this time.
The design speed of Louis Stephens Drive Extension will be 50 mph allowing for a posted speed
limit of 45 mph to match existing Louis Stephens Drive. The Town of Cary plans to extend Louis
Stephens Drive south of the RTP property line.
B. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
The extensions of Little Drive and Louis Stephens Drive will provide needed connections in the
area's roadway network and increase access to the southern portion of RTP. The extension of Little
Drive will connect Louis Stephens Drive to the extension of O'Kelly Chapel Road which is
proposed by a private party. The extension of Louis Stephens Drive will de into a project planned
by the Town of Cary that connects Louis Stephens Drive to Old Maynard Road south of I-540.
C. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The No-Build option would not accomplish the purpose of improving connectivity and access in the
southern portion of RTP. The No-Budd option does not meet Purpose and Need and has been
removed from further consideration.
The Mass Transit Alternative also would not improve connectivity or access in the southern portion
of RTP. The Mass Transit Alternative does not meet Purpose and Need and has been removed
from further consideration.
The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative would not meet the project's purpose
of enhancing roadway connectivity and increasing accessing in southern RTP. The TSM Alternative
has been removed from further consideration.
The preferred alternative was designed with a focus on avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetlands
and streams, as well as preserving important natural features of the area (see Figure 2). The
proposed project is consistent with local land use plans.
D. EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
1) LENGTH OF ROADWAY SECTION STUDIED
Approximately 900 feet of existing Little Drive and 1,000 feet of existing Louis Stephens Drive
are included in the project study area.
2) EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION
Existing portions of Little Drive and Louis Stephens Drive in the project study area are two-lane
roadways.
3) SPEED LIMITS
Both Little Drive and Louis Stephens Drive in the project study area have a design speed of 50
miles per hour (mph) and a posted speed limit of 45 mph.
4) SIDEWALKS
There are no sidewalks along existing portions of Little Drive and Louis Stephens Drive in the
project study area.
S) RIGHT OF WAY
The existing right of way along Little Drive is 150 feet, and the existing right of way along Louis
Stephens Drive is 200 feet.
6) RAILROAD CROSSINGS
There are no existing railroad crossings in the project study area. An existing CSX Railroad line
runs to the west of the proposed project study area. The Little Drive Extension portion of
project ends east of the railroad right of way and therefore will not provide a crossing. A
crossing connecting to the Little Drive Extension from the west may be provided in future
projects.
7) INTERSECTING ROADS
The at-grade intersection of Little Drive and Louis Stephens Drive is the only intersection in the
project study area. It is currently unsignalized.
8) STRUCTURES
There are no existing structures in the project study area.
9) UTILITIES
The following underground utilities are located in the project area: water, sewer, gas, and fiber
optic cables.
2
I I

E
D
LI

I
CI

D
D
1 O) BICYCLE ROUTES
There are no existing bicycle routes along either Little Drive or Louis Stephens Drive.
1 1) SCHOOL BUS DATA
No school buses use Little Drive or Louis Stephens Drive in the project study area.
There are no greenways located in the project study area.
1 2) GREENWAYS
1 3) GEOENVIRONMENTAL SITES
There are no hazardous materials sites or landfills located within the project study area.
1 4) TOPOGRAPHY
The project study area is located in southwestern Wake County in the east-central part of North
Carolina. The majority of Wake County is in the Piedmont physiographic province and the
southern tip of the County extends into the Coastal Plain province. The elevation of the project
is approximately 260 feet above mean sea level as shown on the Green Level USGS
Topographic Quadrangle (Figure 3).
IS) SOILS
The study area is within the Creedmoor-White Store soil mapping association. This area
consists of gently sloping to hilly topography and is comprise of deep and moderately deep,
moderately well-drained soils. These soils typically have a surface layer of sandy loam to silt
loam and a clay subsoil. The majority of the soils in this association were formed from material
that weathered from sedimentary rock of Triassiac age.
There are a total of four individual soil mapping units within the study area. Table 1 and Figure
4 provide information about the soils mapped within the study area.
Table 1. Prniert Area Soil Information
MAP,-UNIT SOIL SERIES ` ! .HYDRIC;STATUS*y DRAINAGE

•?,
CLASS,
CrE Creedmoor Moderately Well Drained Nonh dric
WsE/WsC2 White Store Moderate] Well Drained Nonh ydric
Cm Chewacla loam Somewhat Poorly Drained H dric
C Congaree Well Drained Nonh dric
* Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation
(Cowardin et al 1979).
3
1 6) LAND USE
The study area is located in the southern portion of Research Triangle Park (RTP), which
consists mainly of large research-oriented facilities and some forested areas. This research park
contains a mix of large and small companies and institutions that employ more than 37,000
people. Land use in the vicinity of the study area outside of RTP is primarily mixed urban and
forested land. The primary land use in the study area is forest.
1 7) WETLANDS
Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Following this
definition and the guidance provided in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wletlands Delineation Manual,
delineation of jurisdictional wetlands is based on the presence of three diagnostic indicators:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. Biologists delineated four jurisdictional
wetlands in the project study area (Figure 2). These wetlands are described as ephemeral
wetland (WI-1) and headwater forest (WL2-WL4). All relevant United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) wetland data forms and North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) wetland assessment sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 2 describes the
wetlands delineated in the study area.
Table 2. Wetland Characteristics

WETL4ND (WL) ;`
WETLAND TYPE
n'
_ CLASSIFICATION ,DWQ;WETI AND:
'."IRATING-,_:s
1 Ephemeral Riverine 28
2 Headwater Forest Riverine 23
3 Headwater Forest Riverine 29
4 Headwater Forest Riverine 27
1 S) PRIME OR UNIQUE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) divides important farmlands into three
individual categories: prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of statewide importance.
There are no prime or unique farmlands in the study area. Approximately ten percent of the
study area contains soils, White Store sandy loam, that are considered statewide important
farmlands. There is no active farming in the study area.
1 9) PUBLIC LANDS AND SCENIC, RECREATION, AND STATE NATURAL
AREAS
During data and mapping searches, field observations, and an N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) file search, no areas located within or adjacent to the site were identified as scenic,
recreational or as state natural areas.
I

20) AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC VALUE
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance on Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
federal and state agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to afford the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.

In a letter dated April 10, 2008 (see Appendix A), the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that no historic resources would
be affected by the project.
21) AIR QUALITY
The project is located in Make County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill non-
attainment area for ozone (O3) and the Raleigh Durham nonattainment area for carbon
monoxide (CO) as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as moderate nonattainment areas for CO.
However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as maintenance for
CO on September 18, 1995. The area was designated nonattainment for 03 under the under the
eight-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004.
22) NOISE LEVELS
The project site is located in a developing area of Research Triangle Park. Noise in the area is
generated primarily by vehicular traffic on I-540 southeast of the study area and railroad traffic
to the southwest.
23) WATER RESOURCES
The proposed project is located in the Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-04. Two perennial
unnamed tributaries (U1' to Kit Creek were identified during field investigation (see Table 3 and
Figure 2). Both converge with Kit Creek approximately 0.65 mile downstream of the study area.
The NCDWQ designates Kit Creek as Water Supply IV; Nutrient Sensitive Waters (WS-IV;
NSNKO. WS-IV waters also carry the classification of class C waters. The WS-IV classification
designates waters that are to be used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes where a WS-I, II, or III classification is not feasible. WS-IV waters are
generally found in moderately to highly developed watersheds. The NSW supplemental
classification denotes waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to
excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or drinking water
supply (WS-I or WS-II) waters occur within the project study area.
Table 3. Stream Characteristics
N?i -BANK,: BANKFULL µ " WATER F, :.

STREAICS,NAME n
°HEIGHT= mm_
?,-- WIDTHA," u
6SUBSTRATE Yv
DEPTH,-- k STREAM,trt T s

,_,=a

W FEET f:

: FEET
,.? .
_,:
?T-
° .EE a DETERMINATION

L , - .; _
UT to Kit Creek
5 10 Sand 3 Perennial
eature A
UT to Kit Creek
5 10 Sand 1 Perennial
eature B
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not
meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. Waters may be excluded from the
list if existing control strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution will achieve the
standards or uses (NCDWQ, 2006). North Carolina's 303(d) report is a comprehensive public
accounting of all impaired waterbodies in the state. No listed 303(d) waters occur within one
mile of the project study area. The closest hydrologically connected 303(d) listed water is
Northeast Creek, which is approximately 3.35 miles downstream of the study area.
24) FOREST RESOURCES
The study area consists of four vegetative communities: floodplain forest, oak-hickory forest,
mixed pine-hardwood forest, and urban/disturbed land. A brief description of these
communities is provided below and their locations within the study area are shown on Figure 5.
Floodplain Forest
The floodplain forest community is found in low-lying areas in association with the perennial
streams within the study area. Numerous wedand pools occur within this community. Canopy
species include Tulip Poplar (Liriodeadmn tulipifera), Beech (Fa$usgrandifolia), Mockemut Hickory
(Carya alba), Sweet Gum (Liquidambarstyradzflua), and Green Ash (Fraxinus pennylvanica).
Subcanopy and understory species include Red Maple (Ater mbnrm), Dogwood (Comus florida),
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum), Redbud (Cereis canadensis), Sourwood (Oxydendnem arboretum),
Painted Buckeye (Aesculus.rydvatica), Mapleleaf Viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), Ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), and Spicebush (l indera ben?oin). Herbaceous species include Lady Fern
(Atlyrium fili femina), Christmas Fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Grape Fern (Botrychium.!P.),
Virginia Spr ngbeauty (Claytonia v giaica), Southern Adder's Tongue (Op{iioglossrrm vulgatum
I ellowroot (Xanthorhitia sinolid nima), Poison Ivy (Toricodendron radicans), and Bedstraw (Galium
JP)
The wet ecotonal areas between the floodplain forest and managed herbaceous areas contain a
slightly different plant assemblage, including Cattails (T)pha lot folio), Blackberry (I?ubus p.), and
Thistle (Cirsium sp.).
Oak-Hickory Forest
The oak-hickory forest community is found in upland areas within the study area. Canopy
species are dominantly oaks, including White Oak (Quercus alba) and Southern Red Oak
i?
I?
(Querau falcata). The understory is almost exclusively Blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium).
Herbaceous species include Rattlesnake Plantain (Goodyera repens), Spotted Wintergreen
(Cbimapbila maculate), Cranefly Orchid (Tipularia discolor), Violet Woodsorrel (Oxalis violacea), and
Ground Cedar (Lycopodium sp.).
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
The mixed pine-hardwood forest community is found in parts of the uplands within the study
area. This community consists primarily of relatively mature loblolly pines (Pinus taeda) within
hardwoods, including White Oak and Southern Red Oak. Understory species include
Sourwood, Dogwood, Red Maple, Chinese Privet (Lgusimm sinense), and American Holly (Ilex
Q opara). Herbaceous species include Grape Fern, Poison Ivy, and Strawberry Bush (Euorymus
americamu).
Urban/Disturbed Community
Disturbed areas within the study area include paved roads, recently installed sewer line corridors,
and managed herbaceous areas associated with roadways. Vegetation in these areas is
herbaceous, and includes grasses, Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Broomsedge Bluestein (Andropogon
virginicus), Rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognapbalium obtus folium), and White Clover (Trfolium repens). The
wet areas within the sewer line corridors also contain Common Rush (Juncus ffrsus).
25) SHELLFISH CR FISH AND THEIR HABITATS
Streams within the floodplain forest community provides habitat for a variety of fish. Fish
species expected to occur on-site include: Rosyside Dace (Cknoslomus funduloides), Bluehead
Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Creek Chub (SemolilusAtromarulatus), Margined Madtom (notums
insignis), Eastern Mosquitofish (Gamburia holbrookr), Redbreas Sunfish (Lepomis auritur), Bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirur), and Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma olmstedt). Redbreas Sunfish is the only
species observed during field investigation.
26) INVASIVE SPECIES
Three species from the Department of Environment and Natural Resource's (DENR's) Exotic
Plan Guidelines were found in the study area. The species identified were Sericea Lespedeza
Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended) requires that any federal action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally
protected be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Species
which are listed, or are proposed for listing, as endangered or threatened are recorded in Section
4 of the ESA. As defined by the Act, an endangered species is any plant or animal which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable
future. A threatened species is any species which is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Other species
may receive additional protection under separate laws such as the Lacey Act Amendments of
spedeza tmreata), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lanicerajaparica), and Japanese Grass (Ulalia vimineum)
(2Le7) WILDLIFE AND NATURAL VEGETATION
1981, the Migratory Bud Treaty of 1999, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, or the
Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
According to the January 31, 2008 USFWS list of federally protected species for Wake County,
three species are listed as Endangered (Table 4).
Table 4. Federally Protected Species in Wake County

COMMON NAME 3

3CI$NTIFIC NAME
FEDERAL
-
SUITABLE
BIOLOGICAL
¢a = askSTATUSe HABITAT_m .'CONCLtJSIONn
Red-cockaded
Picoides borealis Endangered No No Effect
woodpecker
Alasmidoma
Dwarf Wedgemussel Endangered No No Effect
heterodon
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered Yes No Effect
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
The Red-cockaded woodpecker is a habitat specialist, requiring mature growth of pine forest
with a grassland component underneath. For nesting/roosting habitat, open stands of pine
containing trees 60 years old and older are needed. Red-cockaded woodpeckers need live, large
older pines in which to excavate their nest cavities. Longleaf pines (Pinuspolustns) are most
commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands (stands
that are primarily hardwoods, or that have a dense hardwood understory) are avoided. Foraging
habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years old or older with foraging
preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. In good, moderately stocked, pine
habitat, sufficient foraging substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres. In North Carolina, the
Rcd-cockaded woodpecker has only a historical documented occurrence in Wake County, and is
most commonly found in the Sandhills and Coastal Plain of the state. The species is
nonmigratorv, remaining in its pine flatwood habitat year-round. Nesting takes place between
April and June.
A survey for suitable habitat of the Red-cockaded woodpecker was conducted by David
Cooper of S&EC on April 7, 2008. Suitable habitat for the Red-cockaded woodpecker was not
found on-site. There are no open stands of mature longleaf pine trees. The few pines on-site are
Loblolly (Pious taeda), and although some are large in diameter, the understory near these trees is
dense. No foraging habitat exists on-site, and no nest cavities were observed during the field
survey.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
U
Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
The Dwarf Wedgemussel is a small, freshwater mussel that is generally brownish-black or
greenish in coloration. It is the only mussel in North America with two lateral teeth in the right
valve, making dead shells of typical specimens relatively easy to identify. The Dwarf
Wedgemussel was federally listed as endangered in 1990. Atypical specimens may be confused
with members of the genus Elliptio, but can be differentiated by "its mottled but colorful mantle
margin" (Fuller 1977).
Habitat of the Dwarf Wedgemussel varies greatly. It can be found in small creeks to large rivers,
in sand, mud, gravel, or under root mats. Suitable habitat for the Dwarf Wedgemussel does not
occur in the study area. Although located in Wake County, the study area is within the Cape
Fear River drainage. On-site streams are tributaries of Kit Creek, which flows into Northeast
Creek in the Cape Fear River drainage. The Dwarf Wedgemussel has never been documented
from the Cape Fear River drainage.
a Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauair)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
Michaux's sumac, or False Poison sumac is a low, densely hairy shrub with erect stems which are
generally 0.3 to 0.6 m in height. Michaux's sumac forms dense clumps when in healthy
populations. The compound leaves are divided into 7 to 13 leaflets originating from a hairy
which may be narrowly winged near the apex. Each leaf is Finely to coarsely toothed
rachis (axis)
,
on its edges. The leaflets are 4 to 9 cm (1.5 to 3.5 in.) in length, 2 to 5 cm (0.79 to 2 in.) in width,
oblong to oblong-lanceolate, sessile, sharply pointed at the apex, rounded at the base, dull on the
m upper surface of the leaf, veined, and slightly hairy on their bottoms. The shrub's compound
leaves are narrowly winged at their base. The species is dioecious (individual plants are either
male or female). The flowers are arranged in dense, terminal panicles and have 4 to 5, tiny,
greenish-yellow to white petals and are 4 to 5 parted. The flowers and fruit of male plants are
solitary while the flowers on a female plant are grouped in 3 to 5 stalked clusters. Flowering
occurs between April to August depending on weather conditions and habitat. From
approximately August to November, a deep red, densely hairy fruit (drupe) is produced and is 5
to 6 mm in diameter (USF\VS 2007 and Patrick et. al. 2007).
Michaux's sumac is shade intolerant, inhabits sandy or rocky open woods (USF\VS
2007), highway rights-of way, roadsides, or edges of artificially maintained clearings
(Patrick et. al. 2007) in association with basic (USFWS 2007) to circumneutral soils
(NatureServe 2008). Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some form of
disturbance has provided an open area (Patrick et. al. 2007). Although roadside occurrences
appear to be thriving in the presence of some level of disturbance (i.e., mowing), they are always
under the constant threat of catastrophic disturbance. Roadbed widening or heavy equipment
activity on cleared lands, for example, may dramatically reduce the number of individuals
(NamreServe 2008).
9
I
A small amount of suitable habitat for Michaux's Sumac was found on-site, consisting of the
edge habitat between forested areas and open field/disturbed areas. Other open areas on-site
included recently disturbed sewer line cuts and managed herbaceous roadsides. The entire field
edge and sewer line habitats on-site were traversed on foot by David Cooper on April 7, 2008,
during the optimal survey window for the species. No specimens were observed during the
survey.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
E. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
1) LENGTH OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed length of the Little Drive Extension is 1,080 feet, and the proposed length of the
Louis Stevens Drive Extension is 825 feet.
2) TYPICAL SECTION DESCRIPTION
Little Drive Extension is proposed as a four-lane divided roadway from Louis Stephens Drive to
the eastern right-of-way of the CSX railroad. Louis Stephens Drive Extension is proposed as a
two-lane roadway on a four-lane right-of-way from Little Drive to the southern RTP boundary.
Pour-foot paved shoulders are proposed along both Little Drive Extension and Louis Stephens
Drive Extension to accommodate bicycles. Bicycle-safe rail and six-foot paved shoulders are
included on the proposed bridge along Little Drive Extension.
3) RIGHT OF WAY
The proposed right of way along both Little Drive Extension and Louis Stephens Drive
Extension is 200 feet.
4) ACCESS CONTROL
No control of access is proposed.
S) INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND TYPE OF CONTROL
The intersection of Little Drive and Louis Stephens Drive will remain at-grade. Mast arms for
signals will be installed for future signalization.
6) SPEED LIMIT AND DESIGN SPEED
The design speed of Little Drive Extension will be 45 miles per hour (mph) allowing for a
posted speed limit of 40 mph. The 45 mph design speed will provide a transition between the
future extension of O'Kelly Chapel Road, which is planned to have a design speed of 40 mph,
and existing Little Drive, which has a design speed of 50 mph. The design speed of Louis
Stephens Drive Extension will be 50 mph allowing for a posted speed limit of 45 mph to match
existing Louis Stephens Drive.
10
7) NOISE BARRIERS
Noise barriers are not proposed as part of the project.
B) SIDEWALKS
Sidewalks are not proposed as part of the project.
9) BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS
Pour-foot paved shoulders are proposed along both Little Drive Extension and Louis Stephens
Drive Extension. Bicycle-safe rail and six-foot paved shoulders are included on the proposed
bridge along Little Drive Extension.
10) STRUCTURES
A bridge over a UT to Kit Creek (Feature B on Figure 2) is proposed along Little Drive
Extension. The bridge is proposed to be 170 feet in length and 87 feet in width. A 10-foot by 8-
foot reinforced concrete box culvert is proposed along Louis Stephens Drive Extension at a UT
to Kit Creek (Feature A on Figure 2).
1 1) GREENWAYS
The proposed extensions do not intersect existing or proposed greenways.
1 2) COST ESTIMATES
The total estimated cost of the project is $6,000,000. Construction of Little Drive Extension is
estimated to be $4,100,000, and construction of Louis Stephens Drive Extension is estimated to
be $1,900,000.
F. PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT
1) TOPOGRAPHY
The existing topography in the study area will be changed slightly due to grading activities and
the addition of fill material.
2) SOILS
Clearing and grading for the proposed project will result in some soil disturbance. However,
adequate treasures will be taken to minimize erosion and control sediments. An erosion and
sedimentation control plan will be filed with the North Carolina Division of Land Resources
(NCDLR) at least 30 days before construction activity begins. The use of diesel fueled
equipment creates a potential for soil contamination resulting from equipment leaks or spills
from fueling operations. Possible soil containments include diesel fuel, lubricating oils, and
grease. Proper equipment maintenance and secondary containment around fuel skids will reduce
the potential for releases or spills to surface soils.
11
3) LAND USE
Mule there is good infrastructure in place and demand for land in the study area, construction
of the proposed project is anticipated to have a low potential for land use changes based on
several factors, including future development already planned regardless of the project, and
regulatory factors such as land use/zoning plans, RTP covenant restrictions, and environmental
regulations.
4) COMMUNITY IMPACTS
There would be no relocations associated with the proposed project. Land in the immediate
project vicinity is predominantly vacant with no residential uses or community facilities. Future
residential development is not anticipated as the area is zoned for research. Therefore, no
community impacts are anticipated.
There are no low income or minority populations in the project vicinity. Therefore, there are no
concerns about disproportionate or adverse effects to such communities.
5) WETLANDS
Construction of the proposed project is expected to impact approximately 0.20 acres of wetlands
(see Table 5 and Figure 2).
Table 5. Anticipated impacts to Wetlands
?T m.m b'° N MECHANIZED a.

WETLAND ;.
mPERMANENT,
,
CLEAR] ,
TOTAL
. FILL (ACRES)
' G
" ACRE
µ.
e -
ACRES
..
1 0.01 0 0.01
2 0.03 0 0.03
3 0.13 0.03 0.16
4 0 0 0
Total 0.17 0.03 0.20
6) PRIME OR UNIQUE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
No sods mapped within the study area have been classified by the NRCS as prime or unique
f tradands. Sods mapped within portions of the study area have been determined by NRCS to
be farmlands of statewide importance. The State of North Carolina Executive Order 96,
Conversion of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands, does not consider land previously
converted to, or committed to, a non-agricultural use to be prime farmland, regardless of soil
type. The study area is part of an area zoned as Research Applications. Therefore, no impacts
are anticipated.
12
I
7) PUBLIC LANDS AND SCENIC, RECREATION, AND STATE NATURAL
AREAS
No areas located within or adjacent to the project area were identified as scenic, recreational, or
state natural areas. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
B) AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC VALUE
No areas of archaeological or historic value were documented within the study area. Therefore,
no impacts are anticipated.
9) AIR QUALITY
Based on the results of an air quality analysis (SEPI, October 2008), the predicted carbon
monoxide concentration, even under worst case conditions, is not expected to exceed the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO. It is expected that there would be
reduced MSAT emissions as a result of a number of existing and proposed MSAT reduction
programs initiated by the EPA. These include the reformulated gasoline program, national low
emission vehicle standards, Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control
requirements, and the proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel
fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64
percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene,
formaldehyde, 1.3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway
diesel PM emissions by 87 percent. Therefore, the project is not expected to have an adverse
effect on air quality.
Any burning associated with the project wdll be done in compliance with North Carolina
Division of Environment and Natural Resources permit 15 A NCAC 2D.1900.
10) NOISE LEVELS
Noise levels are expected to temporarily increase during construction of the proposed project.
However, once construction is complete, noise levels will return to levels consistent with
conditions before construction. There xvill be limited noise emanating from the proposed
project. As there are no receptors in the immediate project vicinity, the proposed project is not
expected to have an adverse noise impact.
The extension 6f the roadways will affect traffic patterns and subsequent noise in the general
area. However, there are no receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project. Therefore, no
noise impacts are anticipated.
11) WATER RESOURCES
There are two jurisdictional streams in the proposed project study area, both UTs to Kit Creek
(see Features A and B on Figure 2). Anticipated stream impacts are shown in Table 6.
1 13
Table 6. Anticipated Impacts to Streams
y = EXISTING' - "::
t 1-
EXISTLNG CHANNEL
i
-
CIIANNEL
i-TOTAL = e

STREAM ,
IWA S_
E
ENT
IMPACTS
w (LINEAR ...
(P
RMAN
) M
O
R '

a
'?
%:(LSNEAR?FEET)? (TE
P
RA
I? >
FEET)
_
i ?.:L'INEAR%FEE •`_`
Feature A 0 0 0
Feature B 255 45 300
Total 255 45 300
12) FOREST RESOURCES
The construction of the proposed project will affect some mixed hardwood forest stands.
13) SHELLFISH OR FISH AND THEIR HABITATS
Temporary reduction in the quality of the fishery habitat due to sedimentation and runoff from
construction activities is expected. This potential negative effect will be reduced, but not
elim nated, when employing the required sediment and erosion devices and techniques. This
reduction in habitat quality is expected to be temporary and not cause long-term negative effects.
14) INVASIVE SPECIES
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the management of invasive plant species
will be followed during project construction.
15) WILDLIFE AND NATURAL VEGETATION
Field work conducted by qualified biologists on April 7, 2008 found no suitable habitat for two
of the three federally protected species within the study area. Suitable habitat was found for one
species, Michaux's Sumac; however, no specimens were identified during field surveys in August
2008. Additionally, NCNHP maps were reviewed on October 9, 2008 to determine if any
protected species have been identified at or near the project area. This map review confirmed
that no populations of Federally Threatened or Endangered species have been identified within a
one-mile radius of the project study area. Project construction will have No Effect on Threatened
and Endangered species.
16) INTRODUCTION OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
No introduction of toxic substances within the project construction area is expected.
14
1 7) INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
An analysis of Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the proposed project was conducted (Mulkey,
August 2008). The analysis detennined that potential growth and land use changes from the
project are anticipated to be limited because the project is small and within RTP boundaries.
There is potential for effects to streams as a result of road construction and cumulative
development in the vicinity of the study area. However, there are development restrictions and
environmental regulations in place to temper these effects. Development near the study area is
expected to take place regardless of the proposed project.
Indirect Effects
Overall, the proposed project is not likely to spur additional growth or changes in land use due
to its limited scope and location within Research Triangle Park. There is current access to the
study area, and RTP's zoning and development guidelines prescribe large lot, campus- style
research facilities, thereby making the potential for changes in land use to typical sprawl or other
development extremely low.
While the proposed project is small in scope, it will facilitate some future connections that may
result in changes to local traffic patterns. The project, by itself, does not establish new traffic
patterns, but it will enable traffic, through other local projects, to access some parts of RTP in a
new way. Specifically, the future southward extension of Louis Stephens Drive, will provide
access to areas within southern RTP that do not currently have access. Also, the westward
extension of Little Drive crossing the railroad will enable local traffic to travel directly from NC
Highway 55 through RTP to Davis Drive, which is currently a circuitous route. Both of these
future connections likely will relieve congestion on other local roadways without spurring wider
growth, as development within RTP is generally not driven by transportation amenities but other
market forces.
Despite the potential for improved local travel routes and better access, future development in
the vicinity will be the same with or without the proposed project because of zoning and
regulations that restrict RTP to campus-style corporate research employment.
Cumulative Effects
The proposed project will add moderately to the overall cumulative effects occurring in the
general vicinity of RIP. As the project will provide a stream crossing and the future expansion
of Little Drive from two to four lanes, the additional infrastructure will enable easier travel and
potentially- hasten some development within RTP. However, any future development within
RTP likely will occur with or without the proposed project, as there is currently access to the
area via Little Road and Davis Drive. Research Triangle Park is in the heart of a vibrant
employment area that has steadily grown with corporate research and development activity.
This trend is expected to continue.
1 15
G. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Water Resources
Potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities will be investigated during final design.
If on-site mitigation is determined not to be feasible, payments wvill be made to either an available
mitigation bank or the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Weiland Restoration Fund. The mitigation bank or EEP
will then provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation
requirements for the project.
H. STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS REQUIRED
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 (and possibly 13)
will likely be required for wetland and stream impacts associated with the construction of each
roadway extension.
In addition to the 404 permit, other required authorizations include the corresponding Section 401
Water Quality Certifications (WQC) from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). NCDWQ Section 401 approvals to use water Quality General Certification 3704 (and
possibly 3689) will be required.
The North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR) requires a sediment and erosion control
permit for land disturbing activities. All sediment and erosion control plans must control surface
water run-off, limit the size of the area exposed at any one time, avoid increases in velocities of
storm water discharge, and identify on-site areas subject to severe erosion, as well as those adjacent
or nearby off-site areas that are especially vulnerable to damage from erosion and sedimentation.
The sediment and erosion control plan must be submitted 30 days prior to any site activity.
1. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Coordination with property owners has been ongoing throughout the project development process.
An opportunity for a public hearing will be advertised upon approval of this planning document.
16
J. CONCLUSION STATEMENT
X After preparation/review of this EA, the responsible state agency has concluded there is a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and will not be preparing an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
The agency has completed this EA and is hereby submitting it for review and comment.
After a consideration of the comments received, the agency will proceed with a 1'0NSI or prepare
an EIS.
d Y -cA o Signed Aa I a Date
North Carolina Department of Transporta n
17
K. REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goley and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants. August 2008. Community Impact Assessment and Qualitative
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment, Little Drive Extension from Louis Stephens
Drive to Eastern Right of Way of CSX Railroad and Louis Stephens Drive Extension Little
Drive to the Southern RTP Boundary.
SEPI Engineering Group. October 2008. Air Quality Analysis, Little Drive Extension from
Eastern Right of Way of CSX Railway to Louis Stephens Drive and Louis Stephens Drive
Extension from Little Drive to Southern RTP Property Boundary, TIP#U-4410F, Wake
County, North Carolina.
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA. August 2008. Natural Resources Technical Report - Little
& Louis Stephens Drive Extensions, Wake County, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological
Services. 2007. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Wake County.
Updated January 1, 2008.
18
Project Location
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
RTF 9, Little Drive Ext. and
and Louis Stephens Drive Ext.
Wake County, North Carolina
THE RESEARCH
TRIA,NGl.E PARK
SO/t,/t, :air,(Q di w
?l?I `?Cluno7 ax?? ,(Il1Z=..i :?Ii:?S clr.i;`
Z 6-4111
aniaQ 31111-1 ag -)ALl(jsuat{daiS stno-1 ',''? ?!?q
01
a]]i??3 suotWaoZ puITM\ puE Lu-"J1S
qu sanr;pu. 311V ugisaa :i IMUTLi?aad
+}a?1Wa- r.°".Tn,/- k?r 1 ?j • ; •?{J 4i ? F? ? 'f •" ?`s,1 ?M 4 \'' "/ ' a" *? ' 7? ' «
'' +t' 1.• ?? `+?i•!.?r`.,, ,}i-?tV 7sL? y ?, ;r.r t?• '?' -? „t1? ,t ?P
a' ?•p?-? r ?^•S;,^?':-?•_`?!r ,lr ••f. 'f7[ Ji[ ? `. j 'S'?L7?.?tL, f? ' !?? n\,? .. ?_ ??Jr'`? ? b ?T •
b ??,'`?, ?• s x r _ 'r,?r ????..3'' .','r, Y••tr. - _+ r 7 1 ?, :A?¢.. ? I?r'?i?'?' Jx_ ??• P
,. ? -•!?,t 'Y •°? ? r?.^rr } ? yr: ?' r`y^'.t7F w,`'l+.' ..,_. '
41
,. - 'mow' _ • •\ •.. "''.. _ ' Tw `• ?d' _? ??' { yyJ7l. '?+??! r.?•..y?.t
'V •' f 1 " f Y 1? :
. .01011
ILI 44"'.
` tl1 t ?? !!!!Fly! CF ? r

a'y, ?M ? ? ?' y,• •r?t' r ' + i '{' r? t?1"I '.?? r ? ? rJ ,rye. '1? ;t !/?
_??r^Jt k.
y r?? ?_?:. +fh ¦rti ,r i r rr?.yrj. ?' v T
04
'YF4 r .,[ 'a yi^ , J .) 1 .?t?Y, ;A} . ?, ` •?'f t' 1 "Tv •? cI w y, .i f
r' F r• r ?. ` r. 1 t 1.i r .? + r y? t ; s ' 1 c• J ', n , ? '
DV t 0 0 :l D Vd A l Z (IN V113M "! +. =, . ???? ? _ , • jd I• ,,y ;i f' ,? }
`r .'?Ar ?.s./r} ',
DV 10'0:iDVdlNl 1 CINV113M ?t n
•{?•.,, Y? - '?jL. ? bY• F y?•_f ., lJ .?, = v .?...• .-S.•. J?','tJf? ! 'r' } r,i?t• A,1/?'M}1?t i? r ,•.. ? yll " * I . '?.rF1''???• . J•?
lp. pt
10.
A?•?.-.•.`r ] ,fi ,•. -'.r ,.a' ?`:,"r" S?L. -1!,',(n r. i _ T'?f ' ??'bJ ' L"?- ?; ?( r' 1'/j.7
r ti r ti of qtr r F '!.? f +?(j}? c / I. + s '.. `''0. 'dt ?. ?y. ? a! aE. r? t?M :'? •F. tr1' •! t•: I-?e' r •,?',. ! [?yi l? ^17; Y??
f? .?+ih?r + SO' y '?d.,? ?Y?,?*• L... •au +?.;'*! rl . ,? ; J r 4 •r
cy ,!?- '? ,•• '.r.,' •? .L?.?••L I? F. t c 6+ ,.'iy y., r,• 1 y,','. ?, ; - '?'!r .,: 'r •'r' , y(;
`'Yh ?. , ;, ?,;?-,• y ?.'? , •:,, .. 'a \L• ?7f'?r .r ? .)!!, ,??e ' ?`- ' ?'?w?'?,,._ ,,' .t!'rW "•?,?;, , ?, ; i,?,?: ? '??. ?,r. ?,?t ?,..r
x..f •?(.tY}? /.k?` Jr F?' 1_/ •3.1 I? I '+up,?T????'?
: .?? ? f r ?, 'r!•?.Y[? ;y '1. I ?.. ??. A,, F. h. ,.1 ..,? JI „J.: #???} ;yM "* ?ry?'q ?fy?,?.:7
..fw.• ?-?F? ?,-?. ?? ? f 4 ?v
.
tit`??r??f ?iw 3.?? __?, •.y 4 'I 1? l.?wl ??'' ie'?r._ '!?t/ ,?t? 1 }/''?{•T?-["l7#???
(la3/11f1D X09 3H1 H11M N911V Ol
a3Z113NNVH33H 80/(INV lb3/ nD X08 V O1N1 NOUVD0138
WV38iS) S1DVdWl AHVHOdIN313013 N11 St7'SIDVdAl
1N3NVLN83d 30 id NI1 SSZ :(V 38niV33)1DVdWl WV381S
1,;
1-0
DV 9 L'0:iDVdAI E GNVl13M
'ill 14

t t•
9V 0 :19VdWl t, GNV113M
i
•w
114
f r ??
(,kHVHOdW31 ONV 1N3NVMJ3d)
SNV1 ]H1S 031oddWl
SaNVl13M a31OddWl (?p
SWV3]HiS 431b'3N1_130
SONVI13M a31]d3N1130 (??
S I IN] NOIlmJiSNOO
ON3J3l
yY '
r' At.
rte' fir' 4 r .
13 N11 0:(8 3dnIV33) iDVdm WV3H1S +..' ,
r rry Vii: ,r K" rr ipy1?J• r!? / ?l
?`'• yi M?. /'I??k??jjtttr:? i : 'i???`w?.Y??JII• r;l.??, .?*,;?
'i{' 'a. r i . /J'??? 'r"i'F?rF f:
?L7f* f'?,
ilk q
147.
r .l?+ ?r ?+>`'"?' •p1/'. , I ? 'r'V ?'+i,''K f , at +JE+? + , , ?i . r' •-
?
r? ?' '' ,/ ' ?'"?• ? •, S ?''? ?? ? 1 i .?,` ? F 1 fir' ?;' 1' ;? +y'?,'" ?,• ? ' ?, Jy °?••
j ?t `'?! ?f/VIK` h !a r ?`'t? 1.,, y? r n sf'J ,? A .
?li,' ?1' ? • 1 Y ' ?? j ?? ?` l.• ,?•{?,T,` r• t ,' ?' 1??(? ? v. iJl! 2"r.
?:: t v .) j. ' f - + 'y?,',T• ./ ? ~r L ? , ?1,. % ir' .. Jwlb .L;.. 4n? ??`.J

?•'" ?i ':1.01, ?' .'?r a1
I ter, 5 a N, '1 r t`i
t.- 'r ti ? ] 'liC ?
f , 4Ae • 1?7 i1 T_µ 3F
t t •?I
4 r t? -fir .
?rF Il ! r '
le A
m m m m i m r m m m m m r m m m m r m
C
.lJric 13
L-' %
8o/b/ti :meQ drys
DN `-?iunoD a3juA?
6-3.LH
3n13a ai?ar-I V anTJa suanidais sino-I
puno SgSIl
iJepunog eaay ApnjS
puafa-1

LA
a

41•

1
41
i

I (

e
i
it I
ti
,.k C4WW .
r •
ti I!.
e
4 !I

\ '1

this
Voolm

0,N)

t
oan?j i3
So/b/b :;)1r•(I drys
:)N `Xluno:) ayr,AN
6--4111
antIQ 31111-1 79 oniaa suagdo;S sino-I
slioS F,,-),IV 1oofo.icj
N

AMIN[
ISM
S
Z9SAA
OAA
Aare
ZOSA
w? AM
adAj Dios
,jepunog eajy ApnjS
pua6aj
` f
i
EISM '
/ j
Ci n J "r P?• 43'x' --?- ? ?. •frr' ?? R, i
I'T
Z:D SA
`r
AA Y
OAA
0 4 .
`u J ; ...
it ? Fv K J,.?:
f •I.4, _ iF' "'qtr' ??i
7 u,

, ?.,r i - ? u
%
'44
?tip
oil
}r ?Y.. - R w ?• r 1 ? r i r
fapp i f i'
r ? r r ' ? k?' ' r : ? '?, ? ? ??? ? ,,:. ? ? ?' ?' _ I •?•
^'.Ifr ' i?af . ?_7rp -'f?L''r' f?, ?r•?lF..? ?,;;!y.,.t r i. ,• ? .mil ? y? ,,c^?f R,az ' .
?/7" 1 ? ? "!' •,("'•t ' r . t - y: !T I',, J r ,. I ;..1 r f?_ i. „ 1h'.J^ ;
Z3SAA Fyt I ,?' 13.
p I ? Yf • ?i?,y, h
r tti ?;° a r P Jr ; +k . rP ,c • f r ' 4.C
e,r.,.? r r ktR ? `? r f? ? • ? O?,?r ,. .? i? ? ?' 'il ?r.? r ?,?, +t.

80/t,/ti :aIr,Q d>eW
DN `XiunoD xquM ?iu?=.•l :??t:?? clr,?;?
6--41H
aAtaa 31111.I V aATa(j suz)gda;s sino-I ON
IIII +I?
-
am i_4
SalIIUIMILUOD aAilt'.j3,'11 )A
poonnpaeH/auid paxiw 5?3
AJO lPIH-? ep y - l R 5
seaay paganlsiQ
41 Kl-
jsaao? uieldpooij ?? Z sy?yy,.L !" ?. ..t:,,. f: .
seaad adAl Aliunwwoo
7 r ,?•-
it-
%ei
tiepuno8 eaay Apnjs . ? ;?? ?-
''
sinoluoo oiudei5odo1
•' ? a ti` .? ?' +' :'fit b? _ I
puaBa? w
S.* $ _.. .rT.• T c -Iryr r'" t /k'•,\S }v.: '.. J / r li tF
vA4. 'v+}• wf7l ? V , ' \. ;?r<y ? ? M4 +1 J. {-fir < *1' v ? s ??
^?,?n?,? :' .?a'A'1 th....ila" r?,',t, >!Jlf?•sA? ?? "? `?,y'??,. .. \ ??..r. ? t s i. '.,..?11?,/?,15/J?•fC.`•
??, Ya ."?` h; jt ??, ,y,'l h s?"J ?.? ?'° ' x .' ? . '?"?. ,'• yav I'? ? ??'Y a 1 r,' 1.,, ./7)_J'`?
r
Y
1? •1 , , r ?J ,T ,y
e p.7. t MW r - t 1 ,_ - tr°G a T ?ty. -. '=+t.,,. '(r y,, s' ? 0 7?>? .. ? 1' ? :
• `.'t ?{]twv vp ?. ' 'I ?4Crv i.. yd„ y,'F:? r~r`
,_ X°?..y'''f £r , •I? P>? fl:;r * ',J-?,,??, '!'} Y, !- 'ryy?'`c "r' ..r r tiil o'
b?Cr?,t2 r h ? i}I A ) f?
• t?p' !w . 'k S, r'? . a? ,? <1 '#'+` t r 1. J ??JJ77!!II
axy ??t ----
? ,r ^ :, r. __ y7,R?r ti'r T ?L, I? 'YI'b6.1i?^?` t .r , t.? +hl? ? p ?'+?? .?'Vi. '
?- ` ''.t"???l. ' ?'=Y_,,,?.ry??'t j,`; Ar r,F? ??A' {,;?xa r? '??( r_!,» - , ? M.
??. ?'1• u???'"`x.l'r?f"y'?l?,a i ? ' ? ?".'1'. I y' ?, t?`?tis'PJv -l ?? r , ` :, .. 7i.-. ,Ir.n ?y ?r? ? C,;..
yr? '1;.---.X`R,`'? i r'aw`.. l:?rr `k?,, •ryf rv ! r VT`', ,''rJ r'+?' i' ?q a 9?,y .Y" ?? l.Yt lw?
x l`?ryr h V, ?p F,, k.i C+ 9a,, r <':. d-rI f v 1,r r
?'.7 r .. xw??r?-Y?{ Fr' ?t'Y. ..?,s...?- grigFi ??:1r,y.-.?:`r"'sy?„!'r? ,-w '.yt y / !? 5 \ • . V ?, tiuxF K f fit.
Al
I? ,. tlr` ' ? ? ., ? 1? ? .I r ? S • '•?9
•-.G ?i...° a`r , ? vhv ? V( ter. f , y •'`? I
~?? j:, Nr li's ry7 „v'. Cr - .M k ,i 1 \?ff { r,• '-,T 1??''y?
61
s?? ' ° ' s r
'r`?*' ta.try1l*i y? +`
iv'y` .}?•. ` - .. ?tiwA _,.'? ',ice:. , ? aa.ri?. !'r•::7? f°.i `•J' i,, ?.?'v +p?.;'• ? ? ?e i ', ??'??`'•/ ! J??'Y? ..'}
+`?r --. , ? ' ? '4?.r?x, ?,''? ? ? r*.'.t•,\ r} - ° it ?YI?j y?? 'Y c'???''? lv' ?l? r f t f
W-W
`? !?i,?^?' .cs y?v?r L' ?'';L' ! ?f?•' S .4 ,. `' r'? •i? ' !( Jr" f! ?i ? r r Y?,? ! .G?; r? .f , , i' ? " ? ;'JT,• ?? .. ?:y1'? I ;
-... T? , 4Jt L' `,.. •,is?r ? ? ;i ? r ?t ?_ t ?,4? ;'r1?4ira J'•y. ,:-? 2!?/•?,fi ? l ?t # J ?Th,'?tt
ii,?,,,,aI (,I r}F 1 !?/ 1 I • ! T' . x+'
F Y ,.,? _ • •r it 4 '?,. "yam,..
?? T ? Y`'--`M?v? ? .. " . - ? ? _ _ - `?, ?? ?y?j, r }? i "l •'„3.. y?? ?? Juri_' , ?' b ? y { r? 1 R'? '',
?{ ••?. ? , ? - ? _ - ? ? 1. ?, _S ?')?'?i"}'?'g,T „7M•b SM.??•i. ! >? S?+"'?°;, n ? =rF??rr rfG? ? _ ?° ,F_r''?',
• ?. l 1,, :?, • ? tJ ,1?NJ yi??°+?.. ?.,1?"?h`ly,-zkT'.?.. ?? -?'• 'L*„?ir r ??''' r?t ,, ° !i ,. ??
-? "• ? +- ?? ,• }? ,{ ? t ?,4 t fi ?r r r ., ???{ l? rl ?,p ! 'JJl 'Sr :.i:'??? ?
-•? `.r'• ?!4Jk?'rlf? ?'t#}.1v i??', r^.r???_ ?` ? ? 1+. ?? f A wp':.,: f rw.. ;,
Of.
fi x J,- , , ^ rW t._ y+ .i! ,.,6 '?
_ ..__ ? r ?x'rr?.+ul }??• ? f }?1, ? r' .. •?? ?ri.+! - rlr?/-r_Y i ?t ra .!'' ??) •R
- ., r,R,P' 'F r - r' 3a •y't t ?I'e rin -va-1 t:? r1V9 J. • BA ,./?_F, v?4`i j ,, y I A? ?,, .,?* 1 • ..'?'
' L ?`?• • ?'?, • _}: r ry 41 - } e - r >v i.' y. * it-'l`r r fi• . 3`
- }'? v .r t S '? .j•?° 'iV ""y 4, rLY'^r t?r* t • .. _ ?f' p' '` 'aW r r •-Y r
w1 _ M K? .? k, ;. a
' ?:, 'p ?` ?1 rte. _. s .,,'' tlSJ '? [!l. Tv? ? ?? •i?~ 3?yj'?v a d!' "'?r 1 ? ?,.P
p ? ! ri ul+l. 7 b 1. i r_ Tj?j` ° 'AI^• \ _ Ft ?+...•? a: r ? r ' ,Y+,, ?-z' + 16'1c °y` t ,p .?. •" Ji r r1 •b -. rf _ h°p ?' \_ i1i•:.? z ' w .
M' ?•a.- _ ,e?•. ,i' n.., `. t r:., // I .. ? ?+•^+. ? \ ff?5r ; .r J, a1 r!
. r r ;, .? ? , .Yr ?`' ? _ ^Rr'r 1,•f 1 , ,??'•. b'?"?:?i_? ? ?,? V ?,??' ,c•v s.. ?,l :: t ? .
r i?'«r, •r r'i ??yt ?''{ ,.?- ?. i+ nl'.. >. ? '_'?y??i- \, ?? ?, ? ,,?+ r ''.??1j
??y ?•?•'1 [,'i'?'4•. . a?r'.?:-.?. . F r?,i`1.-?'r', ?. __ \. ? ? r°'y'.¢y4?'J? ?:...?"?';j1'rs<i° 11A??1?.:P'r.. ???? .. ?
tr• y'. r•r j,, Y. ?, FI } W', ,? .' A.:.•?' r,T ?1{,r '?y'a' H?.Y ?',,,.
r»`r •?\ , ?x`t'1' f7'r1, ?et4Xf r: ?rfYl 8' ILM+..?`.?+t tti.i: riF? rf `. +,
9.? ,? rY'[, r ?, ? Yrt ? ?! ?r-?_!?1{1yi" v.= i,.,?. _ q,"'} r Yl,??t"? ?? ?pp.?
'1'9r:?+;p'F •7te' <., ^ttY{.'r t _. ?7,rr•,S'' ??i: \ R ?T ',J?iY?'r ? I., 1x-., f N, ? f ?i, fi ! 1±dh? ? , 1. ?i r' •,
p1^' hr -., t ? 14 H r ?+w i { rr>a ' r?r• i_' i• r ',, N ! -w '' rr+?' ?r'!i ? rS a??^r?..-VY yYj { y, `"'
J?ns„ ?+ `?? ?.r .? :?ye •?,,, ?,? ' ? ?'?? ? 3 L , ? i ,` r !}, ? • ?.' r r ! ?C 7':?'? ,T ?' 4?' ?iI/L, ? ? ?
'W • •.Y , f+ r !/;. .C. .c r' 1, a r ,? } ? 1. ? ?t "+.*' yr ? 'y'.
?'\N v Vq ?,. . ?,, y .' 't '4,, . ' i Y 1•... ?Ila1, x? .! 4y? L >.
.O}lR {F iof 1.+ ?} :r ??kT . t r r r vt. Srr ~1,. r'' ?c stA • yy^t? t , bA.
if
A} r?jjr , t!1 j AVM?jJ,.?f, ?1•, 4' a '.'1 } f• f nr •Fl;•, "' ::??•i.J .••,i ; rl,?:` t .,»?u{??'ir' r J r=` w"1'"` h r?' ?t [• }?,'`?? -.;'? yl,
S1'r ?r•° rr' .fir M 71•- 17'"'?• ..j.?1rr',..5' rl`?.-
" ?`? ?t ?• `lam'. ? ., t ' ? ? y.'kiie?' ? . ? " ' ?. r . ?. . •. ? ?' , v ? ?1?? ,'.., i ? _` ?, .. ?'
?" ? 1'??y '` I ?? ? dy 1 '?? ? ? ?r .?` r e ?•'ji+? ??+ ? {???? r ??'rr ?,,:,.s' , ? '9 ?' ?' r ," 1l+ y j #n?7 Ti"r .J?.. yY ?: ,
r F .M 1 sky" ,off. ? a ? ,? ? y 1,L r ?•
r; t?,'; r ?r •.?,y.?} } •"r*'?. ?' '.l :1??, I 'F ?°.?''?, ?•? ? F.e.? _t? r.l t '? Jp' `.+'?f '!., 1 ' 3•v ;/', J '?J 1.1 ?'`t? f :1T'. r_'Tr:a '?
J,?yjr C.? 'iE 4 q'J ?r% i i? ii +.?' ° ?C?? % ?. 1.?,? t [ ,`??yy'.?} 1 i , .r t . Y ,97 r, 1 r +d r iA t"? Pr D XI .. fiy lF J ?,,'
JJ'..ti 'rfF J prN . ! , yi . d '? '• 'r ' .8 ,??t yew P, ..f r J Y•- Y •y 1: 4 rF
?:,t' i` J ^?f• f F f % /r)? 1? -f4t' ?.,` ? r r } F? ?',,`rr r f •? r 3 4h ?:• ! + a!y? i? x? ?;1
'.L?
n,? 'rl?r ? 'adr ?G(,i - ??''"!' ? rr ? ?j?, ? • f ?T ?.` ..R.7 - r ?1 ? ' i?'. .' , i. ? `, ?P'? ? ym I'";U t.l? / ? fir 1', 'V+?I
pr ,?ti. PN Y 1' * f ' YN. iA v !'V t , t ,jr ,_7?.4 f?
t ''i?J?r?l4".?.'.'.r :;•?,? ,?.'' ay, r; 2i '? +.1'Cy+?"-,?f ?/'.rF' ??°' >,f:,f r• ?":'?!'N?^I}? r4 e. ,Tra A .w, r? ,??'yI Y• r .r ° r i,J ? ;? ?. ? '? . , ?, r ' •'Q, iQ} •.5 r , ? .? [ ?j ! ? e, ,?A- , 4. r ,, liry/ ? ? ' r -Ir? r J r r ?•pr r. f , f'y ? !
?? . ?? ?'Y ',. a #/t??? ?• i ?s?°v r •'i? r ?? ; ??. . lY P ?'... i r #? "{r ar rl-y J rl P^' ..}i' ? ac of r / ?' `.? F. ' n•'?' t{' Apt ?Jrl? ?' xy G
K+. 6K'. _ h,!N.• - ??1x ?A P:'1• 'I!' }„ y. r, :,t 1?,, `!'r.,7? „Ir•?1;1 rr k rD' rt'/ ..? j-?,,j r ;?j' .. ?'r,?w??.•` l,?k.r?,?
?''rr.i ?? ' ' Y y i,k ? .? r ? .. Kr. C.? 4 ?. }'? r ? ? - i. 1 ? ???? ? i •r: 7 a ,?'. •' 6 t It--; p' n ?-,, 'Yi??f? Y ???? • r.? .:.b, _.
..,a F ,rL. ' "crAt. p ,l 1'. ... *•? t Y , :V j r JJ r r,/2' ! • , !'
rt•' '?°/Y.r?. ,' r .., ? Ilk . p?r?r?.•??r Irr sir
?t??lr :rj1,1'+x' I r •"? .'Py N :r , yr w.? p f!':{?? a1 'V
_ rv..,,y ? Ny i ?.???F ? ? rt :?• y?; • ?* '?.1, f i'. ?!'::?'# a ! ?r^ t ? ?y?. •_-s rr; r..,?? : e"? #r-l.:_ lJ/rk I ? 4 4r• ? Y 'y
?,µ?,?w,,?f/ ,'? ?w4t? y n??'i?-V ?? / F'?.} ? ? ? ,. ]?,4 r J• o :. f' 1 ! ' ??'' CJ:' °, ?c, -rY` ,-,?vj : ? ?Y. y. •r'.? x?" _ r ?{• h' "`' ' ?{?i ?. • S• r? _
?e,til.. r f?_4• - ` v ?,I+', ? ?'?
,c T ;fit ';' { "'b?r S ?f'r o? •lr• art ? ?«. q ??;?` fi . .. r 4? r ? ? ? , O yT ? ? v Y ' iHi. 7•. ,p °? +r•? ; `•.-
? _?_ ?? ? ,tYr A 1F ?' •-"'' .a",[td ?, .sw •' ?P-n -r ..+r '?f:;/?j:,,jG"', f c• (r > '? ,y it `?t ? .?[° .3 r I'-•a ?.k! r _
?' s .r"?_f??P Y•7?'? ,? ?p,+ r 1??f.' ?° 'X W ? .,.?,?. /?e.? 1 '#J, t" ,t r,,.y ?"'•,?,. •i,?z?'ytiEb ? M? r 77,
aA'
e'h, t tl ,} ky- •;?r w r, ?•
f r?` _rdc?« Y' rRC fir;„?: t r. •r a , '?? r , , r..)
^ ? r? ??? y ../ (,:' a.3 r I.J. ! ? '?' ?'r, tv4?llJ ? =1P? 1. -r 'C? ?s? ?i ?tf '?.f i•? A.i ?j^ :P ', ?1'•
,'?". ";l ? ?? .??• _ ? A} .P ? ??? ,,, •??•. °+C-+.f?, J _ L-.. -t ?r'• f _:?. l .7rt 5??s ? r; ? } ?. P??, h.t ?. r r :I
f 4c •'"? t .?? k.?,i J?r YA`}.,?~,?1?.. k,A ?, r- .Y f.?.•'r??? ,: ti ''ai •.?T: t:.? •ril". ?i??c?. ?irl. ??v ,1rI :,i ?{?' T cv?.; t #
I APPENDIX A
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

From: Shern, James F SAW
To: Gina Giloo;
cc: Bob Zarzecki;
Subject: Little Drive Extension (SAW-2008-
00998) and Louis Stephens Drive Extension (SAW-2008-01000)
Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:52:01 AM
I received a scoping letter from Mulkey through our Wilmington Office requesting our comments for the
above projects. I had previously completed pre-application consultation with S&EC and determined
that each project is likely to result in a discharge of fill material into jurisdictional waters and require a
404 permit. Please include the Corps job numbers included in the subject line in all future
correspondence regarding these two projects.
Jamie Shern
Regulatory Specialist
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Tel: [phone], ext 31
I

D
I
I
I
United States Department of the Interior
? z
0 o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
n Raleigh Field Office
f. i=1
a Post Office Box 33726
b ACH 3 ?S> Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
?Al,:tt: 2 ?s
March 10, 2008
Gina Gilgo
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
Dear Ms:' Gilgo: 1
This letter is in response to your March 5, 2008 letter regarding the Little Drive Extension in
western Wake County, NC. This letter provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
response pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
se . (Act).
Based on the information provided, the Service recommends that surveys for federally protected
species be conducted within the action area, especially for the federally endangered red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) dwarf wedgemussel (Alaamidoizta heterodon) and
Ivlrchaux's sumac (Rhus 7hickauxn) finless you can otherwise demonstrate that habitat for these
species does not exist within the project area. With regards to red-cockaded woodpecker
surveys, if the proposed project will be removing pine trees equal to or greater than 10"diameter
at breast height (dbh), the Service recommends that surveys for active red-cockaded woodpecker
cavity trees be conducted in all appropriate habitat as defined in Appendix 4 of the revised
recovery plan (USFWS 2003). The revised recovery plan is available on the web at '
http://ecos.fws.gov/dots/recovery_plans/2003/030320.pdf. If red-cockaded woodpeckers are
observed within one-half mile of the project area or active cavity trees are found, the project has
the potential to affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this office for
further information. With regards to surveys for aquatic species such as the dwarf wedgemussel,
please note that individuals conducting surveys for federally listed aquatic species should have
the appropriate state and/or federal permits to conduct this type of work. Surveys for Michaux's
sumac should be conducted by a qualified biologist during the portion of the growing season -
when the plants are readily identifiable. Additional information about optimal survey windows
is included below.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an,analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct indirect,"and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that Wright affect.the species If you deterrt me, the proposed
action `will'have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct of indirect effect) on federally

listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence. However, you
I? should maintain a complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your
determination of effect, the qualified personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions,
site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regards to future projects which you or your company may undertake, we strongly
recommend that you consult our web page (http://nc-es.f\vs.gov/es) for a complete list of all
endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and a list of federal species of concern' that are
known to occur in each county in North Carolina. In addition to the federally-protected species
list, information on the species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a
biological assessment or evaluation and can be found on our web page. If your project contains
suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be present within the county
where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect those species.
As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the
species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage
program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys. Field surveys for federally
protected plant species should be conducted during the appropriate time of year when those
species are readily identifiable. For more information regarding the optimal survey windows for
listed species, please visit our web page: http://ne-es.fws.gov/plant/plant_Survey.htmi . Please
check the web site often for updated information or changes.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Please contact Mr. Dale Suiter at (919)
856-4520, extension 18 if you have any questions regarding this letter.
a Sincerely,
Pe enjamin
veld Supervisor
Enclosure
The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.
2
Wake County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Spec...
Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of
Concern, and Candidate Species,
Wake County, North Carolina
L!??Ow
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/cntylist/wake.htm
Updated: 01-31-2008
Common Name
Scientific name
Federal Record Status
Status
Vertebrate:
American eel
Bachman's sparrow
Bald eagle
Carolina darter
Carolina madtom
Pinewoods shiner
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Roanoke bass
Southeastern myotis
Southern hognose snake
Invertebrate:
Atlantic pigtoe
Diana fritillary (butterfly)
Dwarf wedgemussel
Green floater
Yellow lance
Vascular Plant:
Bog spicebush
Grassleaf arrowhead
Michaux's sumac
Anguilla rostrata
Aimophila aestivalis
Haliaeetusleucocephalus
Etheostoma collis lepidinion
Noturus furiosus
Lythrurus matutinus
Picoides borealis
Ambloplites cavifrons
Myotis austroriparius
Heterodon simus
Fusconaia masoni
Speyeria diana
Alasmidonta heterodon
Lasmigona subviridis
Elliptio lanceolata
Lindera subcoriacea
Sagittaria weatherbiana
Rhus michauxii
FSC Current
FSC Historic
BGPA Current
FSC Probable/potential
FSC Current
FSC Current
E Historic
FSC Current
FSC Historic
FSC Obscure
FSC Current
FSC Current
E Current
FSC Current
FSC Current
FSC Current
FSC Historic
E Current
I of 3 3/10/2008 3:41 PM
I Wake County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Spec...
http://www.fws.gov/ne-es/es/cntylist/wake.htm
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC Historic
Virginia least trillium Trillium pusillum var. FSC Current
virginianum
Nonvascular Plant:
Lichen:
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information
to support listing. (Formerly "CI" candidate species.)
BGPA =Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below.
FSC = federal species of concern. A species under consideration for listing, for which there is
insufficient information to support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the
future, and many of these species were formerly recognized as "C2" candidate species.
T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with another listed species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. See below.
EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential).
Experimental, nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened
species on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
P = proposed. Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or
"PT", respectively.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA):
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 72:37346-37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and
removed (de-listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This delisting took
effect August 8,2007. After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16
U.S.C. 668-668d) becomes the primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of
bald and golden eagles and provides a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb". The
USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land
managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. For mor information,
visit httn://www.fws.eov/mi2ratorvbirds/baldea2le.htm
Threatened due to similaritv of aooearance(T(S/A
In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle
(from New York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from
Virginia south to' Georgia) was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The
T(S/A) designation bans the collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles
from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation has no effect on land management activities by
private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern population of the species. In addition to its
official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the southern population of the
bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
Definitions of Record Status:
2 of 3 3/10/2008 3:41 PM
1
Wake County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Spec... http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/cntylist/wake.htin
Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years.
Historic - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Incidental/migrant - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Probable/potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of
known records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both.
3 of 3 3/10/2008 3:41 PM I
nA {f `
t?>Ut? ? t ??tIR
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor office of Archives wtd History
Tisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Hatoiinl Resources
Jeffrey). Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director.
April 10, 2008
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck 04111
SUBJECT: RTF-9, Little Drive Extension from Louis Stephens Drive to the Eastem Right-of-Way of CSX
Railroad and Louis Stephens Drive Extension from Little Drive to the Southern RTP Property
Boundary, Wake County, ER 08-0769
Thank you for your letter of March 4, 2008, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking ntunber.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Gina Gilgo, Mulkey Engineers
I Location: 109 Past Jones St q Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mad Service Ccn=, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telcphone/Fax: [phone]-6599
?.:'?M ST?,IC rr '}
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA
y r t z??
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Howard N. Lee, Chairman
l' ?I -02co. DEPARTMENT.OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION June St. Clair Atkinson, ED.D., State Superintendent
1414 1Y.NCPU6LICSCHOOLS.ORG
MARCH 24, 2008
MR. JOHNNY BANKS
MULKEY ENGINEERS
6750 TRYON ROAD
CARY, NC 27518
RE: RTF-9 Little Drive Extension
Planning and Environmental Study
Dear Sir:
We have no comments in reference to the above project.
Sincerely,
Steve Taynton, Chief,
School Planning, NCDPI
SCHOOL PLANNING -DIVISION OF SCHOOL SUPPORT :: www.schoolclearinghouse.org
6319 Mail Service Center :: Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6319 :: 919.807:3554-:: Fax [phone]
• An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Q North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
26 March 2008
Ms. Gina Gilgo
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
Subject: RTF-9, Little Drive Extension from Louis Stephens Drive to the Eastern R/W of CSX
Railroad and Louis Stephens Drive Extension from Little Drive to the Southern RTP Property
Boundary, Wake County, North Carolina.
Dear Ms Gilgo:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC) have reviewed the
subject document and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.), North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC
25), and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
Little Drive extension is proposed as a four-lane divided roadway from Louis Stephens Drive to
the eastern right-of-way of the CSX railroad. Louis Stephens Drive Extension is proposed as a two-lane
roadway on a four-lane right-of-way from Little Drive to the southern RTP boundary. Grading for future
lanes is not anticipated at this time. The extension of Little Drive will connect Louis Stephens Drive to
the extension of O'Kelly Chapel Road. The extensions of Little Drive and Louis Stephens Drive will
provide needed connections in the area's roadway network and increase access to the southern portion of
RTP.
Unnamed tributaries to Kit Creek, a tributary to B.E. Jordan Reservoir in the Cape Fear River
basin flow through the project site. B.E. Jordan Reservoir supports a diverse fishery including sunfish
(Lepomis spp.), crappie (Pomoxis sp.), catfish (Ictalurics sp.), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),
and striped bass (Morone sazaiihs)- Listed terrestrial species include the state threatened bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
We are concerned about direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project on
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. The environmental document should include the following
information regarding impacts of the proposed project.
• Impacts to stream channels (linear feet) including the need to channelize or relocate portions
of streams and the extent of such activities.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
2 'd 9291- 'Sbb'9EE 4uePUg rueyS eTb=TT 90 92 ueW
Page 2
26 March 2008
Seeping - Liule Drive & Louis Stephens Drive Extensions
• Impacts to wetlands (acres) including all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction.
• Impacts to tloodplains (acres) and upland habitats (type and acres). Potential borrow sites
should be included.
• Measures to minimize or avoid impacts to streams, wetlands and floodplains (e.g., use of
spanning structures or bridges)
• Measures to minimize impacts of stormwater runoff from increased impervious surfaces.
• Details on how the proposed road extensions will affect development within the immediate
area. Increased access often facilitates increased development and subsequently results in
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
• If construction of this project is to be coordinated with other state, municipal, or private
development projects, a description of these projects should be included in the environmental
document, and all project sponsors should be identified.
In addition to addressing the concerns outlined above, the environmental document should
include a detailed assessment of existing natural resources within the project area and should discuss the
potential of mitigating.impacts to wetlands, waters, and high quality upland habitat. To facilitate our
review of proposed project impacts on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources, we request the following
information be included in the environmental document. Although some of the information, requests and
comments may not be applicable to this project, these should facilitate preparation of an environmental
document that addresses impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
I . Include descriptions of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources within the project area, and a listing
of federally or state designated threatened, endangered or special concern species. A listing of
designated species can be found on the N.C. Natural Heritage Program's website at
http7//www.ncnho. ore
2. Surveys should be conducted by biologists with both state and federal endangered species permits.
3. Include descriptions of any streams or wetlands affected by the project.
4. Include project maps identifying wetland areas. Identification of wetlands may be accomplished
through coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
5. Provide information on existing, planned, and projected sewer and water infrastructure service
throughout the service area. A map showing the location of the existing and projected lines and areas
containing special resources should be included.
6. Define the service area for the project, including any ET7s (extra-territorial jurisdiction), and provide
a map of the service area. The map and description should provide the 14 digit hydrologic unit codes
(HUC) included in the service area.
7. Provide a description of project activities that will occur within wetlands, such as fill or channel
alteration. Acreage of wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be listed.
8. Provide a description and a cover type map showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the project.
9. Discuss the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands and uplands).
E'd SZSL'644'9EE 1ueFJg zJeyS eTb:iT 80 Sa JeW
F
Page 3
26 March 2008
Scoping - Little Drive & Louis Stephens Drive Extensions
I? 10. Discuss any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to mitigate unavoidable
habitat losses.
11. Discuss the cumulative impacts of secondary development facilitated by the proposed project. Such
discussion should weigh the economic benefits of such growth against the costs of associated
environmental degradation.
(a) Include specific measures (e.g., local ordinances) that will be used to address stormwater and
sedimentation at the source. Include specific requirements for both residential and industrial
developments and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be required.
(b) Include specific measures (e.g., local ordinances) that will be used to protect stream corridors,
riparian habitat, and a minimum of the 100-year floodplain from filling and development.
Commitments by the project sponsors to protect area streams with riparian buffers through
purchase or conservation casement are of particular interest.
12. Include a list of document preparers that shows each individuars professional background and
qualifications.
At this time, the information provided is not sufficient for our staff to make definitive
ua recommendations or conclusions concerning this project. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input
in the early planning stages for this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
I b'd 929L'94ti'9EE 1ueRig 1JeyS eibtll so 92 Jew

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 25, 2008
Gina Gilgo
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC, 27518
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: RTF-9, Little Drive Extension from Louis Stephens Drive to the Eastern R/W of
CSX Railroad and Louis Stephens Drive Extension from Little Drive to the
Southern RTP Property Boundary
Dear Ms. Gilgo:
Our office has reviewed your letter dated March 5, 2008 soliciting input for the proposed project.
It is our recommendation that Louis Stephens Drive from Little Drive to the southern RTP
boundary be constructed as either a four-lane divided roadway or as a two-lane roadway and
graded to accompany a future four-lane divided roadway. All cross drainage construction should
incorporate the ultimate four lane roadway, thereby eliminating or minimizing the need for future
environmental permits. This is consistent with other Louis Stephens Drive projects previously
constructed in the RTP north of Little Drive.
Based on our conversation, Little Drive Extension is anticipated to be grade separated over the
CSX railroad. It is also our understanding that NCDOT will potentially have funding in the
project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. If you have any questions please give
me a call at 919-2504016.
Sincerely,
Chris Haire, PE
Special Design Project Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
cc: Wally Bowman, PE
Scott Blevins, PE
Don Morton, PE (Mulkey Engineers & Consultants)
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CEN wCENTER CoA u
ROADWAY DES6N UNIT FAX: [phone] ENTRANCE A-2
1562 MAIL SERNCE CENTER 10DO BiR R=E DRNE
RALEIGH NC 27699-1562 VVEBSITE: WWW..DOH.DOLSTATE.NC.US '' RALEIGR NC 2761D
I
From: Don Morton
To: Chris Haire, PE
I cc: Gina Giloo; [e-mail]; Johnny Banks;
Subject: RE: RTF-9 - Little Drive Extension and Louis Stephens Drive Extension
Date: Wednesday,. March 26, 2008 8:52:54 AM
Chris, there's been a plan developed among NCDOT(Rail Division), Cary,
CSX, and Stantec (Troy Peoples) whereby Little Drive will be at-grade across
CSX. There will be off--site improvements at other CSX/road crossings to
mitigate the Little Drive/CSX grade crossing. The grade crossing is not a part of
Gina's project - her project begins at the eastern CSX R/W.
From: Chris Haire, PE [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tue 3/25/2008 5:01 PM
To: Gina Gilgo
Cc: Don Morton; J. Wally Bowman, PE; Scott Blevins, PE
Subject: RTF-9 - Little Drive Extension and Louis Stephens Drive Extension
p Gina:
I reviewed your March 5, 2008 letter soliciting input for Project
RTF-9. I have provided my comments on the attached letter. I
mailed the original letter to your office.
Thanks,
Chris Haire
D
D
N
WAKE Planning
COUNTY Department
uu c,zuu..
MEMO
To: Mulkey Engineers & Consultants Information Request
Client; Research Triangle Foundation, hie.(RTF)
TEL [phone]
Fw 919 856 6184
336 Fayetteville Street
P.O. Box 550 • WCOB 5th Flow -Raleigh, NC 27602
wvnv.wakegov.com
From: Melanie Wilson, Planning Director, Wake County Planning Department
Date: 01/04/2008
Re: Little Drive/Louis Stephens Drive Extension
Introduction:
Through mapping analysis and examination of Planning department documents, Planning staff has
gathered information to respond to your inquiry. The purpose of this memo is to outline potential
impacts of the project on social, economic, demographic, land use, and environmental conditions.
Project Description:
The proposed project is the extension of Little Drive to the eastern right-of-way of CSX Railroad,
concluding at the western Research Triangle Park (RTP) boundary line. It also includes the '
extension of Louis Stephens Drive to the southern RTP boundary line. Patties other than RTF are.
planning for further additions beyond RTP boundary lines for both Louis Stephens Drive and
Little Drive.
Little Drive Extension Proposal
• FOUL'-lane divided highway
• 200-foot right-of-way
• Posted speed limit of 40 mph as a transition between existing yoadway and future extension
of O'Kelly Chapel Road
• . A private party is proposing the future extension of O'Kelly Chapel Road to connect to
Little Drive west of the CSX railroad right-of-way (extending to L-Iighway;55)
Louis Stephens Drive Evension Proposal
• Two-lane roadway on four-lane right-of-way (future lanes not expected currently)
• Posted speed limit of 45 mph to match existing Louis Stephens Drive
iA
Town of Caryplans to extend road south of the RTP boundary line (extending to Old
Maynard Road south of Interstate 540)
Study Area Profile
• Extension requests located on one parcel (706 acres) and is entirely located within }Wake
County Planning Jurisdiction
• Parcel is vacant and its land use classification is RTP (special ernploynient area)
• CSX Railroad and I-540 right-of-ways abut the study area parcel
• Extensioin requests are located in Jordan Lake Watershed Non-Critical Area
• Extension requests will traverse special flood hazard zones
• No water bodies are located in study area
• Extension requests terminate at the RTP property line
Project Proposal Findings:
Land Use Impacls: Findings
• No land use impacts on affected parcel or abutting might-of-Ways
• FEMA, Army Corp of:Engineers, and Wake County Environmental Services should be
contacted for environmental regulations on flood hazard zones
• Wake County Unified Development Ordinance road design and construction.standards
should be adhered to (impervious surface; stormwatermanagement, etc.)
Social impacts: Findings
No social impacts of project proposal found
Demographic.irnpacts: Findings
• Limited demographic impacts surface as parcels abutting the study area are right-of-ways
? • Other parcels abutting the right of-ways are vacant or have cornmercial uses (one
residential parcel is not within the study area and is located in the Town of Cary's extra-
territorial jurisdiction)
i
I Economic Impacts: Findings
• Extensions, may have positive impact on the development of the southern portion of RTP
.) • Proposed project may spur. industrial', residential, or commercial development of nearby
vacant parcels
Project would provide incentive to extend the roads beyond the RTP property lines,
creating greater access to RTP via I-540 and Highway 55
Conclusion:
The proposed extensions.of Louis Stephens Drive and Little Drivewill increase°access to the
I southern portion of RTP and utilize existing road networks. Additional access points for one of the
region's major employment centers may also help relieve congestion on other roadways. Adverse
impacts on land use, social, economic, and demographic conditions are limited. Environmental.
conditions, warrant the involvement of Wake County Environmental Services to address the
special flood hazard areas and impervious surface concerns in the non-critical area of the Jordan
Lake Watershed.
I
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM 1
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
II'..',...
i1
I
D
I
Project/Site: Little Drive & Louis Stephens Road/S&EC Job #1625.W3 Date: 3/12/08
Applicant/Owner: RTF of NC County: Wake
Investigator: Steven Ball State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Transect ID: 63A
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No Plot ID:
If needed, explain on reverse.) I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Carex spp. Herb 9.
2. Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC 10.
3. Betula nigra Tree FACW 11.
Acerrubrum Tree FAC 12.
5. Ilex opaca Tree FAC- 13.
6. Woodwardia areolata Herb OBL 14.
7. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+ 15.
8. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 70%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) X Water-Stained Leaves
Loral Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 1 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 1 (in.)
Remarks:
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Little Drive & Louis Stephens Road/S&EC Job #1625.W3 TPlot ID: DP-01
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class:
(Series and Phase): Chewacla Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Fluventic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 10YR 4/2 10YR 5/6
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
11
WETLANDS ?ETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes No X Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No
Remarks:
F
0
D
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM 2
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Little Drive & Louis Stephens Road/S&EC Job #1625.W3 Date: 3/12/08
Applicant/Owner: RTF of NC County: Wake
Investigator: Steven Ball State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Transect ID: Flag 33
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No Plot ID:
1
If needed, explain on reverse.) 1 1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC 9.
2. Acer rubrum
3. Ulmus amencana
4.
5.
6. Tree
Tree FAC
FACW 10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
7. 15.
8. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-):
100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper f2 Inches
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: 7 (in.) X Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil, 0 (in.)
Remarks:
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Little Drive & Louis Stephens Road/S&EC Job #1625.W3 Plot ID:
SOII S
Map Unit Name Drainage Class:
(Series and Phase): Chewacla Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Fluventic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 10YR 4/2
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Loral Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
L--
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes No X Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No
Remarks:
1
1
0
I
D
D
E
iII'
II,,
k

hi
Ul
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM 3
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Little Drive & Louis Stephens Road/S&EC Job #1625.W3 Date: 3/12/08
Applicant/Owner: RTF of NC County: Wake
Investigator: Steven Ball State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No Plot ID:
If needed, explain on reverse.) I -
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Pinus taeda Tree FAC 9.
2. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FAC 10.
3. Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC it.
Lonicera%aponica Vine FAC- 12.
5. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+ 13.
6.
7.
8. 14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-):
80%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.)
Remarks:
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Little Drive & Louis Stephens Road/S&EC Job #1625.W3 Plot ID:
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class:
(Series and Phase): Chewacla Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Fluventic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 10YR 5/4
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfdic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
L--
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
I'
I,
D
Li
i
II i,
il'
k
I
I
III
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM 4
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Little Drive & Louis Stephens Road/S&EC Job #1625.W3 Date: 3112/08
Applicant/Owner: RTF of NC County: Wake
Investigator: Steven Ball State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes _ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Transect ID: Flag 50
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No Plot ID:
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 9.
2. Liquidambarstyraciflua Tree FAC+ 10.
3. it.
12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7.
8. 15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-):
100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Other -
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. 2 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Remarks:
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Little Drive & Louis Stephens Road/S&EC Job #1625.W3 Plot ID:
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class:
(Series and Phase): Chewacla Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Fluventic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 10YR 5/3 10YR 4/6 Few/Medium Sand clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfdic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Loral Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
L-
I
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes _ No X Yes - No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No
Remarks:
1
1
?B

D
I
II

'll

WETLAND RATING WORKSfmET Fourth Version
Project Name liOic 4-Zoe,1s S+Po4ey)Sflr.NearestRoad Lj,r/f. ?r-
county IV4k' Wetland area 0.0 3 acres Wetland width 2 _feet
Name of evaluator 9-ZOE yt Date
Wetland location
- on pond or lake
- on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other: Flood nJain
Soil series: (_ h c 1'i 4,-l ti
_ predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
Z predominantly mineral - non-sandy
- predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
steep topography
;/ditched or channelized
total wetland width? 100 feet
Adjacent land` use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 86-%
_ agriculture,urban/suburban L
impervious surface _%
Dominant vegetation
(1) <<z<,??es ??,1
(2) 4/i1GrOy2J1u!n
(3) J., „ty
Flooding and wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded or
inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
?intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
- no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest
_ Headwater forest
Swamp forest
_ Wet flat
_ Pocosin
Bog forest
Pine savanna
_ Freshwater marsh
B g/fen
p emeral wetland
_ Carolina bay
Other:
The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
R Water storage ! x 4.00 =
A

T Bank/Shoreline stabilization

Pollutant removal ! x 4.00 =

x 5.00 =

P / Welland
rating
I Wildlife habitat ? x 2.00 = ® 2

N
Aquatic life value
!
x 4.00 = 0
G Recreation/Education ! x 1.00=
** Add I point if insensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint source disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius

6sV`
WE'T'LAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
Project Name LiNk d ?v:,is ? nb )fir Nearest Road L u c 'al
County 0 '4l Wetlandarea 0,9oy acres Wetland width I:5- feet
Name of evaluator h 1 t cc Ise, (rl Date
Wetland location
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
mother: CE_L04lu ;a
Soil series: (,/i-&,0dJMU0'.r
predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
/predominantly mineral- non-sandy
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width > 100 feet
Adjacent land.use
(within ''/z mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 1 S" %
agriculture, urban/suburban TI %
impervious surface to %
Dominant vegetation
(2) 1114 rV i ( Gr / w,
(3) Lvh
Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permanently flooded or
inundated
-leasonally flooded or inundated
/ intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland tvpe (select one)'
8ottomland hardwood forest
Headwater forest
_ Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
Pine savanna
_ Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina bay
Other:
The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
R Water storage x 4.00 = FTJ
A.
T Bank/Shoreline stabilization
Pollutant removal 1 x 4.00 =

Z r? x 5.00 = 0 Wetland
rating
I Wildlife habitat 7_ x 2.00 = 0 a
N
G Aquatic life value
Recreation/Education '2- x 4.00 =
Z x 1.00 =
**Add 1 point if insensitive watershed and >10% nonpoinl source disturbance within /2 mile'upstreaui; upslope, or radius`
?1
I
I?
O
D

iN
i
F
F
U
M
I WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
Project Name Lt f )e le itI5 Nearest Road Lr A- Of-
County (, f ,/-e Wetland area U.'s 2 acres Wetland width G feet
Name of evaluator y3-; // Date
Wetland location
on pond or lake
_ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other: ??calp'? v
Soil series: / (C NC/y
predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
lpredominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width? 100 feet
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation P5-%
agriculture,urban/suburban i5" %
impervious surface _%
Dominant Vegetation
(1) r-' 14C nef,<If
(3) 5we?84i,w
Flooding and-wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded or
inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
ottomland hardwood forest
Headwater forest
_ Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
Pine savanna
_ Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina bay
Other:
I - The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
II

R Water storage x 4.00 = 0
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization / x 4.00 = 0 Welland
T Pollutant removal
? "x5.00=
F I rating
.
I Wildlife habitat 2 x 2.00 = l "
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education / x 1.00 = 0
** Add I point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint source disturbance within %, mile upstream, upslope, or radius '.

Uy2
WETLAND RATING N'ORKS1iEET Fourth Version
Project Name LA y- Lt> 95 ieo ?5 Dr Nearest Road I 164f 0 --
County L-) n 1 2° Wetland area 0 0l acres Wetland width I/ feet
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
/other:/?r;? pyr,
Soil series: (Cpeec(toro '
_ predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
./predominantly mineral - non-sandy
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)'
Bottomland hardwood forest
Aeadwater forest
_ Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
Date
Adjacent land use
(within % mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 61i %
agriculture, urban/suburban •Zv
- impervious surface 1-A-%
Dominant vegetation
(1) Sw??cdc?a.,,
(2) J.+rcu5
(3) - gkrr ca L (v
Flooding and wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded or
inundated
./seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Pine savanna
_ Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina bay
Other:
The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
R Water storage 2 x 4.00 = F 1-1
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization l x 4.00 = FYJ Wetland

T
Pollutant removal
f
x 5.00 =
1 rating

;
I Wildlife habitat 2 x 2.00 = F J11
^
N Aquatic life value I x 4.00 = 4- ]
G Recreation/Education
i x 1.00 = 1
**Add 1 point if insensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint source disturbance within %: mile upstream, upslope, or radius
p 1 q
{I
USACE AID# DWQ# Site .#_ (indicate on attached map)
STREAM: QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: c.y 86L11
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: JI PuCn 3. Date of evaluation: - 31l ok% 4. Time of evaluation: -2 ' 15
5. Name of stream:- M Z Kxre A 6. River basin:- '
i
7. Approximate drainage area: S. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County: U)iK[?
on 11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
.1N Latitude (ex, 34.872312): .35. SD'l% - Longitude (ex. -77.556611): ."76,
1?111?11 Method location determined (circle): GPS Top, Sheet (litho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Sot ibt ac at-r(erl.f (oad
14. Proposed channel work (if any): f?
15. Recent weather conditions: RCA n '' I U hr5
16: Site conditions at time of visit: SunnJ 103o
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters _. Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters ,-Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed _(I-IV)
1& Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO -
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential 0% Commercial Industrial AgriculturaI
]Q% Forested _%Cleared /Logged _%Other
( )
22. Bankfull width: Q ??• __ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): G-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ? Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I O%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends ?Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
- characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the i
highest quality.
i
Total Score (from reverse): k/` Comments:
3
52
Evaluator's Signature/: Date ?J/jZ/lJ0
1 This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envi onmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not Imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1
2
STREAMOUALiTY ASSESSMENT WORKSITERT
D
USACE AID#=_ DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
r
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: C ??
1. Applicant's name: / 2. Evaluator's name: _.37eA<n &11
3. Date of evaluation: zh -/ 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: 6 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County: Waye
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (m. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Oder
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: >`18 hrr. Slrlce r'G.,
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Su. 0y te-Af
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed -O-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appearon USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appearon USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
2f. Estimated watershed land use: __% Residential 3Q% Commercial _%Industrial _% Agricultural
n0 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _%o Other ( )
22. Bankful l width: (D 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): l o?
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 20/6) Gentle (2 to 40/6) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I0%)
X11 25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends ?Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
X11 Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
?I location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ?GtG"7 Date 3 This channel evaluation tarns is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and enfiron ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change- version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Y
` -
zYi. A 1 _ '? SRI TICS?6

If ; s}l?reseneofw 1 persistnt,?s?ia?srream?^ -y
• a .&4?,,_?rn'o.flotiorsaturauo ?sirOnaflow ?:marDainis7?
? ? + ?''r"'..;?,? Ev tlttic?c'`ot past human altet?tiaoyx y ?¢'r""
it, ( > , ?,
d C.X#ertsrvea lCiahOrl, _O,?na',?lterati??tax mot's :.
_=3 t ?. a s
. ±? ,t .,i nobu@cr=0,r ot(i?uous,. idebufIei?maz_poi ,?"#
CSR L

,F
Coastal _
Pte, O$ J 1
?? :.
's'? '
o .
. ,t!::.:? --.":?
?0=
?-x: ,i?4?'
ION>PO

lZ
t?l'ieilmontt •
q-,».
?5...`?t?l,'„.,s5
? ', ;
o sz
y
4
?* ?

2A1Vla GOR?
>sMoaniam,?- s=a s
xra;- s _
.t?'u° ? -
t" . f.
s

6i r
€°
x p, denccofmut icntprdtemtcal charges°? x tY r , 11/eN,
ex edisclrar es 0 nodi9char¢ pomt5
a{ 1'" i G?ouodwater dl§ har "°-"`r? r ?"u
"
?
x -' i
3
a
?
",sue' -?x
4y
es',
0
iq
v no°?sl o s
nn 5 see ',
andG2m Dints
??=?
:
" c
P
e
f
abed
ad "b{nS'lz` x"? FyS
kr , v
°
r
c.f{
J
1 -` :fix s
n
> 'r' ? '
k *
? ?
'
.+
?
a
a
rrs
nce o
ad
D
?
n ,
r
x
? ?
Q
?
'? -? a t
no ? tam.:=_ 0 exte
sive-. 1 jg/t mts ., .,. _
"?"? s a }
?
.. &:?•..? ?. 5
sW'-, niienchmeai'/ noo.""4tp1? q

' ' doe 1 , shed 0 fl uenr'fltio t - omts S
tr?
J
t
t? enceofad3acentaeai6 ;
(?. Y}}.x :.W
w rro
wed
}
e
d
acent
}
ds;£
t
t V •+` i Em
i- .-0 4l A
`
'
?` o }'
_

?
g
{
.arg
wet
an
maxfparn
s
5
-.-
S
?T' Cha ef
s-=>xe'3• "?.?.d
?ionosd
7 a;?"

,?° f
-,z»-'"^^

,.
x s- `?- ? e'

' l ? s
.
y
+3
Y
;
?l
?` ?
.y:, _r,&-, aax
?
nsivrchand
i?abonb.°na(wa
xiteander.,.,.max Dints
?
.. ,.»
" .'a,.'
a ?a`?-. 3 _ , ?,.ta. ?_. ,
t
k
Z-,n { ,YSe imen
t3n
101 - w. f? <c P ..ice"'-s 1"3 a
y
Ot +
^p
?C
_
q
m qi
7 Cn ha t nstve
de osnion
a i{e"or nD sediment max Dints c .
_. zs*
" ?
t
8
" -
? ? -` ? ? ?"i;,..Size & dvcrnt a7rhaandtiedsubstratc _ t- ?.?
i fine
homo en'oLS
?
dive
se s
es
;
ot 1
yam
}# ? »...
" ?
?';? rt? ?,??J
?f
?'
,
.
,
r
iz
max
l
s a .,.;. , u ,"
_..
Er rdcnce'oftliani el incision or widening } . 'JF< "

"
?
'
``'
l "-
0 $ ty Y

"
.f G
q
Q 3D tJf

om
lymerse
d
bed.C6ants
-.maxpomts
.
stab
e $
r _ a s .;.,Ix t
.
? Pies"En £of ma7onban, fait u5e?

'
'
0=5
en7 1 sevti
osioIl{
no erosion ; stable banl.?
arcnts c -
1 b'14t t ?:- .• s1,,,tR t`depth an({'denfyitnabapia
}$
o
A
e
`
ou
`
ti
nY.
nQ,vlir le r
..}r
ots 0 dens
thr
i
t max rots
4A 5
?
1;1$
y
31. - 5iyl.'inp.nrl by agricult! ck, Ar iimnert production
1 i s
lis
l
cea` ma
? '` t 6?'•J
*0
T
a '''`p4. ' QF '" '
.
u
tanba
tlevrden
x ornts a
s
i »
``?` t
/
`
e
iT
e
? '
"
0
'
1 '?;? A
ld riffles
n Ies
o_r st 0
ll de
rlo
??rax }iijs
x
"`
? #
a
1
z
i'.c
.-
th §?
ss
r

.C t P Y
. f+,a Ta4r au moo
lecf{ ?• 'a' ?IiA`
pF `c?Rlr
Vie"
r 6 g?i
„ 1
"„ t 1 tleor no h§bitatt}rgycn'vanrd habtiata*' m om}

r
Ym 'ri ar ?C?nb?l'oy4ra-yer Streamtlcd.' ,? Y
1 n,-r*o a tct
'"S-feW?ie..r c
t?,„.,tvgr

.
A a..? "x,.

• _
'
s
'? rl?? s
hadm ve etatl n 0?"c
D
ous c
ii
>
l ?; `??"
$? ?" n
P
• in V.
,
p
mt
anoe ma
: o
y
yts
" t 19t .?`G.raik t$ubst;a?trddeness 'MY a
?R?t rtdee1 embedded A gb3e sjrzirtare max: u.
>r i ''-'
`Y , ":Prese ee nf`stream`fnbr tea ger4lt "Y'k
(5w
4 <lr

feD

5 ' -

r" = : ne:eVldenCC Q -Cemmon namerouS max In15
i+'Y'r' ^ °r
?'k;:- .? .
e
9 3 ,r '? W Y!r"r+?Presenre nt'nN tltblA?S x{%S-:i:
n
-
'
' ?` a
;
4
E0 "^ ikstyY.xY -?.++y "``_
nSevld
re
pornts
-, : cmmort numeroys
pm
,?
-
ten?
-=.4 c .
r
te,
-
.
.
?..
n N :
k
w.r
c
.
' Y est o-x t
-.
r no:evrdeo 0 ?:
ommon
trat$ 'max otnf
sh
t 4 .`IF S+ -
} i
yY
E ? 3?Yhf
?
pan '
?aYYS
,
EsidencPa a 5ildhte
"^
n
un
tl
c
z .
;
' no evidence = 0
b
dan -6vt
e `ma
i
ts
)
pool
_
? "K 1 ?1vW1^ Y 'C `?3J y,'Y?y'?St^i'°S C^°°*"<r .vx Yf
isaast let " 'ic.?,eJ `>'
t "?."A iT : bPtStn
° ?????
s ' ?". t
t -'-1b';
-?
,
....._..5.'- _:eY_ . ? zvf.,+*=a v[`_'" % 'N
&
.G
_
,?TOTAI, CO ?e Engn f
al
Stlpagc )? 2
r ;
IF
r
u
"`
,
,
i nese enaractenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.-
2
O
I
`I
1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 3't ode Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: 2l fA' eWJ I Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at feast intermittent
6-1 County: LLUyC.
e.g. Quad Name:'
if 2: 19 or rennial iR 30 .
A. Geomorphology Subtotal= A, S Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood plain 0 1 2 .
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 r
7. Braided channel 0 1 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1
9 a Natural levees 0 1

10. Headcuts
0
1 M2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5
12. Natural valle or drainageway 0 0.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes
man-maae ancrfes are not ratea; see discussions in manual
R Hvrirninnv /Rnhinhnl = -I I G 1
14. Groundwater flowidischarge 0 1 2 (3
15. Water in channel and > 48 firs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rovd season 0 1 2 0
16. Leaflitter .5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 .5
19. H dric soils redoximo hic features) present? No = 0 Yes
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = G 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves L61) 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 (i 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; peri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us. 0 0.5 _
1 1.5
29'. Wetland plants in stfeambed FAG =6D.5 FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
items zu ana zf focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: l Project: T?.r3uaS Latitude:
Evaluator: .'k--Ln L Site: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Other
if a 19 or erenniaf if z 30 ,5 r e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 7-15 •' ' Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 - 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 ., 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2' 3
9' Natural levees 0 1 (2) 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or dramageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented

evidence.
No = 0

3
(YD)
man-mane daches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav ISuhtntal= It 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hm since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 O3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H drtc soils redoximorphic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = q 1
20'. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous atgae; eriphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0 0. 1 1.5
296 Wetland plants in slreambed FAC 0.5' FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
gems zu and zi focus on me presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use bade side of this form for addllional notes.)
A