20081705 Ver 1_Complete File_20081117

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE -
- T REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
OM:' REF: NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE 0 PER OUR CONVERSATION'
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME.. ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE :DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ` ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE. ? SIGNATURE
?.TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

i
- ?.?
,r
y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
October 23, 1996
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section

GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wake County, Fuquay-Varina Loop from US 401 South to US 401 North
at SR 1107 (East Academy Street), Federal Aid Project No. STP-401(3),
State Project No. 8.1402701, T.I.P. No. R-2826. Action I.D. 199602434.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct (part on new
location) the Fuquay-Varina loop from US 401 South to US 401 North. The proposed
project is approximately 2.94 kilometers (1.82 miles) long. On June 11, 1996 we sent you
a planning document and notice that we proposed to proceed under a Nationwide Permit
in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (13-23). The document described an impact on
0.12 hectares (0.3 acres) of jurisdictional wetlands. The cover letter explained that design
refinements made after the publication of the document resulted in avoiding all impacts to
the wetlands. The design has been further refined and the impacts on jurisdictional
wetlands will be 0.081 hectares (0.2 acres).
The original impacts described in the CE resulted from fill in the Neal's Creek drainage
from construction of the project mainline. The design refinement mentioned in the
June 11, 1996 letter included minimization of the project fill resulting in zero impacts on
the Neal's Creek wetlands. This design has not changed. The present redesign pertains to
construction on SR 2770 (Angier Road) at the point where Angier Road crosses the
subject loop. To relieve frequent flooding at that location, the existing 72-inch pipe will be
replaced with a 7 x 8 foot double-barrel box-culvert. This action will fill 0.2 acres of
wetlands associated with Angier Creek, a tributary of Neal's Creek, which has a drainage
area of one square mile.
0

2
As previously stated in our June 11, 1996 transmittal, the project is being processed by the
Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose
to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23).
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed
in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply
to this project, and are providing a copy of this letter North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Department of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Marc L. Hamel, P & E Project Planning Engineer
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DAT E
( 1 5k4-
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
M??I er'c Ca.lamb r'm-tt-4w
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

/ ACTION
NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? F?R YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ??J//FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
JAN - 7 1994
•? ,?• WETLANDS GROUP
UTAT[D Al I A I
ITV nrn r,n.• ..
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECKETAR
January 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for US 401, Fuquay-Varina Loop,
US 401 South to US 401 North at SR 1107 (East Academy
Street), Wake County, State Project #8.1402701,
F. A. #STP-401(3), T.I.P. No. R-2826
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for Wednesday, February 16, 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in the
Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may
provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to
that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Julius Kachmer, Project PI Engineer, at 733-7842.
JK/pl r ?t44a
Attachment
} m 4 isa.?'. aF??rr
???h?? gym! ??
`r M
9

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP # -R-2826-
Project # 8.1402701
F.A. Project ## STP-4011 (3)
Division 9+
County Wake
Route (s) US 401
Functional Classification
Length 1.9 miles

Date _1!3193_
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning _X_
Design
Purpose of Project: To provide a new route for increased
capacity and safety for US 401 South and 401 North at SR 1107
(East Academy Street)
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: Fuquay-Varina loop, US 401 South to US 401
North at SR 1107 (East Academy Street). Construct a two lane
facility, part on new location.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: An EA is
planned for this project. This document is scheduled for
completion 1995.
Environmental study schedule: Begin. Complete
Planning 1994 1995
Design 1995 1996
Right of way 1995 1996
Construction 1996 1997
Type of funding: This project is federally funded.
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount : ( $ ) or ( o )
How and when will this be paid?
Type of Access Control: Full X Partial None _
-Page 1-
r
E

Number of Interchanges Grade Separations
Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section: Existing: 3 Lane curb an gutter
Proposed:24' (4-lane roadway) with 2'
paved shoulders '
Traffic (ADT): 1991 _ Design Year
s
% TTST % Duals
Design Standards Applicable: A.ASHTO _ 3R
Design Speed:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . .
Right of Way (including relocation,
utilities, and acquisition). . .
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . .
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . .
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE . . .

TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,525,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 110 , 000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE . . . . $ 1,735,000
-DarrA 9-
which could affect cost or schedule or project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
_X_ Pavement
X- Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- . . $ 318,505
Base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recyling. . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Earthwork . . . . . . . . . • • . • . . $ 3 2 5 , 9 0 0_
Subsurface items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 80,080
_X_ Drainage (list any special items) . . $ 209,000._
.
. . . . . . . . . .
Sub-Drainage . . $
.
. . .
Structures
Bridge Rehab . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
New Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Remove Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
New Culvert . . . . .
X . . $ 69,400_
_
_
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . $
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Other Mlsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb and Gutter. . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing
W.W .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
C.L .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 20,400
Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,000-
Signing
New . $
. . . . . . . . . .
Upgraded . . $
. . . .
Traffic Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RR Signals '
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With/without arms . . . . . . . . . . . $
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade. . . . . $
_X_ Pavement Markings $ 15,200
Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Thermoplastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
-Page 3-
_X_ Raised Pavement Markers . . . . . . . . $
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) $ 331,875
CONTRACT COST Subtotal. . . . . . . . $ 1,398,000
Engineering & Contingencies . .
PE Costs. _ . . . . . . . . . .
Force Account . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . $ 227 , 000
. . . $
. . . . $
CONTINGENCIES Subtotal. . . . . . . . $ 1,625,000_
Right-of-Way
will contain within existing R/W? Yes No
Existing Width
New R/W needed Estimated cost. . $
Easements: Type Width
Estimated cost. $
Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RIGHT OF WAY SUBTOTAL . . . . . . . . $
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST. . . . . . . . . $ _
a
Prepared by: Date _
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Init. Date Init. Date
Highway Design B.O.T. Member
Roadway Mgr Program & Policy
Structure Chief Engineer-Precon
Design Services Chief Engineer-Op
Geotechnical Sec Roads Officer
Hydraulics Construction Branch
Loc. & Surveys Roadside Environ.
Photogrammetry Maintenance Branch
Prel. Est. Engr. Bridge Maintenance
Ping & Environ. Statewide Planning
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator
Traffic Engr. Program Development
Project Management FHWA
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res.
City/Municipality DEHNR
(scoping sheet for local officials sent to Div. Engineering)
-If you are not in agreement with proposed project or
scoping, note your proposed revisions or comments here:

-Page 4-

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Or
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
m.. BRANCH
NEW ROUTE, FUQUAY - VARINA LOOP
US 401 SOUTH TO US 401 NORTH AT SR 1107
WAKE COUNTY
R - 2826
FIG. 1

TIP # _R-2826
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date _1/3/94
Revision Date 2/10/94_
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning _
Design
Project # 8.1402701
F.A. Project # STP-401(3)
Division 5
County Wake
Route(s) Fuauav-Varina Loo Road
('nwc?
I

Functional Classification Rural Major Collector
Length 1.9 miles
Purpose of Project: To provide improved access around.the
southeast side of Fuquay-Varina and relieve the heavily
congested portion of US 401 South and North.
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: Fuquay-Varina loop, part on existing . .
location, from US 401 South to US 401 North at SR 1107 (East
Academy Street). Construct a two lane facility, part on new
location.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: An EA & FONSI
is planned for this project. The FONSI document is scheduled
for completion 1995.
Type of funding: This project is federally funded.
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount : ( $ ) or ( o )
How and when will this be paid?
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
3
Number of Interchanges Grade separations
Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section: Existing: 2 Lane curb an gutter
Proposed:24' (2-lane roadway) with 21
paved shoulders
Traffic (ADT): 1992 6600 vpd Design Year
% TTST o Duals
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 60 mph
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction.Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way (including relocation,
utilities, and acquisition). . . . . . $
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . $
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,625,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 110,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE . . . . $ 1,735,000
3
List any special features, such as railroad involvement,
which could affect cost or schedule or project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
_X_ Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 318, 505
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recyling. . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 325 , 900_
Subsurface items. . . . . . . . . ... . . . $
_X_ Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 80,080
_X_ Drainage (list any special items) $ 209,000
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures
Bridge Rehab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
New Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Remove Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ New Culvert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 69,400
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . $ _
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
other Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb and Gutter. . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing
W.W .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.L.. $
_X_ Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . $ 20,400
Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,000
Signing
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgraded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RR Signals 3
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With/without arms . . . . . . . . . . $
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
Realignment for safety Upgrade. . . . . $
_X_ Pavement Markings $ 15,200
Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Thermoplastic . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Raised Pavement Markers . . . . . . . . $
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) $ 331,875
CONTRACT COST Subtotal. . . . . . . . $ 1,398,000_
Engineering & Contingencies . . . . . . . . $ 227,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
CONTINGENCIES Subtotal. . . . . . $ 1,625,000
Right-of-Way
Will Contain within existing R/W? Yes
Existing Width
New R/W needed Estimated cost. $
Easements: Type Width
Estimated cost.
Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
No
RIGHT OF WAY SUBTOTAL . . . . . . . $
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST. . . . . . . . . $
Prepared by: Date
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Init. Date
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Ping & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Init. Date
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Op
Sec Roads Officer
Construction Branch
Roadside Environ.
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials sent to Div. Engineering)
a
-If you are not in agreement with proposed project or
Scoping, note your proposed revisions or comments here:
..
\LV
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTA'T'ION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
't e. ,sue 13RANCH
NEW ROUTE, FUQUAY - VARINA LOOP
US 401 SOUTH TO US 401 NORTH AT SR 1107
WAKE COUNTY
R - 2826
e "" N. C: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
'211440-
TO; REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
I?lr. ??? C?.(a.,? DES- ?r??tlQ
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
7WMs Is Pie
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ?OR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS L?K/FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER - t3 FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
STAy
o?rm u„
~3Q' s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA i
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FEB 1 7 1°94
a
y
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Updated Scoping Sheet for US 401,
Fuquay-Varina Loop, US 401 South to US 401 North at
SR 1107 (East Academy Street), Wake County, State
Project #8.1402701, F. A. #STP-401(3), T.I.P. No.
R-2826
Attached for your review and comments are the updated scoping sheets
for the subject project (See attached map for project location). Please
make the appropriate changes in your files. I would also like to remind
you of the scoping meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 16, 1994 at
10:00 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room
(Room 470).
Thank you for your assistance i
If there are any questions about the
please call Julius Kachmer, Project
JK/plr
Attachment
n this part of our planning process.
meeting or the updated scoping sheets,
Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
link
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date -1/3/94-
Revision Date 2/10/94_
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning ^X-
Design
TIP # _R-2826
Project # 8.1402701
F.A. Project # STP-401(3)
Division 5
County Wake
Route(s) Fuauay-Varina Loop Road
Functional Classification Rural Major Collector
Length 1.9 miles
Purpose of Project: To provide improved access around the
southeast side of Fuquay-Varina and relieve the heavily
congested portion of US 401 South and North.
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: Fuquay-Varina loop, part on existing
location, from US 401 South to US 401 North at SR 1107 (East
Academy Street). Construct a two lane facility, part on new
location.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: An EA & FONSI
is planned for this project. The FONSI document is scheduled
for completion 1995.
Type of funding: This project is federally funded.
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount : ( $ ) or ( o )
How and when will this be paid?
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
-Pacre.'1-
Number of Interchanges Grade Separations
Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section: Existing: 2 Lane curb an gutter
Proposed:24' (2-lane roadway) with 2'
paved shoulders
Traffic (ADT): 1992 6600 vpd Design Year
% TTST o Duals
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 60 mph
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . .
Right of Way (including relocation,
utilities, and acquisition). . . . . .$
Force Account Items.
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . .
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE'.
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,625,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 110,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE $ 1,735,000
i
List any special features, such as railroad involvement,
which could affect cost or schedule or project:
-Page 2-
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST

Estimated Costs of Improvements:
_X_ Pavement
_X_ Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 318,505
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recyling. . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shoulders
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . $
Earthen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 325 , 900_
Subsurface items. . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 80,080
_X_ Drainage (list any special items) . . . . . $ 209,000_
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures
Bridge Rehab . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
New Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Remove Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z
_X_ New Culvert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 69,400
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . $
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other Misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Concrete Curb and Gutter. . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing
W.W .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
C.L.. $
_X_ Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 20,400
Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,000
Signing
New $
Upgraded . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals
New $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RR Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
with/without arms . . . . . . . . . . .. $
,xf 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade. $
_X_ Pavement Markings $ 15,200
Paint. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .
_X_ Thermoplastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Raised Pavement markers . . . . . . . . $
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
-Page 3-
_X_ Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) $ 331,875
CONTRACT COST Subtotal. . . . . . . . $ 1,398,000_
Engineering & Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . $ 227,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
CONTINGENCIES.Subtotal. . .
Right-of-Way
Will Contain within existing R/W?
Existing Width
$ 1,625,000
Yes No
New R/W needed Estimated cost. $
Easements: Type Width
Estimated cost. $
Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RIGHT OF WAY SUBTOTAL $
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST. . . . . . . $
Prepared by: Date
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Init. Date Init. Date
Highway Design B.O.T. Member
Roadway _ Mgr Program & Policy
Structure Chief Engineer-Precon
Design Services Chief Engineer-Op
Geotechnical Sec Roads Officer
Hydraulics Construction Branch
Loc. & Surveys Roadside Environ.
Photogrammetry Maintenance Branch
Prel. Est. Engr. Bridge Maintenance
Ping & Environ. Statewide Planning
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator
Traffic Engr. Program Development
Project Management FHWA
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res.
City/Municipality DEHNR
(Scoping sheet for local officials sent to Div. Engineering)
-If you are not in agreement with proposed project or
scoping, note your.proposed revisions or comments here:
-Pane 4-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMLNT OIL
TRANSPOI21'ATION
DIVISION 01;' HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL,
BRANCH
NEW ROUTE, FUQUAY - VARINA LOOP
US 401 SOUTH TO US 401 NORTH AT SR 1107
WAKE COUNTY
R - 2826
FIG. 1
s
August 29, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0061; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Fuquay-Varina Loop, TIP No. R-2826
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify, the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.

Melba McGee
August 29, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10696er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
D
?n
AL?,2g?

w STATED
a4?K ;q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 11, 1996
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office `
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105 WETIRPJ^S GROUP
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 UI?A ER 1-a--N
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wake County, Fuquay-Varina Loop from US 401 South to US 401 North
at SR 1107 (East Academy Street), Federal Aid Project No. STP-401(3),
State Project No. 8.1402701, T.I.P. No. R-2826.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct (part
on new location) the Fuquay-Varina loop from US 401 South to US 401 North. The
proposed project is approximately 2.94 kilometers (1.82 miles) long. According to the
enclosed report the project would impact approximately 0.12 hectares (0.3 acres) of
jurisdictional wetlands, but recent design refinements resulted in avoiding all impacts to
the wetlands.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply
to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Department of
Environmental Management, for their review.

.i s
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844, Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Marc L. Hamel, P & E Project Planning Engineer
Fuquay-Varina Loop
From US 401 South to US 401 North
at SR 1107 (East Academy Street)
Wake County,
Federal Aid Number STP 401 (3)
State Project Number 8.1402701
T.I.P. Number R-2826
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
at S H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?`?-
Da a cholas L. Graf,,P.E.
givision Administrator, FHWA
Fuquay-Varina Loop
From US 401 South to US 401 North
at SR 1107 (East Academy Street)
Wake County,
Federal Aid Number STP 401 (3)
State Project Number 8.1402701
T.I.P. Number R-2826

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
4c ?Z. ?? -
Marc Hamel
Project Planning Engineer
Teresa Hart
Project Planning Unit Head ?.k
` CAF0''`',?
??,???'' ESSip' ?'
?pE Oy9 9
' f SEAL
// 7 t
Richard B. Davis, P. E.- Assistant Ma ag r z ; 6944
Planning and Environmental Branch '•:.tiG! NEEoo'J
tiq •........ ?P
9D B.
t?ttfiHNitsS'??
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. TYPE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Historical Resume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
III. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Purpose of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . 3
1. Projected Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Benefits to State Region and Community. . . . . . . . 5
IV. EXISTING INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Characteristics of Existing Facility
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied . . . . . . . 5
2. Pavement Width and Shoulders . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Roadside Interference . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Type of Roadside Development . . . . . . . . 6
8. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature. . . . . . . . 6
9. Restricted Sight Distance. . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Structures 6
11. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control 6
12. Speed Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
13. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. General Location
? 7
B. Project
Length of Proposed 7
C. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
E. Right-of-Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
F. Access Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
G. Intersection Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
H. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Roadway Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Drainage Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VI.
VII.
I. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
J. Sidewalks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
K. Bicycle Faci 1 ities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
L. Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
M. Special Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
N. Project Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
0. Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. Public Transportation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . 9
B. No-Build Alternative .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Alignment Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. . . . . . . . 10
A. Social Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Land Use and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Relocations . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . 12
a. Historic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 12
b. Archaeological Resources. . . . . . . . . . 12
B. Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Hazardous Waste Materials. . . . . . . . . . 21
C. Air and Noise Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . 27
2. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction
Noise Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
APPENDIX
Environmental Commitments
High Quality Water (HQW) erosion control measures will be implemented
during the construction of the project.
2. Best Management Practices will be adhered to.
3. The Town of Fuquay-Varina is entering into agreement with NCDOT to
have sidewalks installed along Academy Street. NCDOT will be
reimbursed for this addition to the project scope.

Categorical Exclusion
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the FHWA
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to construct (part on
new-location) the Fuquay-Varina Loop in Wake County from US 401 South
to US 401 North (see Figures 1 & 2). The proposed improvements
consist of widening the existing SR 1107 (East Academy Street) and
SR 2768 (Judd Street) to an adequate two-lane, 7.2 meter (24-foot)
facility with 0.6 (2-foot) paved shoulders. A 2.4 meter (8-foot)
total usable shoulder width is proposed. A two-lane 7.2 meter
(24-foot) roadway with 0.6 meter paved shoulders is also recommended
for the new location section from SR 2770 (Angier Road) to US 401
South (Section B, See Figure 2). The proposed project is
approximately 2.94 kilometers (1.82 miles) in length, and the current
total estimated cost is $ 2,125,000. The estimated cost in the
1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is $ 1,735,000.
2. Summar of Environmental Im acts - The proposed project will have a
positive overall impact on t e area by providing a safer alternative
to the existing congestion on US 401 through Fuquay-Varina, while
providing improved access to the surrounding area. The recommended
alternative involves no residential relocations or business
relocations. Neals Creek will be crossed by the project.
Approximately 0.12 hectare (0.3 acre) of wetlands will be impacted.
Strict sedimentation and erosion control measures will be enforced.
No impacts to rare or protected species are anticipated. No impacts
to sites eligible for or listed on the National Register will be
involved. Nine residences along the project are expected to
experience an increase in exterior noise levels, however none will
require noise abatement measures.
3. Alternatives Considered - Due to utilization of existing roadways in
Section A, an t Fe surrounding development, alternative alignments
were only considered on the new-location segment. The alternative
proposed on new-location was chosen to minimize project length (and
hence minimize impacts), cross Neals Creek at an angle to minimize
wetlands impacts at the site with least potential impacts, and
minimize impacts to the surrounding development (see Figure 2). A
public transportation alternative was eliminated as there is no
transit system in place or proposed in Fuquay-Varina. The "Do
Nothing" alternative was considered and rejected because of the need
to increase safety, minimize pedestrian conflicts, and decrease
traffic congestion on US 401. Due to the projected traffic volumes,
a two-lane facility will accommodate projected traffic volumes.
4. Coordination - Several Federal, State, and local agencies were
consulted in the preparation of this document. They are listed
below. Responses were received and considered during the preparation
of this assessment by agencies marked with an asterisk.
*U.S. Dept. of Interior-Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Division of Emergency Management
N.C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
N.C. Dept. of Human Resources
N.C. Dept. of Public Instruction
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*Division of Parks and Recreation
*Division of Environmental Health
*Division of Forest Resources
*Division of Land Resources
*Division of Water Quality Planning
Mayor of Fuquay-Varina
Wake County Commissioners
Region M Council of Governments
5. Actions Required b Other Agencies - It is anticipated that the
construction for this project will be permitted under a Nationwide
Permit (33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)) for taking of less than 10 acres. A
401 Water Quality Certification will be required from DEHNR. Due to
the limited amount of infringement, mitigation of the disturbed
wetland area will be restricted to the strict use of Best Management
Practices (BMP's) in the area of impact, though final decisions are
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
The Town of Fuquay-Varina is entering into an agreement with
NCDOT to have a sidewalk and curb and gutter installed along the
north side of the realigned Academy Street. The Town of
Fuquay-Varina will reimburse NCDOT for this addition to the scope of
the project.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Categorical Exclusion
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative
Action, Categorical Exclusion.
NCDOT proposes to construct the Fuquay-Varina Loop in Wake County
from US 401 South to US 401 North at SR 1107 (East Academy Street) part on
new-location (see Figures 1 & 2). The project is approximately 2.94
kilometers (1.82 miles) in length, and will provide a two-lane, 7.2 meter
(24-foot) pavement with 0.6 meter (2-foot) paved and 2.4 meter (8-foot)
total shoulders.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
construct the Fuquay-Varina Loop from US 401 South to US 401 North at East
Academy Street (SR 2768) in Wake County (see Figure 2). The current
estimated cost of the project is $2,675,000. The proposed project is to
construct a two-lane facility on new-location from US 401 South to just
east of SR 2770. The recommended cross-section is a two-lane, 7.2 meter
(24-foot) facility with 0.6 meter (2-foot) paved shoulders. A 2.4 meter
(8-foot) total usable shoulder width is proposed from US 401 South to
Angier Road (SR 2770). Additionally, Judd Street (SR 2768) and East
Academy Street (SR 1107) will be upgraded to a standard 7.2 meter
(24-foot) facility with paved shoulders. A 0.6 meter (2-foot) paved
shoulder width is proposed for SR 2768, and a 0.6 meter (2-foot) paved
shoulder width on Judd Street. A 2.4 meter (8-foot) total usable shoulder
width is proposed for both sections.
The total project is approximately 2.94 kilometers (1.82 miles) in
length. These improvements will provide a two-lane Loop alternative to
the congestion and delays associated with existing US 401 through
Fuquay-Varina.
B. Historical Resume
Project R-2826 was initiated as an Federal Environmental Assessment.
After receiving and reviewing input from contributing agencies, and
consultation with the the Federal Highway Administration, it was decided
that a Categorical Exclusion (CE) would be more appropriate for the
project. This decision was based on the proposed improvements involving
no significant environmental impacts.
This project will not involve any changes to planned land use, and it
conforms to the approved thoroughfare plan for the area. Input requested
for the project reveals no significant impacts to natural resources or
water quality, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
requested no surveys for either historic structures or archaeological
resources (see letter in Appendix). Additionally, existing traffic
patterns in the study area indicate utilization of other routes by
motorists to bypass US 401 through the town center. The new location
section of the project will remove traffic from the residential streets
now being used to access Judd Street and East Academy Street.
This project was initiated to divert traffic from the existing US 401
through the Town of Fuquay-Varina to ease congestion and improve safety. A
Fuquay-Varina US 401 Bypass is also indicated on the current Fuquay-Varina
Thoroughfare Plan, and when constructed will divert a major portion of the
US 401 traffic around the southeast side of town. Currently US 401 South
connects Raleigh with areas in southern Wake County and points further
south such-as Lillington and Fayetteville.
The 1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for constructing a two-lane facility, part on new location. Right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1995, and construction is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1996. The TIP includes a cost estimate
of $1,735,000 for the project, including $110,000 for right of way, and
$1,625,000 for construction. The current estimated cost of the
recommended improvements is $2,125,000, including $275,000 for right of
way costs, and $1,850,000 for construction costs. The difference between
the TIP estimate and the current cost estimate of the proposed project is
$390,000.
A Citizen's Informational Workshops was held in Fuquay-Varina on
August 23,1994 by NCDOT representatives to present the proposed project to
the public and to obtain comments and suggestions about the anticipated
improvements. Approximately 20 people attended this workshop. There was
no public opposition to the project, and local officials support the
project.
III. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Purpose of Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide an alternative to
the existing 2-lane (US 401) through the town of Fuquay-Varina. The
project is also needed to increase traffic mobility and enhance safety.
The existing US 401 route is currently used by motorists traveling
north/south through Wake County in the Fuquay-Varina area. It also is an
important thoroughfare for internal traffic movements in town. US 401 has
good alignment, but is heavily used with numerous delays and pedestrian
conflicts in the town center. Future projected traffic increases will
further degrade mobility and safety. Therefore, improvements are
immediately warranted to accommodate traffic growth and insure safety.
B. Thoroughfare Plan
Existing US 401 is designated as a major thoroughfare (see Appendix,
Figure 3), appearing on the mutually adopted 1991 Fuquay-Varina
Thoroughfare Plan. The two-lane Fuquay-Varina Loop also appears as a major
proposed thoroughfare, and the two-lane cross section proposed is in
conformance with this plan. The construction of this project will be a
step toward the implementation of this Thoroughfare Plan. The existing US
401 appears on the County Functional Classification System as a Minor
Arterial, and East Academy Street appears as a Minor Collector. Judd
street also appears as a Rural Local facility. The Fuquay-Varina Loop
will be designated as a Rural Major Collector on the County Functional
Classification System when completed.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
1. Projected Traffic Volumes
It is anticipated that traffic volumes will range from a low of
6,400 vehicles per day (vpd) near Angier Road (SR 2770), to a high of
11,400 vpd at the north end of the project in the year 2020. The
1995 traffic volumes on the existing route range from a low of 2800
vpd near Angier Road to 6000 vpd at the north terminus. Projected
traffic volumes along the project, design hour data, and truck
percentages are shown in Figures P-1 and P-2 in the Appendix.
2. Capacity Analysis
The concept of levels of service is defined as a qualitative
measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream,
and their perception by motorists and/or passengers. A
level-of-service definition generally describes these conditions in
terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver,
traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety.
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for
which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter
designations, from A to F, with level-of-service A representing the
best operating conditions and level-of-service F the worst. In
general, the various levels-of-service are defined as follows for
uninterrupted flow facilities:
Level-of-service A represents free flow. Individual users are
virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream.
Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic
stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and
convenience provided to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is
excellent.
Level-of-service B is in the range of stable flow, but the
presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be
noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively
unaffected, but there is a slight decline in freedom to maneuver
within the traffic stream from LOS A. The level of comfort and
4
convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A, because the
presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect individual
behavior.
Level-of-service C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the
beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual
users become significantly affected by interactions with others in
the traffic stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the
presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream
requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general
level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.
Level-of-service D represents high-density, but stable, flow.
Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver
and pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and
convenience. Small increases in traffic will generally cause
operational problems at this level.
Level-of-service E represents operating conditions at or near
the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively
uniform value. Freedom to maneuver in the traffic stream is extremely
difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or
pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and
convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian
frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually
unstable, because small increases in flow of minor perturbances
within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns.
Level-of-service F is used to define forced or breakdown flow.
This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a
point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues form
behind such locations. Operations within the queue are characterized
by stop and go waves, and they are extremely unstable. Vehicles may
progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then
be required to stop in cyclic fashion. Level-of-service F is used to
describe the operating conditions within the queue, as well as the
point of the breakdown. It should be noted, however, that in many
cases operating conditions of vehicles or pedestrians discharged from
the queue may be quite good. Nevertheless, it is the point at which
arrival flow exceeds discharge flow which causes the queue to form,
and level-of-service F is an appropriate designation for such points.
A capacity analysis was performed for the proposed two-lane loop
based upon projected traffic volumes for the years 1995, and 2020.
These analyses indicate that the existing facility operates at LOS B
in 1995. With the Fuquay-Varina Loop project completed, it is
estimated that the facility will operate at level of service D or
better in the design year. Based on this capacity analysis, the
proposed Fuquay-Varina Loop will allow traffic to operate at
acceptably through the design year.
5
D. Benefits to State, Region, and Community
The provision of the Fuquay-Varina Loop will relieve congestion
on the heavily traveled US 401 by providing an attractive alternative
for north/south through traffic wishing to avoid the congestion in
the downtown area.
The improved access to the area southeast of Fuquay-Varina,
savings in operating costs, reduced accidents, reduced travel times,
and the general improvement in the ease and convenience of travel
will benefit the state and region as well as the local community.
IV. EXISTING INVENTORY
A. Characteristics of Existing Facility
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The total length of Academy Street (SR 1107 to be upgraded is
approximately 0.48 kilometers (0.3 miles). The section of Judd
Street (SR 2768) to be upgraded in this project is approximately 1.93
kilometers (1.2 miles).
2. Pavement Width and Shoulders
The basic cross section for existing Academy Street (SR 1107) is
a 7.2 meter (24-foot) two-lane roadway with 0.6 meters (2-foot) paved
shoulders. On Judd Street (SR 2768) the existing pavement is a 6.6
meter (22-feet) roadway, with 1.2 meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders.
3. Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along SR 1107 (East Academy
Street) and SR 2768 (Judd Street) is 18 meters (60 feet). Existing,
new-location right-of-way deeded to NCDOT by the Town of
Fuquay-Varina is 21 meters (70 feet) in width.
4. Utilities
Utility conflicts in conjunction with the project are
anticipated to be low:
5. Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks along the routes to be utilized
for the proposed Fuquay-Varina Loop.
The Town of Fuquay-Varina is entering into an agreement with
NCDOT to have a sidewalk provided along Academy Street in conjunction
with this project.
6
6. Roadside Interference
Roadside interference is light along the project, with only
signs, mailboxes, and utility poles in the area.
7. Type of Roadside Development
Development along the project is predominantly sparse
residential and farmland, with small businesses and offices near
US 401 North.
8. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The horizontal curvature on the project is generally good, and
the road is constructed through slightly rolling terrain.
9. Restricted Sight Distance
There are no areas where roadway geometry limits sight distance
when traveled at the posted speed.
10. Structures
There are no existing bridge structures on the studied section
of East Academy and Judd Streets.
11. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
Listing from south to north (see Figure 2), roads intersecting
the proposed Loop at-grade are as follows:
Route/Name
US 401 South
Angier Road (SR 2770)
Holland Road (SR 2767)
Old Honeycutt Road (SR 3736)
US 401 North
Type of Control
Proposed Signal
Stop Sign
Stop Sign
Stop Sign
Signal
12. Speed Zones
The speed limit on East Academy Street is 56 kph (35 mph) near
US 401 North, rising to 73 kph (45 mph) near, and continuing onto
Judd Street.
13. School Bus Data
Busses utilize twice a day during the school year.
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. General Location
TIP Project R-2826 is located in southern Wake County, and
proposes to construct a Fuquay-Varina Loop (see Figure 1). The
proposed project commences at US 401 South and terminates at US 401
North.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Length of Proposed Project
The length of the proposed project is approximately 2.94
kilometers (1.82 miles).
Design Speed
The project will be designed for a design speed of 80 kph
(50 MPji). Design speed is a correlation of the physical features of
a highway which influence vehicle operation and reflects the degree
of safety and mobility desired along a highway. Design speed is not
to be interpreted as the recommended or posted speed.
Cross Section
The proposed cross section is a two-lane, 7.2 meter (24-foot)
pavement with 0.6 meter (2-foot) paved shoulders. A 2.4 meter
(8-foot) total usable shoulder width is proposed. While a 4-foot
paved shoulder is indicated by NCDOT policy guidelines for the
portion of the project north of Holland Road, sections of this have
been previously curb and guttered. Due to the Town's stated plans to
eventually curb and gutter this entire section, a 2-foot paved
shoulder is justified on a continuity basis.
Right of Way
Right of way width proposed for the existing location sections
is 24 meters (80 feet). Existing, new-location right-of-way deeded to
NCDOT by the Town of Fuquay-Varina is 21 meters (70 feet) in width.
Right-of-way on the new location section crossing Neals Creek widens
to 45 meters (150 feet) to accommodate, construction on this rolling
terrain.
Access Control
No control of access is planned along the project.
G. Intersection Treatment
All intersections with existing roads will be at-grade. At the
southern terminus of the project, the US 401 South/Fuquay Varina Loop
intersection will have a discreet westbound left-turn lane. All
other intersections are to be 2, two-lane roadways intersecting.
These proposed configurations will give adequate levels-of-service
with stop sign control in the design year with the exception of the
US 401 South intersection. Consideration for signalization of this
intersection will be made
8
after construction is completed to evaluate the ultimate signal
design. Likewise, before the design year it may be desirable to
signalize one or more of the remaining intersections to improve
service for minor-street left-turn movements.
H. Structures
1. Roadway Structures
There are no roadway structures planned in conjunction with
this project.
2. Drainage Structures
One box culvert will be required to carry the bypass over
Neals Creek.
1. Parking
Parking is not to be provided for or allowed along the project.
J. Sidewalks
The Town of Fuquay-Varina is entering into an agreement with
NCDOT to have sidewalks and curb and gutter provided along Academy
Street in conjunction with this project. The town will reimburse
NCDOT for this work.
K. Bicycle Facilities
It was determined by the NCDOT Bicycle Coordinator that no
special accommodations for bicycles are needed for this project.
This facility is not designated as a bicycle route.
L. Landscaping
No special landscaping is proposed by NCDOT in conjunction with
this project.
M. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated that the project will be authorized under a
Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5)(a)(26). A general 401 Water Quality
Certification will be required from the N.C. Department of
Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources.
N. Project Terminals
The southern terminal of the project is existing US 401 South,
approximately 215 meters (700 feet) south of Arnold Drive. US 401 has
a two-lane roadway with 12-foot lanes at this point.
The northern terminal of the project is the multi-lane section
of East Academy Street (SR 1107) near US 401 North. The multi-lane
section is 42 feet wide, and is striped for three lanes.
0. Cost Estimates
Right of Way $ 275,000
Construction $ 1,850,000
Total $ 2,125,000
Relocations None
Construction cost includes engineering and contingencies.
Right-of-way cost includes acquisition and utility costs.
VI. ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives for the project were considered fn the preparation
of this document. A summary of each alternative is as follows:
A. Public Transportation Alternative
This alternative was considered, but rejected as no public
transit service exists in Fuquay-Varina. The privately owned
automobile is the major form of transportation for residents. The
development of a public transportation system is not considered to be
a prudent alternative to the construction of the Fuquay-Varina Loop.
B. No-Build Alternative
The "no-build" alternative was considered, but rejected since
the project will provide a safe, more efficient route in this area.
The "no-build" alternative serves as a comparison or base for the
build alternatives. Due to existing and future projected traffic
demands, the "no-build" alternative would result in unacceptable,
progressively deteriorating levels of service on US 401 and local
streets. Therefore this alternative is not recommended.
C. Alignment Alternatives
1. Existing Location - Due to the suitability of the existing
roadways for upgrading, and the surrounding development, no
alternatives were studied to the existing location widening
proposed. East Academy Street (SR 1107) and Judd Street
(SR 2768) are to be retained, resurfaced, and widened as needed
to provide- a 7.2 meter (24-foot), two-lane pavement with
.6 meters (2-foot) paved and 2.4 meter (8-foot) total shoulders.
Minor realignment at the existing East Academy/Judd Street
intersection will be required to allow for logical traffic
movements.
2. New Location - For the segment from Angier Road (SR 2770) to
US 401 South, alternative alignments were studied. The
recommended alignment provides the most direct route (minimizing
acreage impacts), crosses Neals Creek at an angle to minimize
10
wetland impacts, avoids impacts to a small cemetery located
along the alignment, and utilizes the majority of right-of-way
dedicated to NCDOT by the Town of Fuquay-Varina.
An alternative alignment was studied that had the same
termini, but swung further south than the recommended alignment.
This was discarded due to greater impacts in all areas than the
recommended alternative. Likewise, a more northerly alternative
was discarded due to extensive residential housing development.
The Fuquay-Varina Loop/US 401 South intersection is located
at the point with least disturbance to existing development,
while minimizing natural resources impacts.
This proposed loop is not planned or designed to
accommodate future multi-laning at this time. It is anticipated
that the proposed US 401 Bypass of Fuquay-Varina will
accommodate future traffic growth and demand (see Figure 3).
VII. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use and Planning
a. Status of Local Planning
The proposed improvement is
of the Town of Fuquay-Varina.
planning program which is based
Town also enforces a zoning
regulations.
located within the jurisdiction
The Town has an established
on its 1989 Land Use Plan. The
ordinance an-F-subdiv? on
b. Existing Land Use
The predominant land use in the vicinity of the project is
agriculture, with some woodlands in the vicinity of SR 2770
(Angier Road). However, new residential development is
occurring in the area, particularly along Judd Road.
The US 401 project terminus is located among single family
residences, both fronting US 401 and a subdivision immediately
north of the proposed alignment. The Town.of Fuquay-Varina has
previously acquired the right-of-way for the project in this
area and deeded it to the NCDOT.
Commercial and institutional land uses dominant the
northern terminus at SR 1107 East Academy Street. The
Fuquay-Varina Town Hall is located in this portion of the
project, near the Sunset Plaza Shopping Center fronting US 401
North. A branch office of Wake County Human Resources is under
construction on East Academy.Street near its intersection with
SR 2768.
11
C. Future Land Use
According to the Land Use Plan, the existing thoroughfares
in Fuquay-Varina are not adequate to handle the existing and
proposed new residential development expected in the town. The
plan advocates the construction of a collector route than would
allow some traffic to avoid using US 401 and NC 55 through the
center of town. The proposed loop road would satisfy this need
for traffic moving to and from the Raleigh area.
The proposed loop road serves as a portion of the boundary
for the "central development area" of the Town. This comprises
the central business district, where both commercial and
residential land uses will remain. New development of a higher
density than will be encouraged outside of the central
development area will be.permitted.
The Land Use Plan indicates that industrial development is
designated for the area immediately east of SR 1007 and the
abandoned railroad corridor. Medium density residential
development is called for in the remaining area south and east
of the proposed roadway. Mixed use development, including
residential and other uses is designated for the area nearest
the center of Fuquay-Varina west of the proposed loop road.
The Town's zoning ordinance conflicts to some degree with
the Town's Land Use Plan. For example, the area designated for
industrial use in the Land Use Plan is currently zoned for
residential development. Although most of the land in the
vicinity of the proposed project is zoned for residential
development, as called for in the Land Use Plan, the densities
permitted in the zoning ordinance are generally lower than those
called for in the Land Use Plan. The zoning ordinance also
permits commercial development at the intersection of US 401 and
East Academy Street, and well as the new roadway's intersection
with US 401 south.
The Town has not adopted greenway plans at this time.
d. Farmland
. The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all
federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime and important farmland soils.
Land which has been developed or is committed to urban
development by the local governing body is exempt from the
requirements of the Act. The Town of Fuquay-Varina has zoned
the entire project area for residential or commercial
development. Development of the area.is also supported in the
Town's Land Use Plan. Therefore, no further consideration of
farmland impacts is required.
12
2. Relocations
It is not anticipated that any residences or businesses will
need to be relocated in conjunction with the project.
3. Public Facilities
No public facilities will be adversely impacted along the
proposed project site.
4. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Historic Architecture
As a part of the environmental studies conducted by NCDOT,
the historic architectural resources present in the area of
potential effect (APE) of the undertaking must be identified and
evaluated with reference to the National Register of Historic
Places criteria for evaluation. If any properties in the APE
are determined to be included in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register then additional compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act is required.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 as amended 16 U.S.C. Section 470f requires Federal agencies
to take into account the effects of their undertakings on
properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places, and to afford the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
As part of the process for identifying significant historic
architectural resources located in the APE, the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted. On September 14, 1994
the SHPO replied with the information that there are no
properties either included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register located in the general area of the project.
As a result of this determination, the SHPO recommended no
historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
(See letter in the Appendix).
This finding that there are no properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register located in the
APE of the undertaking concludes compliance with all relevant
laws and regulations addressing historic architectural resources
for the project.
b. Archaeological Resources
Because of the location and topographic situation of the
project area, it is unlikely that any archaeological sites which
may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction.
13
The SHPO recommended that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in conjunction with this project, in a letter dated
September 14, 1994.
B. Environmental Effects
1. Introduction
The purpose of this section is to inventory, catalog and
describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed action. This section also attempts to identify and estimate
the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these
resources. Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only
in the context of existing preliminary design concepts. If design
parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations may
need to be conducted.
Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of the study
area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map
(Fuquay-Varina), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map, NCDOT aerial
photographs of project area (1:400) and Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) soil maps of Wake County. Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Wake County. Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area
was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of
protected and candidate species and the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist (Gerard Nieters) during the week of July
7, 1994. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using a
variety of observation techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), identifying characteristic signs of
wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory studies for
aquatic organisms were conducted using tactile searches. Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are
discussed below. Soils and availability of water directly influence
composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic
community.
14
a. Soils and Topography
Wake County lies in the piedmont physiographic province. The
topography of Wake County is characterized by moderately sloping
hills with associated bottomland floodplains. The project area is in
an agricultural, rural setting that is punctuated by forested land.
Table 1 provides an inventory of specific soil types which occur
in the project area.
Table 1
Soils in the Project Area
MAPPING UNIT SYMBOL % SLOPE HYDRIC CLASS
Goldsboro sandy loam* Go 0-4 -
Herndon silt loam* HrB2 2-6 -
Herndon silt loam* HrC2 6-10 -
Herndon silt loam* HrD2 10-15 -
Norfolk loamy sand NoB2 2-6 -
Orangeburg loamy sand OrB 2-6 -
NOTE: "*" denotes soil with susceptibility to erosion.
Although no hydric soils were mapped a small region of hydric
soil exists west of the intersection of Judd Street (SR 2768) and
Angier Road (SR 2770) and east of a sewer easement, the wetland is
approximately 25.0 m (80.0 ft) wide. The soil list above indicates
those soils that will be impacted in the only area of actual roadway
construction. This proposed corridor extends from US 401 south to
the intersection of Angier Road (SR 2770) and Judd Street (SR 2768).
This distance is approximately 0.87 km (0.55 mi), the remaining 2.24
km (1.45 mi) is primarily along existing roadway, therefore the soils
on this portion of the project will be minimally impacted. It is for
this reason that only the soils from the undisturbed corridor were
listed above.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource
information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water
quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are
also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
i. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The proposed road alignment will traverse Neals Creek, a
tributary of the Cape Fear River. The headwaters of Neals Creek
are divided into two drainages, which are both in Wake County.
15
The first of the headwater regions is isolated approximately 1.6
km (1 mi) west of Fuquay-Varina, approximately 18.5 km (11.5 mi)
northeast of its confluence with the Cape Fear River in Harnett
County. The second primary drainage is approximately 2.1 km
(1.3 mi) north of Holland, and about 19 km (12 mi) northeast of
the same Cape Fear River confluence. The width of the stream
channel is approximately 3 m (10 ft) and the flow rate is
moderate to slow. The depth of water at the time of
investigation varied from 2.5 cm to 30 cm (1 in to 12 inches
respectively). The water was clear and well below the stream
bank capacity during site visitation. Moreover, evidence at the
site suggests regularly high water levels, i.e.. a high water
warning sign on Angier Road (SR 2770).
In addition to variable water levels, an unusual stream bed
substrate was present that consisted of sand/silt with large
proportions of glass fragments and other waste materials. An
ald landfill is located on the floodplain of Neals Creek.
Further investigation of the area by the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit
revealed that the old Fuquay Landfill was sited on SR 2770
(Angier Road) approximately 0.25 mile south of the project.
This landfill will not be affected by the proposed project.
Increased sedimentation from construction equipment and/or
materials could effect the hydrology of the proposed project
area. Many of these effects are directly correlated with
construction activities, so initial impacts of increased
turbidity and sedimentation should be reduced after completion
of the project. Although the construction disturbance is
commonly referred to as short-term, the potential does exist for
these effects to be long lived if the disturbance is extensive.
ii. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Neals Creek has
a classification of "C" in the project area. This
classification denotes that the primary use of the water
resource is that of aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1 mile) of project study area.
iii. Water Quality
The Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes
in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass
are reflections of water quality.
16
BMAN data has been gathered for Neals Creek at State Road
1403 in Harnett County, approximately 6.5 km (4 mi) downstream
from the proposed realignment. The bioclassification given was
good-fair.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. Both contact and non-contact cooling
water and condensate are legally discharged by Angus Fire Armour
Corporation into Neals Creek approximately 6.5 km (4 mi)
downstream from the proposed project.
iv. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to the waters of Neals Creek, resulting
from construction-related sedimentation, include decreases of
dissolved oxygen in the water and changes in temperature, as a
result of vegetation loss and reduction of water clarity.
Alterations of water level, due to interruptions in surface and
groundwater flow and increased concentrations of toxic compounds
from highway runoff during construction are other possible
impacts that will affect water quality on Neals Creek. Strict
enforcement of erosion and sedimentation controls is of the
utmost importance due to the erodibility of those soils found in
close proximity to Neals Creek. Best management practices
(BMP's) are also critical and will be used in minimizing
potential impacts to the project area and downstream as a result
of the project construction.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
This section describes ecosystems encountered in the study area, as
well as, the relationships between fauna and flora within these
ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context
of plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and
discussed. Common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Six distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the
project study area: alluvial forest, upland hardwood forest, upland
pine forest, even-aged pine forest, agricultural, and man dominated.
Transition zones that display characteristics of adjacent communities
are frequently seen between habitat types. These transitional zones
are referred to as ecotones. Due to these gradual variations between
habitats, community boundaries are commonly ill-defined. Many faunal
species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of
terrestrial communities discussed.
17
i. Alluvial Forest
This community is present on a well drained floodplain with
relatively low topographical relief. It is oriented in a
parallel fashion with respect to Angier Road (SR 2770). Canopy
composition consist chiefly of: water oak, sweetgum, red maple,
tulip tree, black walnut, honey-locust, and hackberry. A well
developed subcanopy comprised of saplings of the canopy species,
as well as horse-sugar, red mulberry, and dense thickets of
Chinese privet is also present in this community.
The herbaceous and vine layers of this community consists
of morning glory, impatiens, poison ivy, Virginia creeper, and
Japanese honeysuckle.
Animal species that were either seen or identified from
spoor evidence are raccoon, white-tailed deer, and bullfrog.
Other animal species that are typically associated with this
forest are the eastern box turtle, Virginia opossum, eastern
cottontail, woodland vole, eastern mole, southern flying
squirrel, gray squirrel, and the white-footed mouse. Marbled and
slimy salamanders are amphibians that commonly utilize this
habitat type.
In addition to terrestrial animals, there are many avian
species that are known to inhabit this community. The red-eyed
vireo, ovenbird, wood thrush, red-shouldered hawk, rufous-sided
towhee, blue-gray gnatcatcher, and barred owl characteristically
utilize this habitat for either foraging or nesting purposes.
ii. Upland Hardwood Forest
The Alluvial Forest gives way to a mixed Upland Hardwood.
Forest as elevations rise above the floodplain. It is
characterized by moderately sloping and well drained soils.
This habitat type is sporadically present along the proposed
alignment west of Angier Road (SR 2770). The representative
canopy species present in this forest type are southern red oak,
tulip tree, red maple, sweetgum, and water oak. A subcanopy was
also observed, comprised of mockernut hickory, American holly,
dogwood, sassafras, and sourwood. A somewhat poorly developed
herbaceous and vine layer is present on a thin litter layer
covering the forest floor. In this stratum Saint John's-wort,
southern lady fern, partridge berry, wild grape, Japanese
honeysuckle, and blueberry are found to be present.
Although the animal community is comprised of largely the
same species as the bottomland system previously discussed, the
bird community occupying this habitat type varies appreciably.
Some representative species indigenous to this type of natural
system are: red-bellied woodpecker, northern flicker,
ruby-crowned kinglet, northern cardinal, blue jay, red-tailed
hawk, and Carolina wren.
18
iii. Manipulated Pine Forest
As elevation increases from the Upland Hardwood Forest a
Manipulated Pine Forest exists consisting of two distinct
strata. This managed forest type is commonly referred to as a
shelterwood. Approximately 25 trees per acre (62 trees per
hectare) were left unharvested from a cutting operation which
took place an estimated 5 years ago. In this habitat the canopy
is comprised of evenly spaced loblolly pine trees between the
ages of 15 and 30 years old, with the majority being younger
than 20 years of age. A dense regenerating understory of
hardwood saplings is comprised of sweetgum, sassafras, sourwood,
blackgum, red maple, water oak, northern red oak, white oak, wax
myrtle, and several species of hickory. A poorly developed
herbaceous layer is sparsely represented by blackberry, dog
fennel, broomstraw, and blueberry. The primary constituents of
this strata are classified as woody vines, and those identified
are: greenbriar, wild grape, and Japanese honeysuckle.
The animal community commonly associated with this habitat
type does not differ substantially from that previously
mentioned due to the wide range of habitats utilized for
foraging and concealed movement. Most animal species known to
be found in the project area are habitat generalists and can
survive in a diverse range of community types. Species
sensitive to dry conditions however, may not be found to utilize
this vegetative community due to its hydric characteristics.
However, due to the specialization qualities of the avian
wildlife the bird community differs from those previously
mentioned. The eastern bluebird, northern cardinal, northern
mockingbird, chimney swift, prothonotary warbler, American
robin, and northern bobwhite quail were identified in the area.
Other species that utilize this habitat traditionally are the
indigo bunting, blue grosbeak, white-throated sparrow, and the
American kestrel.
iv. Immature Even-aged Pine Forest
The vegetative composition of this habitat type consists of
a canopy and herbaceous layer. The canopy is loblolly pine with
interspersed water oak and black cherry along the outer fringes
of this community. The dominant loblolly pine vegetation is
approximately 10 years old with a moderate accumulation of leaf
litter on the forest floor. The herbaceous plant-life
inhabiting this litter is sparse in it's coverage due to the low
amount of infiltrating sunlight, but beneath openings in the
dense canopy blackberry, spleenwort, dog fennel, Virginia
creeper, broomstraw, various other Poaceous species as well as
shrubs of the rose family are present. This system displays a
relatively early stage of succession where the herbaceous growth
has become out competed by taller vegetation following a major
disturbance. In this case the natural vegetation has
recolonized an abandoned agricultural field.
19
The aforeto mentioned faunal community may also utilize
this habitat, however limited forage is available. This
community's most dominant use would be in the capacity of either
cover or a travel corridor between adjacent agricultural fields
and proximal bedding/denning sites.
The avian community varies from those previously indicated
due to the dense canopy cover with a relatively clear herb
layer. Common residents of this habitat are the rufous-sided
towhee, prairie warbler, red-tailed hawk, Carolina wren,
northern bobwhite quail, and northern cardinal.
V. Man Dominated Communities
These regions of perpetual disturbance have various land
uses. Among these land uses are agricultural practices,
maintained grass lots/roadsides, as well as landscape ornamental
propagation. In the agricultural field soybeans are present.
Various graminoids are also present in adjacent fields as well
as in edge habitat from 1.0 m to 3.0 m (3.2 ft to 10.0 ft)
surrounding the field. This habitat provides little cover for
the indigenous animal community, but high forage value is
present. White-tailed deer, and raccoon tracks were observed
with strong evidence of grazing. Many more members of the
heretofore cited animal community would use this habitat for
foraging purposes not only on the crop provided, but also on
other organisms attracted by the food source. Some of the
predators that might use this strategy are the red-tailed hawk,
red fox, gray fox, black rat snake, common barn-owl, and the
barred owl. The animals that comprise the prey source in this
edge habitat are the northern bobwhite quail, white-footed
mouse, and eastern cottontail. Various additional reptiles,
birds, rodents and even insects are also preyed upon.
In the maintained regions, (residential yards or rural
roadsides) various herbaceous species compose the vegetative
community. The dominant. species present were fescue, Bermuda
grass, plantain, dog fennel, broomstraw, lespedeza, wood sorrel,
milkweed, wild onion, goldenrod, Japanese honeysuckle, clover,
mugwort, aster, and other graminoids. In some areas of this
habitat type ornamental woody vegetation is dominant with
representatives of pecan, black cherry, chinaberry, white pine,
and Chinese privet also present.
Much of the animal community previously discussed is also
represented in this habitat type, excluding those animals
reluctant to travel near human development. The same edge
effect is present in this area as was in the previously
mentioned agricultural field.. That is to say, more food and
diversity, comparatively speaking, is found on the edges of
different community types both by predators as well as
herbivores. The aforeto mentioned species who utilize the
agricultural ecotone for foraging and cover would also be
equally represented in maintained areas. Several bird species
20
can be found in both habitat types. The eastern meadowlark, eastern
bluebird, northern mockingbird, American robin, mourning dove, blue
grosbeak, and the American goldfinch can commonly be found in these
dominated systems.
b. Aquatic Community
A small piedmont perennial stream community, will be impacted by
the proposed project. Physical characteristics of the water body and
condition of the water resource reflect faunal composition of the
aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
This system is a closely-related and overlapping ecotone that
contributes greatly to many aquatic, semi-aquatic, and terrestrial
organisms in and around the aquatic community. Few aquatic organisms
were identified by sight or spoor evidence. The organisms that were
seen were the water strider, whirligig beetle, eastern mosquitofish,
and a species of shiner. The adjacent landfill located on the
floodplain could have some influence on this aquatic system. An
inordinate amount of waste has been transported into the stream bed.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subsequent project will have various impacts
on the biotic resources described. Any construction related
activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact
biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems
affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as
well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of
these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses
to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction.
Estimated impacts are derived using the proposed width of a widening
project for the existing roadway of 3.0 m (10.0 ft). Because of the
sloping topography related to the bottomland system, the new
alignment portion of the project between Angier Road (SR 2770) and
the west edge of cemetery, a proposed impact zone of 46.0 m (150.0
ft) was calculated upon. Along the remaining segment of the new
alignment little topographic relief is present encouraging an impact
zone of 30.0 m (100.0 ft). These parameters are a result of personal
communication with the project engineer. Construction should not
require the entire areas provided; therefore, actual impacts may be
less.
21
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY
Alluvial Forest
Upland Hardwood Forest
Manipulated Pine Forest
Immature Even-Aged Pine Forest
Man Dominated Community
ALTERNATIVE
0.10 (0.3)
0.81 (2.0)
0.40 (1.0)
0.81 (2.0)
1.62 (4.0)
TOTAL IMPACTS
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
3.74 (9.3)
Impacts to the biotic communities of the proposed project area
can be divided into two primary categories. The first being impacts
of currently maintained habitats that are already quite disturbed and
feature relatively low diversity. In this case there will be an
initial stress placed upon the species that inhabit this community,
however long term negative impacts should be minimal due to the large
influence man has exercised already upon this habitat type. The
second category of impacts can be classified as the new alignment
portion of the project, where substantial manipulations of the
indigenous vegetation and area landscape will have to occur. In so
doing many species will be displaced from nesting/denning sites and
likely suffer from physiological stresses associated with their
forced migration. Furthermore, the new corridor will further
fragment an already shrinking amount of faunal habitat. With this
fragmentation comes an additional hazard to the local fauna with the
constant potential of inadvertent deaths associated with the traffic
of the proposed roadway and the travel corridors of the local
wildlife. However, the majority of the species that compose this
area's animal community are edge adapted species which proliferate in
disturbed edge habitats. This region is already largely fragmented,
thus implying that the detrimental affects posed by the road
extension in question will be minimal.
4. JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact
analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and protected
species, and Waters of the United States.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code
of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
22
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
i. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology.
The only wetland region potentially affected by the project
is approximately 0.10 ha (0.3 ac) in size, and the vegetation
present is primarily hydrophytic (i.e.. sweetgum, water oak,
red maple, and hackberry). The soils of the area displayed a
color of 10YR 4/1-2/1, as shown in the Munsell Soil Color
Charts. Evidence of hydrology was also present in the forms of
water saturation to the surface in areas, high water marks on
standing vegetation, and the presence of methane in the soil
profile indicating anaerobic soil conditions. These factors
facilitate a wetland classification in accordance with the 1981
Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map does not classify
this small region of wetlands due to the large scale in which
NWI utilizes. By using the classification system of NWI, this
wetland is PF01E. This classification is interpreted as;
palustrine, forested habitat with broad-leaved, deciduous
vegetation and a moisture regime of seasonal flooding with poor
drainage.
ii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts To Wetlands
The wetland region potentially effected by the proposed
project is approximately 0.10 ha (0.3 ac) in size, and with
stringent construction guidelines it could be further minimized.
Construction of the new roadway could have potential negative
effects on water quality maintenance in the area. As discussed
previously, there is an abandoned landfill associated with this
wetland possibly influencing flood water conveyance,
infiltration, denitrification, water storage, and other
important wetland functions. With disturbance these potential
impacts could be much more widely spread. If the hydric soils
of this region are disturbed, an important stabilizing quality
could be negated causing unwanted impacts on site as well as
downstream. Extreme precautions must be taken in minimizing
disturbance in this habitat in an attempt to maintain the
current conditions, even though they are less than ideal.
iii. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required
23
from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States."
This wetland falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (COE)
and is likely to be authorized by provisions of Nationwide
Permit (NWP) 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 26. This permit authorizes
discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and
isolated waters of the U.S. The conditions which are to be met
for this permit include: The discharge does not cause the loss
of more than 4.05 hectares (10 acres) of waters of the U.S. A
30-day notification to the district engineer is required if the
discharge would cause the loss of waters of the U.S. greater
than one acre and for discharges in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands, the notification must include a delineation
of affected special aquatic sites, again including wetlands.
The discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary
and permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
iv. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The current, preferred roadway design requires an extension
of Judd Street (SR 2768) that will be constructed at SR 2768's
intersection with Angier Road (SR 2770). With this alignment
the wetland will be divided. This region is already the most
disturbed area with the least amount of wetland characteristics.
In the event that this course of action is not possible,
movement of the corridor to the northern edge of the wetland
would also minimize potential negative impacts. Neither
alignment choice will greatly alter the amount of wetland area
affected by the project due to. the consistent, linear
orientation of the wetland. Under NWP#26, no mitigation is
mandated for the area effected by this project, however final
decisions rest with COE.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to
coexist with man. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.
i. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended. As of March 28, 1995, the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Wake County (Table 3). A brief
description of each species characteristics and habitat follows.
24
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Wake County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Haliaeetus bald eagle E
leucocephalus
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Alasmidonta herterodon dwarf-wedged mussel E
Thus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
denotes that no specimens have been reported from Wake County for
more than 20 years.
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (E)
This federally Endangered raptor is found throughout the United
States and northward to the arctic. Nesting in the southeast is
limited primarily to Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and South
Carolina. The birds occur elsewhere in the southeast as migrants, or
rarely as nesting pairs. As an adult, this large raptor displays a
wingspread of about 7 feet; plumage is dark brown with pure white
head and tail. Juveniles of this species are often chocolate brown
to blackish with head and tail changing from brown-to-mottled
white-to-pure white as the bird matures. The Bald eagle is
principally riparian, associated with coasts, rivers and lakes,
usually nesting near bodies of water where they feed. The proposed
project will not effect suitable nesting or feeding resources for
this species.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (E)
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered
locations throughout the southeast. The bird measures 18 to 20 cm
long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 cm. The male has a small
red spot on the each side of the head. Both males and females show a
black cap and stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also
black while the cheeks and under parts are white. Black and white
horizontal stripes are visible on the back.
Nesting habitat is made up of open pine stands (minimum age 60
years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine).
Longleaf pine is most commonly used, but other species of southern
pine are also acceptable. The home range for a clan (a family unit)
averages about 200 acres and includes nesting habitat as well as
foraging habitat. This bird requires pine or mixed pine/hardwood
stands (50 percent or more pine) 30 years or older for foraging.
Foraging habitats must be contiguous with nesting habitat. Existing
pine stands (previously described in this report) were surveyed to
determine habitat suitability for RCW. Pines in these stands range
25
from 10 to 30 years. No cavity trees or RCWs were observed during
the survey. Also, no nesting age stands are contiguous with these
young pine stands. Therefore, no habitat for RCW will be impacted by
the subject project and thus it is concluded that the subject project
will not impact the RCW.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
dwarf-wedged mussel (Alasmidanta heterodon) (E)
This federally Endangered mussel is known from the Neuse and
Tar River drainages in North Carolina. Currently, the only known
populations are in the Little River and Middle Creek in Johnston
County, the upper Tar River in Granville County, and Crooked Creek
and Cedar Creek in Franklin County, however, this species is not
restricted to these drainages. This mussel seems to prefer areas
with deep water and coarse sands, however it has also been seen on
bottoms of gravel or mud, among submersed aquatic plants and near
streambanks underneath overhanging tree limbs. No suitable habitat
for the dwarf-wedged mussel occurs in the study area, because the
water is too shallow and the substrate is too finely textured.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) (E)
This federally Endangered plant is currently known from only 17
locations, 16 of which are in North Carolina. The species usually
occurs on sandy or rocky soils in open woodlands and clearings and
appears to be dependent upon some form of disturbance to maintain the
open condition. Since most natural forms of disturbance (fire, large
herbivore grazing, etc.) have been eliminated, this species is often
found in it's natural habitat in open areas created by railroad and
highway rights-of-way.
Potentially suitable habitat for this species does occur within
the project area. This species has recognizable field
characteristics year-round, thus searches for this plant are not
limited to it's flowering period. A detailed survey for this plant
was conducted during site investigation. Areas of suitable habitat
were searched visually on a plant by plant basis. No individuals of
this species were found within the subject project area during these
searches.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon
and protected species revealed no recorded occurrence of
federally-protected species in or near the project study area.
26
Cape Fear Shiner
The proposed project will impact Neals Creek, a tributary to the
Cape Fear River. The Cape Fear shiner (CFS) is not listed by the
USFWS for Wake County, but has been recorded in Neals Creek
approximately 19 km (12 mi) downstream of the project area, in
Harnett County (Ref.). It is not apparent that Neals Creek has a
sustaining population of the CFS, and that the records of occurrence
are likely accidental (pers. comm. John Alderman NCWRC Wildlife
Biologist Piedmont Project Leader). Additionally, at the proposed
crossing, Neals Creek is small in size and has a sand/silt substrate
with a substantial amount of debris (glass, metal etc.), and is thus
not suitable for the CFS. Given the distance of the US occurrence
from the project area, and the fact that there is not likely a
sustaining population present, project-related impacts to the species
are not likely. The use of High Quality Waters (HQW) erosion control
standards as well a Best Management Practices (BMP's) for protection
of surface waters is recommended to ensure that if a population is
present, it will not be impacted by the proposed action.
Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
If HQW erosion control measures are implemented during the life
of the project is can be concluded that construction of this project
is not likely to impact the Cape Fear shiner.
ii. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 10 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Wake
County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as organisms which are
vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data currently
exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the
North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species state
status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status
of these species may be upgraded in the future.
27
Table 4. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Wake County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
NC STATUS HABITAT
Myotis austroriparius-
Aimophila aestivalis*-
Elliptio judithae
Elliptio lanceolata
Fusconaia masoni
Lasmigona subviridis
Speyeria diana-
Monotropsis odorata-
Nestronia umbellula-
Trillium u+sillum
var. usillum
southeastern bat
Bachman's sparrow
neuse slabshell (mussel)
yellow lance "
atlantic pigtoe "
green floater "
Diana fritillary (bu.fly)
sweet pinesap
nestronia
Carolina trillium
SC Yes
SC No
E No
T No
T No
E No
- Yes
- No
- Yes
E Yes
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Wake County in the
past twenty years;
"-" Species not afforded state protection but listed as Federal
Candidate.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during
the site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A
review of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program rare species and unique habitats revealed no
records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in
or near the project study area.
4. Hazardous Waste Materials
In preparation of this document, one site was identified that
could potentially contain hazardous materials. This site was
thoroughly surveyed by NCDOT staff Environmental Geologists. It was
determined that the site was composed of a limited amount of random
household dumping. The inactive Fuquay Landfill occupies a site
approximately 02.5 mile south of the proposed alignment along Angier
Road (SR 2770), and will not affect this project.
C. Air and Noise Quality
1. Air Quality Analysis
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the
Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide
(CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA
designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03 and
CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were
redesignated as "maintenance" for 03 on June 17, 1994. Section
28
176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and
projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures for Wake County. The Capital Area
1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have been determined to
conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date for the TIP
is July 20, 1995. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is October 4,
1995. The current conformity determination is consistent with the
final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Part 51. There has been no
significant changes n the project's design concept or scope, as used
in the conformity analyses.
An air quality analysis was performed using Mobile 5A and
CAL3QHC for the build condition for the year of 2020. The US 401
South and the Southwest Loop intersection was analyzed with receptors
placed along the anticipated proposed right-of-way of the
intersecting roadways. It was determined that the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (1-hour standard of 35 ppm or the 8-hour
standard of 9 ppm) would not be exceeded. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
2. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
The project proposes the construction of a two-lane facility
from US 401 South at East Academy Street (SR 1107) to US 401 North.
A "worst case" scenario was used in dealing with traffic noise
predictions in the vicinity of the project. The maximum extent of
the 67 Leq and the 72 Leq i s 17.8 meters and 1 ess than 9.3 meters
from the centerline of the proposed roadway, respectively. The
maximum estimated noise level increase along the project is 21 dBA.
Increases of this magnitude are typical on new location projects, due
to the absence of substantial trafic in the existing acoustic
environment. Due to sparse development, only 9 residences are
expected to experience a substantial increase in their exterior noise
levels and two of these also is predicted to approach or exceed the
FHWA NAC. Noise mitigation was considered for the impacted
residences. The horizontal and vertical alignments have been
evaluated to provide a balance between travel needs and other
engineering and environmental parameters. Traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service of the proposed facility. Also, the
project does not have the control of access feature: hence, noise
walls are not a viable alternative.
Noise levels could increase in the area during construction but
will be temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
MH/tp
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NEW ROUTE, FUOUAY - VARINA LOOP
US 401 SOUTH TO US 401 NORTH AT SR 1107
WAKE COUNTY
R - 2826
FIG. 1
< ?I Pic. ?/?., ? `.T? ??-?5? +? • v
r I m (EXTENSION J j woo
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
for the Solomon TOWN OF
END PROJECT
Z z ~'''? 'FU UAY-VARINA`
wCT - r- -- -
US 401 BYPASS ¦¦¦.???'
\ ¦¦¦u¦¦¦
OLL D ROAD
son Q
BE IN PROJECT
? SR 2764
{L1I
?- NORTHCAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
So ??? ?? _? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?... ¦r•'????? - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
¦
Fuquay Varina Loop,
US 401 South To US 401 North
t
f_1(--< at SR 1107 (East Academy Street),
Wake County, 1
R-2826.
°°° °°°° FIGURE 3
lG.i[ • iEE
FUQUAY VARINA LOOP
Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina
1995 ADT
U.S.401 N.
ACADEMY ST
SR1107
10 (6°?Z) a55 10 (P-51 1 i60
14400
2100 16600
r4300
S
O
O
?
O
s
SOE fim 10
0
o ? 1200 SR3736
(400
10 a? go
2900
HOLLAND RD.
SR2767 s,
ANGIER RD.
SK2770
o?
0
U.S.401 S.
0
O
- ?t
e
500
r2400
e
O
E 0
0
\
loo ? 400
J ?
n 200
200 / r
\ 300
300 \ \
Lq?? ?
a
?O o
2600
300?0 $
o ?
0
QQ
FIGURE P-1
R-2826
LEGEND
0000 = vpd
DHV = Design Hourly Volume (%)
D = Directional (%)
-? Direction of D
0.11 Dual Trucks, TTST (%)
am/pm AM or PM Peak
vm
11 60
DHV (2.1) - D
NOTE: DHV & D if not shown
are the same for opposing
leg.
NOT TO SCALE
FUQUAY VARINA LOOP
Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina
2020 ADT
10 µ21 - ss ,o ?;,Z? 11 60
U.S. 401 N.
28500 30300
5200 6800
O
0
1700 so-*
p 10
00 2800 SR3736
r1100
m =? ass 3600
ACADEMY ST. 4200
SR1107
500)
HOLLAND RD.
SR2767
ANGIER RD.
SR2770
U.S. 401 S.
s
O
O
9_ N
ao
s
Proposed
S.W. LOOP
?00
400
_ 3500
,0 122MOI -5s
800 3300
S
O
?= O
0
•o
0
\\
ioo ( 700
- / 400
/ 700
X 400
600 \
by°° 1a
'o
R-2826
LEGEND
0000 = vpd
DHV = Design Hourly Volume (%)
D = Directional (%)
-? Direction of D
(2.1) Dual Trucks, TTST (%)
arn/pm AM or PM Peak
11 pA 1 60
DHV D
NOTE: DHV & D if not shown
are the same for opposing
leg.
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE P-2
M ?' A

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Govemor
Day Pay MCCam secretary
September 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price. Jr.. Director
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of-Transportation..
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State 4/11r?lc Preservation Of icer
SUBJECT: Fuquay-Varina Loop from US 401 South to US 401
North at SR 1107, Wake County, R-2826,
8.1402701, STP-401(3), 95-E-4220-0061
/GE
lP?? O
SEP 1 9 ' 1994
Z
DIVISION OF
?''?? IGHWAYS . 0Qi
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
A comprehensive survey of architectural resources in Wake County was
conducted in 1989-1991. We have conducted a search of our maps and files and
have located the following structures of historical or architectural importance
within the general area of the project:
Judd Road Farm Complex (WA587). East and west sides of SR 2768.
We have reviewed our survey site file for the property and believe the Judd Road
Farm Complex is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
The property has little historical or architectural significance. We recommend that
no historic architectural survey be conducted for the project.
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project area,. it
is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction.
We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
log Fiat Jooes Street - Raleigh, NoRh C olioa 276012807
H. F. Vick
September 14, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
Kelly Lally, Wake County HPC
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 276 ?+Oj v ?O
09-08-94
Sig 1 2 1994 =
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM: DS'JIStGN L. :`"
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS- CHRYS BAGGE FNVIROS`1?
FRANK VICK DIRECTOR
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FUQUAY-VARINA LOOPS FROM
US 401 SOUTH TO US 401 NORTH AT SR 1107 (EAST ACADEMY STREET)
TIP #R-2826
SAI NO 95E42200061 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT.HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS- AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: t ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSs PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
C4C- REGION J
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
IV
*A0A
E:> EHNR
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0061 - Scoping Proposed Fuquay-Varina Loop, Wake
County
DATE: September 1, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the
encouraged to notify
assistance is needed.
attachments
opportunity to respond. The applicant is
our commenting divisions if additional
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co nator
Habitat Conservation Program 1,
DATE: August 23, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for the Fuquay-Varina Loop, from
US 401 South to US 401 North at SR 1107 (East
Academy Street), Wake County, North Carolina, TIP
No. R-2826, SCH Project No. 95-0061.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
NCDOT proposes to improve existing sections of SR 1107
and SR 2768, and construct a on new location a two-lane loop
for US 401 around Fuquay-Varina to the south and east.
At this time NCWRC has no specific recommendations or
concerns regarding this project. However, to help
facilitate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
Memo Page 2 August 23, 1994
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered
Species Program maintains databases for locations
of vertebrate wildlife species. While there is no
charge for the list, a service charge for computer
time is involved. Additional information may be
obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification 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.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
Memo Page 3 August 23, 1994
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Coroiine
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing WEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
Pro ct Number: Due Date:
:? vo 6i z':?
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Time
Regional Office. (statutory time
PERMITS
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions. & sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
1 NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water andlor
I permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
D drscharging into state surface waters.
Water Use Permit
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
technical conference usual
Application 1130 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
priortotthe installation of a be w received and permit issued
Well Construction Permit
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit..
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement NIA
facilities andfor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A NIA
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
F1 Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
ct of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatic
.ration Pollution Control A
Offic
The Setiirna: pro
and Ouality rI control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Po Plan no iford each adtltionalgacre ionalor Part mLust accompany theaplan st 30
rl
clays oeii•re mint, m aw.• . .. •?- _
The Sedimentation pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
Mining Permit
North Carolina Burning Permit
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22
ecimlies in coastal N .C. with organic soils

oil Refining Facilities
jJI Dam Safety Permit
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area
mined greater than one acre must be perrtited. The appropriate bond
must be received before the permit can be issued-
On-site irspr!ction by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit
exc&eos 4 days
On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required If more
than :Eve wares of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
should be requested di least ten days before actual burn is planned."
limit)
--
30---days
(90 days)
90.120 days
(NiA)
30 days
(N!A)
7 days
115 days)
55 days
(90 days)
60 days
(90 days)
60 days
(90 days)
20 days
(30 days)
(30 days)
30 days
(60 days)
1 day
(NIA)
1 day
(N,A)
90.120 days
(NIA)
NIA If pe i =rm, squired, appli:::ion 60 days before ;rigir, construction. 30 days
Applicant mist hire N.C. quaiified engineer to: prepare plans.
inspect cuas-ruction, ceniit construction is =:orying to EHNR approv
ad plans. May also require permit under niosquil.) control program. And (60 (Jays)
a 404 permit from Corps-of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces•
a3ry to ve•ify Hazard Ciassification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac-
company the applicatior;. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
Continued on reverse
g .US
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 29, 1994
Q??
F= F1
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart;7Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0061; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Fuquay-Varina Loop, TIP No. R-2826
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.

P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
August 29, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan. may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification maybe
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10696er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
i
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
August 26, 1994
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Fuquay-Varina Loop
REFERENCE: 95-0061
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for the
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), federally and state-
listed as Endangered, downstream from the proposed project.
Historic records (1962) exist from Kenneth Creek and more
recently from Neills Creek (1986), both within the watershed
draining the project area.
Given the potential occurrence of this species within the project
area, along with possible impacts on aquatic habitats due to
erosion and runoff from the project site or the completed road,
we recommend that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and North
Carolina Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program be contacted
regarding the advisability of conducting a survey for this fish.

Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
August 4, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester
SUBJECT: DOT E/AScoping for Wake County, Fuquay-Varina Loop, from US 401 South
to US 401 North at SR 1107 on New Location
PROJECT: #95-0061 and TIP # R-2826
DUE DATE: 8-29-94
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed project, the Environmental
Assessment should contain the following information concerning the proposed project:
1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production as a
result of new right-of-way purchases and all construction activities.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved
within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber that is to be
removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning during
construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should comply with all laws and
regulations pertaining to debris burning.
Memo to Melba McGee
PROJECT: #195-0061
Page 2
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent
erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way and
construction limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from
construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that
impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances
over the root systems of trees.
We would hope that a route could be chosen that would have the least impact to forest and related
resources in that area.
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File

A\l) i'1 \ l lfl c;\i
Li`• .?LUi\ C?1: I.NVf.L?C)N1\ll.f?! I I.. l-ll.?,\i
[nter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Nam= I ? IJa - ?G?^a ??'
L,i)t117Cy
Type of Project
r--? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
t-J improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
r--} This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
?--J state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Wacer Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet. of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the -shellfis 1 sanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitati Dn Branch at [phone].
?---? The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project produce a mosquito 1) reeding-problem.
t-J For information concerning appropriate r osquito control measures, the applicant -should.
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
r--? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
?-? structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order' to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The :formation. concerning rodent- control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management. Sectiom at (919)
733-6407.
r-? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
?--? requirements for septic. tank installations (as required' under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.).
For information concerning septic tank anc other or-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
r-? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
?-? facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated curing the construction, plans for the water lirle
relocation must be submitted to the Division of En' ironmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street. Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone].
Section/Branch Date
reviewer
~_?• RECEIVED
A.
DEHNR
E
State of North Carolina A(M; 3 1d
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourc
Division of Land Resources
y LAND QUA
James G. )Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS ` --"---C
William W. Cobey. Jr., Secretary G? ir'e?tor_._.....--
Project Number: _ I 1 ?JtJ? J County: W/?/?Cs
Project Name: U
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land=disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is 16cated within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
y The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
H. Gardner
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
?MENT OF Ty
N
7 ?
?ggCH 3 ?$A
1
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
September 6, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
1/L
i
¦
IAApKE
N? O
SAP 0 8 1994
22 pIVISIC^10F ??,J
HIGHWAYS
FNVIRWI?
Subject: Fuquay-Varina Loop, From US 401 South to US 401 North
at SR 1107 (East Academy Street), Wake County, North
Carolina, TIP No. R-2826.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of July 28, 1994 requesting
information from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the above-
referenced project. This report provides scoping information and
is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) calls for improving existing sections of
SR 1107 and SR 2768, and extending on new location a two-lane
loop for US 401 around the south and east sides of Fuquay-Varina.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be
greatly facilitated if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
existing and required additional right-of-way and any areas,
such as borrow areas, which may be affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland
types should follow the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory. This list should also give the
acreage of each wetland type to be affected by the project
as determined by the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing
and constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated
stream channels along with the linear feet of any water
courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each
type which would be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for upland and wetlands
habitat impacts associated with the project. These measures
should include plans for replacing unavoidable wetland
losses.
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after
construction as a direct result of the proposed project
(secondary impacts) and an assessment of the extent to which
the proposed project will add to similar environmental
impacts produced by other, completed projects in the area
(cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered,
threatened, and candidate species which occur in Wake County.
The section of the environmental document regarding protected
species must contain the following information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat
that may be affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR
402.02, on the species and habitat including consideration
of direct, indirect, cumulative effects, and the results of
related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect
any species or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of
potential effects; and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the
Service for listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the
subject of a proposed rule. These species are not legally
protected under the Act or subject to its provisions, including
Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as threatened or
endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the species under the
full protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a
new survey if its status in the project corridor is unknown.
Therefore, it would be prudent for the project to avoid any
adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project. Please continue to advise us of the progress of this
project, including your official determination of the impacts of
this project. If our office can supply any additional
information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely yours,
L.K. "Mike" Gantt
Supervisor
REVISED JULY 26, 1994
Wake County
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Bachman's warbler (Vermivora bachmanii) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2*
Southeastern bat (Mvotis austroriparius) - C2
Diana fritillary butterfly (Speveria diana) - C2
Green floater (Lasmiaona subviridis) - C2
Yellow lance (mussel) (Elliptic lanceolata) - C2
Neuse slabshell (Elliptic yudithae) - C2
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Carolina trillium (Trillium vusillum var. gusillum) - C2
Sweet pinesap (Monotronsis odorata) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.