19970227 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970319

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A LT.19FA
14 110 0
D E N R
January 8, 1998
Wake County
DWQ Project #970227
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, WRP
Mr. Tim Bailey
Town of Cary
PO Box 8005
Cary NC 27512
Dear Mr. Bailey:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill in 0.23 acres
of wetlands and 450 linear feet of waters for the purpose of constructing the Cary Parkway Extension from north of SR
1615 to Evans road, as you described in your application dated October 22, 1997. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This certification allows you
to use Nationwide Permit Number 14 which was issued by the Corps of Engineers April 25, 1997. In addition, you
should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This
approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as modified
below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (: ). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the
attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
We understand that you have chosen to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program in order to compensate for
these impact streams. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R.0500, this contribution will satisfy our compensatory
mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h). According to 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), 450 feet of restoration
will be required. Until the Wetland Restoration Program receives and clears your check in the amount of $56,250 (made
payable to: DENR - Wetland Restoration Program), wetland or stream fill shall not occur. Mr. Ron Ferrell should be
contacted at 919-733-5083 ext. 358 if you have any questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program. You have
one month from the date of this Certification to make this payment. For accounting purposes, this Certification
authorizes the fill of 0.23 acres of non-riparian wetlands and 450 feet of streams in Neuse River and subbasin and
450 feet of stream restoration are required. Please be aware that the Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) rules
require rounding of acreage amounts to one-quarter acre increments (15A 2R.0503(b)).
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Si ly,
Ps.Pton Howar , Jr. P.E.
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Ron Ferrell; Wetland Restoration Program
970227.1tr
NORTH CAROLINA - DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, Cary Parkway DWQ Project # 970227 is authorized to impact the surface
waters of the State of North Carolina as indicated below for the purpose(s) of extension of Cary Parkway. All activities
associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted in accordance with the conditions listed in the attached certification
transmittal letter. THIS CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
AUTHORIZED IMPACTS:
0.23 acres of Class WL wetlands
acres of riparian wetlands
0.23 acres of non-riparian wetlands
acres of Class SWL wetlands
450 linear feet of stream channel
LOCATION: Town of Cary, new Location Cary Parkway Extension from north of SR 1615 to Evans Rd.
COUNTY: Wake
BASIN/SUBBASLN: 030402
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENT
As required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506, and the conditions of this certification, you are required to compensate for the above
impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of wetlands and surface waters as outlined below prior to
conducting any activities that impact or degrade the waters of the state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Programs must be rounded to
one-quarter acre increments according to 15A 2R .0503(b)
acres of Class V?'-_ wetlands
acres of riparian wetlands
acres of non-riparian wetlands
acres of Class SWL wetlands
450 linear feet of stream channel
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is through the payment of a fee
to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2R .0503. If you choose this option, please sign this form and mail it to the
Wetlands Restoration Fund at the address listed below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be sent to you
upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE
NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED BY THE WETLANDS RESTORATION
PROGRAM.
Signature
Date
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
JAN-05-1999 12:16 FROM WITHERS & RAUENEL TO 7339959 P.01
WTI RS A RAVENEL 'En newin & surveying a<?ic:. Aanul[onE With P.O.
f $ f .. Samuel F. Ravene4l.E
111 MacKenan Drive, Cary X C. 27511.9.191469-3340+FAX.,919/467 6008 J_ & cWOK p
. JlnugyE Bmcs,RLS'
January 5, 998 ' Michael E. Dickemon, AM
1VIE'IVIORANI
TO:- Ms' Cyndi Bell, Wetland Scientist
NCDBHNR' Division of Water Quality
MOM Jim Canfield, P.E.
RE: 401 Water Quality Certification For
Cary Parkway Extension. from North of SR 1615 (High House Road) to.
North of SR 1653, (EvansRoad)
KC-DOT Pfoject' 9.8050381 (U-3408)
.. "S Pr*ct #97105 ; .
Ms. Ben, . , .
ThanlGs fQr• taking. the time to meet with us; NCDOT and. the Town, of Cary today regarding tha
401 Water Quality Certification for the Cary Parkway Extension project. This meeting was'
requested by us to determine exactly what we needed to address to obtain the 401 Ceztifioa&n.
The following. two items were cited as conditions to receiving the Certification: .
L DWQ requested iWt uo wcep.holes be allowed At.the Coles Branch crossing. This
crossing .will be by a triple 9' x 8' rcini'breed conorefe box culvert. There' WM ttot
be any weep holes associated with this' culvert except at the bottom of the concrete
endwalls to all eviate groundwater 'hydrostatic pressure.:
The proposed Awature over the 'existing railroad will not have any weep holes
either'. The stormwater will flow in the bridge'gutter to roadway catch basins
'downgrade of the bridge:
.. ' A yment'will be made to.the Wetlands Restoration program for tfie 450' of
o iannel dlsturban ce•• We understand that this. payment .will be $125.00 per linear
fo6t. The owners. of this. project have elected to do this in lieu 6f .a wetlands
mitigation project.
Per our znmfi ig this;.ihorning: we understand that DWQ will be able to issue the 401 Water
Quality Certification for this project based on this information :Please' fax us a copy.of the
Certification at; 467-6008 wboe it is completed. Also, please advise us if you, require additional
information or have .any questions: Thanks for your assistance with this matter. '
TOTAL P.01
State of North Carolina 'T a
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources LTK;TA
•
Division of Water Quality A&4 e
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor F1
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary ED E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 20, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle S(uuvv?epr?krrub e
Through: John Dorne`ya('t'?%"'
From: Cyndi Bell
Subject: State Finding of No Significant Impact for Cary Parkway
Extension from North of Slt 1615 (High House Road) to Evans Road
Wake County
State Project No. 9.8050381, T.I.P. No. U-3408; FHNR #98-0330
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of'
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The project will involve up to 0.4 acre of' fill in wetlands and one
new perennial stream crossing. DWQ offers the following comments based on
the document review:
A) NCDOT has provided the additional stream information requested by DWQ
in our comments on the EA. DOT has provided sufficient evidence to
demonstrate avoidance and minimization of wetlands. The crossing at
Coles Branch will involve 450 linear feet of' stream impacts, which DOT
has acknowledged will require stream mitigation. DOT is reminded that
the Welland Restoration is available to use for stream mitigation for this
project.
B) As this proposed project corridor is located in the Neuse River Basin, it
is crucial that DOT demonstrate avoidance and minimization of wetland
and stream impacts. Section 15A NCAC 02B .0200(1) of T15A: 02B .0233,
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy: Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Areas states:
Roads, bridges, stormwater management facilities, ponds, and utilities
may be allowed where no practical alternative exists. These structures
shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to have minimal
disturbance, to provide maximum nutrient removal and erosion
protection, to have the (cast adverse effects on aquatic life and habitat,
and to protect. water quality to the maximum extent practical through
the use of best management. practices.
DOT is encouraged to minimize wetland and stream impacts as much as
possible during the final design of this project.
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
M Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% poet consumer paper
N
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
November 20, 1997
Page 2 of 2
C) As this project is located within the Neusc River Basin, we recommend
implementation of Hiqh Quality Storm Erosion Control Measures and
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 04B .0024) for the
entire project corridor. Also, Hazardous Spill Catch Basins should be
placed at the Coles Branch crossing.
D) We encourage NCDOT to investigate whether or not temporary fill will
be required to build haul roads and place culverts. We suggest that DOT
include this information with the permit application. DOT is advised
that full restoration (including removal of fill material and
planting/monitoring of vegetation) of temporary fill areas exceeding
one acre will be required in accordance with Condition #4 of General
Certification 3114 (Nationwide Permit 33) All temporary fill material
must be removed from construction access areas. On May 27, 1997, DWQ
submitted a draft restoration policy for temporary impact areas to DOT.
We anticipate sending this policy to Public Notice before the end of
November 1977 and finalizing it prior to construction of this
project.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the FONSI, an General
Certification 3103 may be applicable to this project. Final permit authorization
will require formal application by NCDOT and written concurrence from DWQ.
Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence of
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the extent
practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation whe.c necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the FONSI. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeycr, COE, Raleigh
Howard Hall, FWS
David Cox, WRC
U3408FONSI.DOC
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
244 West Millbrook Road ¦ Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 ¦ [phone] ¦ Fax [phone]
i, t'
October 22, 1997
i
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office N.C. Division of Water Quality - DEHNR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: Mr. John Dorney RECEIVED
Attn: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer 4401 Reedy Creek Road
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd., Suite 120 Raleigh, NC 27607 OCi 2 4 1997
Raleigh, NC 27615 ENVIRONMENT
. , C?NCES
Dear Sirs:
The purpose of this letter is to request Nationwide Permits 13 & 14, and Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for the project known as U-3408 Cary Parkway Extension. The project
corridor is to be acquired by the Town of Cary, NC and is located near the Towns of Cary and
Morrisville, NC (Wake County). The site is shown on the enclosed plans and, NC, USGS Topo
Quad site vicinity map.
It will be necessary to impact 0.396 acres (see map) of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. above
headwaters for the placement of the proposed road. Six pipe and fill crossings and channel
improvements are proposed under Nationwide Permits 13 and 14. Each of these impacts exceeds
the 150 linear foot limits. However, based on the USGS Quadrangle for Cary, N.C. and field
verification by a biologist, five of the crossings can be classified as intermittent streams and not
subject to mitigation under North Carolina DWQ Wetland Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)).
Coles Branch is a perennial stream subject to mitigation. This mitigation can be accomplished
through the Wetlands Restoration Program or the NCDOT mitigation bank. It is our
understanding that this is linear project and that each crossing is single and complete.
2orz e?K
A I ? ?`;e 1 d v?`tecl .7
A comprehensive stream mitigation proposal will be submitted to DWQ upon conditional issuance
of the 401 prior to construction. A federal wetland permit for this project has been received from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the provisions of Nationwide Permit Number 14 of
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The permit was
issued on April 25, 1997, with an Action ID 199700542.
Continent: "DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland
sources in the construction contract awarded for this project. This should also be
included in a list of environmental commitments in the-FONSI."
Please call if you have questions or require further information. If you decide to perform a site
visit, please contact us so we can arrange for someone to accompany you.
Sincerely,
Bob Zarzecki, Biologist
Soil/Site Evaluation ¦ Mapping and Physical Analysis ¦ Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation ¦ Environmental Audits
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Evaluation and Design
lm) II)
Corps Action ID 199700542
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): 13 & 14
Pre-Construction Notification Application
For Nationwide Permits that require:
1) Notification to the Corps of Engineers
2) Application for Section 401 Certification
3) Coordination with the NC Division of Coastal Management
Send the original and (I) copy of this completed form to the appropriate field office of the Corps
of Engineers (see agency addresses sheet). Seven (7) copies should be sent to the NC Division of
Environmental Management (see agency addresses sheet). PLEASE PRINT.
Owner's Name: Town of Cary, Attn: Tim Bailey
2. Mailing Address: PO Box 8005
Subdivision Name: NIA
City: Cary State: NC Zip Code: 27512
Project location address, including subdivision name (if different from mailing address above):
Northeast and southwest of NC 54 connecting two present termini of the Cary
Parkway and crossing tributaries of Crabtree Creek and Coles Branch. See
attached Site Vicinity Map.
3) Telephone Number (Home): N/A (Work): 919-460-4935
4) If applicable, agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Phone: [phone]
244 W. Millbrook Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Location of work (provide a map, preferable a copy of USGS topographic map or aerial
photograph with scale):
County: Wake Nearest town or city: Cary
Specific Location (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Northeast and southwest of NC 54
connecting two present termini of the Cary Parkway and crossing tributaries of
Crabtree Creek and Coles Branch. See attached Site Vicinity Map.
6. Impacted or nearest stream/river: Tributaries of Crabtree Creek
River Basin: Neuse River Basin
7a. Is project located near water classified as trout, tidal saltwater (SA), high quality waters
(HQW), outstanding resource waters (ORW), water supply (WS-1 or WS-II)? YES ( )
NO (X) If yes, explain: N/A
7b. Is the project located within a North Carolina division of coastal management area of
environmental concern (AEC)? YES ( ) NO (X)
7c. If the project is located within a coastal county (see page 7 for list of coastal counties), what
is the land use plan (LUP) designation? N/A
8a. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES
(X) NO ( ) If yes, provide Action ID number of previous permit and any additional
information (including photocopy of 401 certification). USACOE Action ID # 199700542
8b. Are additional permit requests expected for this property in the future?
YES ( ) NO (X) If yes, describe anticipated work: N/A
9a. Estimated total number of acres in tract of land: 125 in Inspection Area
9b. Estimated total number or acres of wetlands located on project site: 1.5
I Oa. Number of acres of wetlands impacted by the proposed project by:
Stream Intermittent/Perennial Width NW13 (ac.) NW14 (ac.)
A Intermittent 10' 0.023 0.052
B Intermittent 5' 0.002 0.034
C Intermittent 5' 0.015 0.048
D Intermittent 5' 0.017 0.029
E Perennial (Coles Branch) 15' 0.107 0.048
F Intermittent 5' 0.002 0.020
Total: 0.166 0.231
l 0b. (1) Stream channel to be impacted by the proposed project (if relocated, provide distance
both before and after relocation):
Stream Intermittent/Perennial Width Impact (linear feet)
A Intermittent 10' 226 U. 7'X7' box culvert (NW14)
100 I.f. riprap dissipater (NW13)
B Intermittent 5' 299 U. 48" RCP (NW14)
10 U. riprap dissipater (NW13)
C Intermittent 5' 418 l.f. 60" RCP (NW14)
130 U. channel improvements (NW13)
D Intermittent 5' 254 U. 18" RCP (NW14)
145 I.f. channel improvements (NW13)
E Perennial 15' 140 I.f. triple 9'x8' box culverts (NW14)
(Coles Branch) 310 I.f. channel improvements (NW13)
F Intermittent 5' 173 I.f. 30" RCP (NW14)
10 I.f. riprap dissipater (NW13)
Total 1510 I.f. (NW 14)
705 l.f. (NW 13)
(2) Stream channel impacts will result from: (check all that apply)
Open channel relocation: Placement of pipe in channel: X
Channel Excavation: Construction of a Dam/Flooding:
Other: bank stabilization
11. If construction of a pond is proposed, what is the size of the watershed draining to the
pond? N/A
What is the expected pond surface area? N/A
12. Description of proposed work including discussion of type of mechanical equipment to be
used (attach plans 8 1/2" x l 1" drawings only):
Construction of proposed roadway with mechanical equipment typically
assoicated with this type of activity.
13. Purpose of proposed work: Alleviate traffic burdens in local area and complete a
segment of road between two current termini.
14. State reasons why it is believed that this activity must be carried out in wetlands (include
any measures taken to minimize wetland impacts): Linear roadway requires six
crossings of Waters of the U.S. Crossings will be constructed perpendicular
to flow.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (see agency addresses sheet) regarding the presence of
any federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Date contacted:
(attach responses from these agencies). N/A; To be completed by the USACOE.
16. You are required to contact the state historic preservation officer (SHPO) (see agency
address sheet) regarding the presence of historic properties in the permit area which may be
affected by the proposed project. Date contacted: N/A; To be completed by the
USACOE
17. Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (state) land?
YES (X) NO ( ) If no, go to 18.
a. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document
pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act?
YES (X) NO ( )
b. If yes, has the document been reviewed through the North Carolina Department of
Administration State Clearinghouse?
YES ( ) NO (X) Currently in review process.
If answers to 17b is YES, then submit appropriate documentation from the state clearinghouse to division of
environmental management regarding compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Questions regarding the State Clearinghouse review process should be directed to Ms. Chrys Baggett,
Director State Clearinghouse, North Carolina Department of Administration, 116 West Jones Street,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003, telephone [phone].
18. The following items should be included with this application if proposed activity involves
the discharge of excavated or fill material into wetlands:
a. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, lakes and ponds on the
property (for Nationwide Permit numbers 14, 18, 21, 26, 29 and 38). All streams
(intermittent and permanent) on the property must be shown on the map. Map scales
should be 1 inch equals 50 feet or 1 inch equals 100 feet or their equivalent.
b. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the
placement of the delineation line.
d. Attach a copy of the stormwater management plan, if required.
C. What is land used of surrounding property? Forested and Residential
f If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N/A
g. Signed and dated agent authorization letter, if applicable.
NOTE: Wetlands or Waters of the U.S. may not be impacted prior to:
1. Issuance of a Section 404 Corps of Engineers Permit,
2. Either the issuance or waiver of a 401 Division of Environmental Management (Water
Quality) certification, and
3. (in the twenty coastal counties only) A letter from the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management stating the proposed activity is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management program.
ZZZ/9 it
(Arcs , ignat re Date
(Agent's signature valid only if Agent Authorization Letter from the owner is provided (18 g.))
161 J L,
. y0/3G/1996 13:08 919P459467
PAGL 012
mom
Soil & Envimnmental Consultants, Inc.
i
f2,44 West MiUbrook Road ldRttleigh, North Catollaa 276091111(919) 846-59WN Fax [phone]
- AGENT AUTHORiZAYION FORM -
ALL ILM Ag,,FL= IN BY CURRENT 6& WNER
C CA-14
Name, -rrt?ti_ a m&&
Addm": yr IWQDEP 1?
Addmais: ro 8 (X ACAS ? v %at, &.76 1 a
Phase: ?ria-x ==?} 460J4 ? 4
Project Name/Deecdptlon: Q (4 Irw r raw r
11 1 I-11 11 w?ww?w 11, r
Date. _- 9 tp
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Wilmington District
PO Box logo
Wilmington, NC 211402
Attn: EUe bke:tb Z
`ield Ufllce: WAL-p <t 14 NL
Re: Wetlands Related consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the ounint 2=dY owner, hereby deeignste and aulfw1re Sop and Environmental
Consonants, Inc. to Oct ?in my behalf of my agent In the pmoeWng of permft applications. to
fumish upon request supplemental a ? n In SUP gt1?appllr?ttlona, etc, front this day
forward. This the _t F_ day of h P.- -I
This not(flcatien supersedes any previous consapsndenee concerning the agent for this project.
?wN_ OF C?R?
E Owners Nome:
cc: Mr. John Domey
NCORM&NR - OEM
Water Quality Planning
4401 Raetly Creak fled
Raleigh, NC 27WT
p,mmft Owners Sig re:
cc; Mr. Chile Huysnnen
Soif and Environmerttdt Consultants, Inc,
Soil/Site Evaluation ¦ Mapping and Physkat Anslysis 8 V*Oands Mapping and Mitigation • environmental Audits
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, t:veluation and Design
post-iN Fax Note 7671 EDa, . -t` # of pages" I
y I y? ua ?1 .?V 11{?I' .1
II
} 1111` \ \? I ' ? f Il??
l 11'?I 1 •S t r/'
9PQ 1

1 I\ r
(
Cj? `
?
•)? ' y Uao?i On
w u

I It,

? 11 i f

Ell j, \ti.Jl .{' 1. 1 ? !:C. ? ? 1 ? ?• / II y1/
i t.
?? I r? n ?. r•? I i , ! r , r 7 n I? ? ??? j ?..
1?/>?? - 1 1?,,? li ?? ''r ^?? u?'Ill?jl ?)?/?,,1?? t??'?" ???? ?1)? II? ?('.?? -?,? {#
.111 If,
fil
,
I Of 1'. 1? ? •?`' d ?'???I ? 1,?.' 1 /???j? II' I? _?' ? ??C \ ? 1 1 i ? ? I all.
• 7 c c ) ? ? I 1, ?'
log
??: I 1 • I 1
JIM
1i
I?V -? 11 ?? 1 r ? ? 1? 111 1,1i -N 1)C?1?11?? I ? rx?I( } A, . l \? 1
I
I r J , 1 '?
.rte ? i 1 r ?? ?? ; l
1 I ?(I(? 1'•s- S I ? I I?l??' 11 ', ?' u '-? ?? ?, ? ?_,?
h
V) W
W a
w u
u Q O
Q O
n
o NW h
z a
N ? U
m Z Q
I 2N N
s u"
cl J
N Z QQ
?a aLd
w_ U la
O
ui oa °
N ah
a
i
u N W
o ?
0
?.
w
y u m d
0
N_
LLl u

N_
U'
IL
u
Yd

O
??Q
1 leltru•nlton 1)erfor. ned by: Soil and I.nvlronIllenlnl ( olAstiltillIt!i, lilt
299 W. Millbrook Rood
Raleigh, NC 27609
Ph: 919/846-5900
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
I'rolrct/Site: Date:
_\?
Applicant/Owner: _ County:
Investigator. State: Stratum Indicator
s \{
T-os 0
M
T(5(f
-M (t
T(S if
Dominant Plant Series Stratum Indicator
9. vv\kx v
10??-cv?ltN`c? h f-?--
lllGX?CS73J,?
12. -
13.
14.
- - --- -- -- ---
15. ---
16. --- - - -- -

(Atypical Situation)? , Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID.
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? (D No Community ID:
is the site significantly disturbed
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
2.
3.1? kz? C1.S2/N
su\Uak?c?-
SS?yv??,.C>? O?
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FA(__
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
KJO? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
I -Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations
of
Drplh }G Sur{air Wulrr.Z _(in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit. -(Ill,)
Depth to `iaturated 1m1 (rir )
I1 l,%l
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
?- -Sediment Deposit,
Drainage Pattenls in Wetlarnck
ie, on l„rv Indicators (2 or wore redtuned)
_oxidized 1,\()()t ('111111TIels ill
upper 12 uti he.,
`? Wider-til4+ux•d I.euve:;
I.u? ul`iciil `?urv,v I?utu
FA(' Neutral Tc-A
c lllre? (I'.xpli+iii ini I??•iltnrl.?,I
tic)Il.ti
Mnl, Unit Name
(`irrces anti Phase). '?ci?l.S2R" _ 1)rninage (Mass
Field Observations
1'nxonumy(Suhgroup): _ -- Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descrthtion:
Drplh Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concret
(uns? I ionzon (Munsell Moist) (MuiLSell Mo{ Q Abundance Contrast Strue__t_-ure vtc.
Cr- (b`l? _5(a . - - - - - ----- -- -
?11a _?__ cUti??LL
Hydric Soil Indicators:'
IHistosol
Histic Epipedon
\/ Sulfidic Odor
_Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
\/ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
'**- Concretions
___High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soil
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Wetland Determination _/?.?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present!' ?f No (Circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? f No ' No
Remarks:
.I ___ _,.
dw
ALI.
U?.U . Con?sr.1 I ?? ll' (Q? VVQa5 ?- ,`(/J
4-
(W - lC l.A -?
- so OY,
f /?J,
?I s l - :c-L'4Q ?c.? at 9 / 9Y
V r? OY- i lss uc?,vv??_
?.1 aA,)o ?i u-Q 9-? _ I'1ar c/'
rJJ Z1a2d?u? i)? ?JUscKs
o ?
im 60-112 qD ( 124 1?1 -
r
l/S 19E'
I
lalc?
LEY -ow r4 OF CPRY
I
T A
. M
g l l w jwvs eaut t.,
it If
?AI
lug r fl ?.? ?? P-07
?? J !yt i ? f o2 C5? N
c

C?4 V Q x 4e--,J ij0-) r :5 / V U
jl7d ? l3e /l ooq
I M TA I LEY OWN of:" CPI?Y
.I
P4 F-
?iA?M lit
A ,

MEMORANDUM
Environmental Review Tracking
DWQ - Water Quality Section
TO: Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/omf1Qw)
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
* Wetlands (WQ Lab)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401)
PI-Cyndi Bell (DOI)
O Eric Galamb
Sheet:
Reg./ Prg. Mgmt Coordination Branch
O Farrell Keough (Archdale 9th)
O Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
* Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
0 Winston -Salem
Planning Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
0 Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
0 Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
0 Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th) O
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch
RE. q Q -()330-, i 2AAA4 s i
Attached is a copy of the above document. 'Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by
the date indicated.
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
misAcircmemo - mac version
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail].
m
-- rr
v
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!

Cary Parkway Extension
North of 1615 (High House Road) to Evans Road
Cary/Wake County, North Carolina
State Project No. 9.8050381
TIP No. U-3408
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
October 1997
Documentation Prepared By:
Withers & Ravenel Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
'a
17? 7,
' a
William E. Lee, P.E. ??' ?,?'o^ Z? < ?.n-•
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
' /James A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Un' ead
Consulting Engineering Unit
' Tho as R, Kendig, AICP
Environmental Study Manage

n

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TYPE OF ACTION
2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
3. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
4. WETLAND FINDINGS
5. FLOODPLAIN FINDINGS
6. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
7. COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
8. COMMENTS MADE DURING AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING
9. REVISION TO THE PROJECT SINCE CIRCULATION
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
10. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
11. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
FIGURES
APPENDIX
PAGE
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
7
9
9
9

r

r

j

' State Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
' North Carolina Department of Transportation
' 1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) administrative Action,
State Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The NCDOT has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the
' human or natural environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the
Environmental Assessment which has been independently evaluated and determined to
adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed
project. Copies of the Environmental Assessment are on file in the Planning and
Environmental Branch of NCDOT. The Environmental Assessment provides sufficient
evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
' The NCDOT takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the
Environmental Assessment.
2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation in conjunction with the Town of Cary
propose to join two independent sections of the Cary Parkway in Wake County, North
' Carolina. Presently, the northern section of the Parkway extends from North Harrison Avenue
to Evans Road and the southern section is routed from Holly Springs Road to Crabtree
Crossing Parkway in Cary. The intent of this project is to join these two sections by
constructing a 2.57 mile, four-lane median divided roadway, primarily on new location within
the northwest Cary and east Morrisville jurisdictional limits.
The proposed project, referred to as the Cary Parkway Extension, is included in the 1998-
2004 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program, TIP No. U-3408, with construction in
Fiscal Year 1998. The estimated cost of the project based on preliminary design is
' $10,550,000, not including right-of-way acquisitions. Approximately 70 percent of the right
of way will be donated by developers. The purchase of the additional necessary right-of-way
and required utility relocation will be the responsibility of the developers and the Town of
' Cary.
1 3. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
' There were six alternatives considered for the project including the no build and
postponement of project alternatives. The recommended alternative will enhance the safety
and general welfare of the public as well as minimize possible environmental and social

4.
impacts (Figure 1). The proposed extension will be a major thoroughfare between northwest I
Cary/Morrisville and south Cary.
The proposed four-lane divided facility will have a 33-foot raised median on a 110-foot right- '
of-way from the Preston PUD property line to the Weston PUD property line. There is an
existing 106-foot right-of-way from High House Road to the Preston property line and also
within the Weston PUD area. The typical paved roadway section is 29 feet wide with 11-foot '
inside and 14-foot outside lanes and 1.5-foot inside and 2.5-foot outside curb and gutter.
Berm width will predominately be 11 feet, except where guardrail is required the width will
be 15 feet (Figure 2). This type of section is typical for the projected traffic volumes and '
conforms with the Town of Cary and NCDOT Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plans as well as AASHTO and DOT standards. ,
Permanent and temporary easements will also be necessary for the construction of sidewalk,
guardrail, drainage structures, and other miscellaneous items. All intersections will be at

grade, with stop sign control for intersecting streets except for the NC 54 and Evans Road '
intersections which will be signalized as part of the project. A grade separated (bridge)
crossing of the Southern Railroad is proposed. Private residential drives will not abut the '
proposed roadway.
WETLANDS FINDING
The proposed project is consistent with Executive Order 11990, which states that '
construction will not be allowed in a wetland area unless there are no practical alternatives
to the proposed action and all practical measures to minimize harm to wetlands have been
considered. '
The NCDOT also has a policy to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on wetlands
whenever there is a practical alternative. Approximately 0.4 acres of wetlands will be '
unavoidably displaced by this project. The nature of the project and the topographical and
economical concerns as well as highway safety issues associated with the project corridor,
prohibit the shifting of the alignment to completely avoid wetland areas. In the absence of '
feasible alternatives to avoid wetland areas, all practical measures such as "best management
practices" will be utilized to minimize impacts to wetlands. ,
The alignment of the Cary Parkway Extension was based on several factors. The
primaryfactors considered in determining the alignment included the locations of the existing ,
Cary Parkway's termini, the location of the WRBZ radio transmission towers, the vertical
alignment of the existing NC 54, wetland impacts and the presence of existing development.
Several alignment alternatives were investigated for this project. The selected alternative '
minimized wetland impacts and project costs. Other alternatives considered and found not
viable were the no-build alternative, an alignment west of the WRBZ radio transmission
towers, an alignment through the transmission towers, an alignment east of the transmission '
towers (Figure 1) and postponement of the proposed project.
11

' All wetland areas not affected by the project will be protected from unnecessary
encroachment. No staging of construction equipment, or storage of construction supplies will
' be allowed in a wetland or near any water-related area. Erosion control measures will be
observed and included in the design plans to the contractor. All bare fill or cut slopes adjacent
to streams or intermittent drainage will be stabilized as soon as possible.
Mitigation is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40
CFR 230), FHWA stepdown procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seg.), and mandates expressed in
' Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26962 (1977)).
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practical alternative to the
' proposed new construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practical
measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
5. FLOODPLAIN FINDINGS
' The Town of Cary and the Town of Morrisville are both participant in the National Flood
Insurance Program. This project includes one FEMA jurisdictional flood plain crossing of
' Coles Branch. The 100-year flood plain elevation at Section A of the Wake County Flood
Insurance Study (FIS), which is in the proximity of the proposed crossing is 329 feet above
mean sea level with a floodway width of 245 feet as depicted by the March 1992 map number
' 37183CO292 E as published by FEMA. Coles Branch is designated by the Wake County FIS
as Basin 18 Stream 24 and has a drainage area of approximately two square miles. A
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) has been submitted to FEMA for approval of
' a triple 9'x 8' reinforced concrete box culvert crossing with a peak base flood discharge of
1505 cubic feet per second. This proposed encroachment in the floodplain will not have an
adverse effect on the adjacent properties, however, it will increase the published 100-year
' flood elevation by a maximum of 0.6 feet approximately 180 feet upstream of the crossing.
Approval of the CLOMR is pending.
' Directly downstream of this crossing is a Wake County flood control dam (Structure #18).
This United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS designed impoundment is part
' of the PL 566 Flood Control program to relieve flooding in the Crabtree Creek drainage area.
It is not anticipated that Wake County Structure #18 will be adversely affected by the
project. During construction, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to minimize
' the impact of sediment entering the stream as a result of this construction.

'
6. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated for comment to the following '
federal, state and local agencies:
Responses to the Environmental Assessment were received from those agencies in bold text ,
and asterisk. These comments are addressed in this document and copies are included as
Appendix A. '
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington, N.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh, N.C. ,
* N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs '
* Division of Water Quality (Environmental Management)
* Division of Land Resources '
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Town of Cary
'
Town of Morrisville
Wake County
7. COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ,
The following comments were received from the circulation of the Environmental
Assessment.
A. DEHNR - Division of Water Quality '
Comment: "In order for DWQ to issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the preferred
alignment, we recommend that the FONSI should provide the following information '
lacking in the EA:
'
Quantification of stream impacts - NCDOT has provided a diagram showing all
streams within the study area, along with specific dimensions of each stream and
recommended culvert structures. NCDOT should provide approximate linear
distances of stream impacts. If culverts and/or stream relocations exceed 150 feet '
linear distance of stream channel at any stream crossing, stream mitigation may be
required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)). In
such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation proposal should be included in the '
FONSI or application for 401 Water Quality Certification."

' Response: Six stream crossings were identified in the Environmental Assessment. These
crossings have been assigned letter identification A through F on Figure 3.
Quantification of the linear distances has been compiled based on the preliminary
plans and is as follows:
' A 226-LF 7'x7' box culvert
100-LF riprap dissipater
326-LF total impact
' "
B 299-LF 48
RCP
' 10-LF riprap dissipater
309-LF total impact

' C 418-LF 60" RCP
130- F channel improvements
548-LF total impact
' D 254-LF 18" RCP
145-LF channel improvements
' 399-LF total impact
E 140-LF Triple 9'x8' box culverts (Coles Branch)
' 310-LF channel improvements
' 56-ff total imp= -
' F 173 -LF 30" RCP
10-LF riprap dissipater
183-LF total impact
' Each of these impacts exceeds the 150 linear foot limits. However, based on the USGS Quadrangle
for Cary, N.C. (Figure 4) and field verification by a biologist, five of the crossings can be classified
' as intermittent streams and not subject to mitigation under North Carolina DWQ Wetland Rules { 15A
NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)). Coles Branch, identified on Figure 4 as E is a perennial stream subject to
mitigation.
A comprehensive stream mitigation proposal will be submitted with the state permit application
' requesting 401 certification to DWQ subsequent to construction. A federal wetland permit for this
project has been received from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers under the provisions of Nationwide
Permit Number 14 of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
' The permit was issued on April 25,1997, with an Action ID 199700542.
Comment: "DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland
sources in the construction contract awarded for this project. This should also be
included in a list of environmental commitments in the FONSI."
' 5

'
Response: All borrow and solid waste sites will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Soild
waste will be disposed of in strict adherence to the NC Division of Highways
"
. The Contractor will observe and
"Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures '
comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the
disposal of solid waste. Soild waste will not be placed into any existing land disposal

sites that is in violation of state or local rules and regulations. Waste and debris will ,
be disposed of in areas that are outside the right-of -way and provided by the
Contractor. The Contractor will be responsible for obtaining borrow sites, delineating

wetlands in borrow sites and obtaining written concurrence on delineated wetlands '
in borrow sites from the Corps of Engineers. Borrow materials will not be stockpiled
or disposed of adjacent to or in areas where they may runoff with stormwater into

streams and impoundments. Where it is absolutely necessary to store materials '
adjacent to streams, they will be stored above the mean highwater mark in such a
manner that they would not runoff with stormwater. Disposal of waste and debris will '
not be allowed in areas under the Corps of Engineers regulating jurisdiction. In the
event that Corps of Engineers jurisdiction areas cannot be avoided, the Department
will be responsible for mitigation. '
Comment: "DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control measures are '
not placed in wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the
construction contract awarded for this project.
Response: NCDOT will minimize any sediment erosion control measures placed in existing '
wetlands. The construction plans and contracts for this project will address this
matter in more detail. In summary, it is believed that this project will avoid and '
minimize wetlands and stream impacts to the extent practical.
B. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "At this time we concur with the EA. However, we request that the FONSI include '
a discussion of the measures that Cary will use to minimize the impacts of secondary
development, which this project will serve, on streams and wetlands. Any existing '
ordinances requiring building setbacks from water courses, maintenance of open space
or riparian buffers, and installation of detention basins or storm water ponds should
be cited." '
Response: The Town of Cary has several ordinances and policies that will minimize impacts of
secondary development along the Cary Parkway project corridor. This project is '
located within the Crabtree Creek watershed area which is not part of the Reservoir
Watershed Protection Overlay District within the Town of Cary. This in effect means
that any construction of stormwater retention or detention measures would be '
voluntary by the future developers. In the Cary Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), however, Section 14.3.8 indicates that on watersheds greater than 50 acres,
a stream buffer will be provided 30 feet from the top of the bank on each side of the ,
drainage way. Chapter 14, Part 3 of the Cary UDO is entitled Soil Erosion and
6 ,

Sedimentation Control Stream and Wetland Protection, whose purpose is "regulating
land disturbing activities in order to control accelerated erosion and sedimentation and
' accordingly to prevent water pollution from sedimentation to prevent accelerated
erosion and sedimentation of lakes and natural water courses and to prevent damage
to public and private property by sedimentation." This part of the ordinance also
' requires that all permits be obtained for development in regulatory wetlands. For
further information, refer to Chapter 14, Part 3 of the Cary UDO.
' All developments within the Cary ETJ require approved Erosion Control Plans prior
to grading. Areas within Morrisville's ETJ require Erosion Control Plan approval by
' Wake County. These regional approvals will assist in minimizing secondary impacts.
' C. DEHNR - Division of Land Resources
Comment: "This project will impact one geodetic survey marker. N.C. Geodetic Survey should
' be contacted prior to construction."
Response: In a conversation with Wayne Brantley of the N.C. Geodetic Survey, one geodetic
' survey benchmark located at the railroad crossing of the proposed alternative will
most likely be impacted during the construction of the Cary Parkway Extension. N. C.
Geodetic Survey will be contacted before construction begins to mitigate any impacts
' to the survey benchmark.
Comment: "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
Commission."
Response: The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project will be prepared
' by NCDOT under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Commission.
8. CONIlMENTS MADE DURING AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING
' Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, an open forum public meeting was held at
the West Cary Middle School on August 6, 1997. The format of the forum was an informal showing
of the NCDOT approved preliminary plans, aerial photography and plan view of the proposed
' alignment. Approximately 22 people attended the meeting and signed the registry. A three-page
handout included a description of the project and a comment sheet allowing for public written
response. There were two written comments received by the NCDOT Citizen's Participation Unit.
At the time of the meeting a number of people had questions and/or comments. The vast majority of
those attending were in support of the project. A summary of the written and paraphrased voiced
comments are as follows:

A. Written Comment: "After viewing the maps at the "Open Forum Public Meeting" on August ,
6, 1997, I wish to voice a concern about sidewalks. The plan for this project shows sidewalks
only on one side of Cary Parkway. I think that is a mistake. Cary Parkway should have '
sidewalks on both sides. An even greater mistake is the fact that the railroad bridge was
shown as wide enough Qnly for sidewalks on one side. This would mean that the second '
sidewalk could not be added later. A mistake. Please put sidewalks on both sides. We should
be and must be pedestrian friendly."
Response: Cary's policy for sidewalks is being followed on this project. ,
B. Comment: The location of the sidewalks was a question of several attendees. Several people I
voiced their opinions that sidewalks should be included on both sides of this roadway.
,
Response: It was indicated that the sidewalk would be placed on the interior side of the Cary
Parkway project, which in this case would be on the east side of the proposed roadway. This
is in accordance with current Town of Cary policy.
C. Comment: Several inquiries were made with respect to bicycle lanes for this project. '
Response: The outside travel lanes for the Cary Parkway Extension will be 14 feet wide, to ,
accommodate for bicycle usage.
D. Comment: Several inquiries were made with respect to the actual extent of the project limits. '
Comments were made that the project should be expanded to include the addition of two
lanes to the existing two lane roadway from Evans Road to North Harrison Avenue.
Response: Funding for the two additional lanes was not a part of this project and would have '
to be included in future programs for either the Town of Cary and/or NCDOT.
E. Comment: An inquiry concerning roadway and bridge elevations adjacent to proposed
development was prompted. The concern was visibility of a proposed building from the road. ,
Response: The plans were reviewed and information found to be sufficient by the inquiring
party.
F. Comment: A request was made by an individual that the planned extension of Winfair Drive '
to Cary Parkway within the Silverton area be reconsidered. The individual indicated that a
petition was being circulated to eliminate the tie in and terminate Winfair Drive short of the ,
Cary Parkway.
Response: It was indicated that any design changes with respect to this tie in could be made '
at a later date if approved by the Town of Cary and NCDOT. At this time, the plans will
remain unchanged in this area.
G. Comment: An inquiry was made with respect to the projected noise level on the proposed '
Cary Parkway.
8 1

Response: A review of the EA indicated that the maximum projected noise level in the year
2020 would be 72 dBA in the vicinity of NC 54.
H. Comment: A few of the adjacent property owners along the Cary Parkway project were
concerned with easement and right-of-way requirements that would affect their property.
Although they had previously been contacted by the Town of Cary and Withers & Ravenel
Engineering and Surveying, the primary question was related to the actual easement and right-
of-way acquisition process.
Response: The Town of Cary will be contacting them in the near future to finalize the
necessary right-of-way and easement acquisitions.
9. REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT SINCE CERCULATION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment indicated that there would be an impact of 0.12 acres of wetlands.
However, based on the preliminary design the approximate area of impacted wetlands will be 0.397
acres.
to. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the environmental assessment, and upon
comments received from federal, state, local agencies and the public, it is the finding of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation that the project will not have a significant impact upon the
human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement or further environmental analysis
will not be required.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The following environmental commitments will be adhered to during the implementation of this
project:
a. NCDOT will implement all practical measures and procedures to minimize and avoid
environmental impacts.
b. Borrow & Waste Commitment
All borrow and solid waste sites will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Soild waste will
be disposed of in strict adherence to the NC Division of Highways "Standard Specifications
for Roads and Structures". The Contractor will observe and comply with all laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the disposal of solid waste. Soild waste will not be
placed into any existing land disposal sites that is in violation of state or local rules and
regulations. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas that are outside the right-of -way
and provided by the Contractor. The Contractor will be responsible for obtaining borrow
9

sites, delineating wetlands in borrow sites and obtaining written concurrence on delineated '
wetlands in borrow sites from the Corps of Engineers. Borrow materials will not be
stockpiled or disposed of adjacent to or in areas where they may runoff with stormwater into '
streams and impoundments. Where it is absolutely necessary to store materials adjacent to
streams, they will be stored above the mean highwater mark in such a manner that they would
not runoff with stormwater. Disposal of waste and debris will not be allowed in areas under ,
the Corps of Engineers regulating jurisdiction. In the event that Corps of Engineers
jurisdiction areas cannot be avoided, the Department will be responsible for mitigation. ,
The Contractor will maintain the earth surface of all waste area, both during the construction
phase and until the completion of all seeding and mulching, or other erosion control measures '
specified, in a manner that will effectively control erosion and siltation into areas under the
Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction, streams and impoundments.

10 ,

FIGURES
Q
Y
a
IL
x
6
fi

kz-
0
O
N
L?J
J
U
N
V /
? ? `_ `) _ ?`\f`1??1? . tip ?
f ? I % , ?\? 11n???' l

6

a.
10
JLLI

m:
Q J

?J
Jf i
i
0
0
Q.'
?a
z
V
x ?
W U
Q
W
O Q
LLJ
Q U
U) LL.
O
?z
w0
z_ F--
O
Ow
U

Fn-
z
u,
LU
?JJ7
Q Q
?o
V ?
W
a 3
W
D
169
9

M/21 ti

?- 8

N
N
1o
t
?D
1
N
N
W)

n

g? z
o
I
U
W

I

cn L'i
8
O
C? j - M
ti C?-
o n
c
8 N
1 °
O

s
?O
I Z
U

I
to
I
N
?o

N N
, W
cr
W
ti 2

O 0
W W
M
J ?
Z) CY
O w
2
N

O J

/ I Q
in Q
M
?1
Lo 9i
V)
D0

N N

z
O
N
z
W
X N
W
U
WUW W
? N
rt U
O
U O U
co a: uj
M
Q ? Z
_Z 0
Q
W
U 1: O
a
t-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Q
-avz
lv;u
?3n
rn%
4z
-
Oz
z-na
lf?r-
C
GI
r
3 coo
0 010
?c
? C
O ?
x
m 3 Ill
w
m
3 cn
O
z

00 ? \ \ \ rn

? _ \ z

? Co
w
rn o ? \ >
? D m ? \ n

Z "

1
0 -

1
Ou D 3 ?
C 0 ? c -nrnvc?ao? D Ill
o b D

b
p y o cr?cncncn?, ?g
i
Z v
D D Z rn
?
N ti c1
I? 3 000000
? 1-
?p
0 3 Z il-4
N?ra(
? Y
? C7
fU N
(y,(A .U1
n
Dnnn
n y N (7
f (n
Z

Q UI W
Q D 0
m
fT? (n

? z
i
m
2 5 Z?

C
n C A
C A\.
iy TO
rn n 00
G) ;U
CO)
-<
m
A ?
m
i?
Z
-?
v/ U
JiV
? ? - .. ,? fey ?;? ? _i I? ( ?.. ?oyw ?? ? ? ? / I ? a?°•? f ?
w
i
,-
It L
ft J
? m +C`
rr= ?_? \? -? ' ?, ,' ? `?. ? j i ? • ? i _ tree --?-?; ? a' `.
77 /
_ A
.I
/ +P
J
Jill-
?' a
•?. 1.? ????i ,'n'?\11 1???F1?rl??? ?A1 11I o\\\ ??i_ I ? ? ii:%' _ ?? :A -/?? /.?? '/%? ;? i` l( r

! li
r
.1
40,'
>
g -

s .I '
Ji ll

?/ j 1 ) " M. / ?? ft'1 I
i - -
• -
i . ?j . ? .. m

i
? I
• ? ??
t /
VE , ?. ? ,_ 11 _ 1 j

N , -„1
U
G 1

?, _ (_ ? ?? fir,.,;, :?.` ? '??? `` ??1?,-?. : ? \ ?•' ? , I ?,?? ./ •???t ? __ '?:?
PI it,
S?• ?•??'. i, __?
005 ?--- / + _ •. - _? ? JJ - ? \ ? ` ??
h
2 C
- ? • y ° N
N z
2 1 va, ?f_
° a
/;d 1
O O O 3+ 11/U',. N• O. A .\??\?\\ I?1 ` .. \ ` •? ???1\. i o N ° ; /
cm)
N \ r 111 /• ?? r p ;? 2
m M„
IL!
1.
W OD
co 00 oD n ? (( \ l ? I I ? I, ? ? ,? ij/ .a:? •T• ? 7?.?? pp?? \ x ?? ? ?-. _
46
t? %? _ ?? ' •7 ): X15') , A?? ••? •1'a. •???v I /?? l?. ?? ?O) ??
"Oar

J
J
J

i
i
l

C?
C
n

j
I]

u
APPENDLY
L
I

L
,7
.w
2 4
North Carolina
ir-- r1l'?-11i?Ci
' c41t '
aN, epartment of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. Whit Webb
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27603
Dear Mr. Webb:
kelId lck
JUL r ti L ? -
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
July 22, 1997 (T1C 1.([?
Re: SCH File r 97-E -..220-0743); Environmental Assessment Proposed Cary Parkway Extension
North of SR 1616 (High House Rd.) to Evans Road in Cary, NC; TIP-U-3.108
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR) in the course of this review. It has been suggested by DEI-hv-R that its concerns be
adequately addressed in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Cloys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse

Attachments
cc: Region J
Melba McGee, DEHNR
ju' 2 c 19°7
. .r f/
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27643-3003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Apirtnative Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs E `•
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
'-
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0743 Carv Parkway Extension, Wake County
DA=E: July 7, 1997
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments reflect information that should be
addressed in the Finding of No Significant Impact.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments

JUL i 11997,
N.C. STATE CLEA.R!NGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148 5001. recycled/1001. post-consumer paper
J

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water- Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes; Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.,.Director
4 ° o '
1
June 12, 1997
lvtE'vtOR.-\NDTTNT fijL 4ez
To: 'Michelle Suverkrubbe /
Through: John DorneIP
From: Cyndi Bell L
Subject: Environmental Assessment for Cary Parkway Extension from
North of SR 1615 (High House Road) to Evans Road
Wake Countv
State Project DOT No. 9.8050381, T.I.P. No. U-3408; EM R t! 97-0743
The referenced document has beea reviewed by this office. The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The document describes potential impacts associated with NCDOT's
Preferred Alignment plus three alternate alignments. The project will
involve fill in un to 0.12 acre of wetlands and two new crossings of perennial
streams. On November 10, 1996, NCDOT applied for 404/401 Permits for the
preferred alternative. Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued
Nationwide Permit 14 for this project, DWQ has placed this project on
administrative hold until the EA and FONSI have been sent through the State
Clearinghouse.. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document and
permit application review:
A) A permit application was
and specifies impacts for
field review, DWQ believes
preferred alternative, m
Since the wetland impacts
acre, and it appears that
channel distance, DWQ w
further avoids and minimi
strongly discourage NCD
circulation and agency co
also reminded that the 40
until after the FONSI is
submitted even before the EA was completed,
NCDOT's preferred alternative. Based upon our
that Alternate 3, which is not NCDOT's
ay be the least environmentally damaging.
associated with this project fall below 1/3
no stream impacts will exceed 150 fe- linear
ill not pursue selection of an alternative which
zes impacts. However, in the future we
OT from applying for. permits prior to document
nsensus with the design alternative. NCDOT is
1 Water Quality Certification will not be issued
approved and circulated to the review agencies.
Environmental Sciences Branch - 4:01 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX K 733-9959
An Equal Cppcaumtf Aff,= ivu Ac icn Ernplay SQ°6 reelcl?'C1t0°: pert c=umer p: per
41
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
June 12, 1997
Page 2 of 2
B) In order for DWQ to issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
preferred alignment, we recommend that the FONSI should provide the
following information lacking in the EA:
Ouantirication of stream impacts - NCDOT has provided a diagram
showing all streams within the study area, along with specific
dimensions of each stream and recommended culvert s=ztures. NCDOT
should provide approximate linear distances of stream impacts. If
culverts and/or stream relocations exceed 150 feet linear distance of
stream channel at anv stream crossing, stream mitigation may be
required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC
2H.0506(b)(6)1. In such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation
proposal should be included in the FONSi or application for 401 Water
Quality Certification.
C) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from
upland sources in the construction contract awarded for this project.
This should also be included in a list of environmental commitments in
the FONSI.
D) DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands. This commitment should be
incorporated into the construction contract awarded for this project.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, General Certification 3103
will likely be applicable to this project. Final permit authorization will
require written concurrence from DWQ. This approval will be contingent
upon evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to
the extent practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation where
necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the EA. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification re _uires
satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water ouality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions re=ding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Howard Hall, FWS
David Cox, WRC
U3408FA.DOC

'I I-_1.U F,, I- , nk- F + r nLL:, Lri F, L. i Lt l - 1. : 1v -•v'. _ - .. . 11 - 1 - . . - I. - ..- ? ? . v..
0 it i . 4
a

Noah Carolina Wildlife Resources CornmissionP.
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
itifelba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATI July 8, 1997
SUR.TFCT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Cary Parkway Extension, from north of SR 1615
(High House Road) to Evans Road, Wake County, North Carolina. TIP
No. U-340$, SCH Project No. 97-0743.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the subject EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The
purpose of this review was to assess project im' acts to fish and wildlife resources. Our
comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
The proposed project involves connecting existing Cary Parkway and NW Cary
l arkwav which are four-lane, median divided highway: s that forms an approximate three-
quailer loop with a two to three mile radius around down town Cary. The roadway will
be a four-lane, median-divided highway on new location. The protect length is
approximately 2.57 miles. Wetland imparts are minimal and will be covered under a
Nationwide 14 permit.
We feel that the EA adequately describes potential impacts to the wildlife and
fisheries resources in the project area. Although the project will alleviate.some traffic on
surrounding roads, we recognize that the main purpose of the project is to facilitate
existing and future development in the Cary area. The direct impacts of the roadway are
minimal. Howevcr, the wildlife habitat loss and uncontrolled stormwater runuff froitr the
planned developments will have permanent effects on local terrestrial and aquatic species.
At this time we concur with the EA. However, we request that the FONSI include
a discussion of the measures that Cary will use to minimize the impacts of secondary
development, which this project will serve, on streams and wetlands. Any existing
ordinances requiring building'setbacks from water courses, maintenance of open space or
riparian buffers, and installation of detention basins or storm water ponds should be cited.
Hill,
Memo 2 July 8, 1997
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further
assistance please call me at [phone].
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
a ° v
F=
U PROTECT REVIEW COMMENTS
Project Number: 9 7 - O 7¢ 3 Country: ltjl_r -
Project Name: ?-vu Parr, tX;?°KSim.- ?S7aaG Pry, 9.8?5a3?1?
r ? v
HC Officd of State Planning - Geodetic Survev
This project will impact gecdetic survey markers. N.C.
Gacdetic Survev 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 gecdetic surrey markers.
Other (cc=ents attached)
For more info=aticn contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geedetl-c Survey Office at 919/733-3836.
E1 r aUi (,n) 0- r'r (3 - a-9 7
Reviewerl Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No cement
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than cne (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an envircrLaental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
par` of the eresicn and sedimentation control plan.
If any perticn cf the project is located within a High Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
central will apply.
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 frcm the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
• ?aw.'? u??? -5/30/9 7
Geclogicd Survey Seci3on ewer Land Ouelify Section Date Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, Rcleigh, Ncrth Ccrclina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equd Cppcrtunity Affrmctive Acticn Employer 50% recycled/ 10% pest-ccnsurner pcper
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
FRI
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
Clearinghouse Coordinator
a Dept. of Cultural Resources
Archives-History Bldg.
Raleigh NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
Dent. of Agriculture
Dent. of Crime Cont./
Dent. of Cultural Res
Dent. of Env. Health,
Triangle J Council o-
Public Safety
:=ces
& Natural Res
Governments
PROJECT INFORMLATION
AP_=LIC311TT: N.C. De_ t. of Transportation
L% ?jU3 a_)h
?
TYPE: State Envircn-mental Policy Act
ERD: Environmental Assessment 1,?
DESC: Proposed Cary Parkway Extension North of SR 16(115 (High House Rd.) to Erns Road in
Cary, NC; TIP nU-3408
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
i:tercovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF T HT_S REV_IE'll THE FOLLOWING IS SUEMITTED :
?[ I NO CCNMENT
? COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE : / 101 '

STATE NU'?MER: 97-E-4220-0743 F02
DATE RECEIVED: 05/21/1997 4 D
AGENCY RESPONSE: 07/16/1997 64^ ?J
REVIEW CLOSED: 07/21/1997
CCE11
C
Ji!I. 2 11997
M.C. STATE CLEAR-NGhCUSc
2 3 r,AY "997
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 2, 1997
Mr. Tim Bailey
Town of Cary
PO Box 8005
Cary, NC 27512
Dear Mr. Bailey:
Re: 401 Water Quality Certification
Cary Parkway Extension Construction
Wake County
DWQ #970227 TIP #U-3408, State Project #9.8050381
I
On October 24, 1997 you wrote to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requesting a
401 Water Quality Certification for your project to fill wetlands for Cary Parkway
Extension at Cary and Morrisville in Wake County. We believe that this project is currently
under review by the State Clearinghouse. DWQ cannot issue the 401 Certification until the
project has received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision
(ROD) from the State Clearinghouse in accordance with NCAC 15A: 01C.0402.
Therefore, I must hereby place this project on indefinite hold until the State Clearinglouse
has issued the FONSI or ROD. However we will continue to review the project and make
you aware of any concerns. We recommend that you notify us that the NEPA/SEPA
process is complete so we can reactivate the project. In addition, by copy of this letter, I
ani also notifying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that this project should be placed on
hold.
If you believe that this decision is in error, please call me at 919-733-1786 to discuss
the matter.
Sincerely,
qVaoohhnn R. Dorney
ater Quality Cercifi lion Program
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Office
Central Files
Bob Zarzecki; Soil and Environmental Consultants
Raleigh Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers
970227.nocert
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 - Telephone [phone] - FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
MEMO bUM
TO: JOHN DORNEY
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH
PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer:Y
WO SUPV.: ?WL&kga,,zu
DATE:
SUBJf T: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
fy ***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE)
PERMIT YR: 97
APPLICANT NAME: CARY
PROJECT TYPE: ROAD
COE #:
RCD FROM CBA: APP
REG OFFICE: PRO
RIVER AND SUB BASIN J
STREAM CLASS: C
PERMIT NO: 0000916 COUNTY: WAKE
PARKWAY EXT.
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TYPE: NW13,14
DOT #:
DATE FRM CDA: 10/24/97
030402 STR INDEX N0: 27-33-3
WL IMPACT?: Y/N WL TYPE:
WL_REQUESTED: WL ACR EST?: Y/N
WL_SCORE M : WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: Y/N
MITIGATION?: Y/N MITIGATION TYPE:
MITIGATION-SIZE: DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: Y/N
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: Y/N
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/N
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ISSUE ISSUE/COND DENY
COMMENTS:

-"//L

cc: Regional Office
Central Files

6zs

Soil R Environment .l (Consultants, Inc.
244 West Millbrook Road ® I aleigh, Nortlh Carolina 27609 [] [phone] 0 Fax [phone]
October 22, 1997
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. Eric Alsmcycr
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd., Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
N.C. Division of Water Quality - DEHNR
Attn: Mr. John Dorncy
4401 Reedy Creek Road RECEIVED
Raleigh, NC 27607 cel
2 44 1997.
? ra
,, Er,IROr?;,;tNTAL?C?T,,?s
Dear Sirs:
The purpose of this letter is to request Nationwide Pemnits 13 & 14, and Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for the project known as U-3408 Cary Parkway Extension. The project
corridor is to be acquired by the Town of Cary, NC and is located near the Towns of Cary and
Morrisville, NC (Wake County). The site is shown on the enclosed plans and, NC, USGS Topo
Quad site vicinity map.
It will be necessary to impact 0.396 acres (see map) of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. above
headwaters for the placement of the proposed road. Six pipe and fill crossings and channel
improvements are proposed under Nationwide Permits 13 and 14. Each of these impacts exceeds
the 150 lincar foot limits. However, based on the USGS Quadrangle for Cary, N.C. and field
verification by a biologist, five of the crossings can be classified as intermittent streams and not
subject to mitigation under North Carolina DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)).
Coles Branch is a perennial stream subject to mitigation. This mitigation can be accomplished
through the Wetlands Restoration Program or the NCDOT mitigation bank. It is our
understanding that this is a linear project and that each crossing is single and complete.
A comprehensive stream mitigation proposal will be submitted to DWQ upon conditional issuance
of the 401 prior to construction. A federal wetland permit for this project has been received from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under die provisions of Nationwide Permit Number 14 of
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The permit was
issued on April 25, 1997, with an Action ID 199700542.
Comment: "DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland
sources in die construction contract awarded for this project. This should also be
included in a list of environmental commitments in die FONSI."
Please call if you have questions or require further information. If you decide to perform a site
visit, please contact us so we can arrange for someone to accompany you.
Sincerely,
Bob Zarzccki, Biologist
Soil/Site Evaluation © Mapping and Physical Analysis © Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation 13 Environmental Audits
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Evaluation and Design
DWQ ID: Corps Action ID: 199700542
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): 13 & 14
Pre-Construction Notification Application
For Nationwide Permits that require:
1) Notification to the Corps of Engineers
2) Application for Section 401 Certification
3) Coordination with the NC Division of Coastal Management
Send the original and (1) copy of this completed form to the appropriate field office of the Corps
of Engineers (see agency addresses sheet). Seven (7) copies should be sent to the NC Division of
Environmental Management (see agency addresses sheet). PLEASE PRINT.
Owner's Name: Town of Cary, Attn: Tim Bailey
2. Mailing Address: PO Box 8005
Subdivision Name: N/A
City: Cary State: NC Zip Code: 27512
Project location address, including subdivision name (if different from mailing address above):
Northeast and southwest of NC 54 connecting two present termini of the Cary
Parkway and crossing tributaries of Crabtree Creek and Coles Branch. See
attached Site Vicinity Map.
3) Telephone Number (Home): N/A
(Work): 919-460-4935
4) If applicable, agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Phone: [phone]
244 W. Millbrook Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
5. Location of work (provide a map, preferable a copy of USGS topographic map or aerial
photograph with scale):
County: Wake Nearest town or city: Cary
Specific Location (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Northeast and southwest of NC 54
connecting two present termini of the Cary Parkway and crossing tributaries of
Crabtree Creek and Coles Branch. See attached Site Vicinity Map.
6. Impacted or nearest stream/river: Tributaries of Crabtree Creek
River Basin: Neuse River Basin
7a. Is project located near water classified as trout, tidal saltwater (SA), high quality waters
(HQW), outstanding resource waters (ORW), water supply (WS-I or WS-II)? YES ( )
NO (X) If yes, explain: NIA
7b. Is the project located within a North Carolina division of coastal management area of
environmental concern (AEC)? YES ( ) NO (X)
7c. If the project is located within a coastal county (see page 7 for list of coastal counties), what
is the land use plan (LUP) designation? N/A
8a. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES
(X) NO ( ) If yes, provide Action ID number of previous permit and any additional
information (including photocopy of 401 certification). USACOE Action ID it 199700542
8b. Are additional permit requests expected for this property in the future?
YES ( ) NO (X) If yes, describe anticipated work: N/A
9a. Estimated total number of acres in tract of land: 125 in Inspection Area
9b. Estimated total number or acres of wetlands located on project site: 1.5
10a. Number of acres of wetlands impacted by the proposed project by:
Stream Intermittent/Perennial Width NW13 (ac.) NW14 (ac.)
A Intermittent 10' 0.023 0.052
B Intermittent 5' 0.002 0.034
C Intermittent 5' 0.015 0.048
D Intermittent 5' 0.017 0.029
E Perennial (Coles Branch) 15' 0.107 0.048
F Intermittent 5' 0.002 0.020
Total: 0.166 0.231
10b. (1) Stream channel to be impacted by the proposed project (if relocated, provide distance
both before and after relocation):
Stream Intermittent/Perennial Width Impact (linear feet
A Intermittent 10' 226 I.f. 7'X7' bo:c culvert (NVV14)
100 Lf. riprap dissipater (NW13)
B Intermittent 5' 299 Lf. 48" RCP (NW14)
10 Lf. riprap dissipater (NI'J13)
C Intermittent 5' 418 Lf. 60" RCP (NW14)
130 U. channel improvem--nts (W13)
D Intermittent 5' 254 U. 18" RCP (NW14)
145 Lf. channel improvements (NW13)
E Perennial 15' 140 I.f. triple 9'x8' box culverts (NW14)
(Coles Branch) 310 Lf. channel improvements (NW13)
F Intermittent 5' 173 I.f. 3011 RCP (NW14)
10 I.f. riprap dissipater (NW13)
Total 1510 I.f. (NW 14)
705 I.f. (NW 13)
(2) Stream channel impacts will result from: (check all that apply)
Open channel relocation: Placement of pipe in channel: X
Channel Excavation: Construction of a Dam/Flooding:
Other: bank stabilization
11. If construction of a pond is proposed, what is the size of the watershed draining to the
pond? N/A
What is the expected pond surface area? N/A
12. Description of proposed work including discussion of type of mechanical equipment to be
used (attach plans 8 1/2" x 11" drawings only):
Construction of proposed roadway with mechanical equipment typically
assoicated with this type of activity.
13. Purpose of proposed work: Alleviate traffic burdens in local area and complete a
segment of road between two current termini.
14. State reasons why it is believed that this activity must be carried out in wetlands (include
any measures taken to minimize wetland impacts): Linear roadway requires six
crossings of Waters of the U.S. Crossings will be constructed perpendicular
to flow.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (see agency addresses sheet) regarding the presence of
any federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Date contacted:
(attach responses from these agencies). N/A; To be completed by the USACOE.
16. You are required to contact the state historic preservation officer (SHPO) (see agency
address sheet) regarding the presence of historic properties in the permit area which may be
affected by the proposed project. Date contacted: N/A; To be completed by tha
USACOE
17. Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (state) land?
YES (X) NO ( ) If no, go to 18.
a. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document
pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act?
YES (X) NO ( )
b. If yes, has the document been reviewed through the North Carolina Department of
Administration State Clearinghouse?
YES ( ) NO (X) Currently in review process.
If answers to 17b is YES, then submit appropriate documentation from the state clearinghouse to division of
environmental management regarding compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Questions regarding (lie State Clearinghouse review process should be directed to Ms. Clirys Baggctt,
Director State Clearinghouse, North Carolina Department of Administration, 116 Nest Jones Street,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003, telephone [phone].
18. The following items should be included with tlus application if proposed activity involves
the discharge of excavated or fill material into wetlands:
a. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, lakes and ponds on the
property (for Nationwide Permit numbers 14, 18, 21, 26, 29 and 38). All streams
(intermittent and permanent) on the property mast be shown on the map. Map scales
should be 1 inch equals SO feet or 1 inch equals 100 feet or their equivalent.
b. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the
placement of the delineation line.
d. Attach a copy of the stormwater management plan, if required.
e. What is land used of surrounding property? Forested and Residential
f. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N/A
g., Signed and dated agent authorization letter, if applicable.
NOTE: Wetlands or Waters of the U.S. may not be impacted prior to:
1. Issuance of a Section 404 Corps of Engineers Permit,
2. Either the issuance or waiver of a 401 Division of Environmental Management (Water
Quality) certification, and
3. (in the twenty coastal counties only) A letter from the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management stating the proposed activity is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management program.
zap -Ag F,
l e, X
s tgrtat re T'atc
(Agent's signature valid only if Agent Authorization Letter from the owner is provided (18 g.))
/30/1956 13:08 9198469467
PAGE 02
®g$; Inc.
244 Wc5t MiUbraok Road q Rakish, NcAh Carolina 27609 [phone] fJ Fax [phone]
- AGUYT AUT'MOM ATION FORM -
A" ULA a r 13F- RULER IN RY PIAIR ~ -41 L8MOWCNFR
Namo: .mm- ZML-V
jrtJt?3 ? 1
Addmw: '"DOZE=01 _2E
Addm=: M A00ci x.751 a
Phom max = 46?0 ?._..
ProJoct Namo/O on;
Data. _10'?_3Q'94,
The Copartmont of tho Army
U.S. Army Corp3 of EgInacrn
Wilmin0ton Olatrict
PO Box 1000
Wilmington, NC 24402
Attn: 6P_Ve aSN1EYb Z
Field Oftlco: OALc G!? 14
Re: Wetlands Rotatcd ConzWting and PormltUnj
To Whom It May Conc:m:
I, the current PMAy ovrnor, horeby d=lgncto cnd autrzdzo Soil and EnvlronmQntal
Conuultanta, Inc, to act In my tnhalr CS my ugcnt In tho PMW -*ia of pormtt Appttcatlon , to
fumisll upon roqutut rupplemcntal lrifot n In zuppo of epplications. ctc. from this day
forward. This the -,?j_ day of _ r"?tr,?? 1`?i G,
This nvtlfluriion up7wdzz cny pmvt= corn_-panaanc3 conwminq tho apont for this project.
BLIM Owners Na1mo:
6a Z&44
o:
RucnortvOwcro Sign FrO
cc: Mr. John Do"
NCDLHaNR - t7tJV1
Water Quality Ptcnntng
4401 Ra ;dy C=k F4--d
Rtllolgtt, NC 27007
cc; Mr. Chris Huy=an
Snit and Environmtnmi Consultants, Inc,
Soil/Site Evaluation 0 Mapping and Phyuical Analysis U Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation 0 Environmental Audit."
On-Site Waste Trcatmant Systems, Evaluation and Design
post-it' Fax Note 7671 Dale 10-31-961409 esIl.
To ?5 tl Fro.
i
?/ _ t( I
0-5
Lit
i "1 1 C
..-?{ 1? •II ??'; i ?i _ I ? ?. i II `, /???) ?? ??\. \r??? s'•?? ? i!) i / y ?e ) 11 i}
\ %; 11l O \??1 `\ (ll ll ^J\ I
Y(T L
j???s`
I Z.
I CSC ,; ( '1 • ?"?S ?u l? ???,:!? ? I?%) +?? " ?`?? 4 r:
?,\\j;\ I? ,, J? \.(? III-' ,?/ ?I?: Il _. \,I •, y)T Ctis??? ?? ,?.. \ ..- ,i \?I'.. _?i.
i
_? _ -.`y.i i" <?i J ? ?,/A?? ?? i,: ??` I ?? 'off .,•
_rv r „ u ?\J
11 /,
vaIj
_'-
J i
z
0
F u
Z
LIJ o
W
Q U LL
R
a ? O
a ? U
U cl
J
gig
d
UEF0.
Vg
Q
h
Q

U
u U
a ¢ g
z N W
z
p
?u
in 2¢
mn
u" °m
h
(n Z ¢ ¢ r
Sy W
W V Q?
_N U W It
< O
N Q ?1
Z ~ ? ?
1
ry 1
{bpi 1
0
\ r?
T? / Q d
i
w aQ nd
O
n \ ` /r d Q N
M //\ 0 l••
C? (L
LLJ
co co
\`-?-
Z \ ?. ?.
LLJ
W
LLJ J
N `•? y.\\ U LM cr
O \ ;., \ N
I\ W U W
z
o
Fn
z
ay? N
W X
a
3
?N
u
U ?
w z ?
o?
?I
O
H
?Q
?a
Delmeahon Performed hy: Soil and Environmental ConsultanL" Inc.
244 W. Millbrook Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Ph: 919/846-5900
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMIN ATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
1'rolect/Site: Date. q=? --
Applicant/Owner.' County: k l
Investigator. ?AUy9NAY?? State: l-X
Do Nonnal Circumstances exist on the site? (9No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed
(Atypical Situation)? , Yes eqZqTransect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed, exTlair? on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

11?N?y r-? SU,r?-
IN
S K
2. R's c -I 1-s to

_
3.1?-?zd c1.S
_ 4
4 - S? G= ICG., r(5(k
5sY?n?-?cs
6. `?>?' ? ?(Slf

g ? T 5l-f

Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
6'xjf_,fdakadCA -- V
yvl?
10tscv\w"N %rrlf%?M 2 r- ?-
11 1-??--
12
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
O k Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
I Aerial Photographs
I Other
l No Recorded Data Available
Field Observation;:
of
Drpth }6 Surface Water: _(RJ?7?-_(in.)
Depth to Free Water in
Depth to Sulwuled Sail.
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
y Inundated
____?_Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lutes
?- --Sediment Deposit-;
?/. -Drainage Patter ms in Wetland:;
Sep ondar? indicator.; (2 or more regmwd).
._ _?/___Oxidired Root ChanneL; in
upper 12 incbvr,
Water .Stuuwd Leaves
Local Soil Sun:ev Data
FAC-NeUtTiiI Test
c lther (I?xpliu>> in Rellll,rk.,)
0. 1w,11 I ...
SOILS
Map Unit Mime 1?-?^t ^^ ?
(Series and Phase).
-- --?- / -v--CJ-('-S2R? --
Taxonoilly (Subgroup):.-------. ---
-- --
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
irvLS. Horizon Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist)
011
?-
Drainage Class:-_ -
Field Observatiovus
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Mottle Texture, Concretio
Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
HN'dric Soil Indicators-.
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?C:4;s No (Circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Prevent? &? No f?3 No
Remarks
1
f +.
1
?f Y

d Soil & Environmental Consultants,
S Inc
2.11 Wcst Mitlllrook Road Q Ralcis;h, Not III Carolina 27609 a (919) 8,16-5900 Li 1'ax (919) 846-9,1
Transmittal
To: EIZ%G At--5"L_N1EF9_ " USAC-OIE Project #:%1-ZZ-'gO Date: 16 1Z2lq'}.
?t}?1 poi2Nr?`C ?' 01n1C? Project Name: CINRH 1'A6ZV-\A1a&
RECEIVED
2 ? r?2 Y 197
Fr2 (t?n? ,:EC1Tra.St;;P.Ct'S
We Transmit to you Herewith:
Drawings _
Specifications _
Brochures or photos _
Correspondence _
Under Separate Cover:
GEt .
For your information and files X By mail*,
For comment or approval By courier
Returned for correction, resubmit By express
Approved as noted
No. Copies Document No. Date Description

1 FM- r-11 rr AWL16471ON1 - VSACd6'
? ?? - Awl

Remarks:
If enclosures are not as listed as above, kindly notify us at once.
13y: -- - al/
Soil/Silo FY:alai:itioll M Mapping :and Physical Analysis M We11:11uts M:alllling and Mitigation CF 1?11vironnlcnta1 A
On-Site Write 'I'rcautu•nt Systcnls, Evaluation :allot Design
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
244 Test Millbrook Road E3 IZalcigh, North Carolina 27609 0 [phone] t] Fax [phone]
w J
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Artily Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. Eric Alsmcycr
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd., Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
q -? 2'?O October 22, 1997
N.C. Division of Water Quality - DEHNR
Attn: Mr. John Donley
4401 Reedy Creek Road RECEIVED
Raleigh, NC 27607
GCi 2 4 1997
ENVIR0aV't,'FNTALSCictuCE6
Dear Sirs:
17ie purpose of this letter is to request Nationwide Permits 13 & 14, and Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for the project known as U-3408 Cary Parkway Extension. Tlnc project
corridor is to be acquired by the Town of Cary, NC and is located near the TOwms of Cary and
Morrisville, NC (Wake County). Tltc site is shown on the enclosed plans and, NC, USGS Topo
Quad site vicinity map.
It will be necessary to impact 0.396 acres (sec map) of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. above
headwaters for tic placement of the proposed road. Six pipe and fill crossings and channel
improvements arc proposed under Nationwide Penuits 13 and 14. Each of these impacts exceeds
the 150 linear foot limits. However, based on the USGS Quadrangle for Cary, N.C. and field
verification by a biologist, five of the crossings can be classified as intermittent streams and not
subject to mitigation under North Carolina DWQ Wctland Rules {I 5A NCAC 21J.0506(b)(6)) .
Coles Branch is a perennial stream subject to mitigation. This mitigation can be accomplished
through tic Wetlands Restoration Program or die NCDOT mitigation bank. It is our
understanding that this is a linear project and that each crossing is single and complete.
A comprelncnsive stream mitigation proposal w1111 be submitted to DWQ upon conditional issuance
of the 401 prior to construction. A federal Nvetland pennit for this project has been received from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the provisions of Nationwide Permit Number 14 of
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The pernlit was
issued on April 25, 1997, with an Action ID 199700542.
Comment: "DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland
sources in the construction contract awarded for this project. This should also be
included in a list of environmental commitments in tltc"FONSI."
Please call if you have questions or require further information. If you decide to perfornn a site
visit, please contact us so we can arrange for someone to accompany you.
Sincerely,
df ???
Bob Zarzecki, Biologist
Soil/Site Evaluation 0 Mapping and Physical Analysis Cl Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation ® Environmental Aud
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Evaluation and Design
l)%V'O 11)
Corps Action ID 199700542
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): 13 & 14
Pre-Construction Notification Application
For Nationwide Permits that require:
1) Notification to the Corps of Engineers
2) Application for Section 401 Certification
3) Coordination with the NC Division of Coastal Management
Send the original and (1) copy of this completed form to the appropriate field office of the Corps
of Engineers (see agency addresses sheet). Seven (7) copies should be sent to the NC Division of
Environmental Management (see agency addresses sheet). PLEASE. PRINT.
Owner's Name: Town of Cary, Attn: Tim Bailey
2. Mailing Address: PO Box 8005
Subdivision Name: N/A
City: Cary
State: NC Zip Code: 27512
Project location address, including subdivision name (if different from mailing address above):
Northeast and southwest of NC 54 connecting two present termini of the Cary
Parkway and crossing tributaries of Crabtree Creek and Coles Branch. See
attached Site Vicinity Map.
3) Telephone Number (Home): NIA
(Work): 919-460-4935
4) If applicable, agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Phone: [phone]
244 W. Millbrook Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
5. Location of work (provide a map, preferable a copy of USGS topographic map or aerial
photograph with scale):
County: Wake Nearest town or city: Cary
Specific Location (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Northeast and southwest of NC 54
connecting two present termini of the Cary Parkway and crossing tributaries of
Crabtree Creek and Coles Branch. See attached Site Vicinity Map.
6. Impacted or nearest stream/river: Tributaries of Crabtree Creek
River Basin: Neuse River Basin
7a. Is project located near water classified as trout, tidal saltwater (SA), high quality waters
(I IQW), outstanding resource waters (ORW), water supply (WS-1 or WS-11)? YES
NO (X) If yes, explain: N/A
7b. Is the project located within a North Carolina division of coastal management area of
environmental concern (AEC)? YES ( ) NO (X)
7c. If the project is located within a coastal county (see page 7 for list of coastal counties), what
is the land use plan (LUP) designation? NIA
8a. I lave any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES
(X) NO ( ) If yes, provide Action ID number of previous permit and any additional
information (including photocopy of 401 certification). USACOE Action ID # 199700542
8b. Are additional permit requests expected for this property in the future?
YES ( ) NO (X) If yes, describe anticipated work: NIA
9a. Estimated total number of acres in tract of land: 125 in Inspection Area
9b. Estimated total number or acres of wetlands located on project site: 1.5
1 Oa. Number of acres of wetlands impacted by the proposed project by:
Stream Intermittent/Perennial Width NW13 (ac.) NW14 (ac.)
A Intermittent 10' 0.023 0.052
B Intermittent 5' 0.002 0.034
C Intermittent 5' 0.015 0.048
D Intermittent 5' 0.017 0.029
E Perennial (Coles Branch) 15' 0.107 0.048
F Intermittent 5' 0.002 0.020
Total: 0.166 0.231
1 Ob. (1) Stream channel to be impacted by the proposed project (if relocated, provide distance
both before and after relocation):
Stream Intermittent/Perennial Width Impact (linear feet
A Intermittent 10' 226 I.f. 7'X7' box culvert (NW14)
100 I.f. riprap dissipater (NW13)
B Intermittent 5' 299 I.f. 48" RCP (NW14)
10 I.f. riprap dissipater (NW13)
C Intermittent 5' 418 I.f. 60" RCP (NW14)
130 I.f. channel improvements (NW13)
D Intermittent 5' 254 I.f. 18" RCP (NW14)
145 I.f. channel improvements (NW13)
E Perennial 15' 140 I.f. triple 9'x8' box culverts (NW14)
(Coles Branch) 310 I.f. channel improvements (NW13)
F Intermittent 5' 173 I.f. 30" RCP (NW14)
10 I.f. riprap dissipater (NW13)
Total 1510 I.f. (NW 14)
705 I.f. (NW 13)
(2) Stream channel impacts will result from: (check all that apply)
Open channel relocation: Placement of pipe in channel: X
Channel Excavation: Construction of a Dam/Flooding:
Other: bank stabilization
11. If construction of a pond is proposed, what is the size of the watershed draining to the
pond? N/A
What is the expected pond surface area? NIA
12. Description of proposed work including discussion of type of mechanical equipment to be
used (attach plans 8 1/2" x 11" drawings only):
Construction of proposed roadway with mechanical equipment typically
assoicated with this type of activity.
13. Purpose of proposed work: Alleviate traffic burdens in local area and complete a
segment of road between two current termini.
14. State reasons why it is believed that this activity must be carried out in wetlands (include
any measures taken to minimize wetland impacts): Linear roadway requires six
crossings of Waters of the U.S. Crossings will be constructed perpendicular
to flow.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (see agency addresses sheet) regarding the presence of
any federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Date contacted:
(attach responses from these agencies). NIA; To be completed by the USACOE.
16. You are required to contact the state historic preservation officer (SI-IPO) (see agency
address sheet) regarding the presence of historic properties in the permit area which may be
affected by the proposed project. Date contacted: N/A; To be completed by the
USACOE
17. Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (state) land?
YES (X) NO ( ) If no, go to 18.
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document
pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act?
YES (X) NO ( )
b. If yes, has the document been reviewed through the North Carolina Department of
Administration State Clearinghouse?
YES ( ) NO (X) Currently in review process.
If answers to 17b is YES, then submit appropriate documentation front the state clearinghouse to division of
environmental management regarding compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Questions regarding (lie State Clearinghouse review process should be directed to Ms. Clays Baggett,
Director State Clearinghouse, North Carolina Department of Administration, 116 Nest Jones Street,
P,ilcigh, North Carolina 27603-8003, telephone [phone].
18. The following items should be included with this application if proposed activity involves
the discharge of excavated or fill material into wetlands:
a. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, lakes and ponds on the
property (for Nationwide Permit numbers 14, 18, 21, 26, 29 and 38). All streams
(intermittent and permanent) on the property must be shown on the map. Map scales
should be I inch equals 50 feet or I inch equals 100 feet or their equivalent.
b. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data slieets relevant to the
placement of the delineation line.
d. Attach a copy of the stormwater management plan, if required.
C. What is land used of surrounding property? Forested and Residential
f. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N/A
g. Signed and dated agent authorization letter, if applicable.
NOTE: Wetlands or Waters of the U.S. may not be impacted prior to:
1. Issuance of a Section 404 Corps of Engineers Permit,
2. Either the issuance or waiver of a 401 Division of Environmental Management (Water
Quality) certification, and
3. (in the twenty coastal counties only) A letter from the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management stating the proposed activity is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management program.
se4si8*natre
-/D????
Date
(Agent's signature valid only if Agent Authorization Letter fi-om the owner is provided (18 g.))
1
t
NT

t'iJ'L 9-
S®a1 & Enviyarme Co ults, Inc.
244 Wcst Wlbmok Road p RaleiGtt, Ncrttt Carolina 27609[3(gig) 846.5900 CI Fax [phone]
- AGIENT AUTHORZATION FORM -
ALL 9LAN?TQ t,
Namo:
Addrgao:
Addmaz:
Phone:
Projod NamoMi;=VUon:
Data: _1p, 3 2(11
The Dapartmont of to Army
U.S. Army Cogs of Enginom
Wilmington Dictrict
PO Box Iago
Wilmington, NC ZU02
Attn: Ipa-v" AISN1c ley-
Field 01TIC- is (1A O!? 1A N-1,
LE!? IN BY ORRRENT LA QWNEj3
rz?- + or= Co?.?`(
r.
?-o M P'Co5 f 4.6?4 x.751 a
aX 460
Re: Wetlands aerated Corizutt:ng and Pormlttln3
To Whom It May Concam:
1, the otlrmnt p yf owner, horeby dettlgn;to and auttt rizo Soil and Envimmontal
Cortsuttanta, Inc, to act in my txthalf Ca my uggrtt In the fx'OQO*-' 1W of pormtt AppUcatlcns, to
furnish upon rc uo4t aupplorn ntal Inf0AV n In =J tN a-1lri;tion3, etc. tram W3 day
forward. Thiz the __U- day of ICS s:f r 1`4 1L
This netlficatlon suporsadca tiny pmvW, a carrc poMenci concoming the cgont for this project.
a 0-j
ELI.W Owners gram©:
Go:.. Mr. Jahn Co=y
NCDEH&NR - DEM
Water Quality Picnning
4401 Rc-cQy CM--k Rood
Raleigh, NC 27007
cc; Mr. ChM Huy=an
Soil and EnvirvnmofUl Conaultanta, inc.
Er. p-o1•tY O+tmoto Sign ro:
SuiUSite rvalumign C] Mapping and Physical Analysis R Vk0ands Mapping and Mitigation U Environmental Audit-S
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Cvaluatiun and Design
feat-it" Fax Note 7671 Date 10-31-1 6 # of
Tv t5 ' 11,?? "'T
Ulan
t o l l'- v m o o r
12,
Ilk,
? ?? ?A /A •/:? S •' \/r'1 y 7 ?? .,-. r II F? S ??,+{ / ?.^
. 1? JIM
?,1 Ir r ? ?.?
(4%.' Illi-.'`?11.?!
?'.1; KIN
J(??' 11??"? ?
`I(f? ,?? ?- ?? ? ?_ :111 j? ?'. ?)i?;? 'r ?f 4 /-,??`•J) l l?r?r ? 1? ( .?1
r,l
\,- : ,? i ti IfAr , -Itt
?)?.?/ / ./`?/\R?? ._ F??I' ?I I (?'??1I l ?/(n'C '?1?%.I /? A?`? ???
L/l \ ,I/ I,
11 / I?II?I\ / f \ X 1 1 I `? ) \\ ?.I' '. 1 ./ \\ ;1. ? t \ (.
- %??II??,? il\???1`/'O],??.?( •r?`?ll??L?i:i,'? ,?,??!) ?1~?j?, ,r `, •`,,i\???? A ? I ?? !?'?. ?'
.r Li 1
I r:
V-1: A
A
?? VIII ? \; (? ??\ ?/[O l '? / ,1?? ii• ? ?:i ?? I; •, ., . ? ? ,,,'c
I / I 1 '
,?I }?,?; t`-??'i•?; ?l ate. (t '????'•?? ='?'' I ""?? ---////?
fer / III
! ( + ' c -) „ r j# ? r
Avs
VIA

h
rn W
uj k
a U
U Q O
a o
,? h o
° NW
N tiV
m ZQ
LL) uN
U) Q Q
L or
LLJ t4 U W Q ? O
N
d r4 O
Q ~ Qti
Z N 4 ti
i
o
^(,' n j i Z H
Lij
K
w 1\ %'
w a
a ?? \ o n
d a Z
N
. ?\
ul
ui
u,
N \ \ u m a
o \ N
w \ I J
N \
O
LA U-
1'e,tonned I,y 'oll 11114 VilviloRn\(`ntol 1 oii •ultnnt 1,,,
244 W. Millbiool, Road
Raleigh, NC- 27009
Ph: 919 / 846-5900

D A'F A FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMIN ATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Datc:_4-?g-?_ --
Applicant/Owner: _ County: _1=--
Invrstigaloi- ?Vy91?lf?-? State: 1 X?
1A
(Atypical Situation)? , Yes Transect ID:
-_
Is Lhe area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: ......
(If needed, exTInin on reverse.)
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (9 No Commu-1uty ID:
Is the site sigzuficantly disturbed
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
3.1?- d C1.Q?tU. l4 ?l? t CsnCJC-b vS(f
Indicator Dominant Plant Species St Tatum Indicator
9.}? ?x.srsr
10?/??tnll?m _Z_-
11 ??? _7 OS S(
12.
13.
14. -
15. ---- -
16.
- ----
Pt., cent of Domiiiant. Species that are 0131, FAC\'1i or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Romarks:
HYDROLOGY
lj? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photog7aplls
I Other
No Recorded Data Avoilable
Flood Obscrvatxltu;
oF
I)e1,th}?i SUH41Ce C?'ulrr W'f1,d- _(ill
-
04,011 to Free V\?uter ul 1'1t L9 ?? __' .(111.)
I),,pt11 to `;(Jturnt',d ")oil (i,l )
WaLmd Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
y Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12 inches
v Water Mar1S
Drift Lille s
?- Sediment Deposib;
V .Drouulge Paltenis in Wetl`ind:
Se. on(Ini Irldicaton; (2 or more rctqutrc<{
Ox1d17.ed I:ool C'hantlek; in
upprr I'1_ n1, 11e?.
Waler -.;Ullllvd Lei,ves
Lo(ul .`;oil `?;u rv,•v I?nta
FA( Nrutrnl 1, :;l
( )11,4,, (I,>:plnn, u, IZenuirl.•1
'iOI1."v
ni„I• Unit Namo
le.; iuul I'hnsr)
I'uXOnomy(klul,group):
Pro(IIe Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(uL/.)
0_
62 1101`17,011 MMutL CII Moil)

-

Hydric Soil Indicators:'
Urnuiugv --
Field Observntu»us
C'onlirr, Mapped l yPe? Ye, No
Mottle Colors Mottle
(Must.ell Moist) /\Ibundalice /Contrast
Texture, Concr
Slruet_ z? ,rte
Histosol `' Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking m Sandy Soil;
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soil List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soil List
\,- Cleyed or Low-Chron,a Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Recnarl:s:
Weiland Deternunation
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present-/' ?s No (Circle) Is this Samplu,g Poii,t Within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? No (Circle)
Hydric Soil Prevent? No > No
Remark s:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James R Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 12, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Through: John Dorne(P
From: Cyndi Bell L L/3
Subject: Environmental Assessment for Cary Parkway Extension from
North of SR 1615 (High House Road) to Evans Road
Wake County
State Project DOT No. 9.8050381, T.I.P. No. U-3408; EHNR # 97-0743
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The document describes potential impacts associated with NCDOT's
Preferred Alignment plus three alternate alignments. The project will
involve fill in up to 0.12 acre of wetlands and two new crossings of perennial
streams. On November 10, 1996, NCDOT applied for 404/401 Permits for the
preferred alternative. Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued
Nationwide Permit 14 for this project, DWQ has placed this project on
administrative hold until the EA and FONSI have been sent through the State
Clearinghouse. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document and
permit application review:
A) A permit application was submitted even before the EA was completed,
and specifies impacts for NCDOT's preferred alternative. Based upon our
field review, DWQ believes that Alternate 3, which is not NCDOT's
preferred alternative, may be the least environmentally damaging.
Since the wetland impacts associated with this project fall below 1/3
acre, and it appears that no stream impacts will exceed 150 feet linear
channel distance, DWQ will not pursue selection of an alternative which
further avoids and minimizes impacts. However, in the future we
strongly discourage NCDOT from applying for permits prior to document
circulation and agency consensus with the design alternative. NCDOT is
also reminded that the 401 Water Quality Certification will not be issued
until after the FONSI is approved and circulated to the review agencies.
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Attirmative Action Employer 501% recyclod/l0% pest consumer paper
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
June 12, 1997
Page 2 of 2
B) In order for DWQ to issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
preferred alignment, we recommend that the FONSI should provide the
following information lacking in the EA:
Quantification of stream impacts - NCDOT has provided a diagram
showing all streams within the study area, along with specific
dimensions of each stream and recommended culvert structures. NCDOT
should provide approximate linear distances of stream impacts. If
culverts and/or stream relocations exceed 150 feet linear distance of
stream channel at any stream crossing, stream mitigation may be
required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules 115A NCAC
2H.0506(b)(6)). In such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation
proposal should be included in the FONSI or application for 401 Water
Quality Certification.
C) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from
upland sources in the construction contract awarded for this project.
This should also be included in a list of environmental commitments in
the FONSI.
D) DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands. This commitment should be
incorporated into the construction contract awarded for this project.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, General Certification 3103
will likely be applicable to this project. Final permit authorization will
require written concurrence from DWQ. This approval will be contingent
upon evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to
the extent practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation where
necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the EA. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Howard Hall, FWS
David Cox, WRC
U3408EA.DOC
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet IM5 7i
DWO - Water Quality Section
M

Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
* Wetlands
O John Dorney
P_Kcyndi Bell (Dar)
Greg Price (airports, COE)
O Steve Kroeger (utilities)
O
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
O Trish MacPherson
O Kathy Herring (forest/oxw/t-1Qw)
O
* Toxicology
O Lary Ausley
O
Technical Support Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Coleen Sullins, P&E
O Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
O Kim Coleson, P&E, State
O Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
O Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
O Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
O
Operations Branch (Archdale 7th)
O Kent Wiggins, Facility Assessment
O Tom Poe, Pretreatment
O Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
Planning Branch (Archdale - 6th) O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE:
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any,
by the date indicated.
RESPONSE DEADLINE:
? NO COMMENT ? COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date:
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are greatly
appreciated!
Notes:
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
m1s.Ncircmemo.doc

Documentation Prepared By:
Withers & Ravenel Engineering & Surveying, Inc.

Cary Parkway Extension
North of 1615 (High House Road) to Evans Road
Cary/Wake County, North Carolina
State Project No. 9.8050381
TIP No. U-3408
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
William E. Lee, P.E.
Project Manager

For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
' ames A. Bissett, Jr., PE., Un t Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
' Thomas R. Kendig, AICP
Environmental Study Manager
1

SUMMARY
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Administrative
' Action, Environmental Assessment.
2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
' The following person can be contacted for additional information concerning this
action:
' H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
3. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
A wetlands permit for this project has been received from the U.S. Army Corps of
' Engineers under the provisions of Nationwide Permit Number 14 of Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The permit was issued on
April 25, 1997 with an Action ID 199700542. A Section 401 Water Quality
' Certification from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) will be required.
' A railroad crossing will require the preparation and submittal of a four party railroad
encroachment agreement and a railroad force account agreement. Preliminary and
final bridge plans must be submitted to the railroad for review and approval.
NCDOT encroachment agreements will be required for utilities constructed as part of
' this project such as the 24-inch Town of Cary water main.
4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
The Cary Parkway is a four-lane median divided highway that forms an approximate
three-quarter loop with a two to three-mile radius around downtown Cary. Presently,
there are two independent sections of the road that are referred to in this document as
Cary Parkway and NW Cary Parkway. The intent of this project is to join these two
sections. The Cary Parkway's southern origin is the intersection of Holly Springs Road
on the southeast side of Cary and is routed west northwest along the south side of town.
As the Parkway approaches the Apex city limits the route turns north and terminates
approximately one-quarter of a mile north of High House Road (SR 1615) near
Crabtree Crossing Parkway within the Preston Planned Unit Development (PUD). See
Figures 1, 2, and 3. The NW Cary Parkway's northern origin is at the intersection of
North Harrison Avenue. The NW Cary Parkway is routed west to Evans Road where it
' terminates. The purpose of this project is to connect the existing NW Cary Parkway at
Evans Road with the Cary Parkway terminus just north of High House Road.
The proposed Cary Parkway Extension project is within Wake County and is 2.57
' miles in length. The project area is located within northwestern Cary and eastern
Morrisville jurisdictional limits and is primarily on new location.
The project area contains a few environmental features which include the Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) stream, Coles Branch as well as non FIS streams that are
unnamed tributaries of Coles Branch and unnamed tributaries of Crabtree Creek.
5. PROPOSED PROJECT
NCDOT in conjunction with the Town of Cary and area developers, proposes to
complete the Cary Parkway, from Evans Road intersection to Crabtree Crossing
Parkway intersection in Wake County. The proposed project is referred to as the Cary
Parkway Extension. The extension will be constructed as a four-lane median divided
roadway, primarily on new location. The proposed project is designated U-3408 and is
included in the 1997-2003 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program for
construction in Fiscal Year 1998. NCDOT estimates the cost of the project at $10.55
million.
6. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Construction of the proposed project will help meet traffic needs and fulfill the goals of
the Town of Cary Comprehensive Growth Plan and the Town of Morrisville Growth
Plan. Cary Parkway is designated as a major thoroughfare between northwestern
Cary /Morrisville and South Cary.
Possible adverse environmental impacts from the proposed project consist of the
following: four stream crossings, including two perennial streams and two intermittent
streams, potential impacts to approximately 17 acres of forested habitat, and potential
impacts to wetlands totaling approximately 0.12 acres.
Adverse social impacts from the proposed project include the division of the Silverton
and Preston PUDs, however, the proposed roadway was included in the original PUD
Plans and a corridor has been preserved. Several other existing and proposed
developments will also be impacted by their relative proximity to the proposed project.
There will be no residences or businesses relocated by the roadway.
7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The typical section being considered is a four-lane divided facility with a 33-foot raised
median on a 106 to 110-foot right-of-way. These typical sections are required based on
projected traffic volumes and to conform with the Town of Cary and NCDOT Greater
Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plans. Several alignment alternatives were
investigated for this project. The selected alternative minimized wetland impacts and
project costs. Other alternatives considered and found not viable were the no-build
alternative, an alignment west of the WRBZ radio transmission towers, an alignment
through the transmission towers, an alignment east of the transmission towers (Figure
3) and postponement of the proposed project.
8. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The following environmental commitments will be adhered to during the
implementation of this project:
• NCDOT will implement all practical measures and procedures to minimize and
avoid environmental impacts.
• No environmental commitments of a unique or special nature are involved.
SUMMARY

I

J

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................. 1
1.1 General Description ........................................... 1
1.2 Characteristics of Existing Facility ................................. 1
1.2.1 Typical Section ......................................... 1
1.2.2 Right-of-Way ..........................................2
1.2.3 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ............................. 2
1.2.4 Speed Limit ........................................... 2
1.2.5 Access Control ......................................... 2
1.2.6 Intersecting Roads ....................................... 2
1.2.7 Railroad Crossings ....................................... 2
CHAPTER2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................3
2.1 Project Status ............................................... 3
2.2 Accident Rates .............................................. 3
2.3 Traffic Volumes and Level-of-Service ............................... 4
2.4 Benefits to the State, Region, and Community .......................... 5
2.5 Summary of Project Need ....................................... 5
CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS .......................... 6
3.1 No Build Alternative .......................................... 6
3.2 Postponement of the Proposed Project ............................... 6
3.3 Transportation System Management ................................. 6
3.4 Multi- Modal .................................... ..... 6
3.5 Build Alternatives ............................................ 7
3.5.1 Alignments Considered .................................... 7
3.5.2 Preferred Alternative ..................................... 8
3.5.2.1 Type of Improvement ..................................... 8
3.5.2.2 Typical Section ......................................... 8
3.5.2.3 Right-of-Way .......................................... 8
3.5.2.4 Bikeways/Sidewalks ...................................... 8
3.5.2.5 Proposed Design Speed .................................... 9
3.5.2.6 Access Control ......................................... 9
3.5.2.7 Intersection Treatment .................................... 9
3.5.2.8 Utilities .............................................. 9
3.5.2.9 Permits .............................................. 9
3.5.2.10 Cost Estimates ......................................... 1 0
3.5.2.11 Traffic Analysis ....................................... 1 0
' CHAPTER 4 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .............
4.1 Land Use Impacts ........................................... 11
11
4.2 Neighborhood Impacts ........................................ 11
' 4.3
4.4 Relocation Impacts ..::::::::::::::: : :: : ::::::::::::::::::::::
Community Facilities 11
11
4.5 Utilities .................................................. 11
1
4.6 Economic Impact ............................................ 13
4.7 Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources ..................... 13
4.8 Air Quality ................................................ 14
4.8.1 Background .......................................... 14
4.8.2 Analysis Methodology .................................... 16
4.8.3 Analysis Results ........................................ 16
4.9 Noise ................................................... 17
4.9.1 Traffic Noise Analysis ................................... 17
4.9.1.1 Characteristics of Noise .................................. 17
4.9.1.2 Existing Noise Levels ................................... 18
4.9.1.3 Noise Abatement Criteria and Analysis Methodology ............... 19
4.9.2 Analysis Results ........................................ 20
4.9.2.1 Traffic Noise ......................................... 20
4.9.2.2 Construction Noise. .................................... 23
4.9.3 Abatement Measures ..................................... 23
4.9.3.1 Highway Alignment Selection .............................. 23
4.9.3.2 Traffic System Management Alternative ........................ 24
4.9.3.3 Noise Barriers ......................................... 24
4.10 Natural Resources ...................................... 25
4.10.1 Introduction .......................................... 25
4.10.1.1 Purpose ............................................. 25
4.10.1.2 Methodology .......................................... 25
4.10.1.3 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ......................... 26
4.10.1.4 Definitions ............................................ 26
4.10.2 Physical Resources ...................................... 26
4.10.2.1 Soils ............................................... 26
4.10.2.2 Topography .......................................... 27
4.10.2.3 Regional Geology ....................................... 27
4.10.2.4 Water Resources ....................................... 28
4.10.2.4.1 Water Impacts and Characteristics ....................... 28
4.10.2.4.1a Flood Hazard Evaluation ............................. 28
4.10.2.4.1b Hydraulics ...................................... 28
4.10.2.4.2 Best Usage Classification ............................. 30
4.10.2.4.3 Water Quality .................................... 30
4.10.2.4.3a Surface Water .................................... 30
4.10.2.4.3b Groundwater ..................................... 31
4.10.2.4.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................ 31
4.10.3 Biotic Resources ....................................... 32
4.10.3.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities .............................. 32
4.10.3.1.1 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest .......................... 32
4.10.3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest ............................. 33
4.10.3.1.3 Pine Forest ...................................... 33
4.10.3.1.4 Floodplain Forest .................................. 33
4.10.3.1.5 Rights-of-Way and Residential Areas ..................... 34
4.10.3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ...................................... 34
4.10.3.3 Aquatic Habitat ........................................ 36
4.10.3.4 Impacts to Biotic Communities .............................. 36

' 4.10.3.4a Habitat Fragmentation ............................... 37
4.10.4 Jurisdictional Topics ..................................... 37
' 4.10.4.1 Waters of the U.S .......................................
4.10.4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .............. 37
38
4.10.4.1.2 Vegetated Wetlands ................................ 38
' 4.10.4.1.3 Hydric Soils .....................................
4.10.4.1.4 Hydrophytic Vegetation .............................. 38
39
4.10.4.1.5 Hydrologic Indicators ............................... 39
' 4.10.4.1.6 Waters of the U.S . ................................. 39
4.10.4.1.7 Permits ......................................... 39
4.10.4.1.7a Section 404 ......................................
4.10.4.1.7b Section 401 ...................................... 40
40
4.10.4.2 Rare and Protected Species ................................. 40
' 4.10.4.2.1 Literature Review and Background Investigations .............
4.10.4.2.2 Field Survey Methods ............................... 40
41
4.10.4.2.3 Species Descriptions and Status ......................... 41
' 4.10.4.2.3a Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus ....................
4.10.4.2.3b Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Picoides borealis . 41
42
4.10.4.2.3c Dwarf wedge Mussel, Alasmidonta heterodon ............... 42
' 4.10.4.2.3d Michaux's Sumac, Rhus michauxii ...................... 43
4.10.4.3 Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species .............. 43
4.11 Secondary Impacts ........................................... 44
' 4.12 Visual Impacts ............................................. 45
4.13 Hazardous Material Sites ........................................ 45
4.13.1 CERCLA ............................................ 45
' 4.13.2 RCRA .............................................. 45
4.13.3 Hazardous Spill Incident Records ............................ 46
' 4.13.4 UST Leak Incidents .....................................
4.13.5 Solid Waste ........................................... 46
46
4.14 Construction Impacts ......................................... 47
CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................ 49
' CHAPTER 6 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ........................ 50
CHAPTER7 REFERENCE .........................................51
' APPENDICES ..................................................53
Appendix A: Agency Response and Coordination Letters
' Appendix B: General Permit Verification, Nationwide Permit 14
Appendix C: USFWS List of Protected Species

LIST OF FIGURES'
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Study Area Map
Figure 3 Proposed Alignment
Figure 4 Cary Zoning Map
Figure 5 Projected Average Daily Traffic
Figure 6 Roadway Typical Section
Figure 7A Proposed Right-of-Way (East)
Figure 713 Proposed Right-of-Way (Central)
Figure 7C Proposed Right-of-Way (West)
Figure S Cary Growth Plan
Figure 9A Measurement and Receptor Locations (West)
Figure 9B Measurement and Receptor Locations (Central)
Figure 9C Measurement and Receptor Locations (East)
Figure 10 Cary, N.C. USGS. Topographic Quadrangle
Figure 11 Plant Community Type Approximation Map
Figure 12 Preliminary Wetlands Approximation Map
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: ACCIDENT RATE COMPARISON
TABLE 2: LEVEL-OF-SERVICE SUMMARY
TABLE 3: PREDICTED MAXIMUM CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
TABLE 4: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
TABLE 5: FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
TABLE 6: EXISTING AND PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
TABLE 7: SOILS: ENGINEERING INTERPRETATIONS FOR HIGHWAY LOCATION
TABLE S: IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
TABLE 9: WETLAND IMPACTS
TABLE 10: RCRA REGULATED FACILITIES
TABLE 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILL
TABLE 12: UST LEAK INCIDENTS

7

I?

1

CHAPTER 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Cary Parkway is a four-lane median divided highway that forms an approximate three-
quarter loop with a two to three-mile radius around downtown Cary. Presently, there are two
independent sections of the road that are referred to in this report as Cary Parkway and NW
Cary Parkway. The intent of this project is to join these two sections. The Cary Parkway's
southern origin is the intersection of Holly Springs Road on the southeastern side of Cary and
is routed west northwest along the south side of town. As the Parkway approaches the Apex
city limits the route turns north and terminates approximately one-quarter of a mile north of
High House Road (SR 1615) near Crabtree Crossing Parkway. The NW Cary Parkway's
northern origin is at the intersection of North Harrison Avenue. The NW Cary Parkway is
routed west to Evans Road where it terminates. The purpose of this project is to conn(:ct the
existing NW Cary Parkway at Evans Road with the Cary Parkway terminus just north of High
House Road.
1.1 General Description
The proposed Cary Parkway Extension project is within Wake County and is 2.57 miles in
length. The project area is located within northwestern Cary and eastern Morrisville
jurisdictional limits and is primarily on new location. The northern terminus of this project is
the intersection of NW Cary Parkway and Evans Road and the southern terminus is the
intersection of Cary Parkway and Crabtree Crossing Parkway in Preston Planned Unit
Development (PUD). See Figures 1, 2 and 3.
Approximately 6,800 feet of road frontage within Cary's jurisdiction is zoned PUD, 2,000 feet
of frontage zoned residential eight (R-8), 600 feet office/ institutional, 1,200 feet commercial
and 4,000 feet light industrial. Approximately 7,000 feet of road frontage is within the Town
of Morrisville's jurisdiction and is primarily residential, industrial management and general
business. See Figure 4. The proposed extension intersects NC 54 within the city limits of
Morrisville.
The project is needed to serve projected traffic volumes and to provide access for future
development. The traffic will be primarily north-south oriented, between existing and planned
residential communities, as well as light industrial and commercial areas. The planned and
partially completed subdivisions along the alignment have been developed in anticipation of
this project. The projected 2020 average daily traffic volumes, which range from
approximately 19,600 to 22,400 vehicles per day on Cary Parkway, cannot be accommodated
without this facility. The Cary Parkway provides an important link between rapidly urbanizing
portions of northern Cary, Morrisville, and the Research Triangle Park. It also supplements
Maynard Road as a vital connection between High House Road and NC 54.
1.2 Characteristics of Existing Facility
1.2.1 Typical Section
The existing Cary Parkway southern terminus is a curb and gutter four-lane divided
urban thoroughfare from High House Road to just south of Crabtree Crossing Parkway
where it transitions to a two-lane roadway. The lanes are 11 feet wide on the inside

and 13 feet wide on the outside to accommodate bicycles. The project's northern
terminus at Evans Road extends to North Harrison Avenue as a two-lane curb and
gutter section offset in the eastern half of a right-of-way. The lanes are 12 feet wide.
1.2.2 Right-of-Way
The right-of-way for the existing Cary Parkway is 106 feet wide. The right-of-way for
the proposed Cary Parkway Extension is 110 feet, except between Weston PUD
boundary, approximately 200 feet south of Sheldon Drive, and Evans Road. This right-
of-way will be 106 feet wide and has been dedicated by Weston PUD and approved in
the Silverton PUD. It has been agreed that easements for guardrail and sidewalks will
be obtained as necessary.
1.2.3 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing Cary Parkway meets North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design guidelines for 50 mile per
hour (mph) design speed.
1.2.4 Speed Limit
The existing speed limit on Cary Parkway is 45 mph.
1.2.5 Access Control
Existing Cary Parkway has partial control of access with no individual residential
driveways in accordance with Town of Cary policy. - The Town of Cary restricts access
points to a minimum via site plan and subdivision approval. The Town of Morrisville,
also controls access through zoning and subdivision ordinances.
1.2.6 Intersecting Roads
Most intersecting roads within the vicinity of the project area connect with Cary
Parkway at-grade and have stop sign control. The intersection with High House Road,
south of the project is signalized. The existing NW Cary Parkway and Evans Road
intersection is controlled by stop signs along the NW Cary Parkway.
1.2.7 Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings on existing roads in the study area for this project.
However, the proposed extension will cross a 200-foot wide railroad right-of-way with
a grade separated crossing.
2
J
' CHAPTER 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
' 2.1 Project Status
The Project is listed in the 1997-2003 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as
U-3408. Construction is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1998.
1 2.2 Accident Rate
Traffic accident rate analyses were prepared for 1) NC 54 between Aviation Parkway in
Morrisville and Maynard Road in Cary, 2) Evans Road from Weston Parkway to Maynard
Road, and 3) the Cary Parkway from Crabtree Crossing Parkway to Trade Center Boulevard.
The analyses, summarized in Table 1, cover the period from June 1993 through May 1996.
This table indicates the actual accident rates on these roads and compares them with the
average statewide accident rates for similar types of roadways.

J

1

TABLE 1
ACCIDENT RATE COMPARISON
(accident rate per 100 million vehicle kilometers)
6/93 thru 5/96
Total Fatal Non-
Total Accident Fatal Accident Fatal
Classification Facility Between Accidents Rate Accidents Rate Injury
Accident
Rate
Urban State NC 54 Maynard Rd. 107 211.4 0 0 61.2
Highway and Aviation
Pkwy
Urban State Cary Crabtree 55 182 1 1.8 69.6
Road Parkway Crossing
Pkwy to
Trade Center
Blvd.
Urban State Evans Road Weston 51 267.86 0 0 99.8
Road Pkwy and
Maynard Rd.
1992 - 1994 STATEWIDE AVERAGE
(Urban Primary Routes)
Two Lanes Undivided 267.9 0.9 110.4
Four Lanes Divided (Uncontrolled Access) 265.8 0.5 111.5

As shown in the above table, the total and injury accident rates on the existing Cary Parkway
are lower than the statewide averages for similar facilities. All of the other rates for facilities
examined within the study are at/or below the statewide averages for similar facilities, with the
exception of the fatal accident rate on Cary Parkway. This fatal accident rate is due to one
fatal accident that occurred in May 1994 in which one person died.
2.3 Traffic Volumes and Level-of-Service
Based on a recent study, the existing (1996) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the Cary
Parkway at the High House Road intersection is 13,600 vehicles per day (vpd), (see Figure 5).
The 1996 ADT volumes on the Cary Parkway at the Evans Road intersection is 1,700 vpd.
The 1996 ADT on the Cary Parkway at North Harrison Avenue is 3,400 vpd.
The projected 1996 ADT volumes for the proposed Cary Parkway Extension range from a low
of 6,600 vpd in the vicinity of the Cary Parkway and North Harrison Avenue intersection to a
high of 12,300 vpd in the vicinity of High House Road.
For the design year 2020, ADT volumes range from a low of 18,200 vpd in the vicinity of
North Harrison Avenue to a high of 22,400 vpd in the vicinity of High House Road.
Figure 5 also includes truck percentages, design hourly volume percentages and directional
split percentages. A peak hour factor of 0.9 was established for use in subsequent analysis.
A detailed analysis was performed to determine level-of-service (LOS) for the existing and
future traffic conditions. LOSs are designated with letters from A through F. LOS A
represents the best operating conditions with free flow and virtually no delay. LOS F
represents the worst operating conditions and indicates that long queues of traffic tend to form
with intersections delays that exceed 60 seconds per vehicle. The results of the analysis for the
year 2020 indicate that the four-lane cross section is warranted. The mainline LOS is not
applicable for this project because signalized intersections are less than two miles (±1.0 miles)
apart, thus, creating urban arterial conditions where LOS is dictated by the signalized
intersection's.
Signalization will be required at the NC 54 and Evans Road intersections in the design year
and the LOS of these signalized intersections will be controlling factors along this facility.
Each of these intersections will operate at LOS D or better in year 2020. The 2020 analysis
assumes that NC 54 will be widened to a five-lane section allowing two through lanes and an
exclusive left turn lane in each direction. The 1996 analysis utilizes the planned exclusive left
turn lanes along NC 54 to be constructed as part of this project. Table 2 summarizes the
present and projected year 2020 LOS for specific intersections along the alignment. The 2020
analysis only examines the worst case scenario which assumes that Cary Parkway will be
extended to Trinity Road in accordance with the Town of Cary and Greater Raleigh Urban
Area Thoroughfare Plans.
4

TABLE 2
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE SUMMARY
1996 LOS 2020 LOS
at at
Intersection of Ca Parkway and Status Signal Intersection Intersection
NC 54 Proposed Yes B D
Evans Road Pro osed Yes B B
2.4 Benefits to the State. Region, and Community
North Carolina is one of the most prosperous states in the U.S. and a vital part of the success
lies within the greater Triangle Area. In the past couple of decades the Research Triangle Park
(RTP) has been a catalyst in the progressive growth in surrounding communities such as Cary
and Morrisville. Each of these communities has an aggressive agenda for development and the
Cary Parkway Extension is a part of the Town of Cary's Thoroughfare and Growth Plans.
Presently, the majority of the project area is wooded, however, significant portions have been
parceled out for development, including residential, commercial, institutional and light
industrial growth. Hence, the Cary Parkway Extension is expected to enhance economic
growth and development in the project area and favorably affect the local tax base.
The completion of this facility is also expected to relieve some of the commuter traffic
congestion, primarily associated with RTP on Davis Drive and Maynard Road. In
consideration of the planned growth for this area, this facility will enhance the safety and
general welfare of residents of Wake County by providing more travel lanes and a more direct
route for the flow of goods, services, and traffic.
2.5 Summary of Project Need
The Cary Parkway Extension project is expected to be a favorable addition to Wake County,
Cary, Morrisville and the RTP. In summary several site plans and subdivision plans have been
approved by local authorities that will require completion of this facility for access. Actual
' construction has begun on several of these sites. The project traffic volumes and capacity
analyses further demonstrate that the facility is warranted.

1

CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 No Build Alternative
The "No Build" alternative would avoid environmental impacts resulting from the construction
of the project. The impacts of implementing the proposed project will be primarily limited to
wetlands in the stream channels (channelized wetlands), reduction of local wildlife habitats,
increased development and increased traffic in some lightly urbanized areas. However,
benefits of the proposed action, such as providing a more direct route for the flow of traffic,
increased safety, user cost savings, and completion of a major thoroughfare, would not be
realized.
The long-term benefits resulting from the construction of the proposed project, include
increased accessibility, enhanced economic development, and provision for more efficient
commuter routes. This could more than compensate for any unavoidable adverse impacts.
3.2 Postponement of the Proposed Protect
The southern portion of existing Cary Parkway is a four-lane divided roadway and is designed
to be a major thoroughfare with the terminus being in an area of the Preston PUD. The
postponement of the connection of the two completed sections of the Parkway project will
result in the underutilization of the existing facility.
Postponement would delay the negative and positive impacts of this facility. The project
would also be more difficult to construct in the future as development within the project area
increases. Approval of planned development along the proposed corridor has already been
completed in some areas and in at least two cases, construction has begun in anticipation of the
facility's completion.
3.3 Transportation System Management
The proposed Cary Parkway Extension will complete a vital portion of the Town of Cary
Thoroughfare Plan. The completion of this roadway will provide an integral roadway system
serving most of Cary. The signals proposed at the intersection with Evans Road and NC 54 are
isolated and will not require coordination with any other signals. This project will reduce
travel times from south Cary to north Cary and the RTP by providing an alternate route.
Proper signing and pavement markings will ensure that the Parkway is a valuable addition to
the area transportation system. Transportation system management approaches would have
minimal impact since this roadway is on primarily new alignment.
3.4 Multi-Modal
The Cary Parkway is being constructed with fourteen foot outside lanes to accommodate the
growing bicycling community. Although the Town of Cary and Town of Morrisville do not
have bus systems, it is anticipated that the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) will utilize this
thoroughfare in completing their routes between various areas in Wake County and the RTP.
6

E

F
F

3.5 Build Alternatives
3.5.1 Alignments Considered
The objective for completing this section of the Cary Parkway is to provide a critical
north-south route to help alleviate traffic congestion in parts of Cary, Morrisville, and
RTP, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding environment. Due to the fact that
the north and south termini of this project are existing roadway, the corridor for the
four alignments considered is relatively narrow. Each alternative was evaluated based
upon potential environmental impact, and cost effectiveness, and approved development
plans and master plans by local municipalities. The alternatives are depicted in
Figure 3.
Alignment 1 was based on approved site plans for subdivisions and
commercial/institutional development at each end of the proposed Cary Parkway
Extension as well as a commercial development, Park Place, presently, under
construction on the south side of NC 54. Park Place will be a commercial shopping
center more than 33 acres in area with a multiplex 16-screen movie theater. Based on
the developments site plan, Cary Parkway Extension's eastern right-of-way boundary
along the southern approach to NC 54 would be the Park Place property line and the
western boundary of the right-of-way would be the Bristol-Myers property line. This
alignment would provide an approximate 1,000-foot buffer between the proposed
Parkway and the Bristol Myers facilities. This alignment was also completed by the
Town of Cary approximately 10 years ago as part of their preliminary right-of-way
corridor plan for the Cary Parkway. Additionally, the Metroplex transmission towers
are directly south of the Park Place development and the proposed alignment would
abut the western boundary of the Metroplex leased property.
This alignment from the southern terminus to NC 54 would, however, have some
negative impacts. Between the Metroplex towers and Park Place is a 200-foot railroad
right-of-way that will require a bridge crossing. Alignment 1 would necessitate a
skewed crossing, thus, extending the bridge length. In this same vicinity and up to the
Park Place/Bristol Myer right-of-way a longitudinal impact of channelized wetlands
would be realized. Furthermore, the intersection with NC 54 would be located beyond
the existing crest resulting in inadequate sight stopping distance on NC 54 which could
create a safety problem.
Alignment 2 was based on a more direct route for the Cary Parkway Extension and a
more perpendicular crossing of the railroad. The primary difference between this
alignment and Alignment 1 is that it would be routed directly through the Adelphi
Reality Company property, which is under lease agreement with Metroplex
Communications of North Carolina, Inc. The lease was executed in September 1986
and may continue for a maximum period of 100 years. Presently, Metroplex has five
transmission towers on the site and operates broadcast radio station WRBZ AM 850.
7
Therefore, it would require the relocation of the transmission towers. Based on
discussions with WRBZ it would be cost prohibitive to move the towers. The
relocation costs would include siting, a purchase/lease agreement, demolition, and
construction of new towers and are estimated by WRBZ to be $3,000,000 not including
land purchases.
Alignment 3 was considered to assess the feasibility of routing the extension to the east
of the Metroplex transmission towers. This alternative could allow for a relatively
perpendicular crossing of the railroad and could be aligned for a workable intersection
at NC 54. However, with the construction of the Park Place commercial center
underway it would necessitate skewing the alignment further east and causing a
longitudinal impact of wetlands between the transmission towers to Park Place. The
northern part of the alignment would require condemnation of at least one structure,
altering the Sheldon Drive intersection and impacting the approved Silverton PUD
Parcel K residential subdivision.
3.5.2 Preferred Alternative
3.5.2.1 Type of Improvement
The proposed Cary Parkway Extension will connect the two segregated segments of the
Cary Parkway and effectively provide a radial main thoroughfare for the north, west
and south perimeter of the Town of Cary.
3.5.2.2 Typical Section
The roadway will be a four-lane divided curb and gutter facility. The typical section
will consist of a 14-foot outside lane and an 11-foot inside line in each direction
separated by a typical 33-foot raised median with curb and gutter. The typical section
is shown in Figure 6.
3.5.2.3 Right-of-Way
The acquisition of adequate right-of-way to contain the four-lane section is proposed in
most areas. The right-of-way for this project will be 110 feet from the Preston PUD
property line to the Weston PUD property line as depicted on Figures 7A thru 7C. This
right-of-way will be dedicated by Preston Development Company from the Preston
PUD line to NC 54. The right-of-way from NC 54 to the Weston PUD property line
will be obtained by the Town of Cary. There is an existing 106 foot of right-of-way
from High House Road to the Preston property line and also within the Weston PUD
area. Also, Silverton, Inc. will dedicate 106 feet of right-of-way through their property
in accordance with their PUD Plan as approved by the Town of Cary. An existing 106
foot right-of-way is in place on the Cary Parkway located north of Evans Road.
Permanent and temporary easements will also be granted by property owners as
required for construction of sidewalk, guardrail and other miscellaneous items.
3.5.2.4 Bikeways/Sidewalks
The outside travel lanes in each direction will be 14 feet wide to accommodate bicycle
traffic. Sidewalks are planned along the interior loop of the Cary Parkway from its
current terminus of the Preston PUD property line to the Evans Road intersection.
8

' Sidewalks will be financed in accordance with NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines
dated April 20, 1994.
3.5.2.5 Proposed Design Speed
The design speed for the proposed roadway will be 50 miles per hour. The anticipated
' posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.
3.5.2.6 Access Control
Access will be consistent with the existing Cary Parkway and will be controlled via
Town of Cary and Town of Morrisville site plan and subdivision review and by
NCDOT Driveway Permits once the roadway is dedicated to NCDOT. Median breaks
' will be spaced at 800 feet minimum intervals with minor right in/right out accesses as
approved by Cary, Morrisville and/or NCDOT.
' 3.5.2.7 Intersection Treatment
All intersections will be at-grade, with stop sign control for intersecting side streets
' except for the NC 54 and Evans Road intersections which will be signalized as part of
this project. In addition, future signalization may be required at other locations as
warranted by future development traffic which will be monitored by NCDOT. Private
' residential driveways will not abut the proposed new roadway.
3.5.2.8 Utilities
' All utilities will be below grade with the exception of transformer housing and roadway
lighting. Underground utilities anticipated will include a 24-inch Town of Cary water
main, power lines, natural gas, Cable television (CATV), communications and possibly
' a future irrigation main from the Town of Cary North Cary Sewer Treatment plant to
the Preston Golf Course. Only the water main and possibly the irrigation main will be
constructed as part of this project.
' Colonial Pipeline's eight-inch main will need to be upgraded to a heavier wall pipe.
' Approximately four months lead time will be necessary to complete the modifications
prior to the construction of the proposed extension through this area. Special
requirements for construction tests will be issued by NCDOT.
There will also be revisions required to the existing Carolina Power & Light (CP&L)
230 KVA high transmission power line. This line will need to be raised at the roadway
crossing to provide adequate clearance from the proposed roadways at the railroad
bridge approach. MCI has fiber optic lines on the power line structures.
' 3.5.2.9 Permits
A wetlands permit for this project has been received from the U.S. Army Corps of
' Engineers under the provisions of Nationwide Permit Number 14 of Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The permit was issued on
April 25, 1997 with an Action ID 199700542. A Section 401 Water Quality
' Certification from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) will be required.

For culverts crossing the proposed roadway, culvert survey reports must be prepared
and submitted to NCDOT for review. A Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) stream crossing of Coles Branch will require a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) be submitted to the Town
of Cary and FEMA.
A railroad crossing will require the preparation and submittal of a four party railroad
encroachment agreement and a railroad force account agreement. Preliminary and final
bridge plans must be submitted to the railroad for review and approval.
NCDOT encroachment agreements will be required for utilities constructed as part of
this project such as the 24-inch Town of Cary water main.
3.5.2.10 Cost Estimates
Construction cost of the project is as estimated to be $10.55 million. NCDOT will not
be expending any funds for right-of-way or utility relocations.
3.5.2.11 Traffic Analysis
A detailed analysis was performed to determine level-of-service (LOS) for the future
traffic conditions. The results of the analysis for the year 2020 indicate a need for
Cary Parkway Extension to have a four-lane cross section with exclusive left turn lanes
at all median breaks.
Signalization will be required at the NC 54 and Evans Road intersections and the LOS
of these signalized intersections will be controlling factors along this facility. Each of
these intersections will operate at LOS D or better at year 2020. Table 2, presented on
page 5 in this document, summarizes the present and projected year 2020 LOS for
specific intersections along the preferred alternative alignment.
10

1

1

CHAPTER 4 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Land Use Impacts
Existing land use in the project vicinity is sparsely mixed residential, commercial,
office/institutional and light industrial with the majority of the land being undeveloped
woodland. However, the Town of Cary Comprehensive Growth Plan Map, Second Draft, July
11, 1996, indicates that the majority of the undeveloped land within Cary's jurisdiction is
within the Preston PUD and Silverton PUD, with the remaining vicinity being light/ industrial,
office/institution/commercial, Bristol Myers and existing residences. See Figure 8. The Town
of Cary Comprehensive Growth Plan also includes a future greenway path along Coles Branch.
This proposed greenway will cross the Cary Parkway Extension. However, at this time the
Town of Cary is not prepared to include this greenway as part of this project. It is anticipated
that the greenway will be constructed in several years. At that time, the type of crossing will
be determined and the necessary NCDOT approvals will be obtained by the Town of Cary.
The area within Morrisville's jurisdiction is somewhat developed along NC 54 and within the
vicinity of the project is zoned residential, industrial management, and general business.
The anticipation of this project has been a catalyst for development along and within the study
area. Examples of development as a direct effect of the project include; Park Place Shopping
Center on NC 54, Sheldon Drive, Preston Medical Center North, Preston PUD along the south
terminus of the project and Silverton PUD along the northern terminus of the project. The
completion of the project will further accelerate the development of the woodland areas. See
Figures 7A thru 7C. However, based on the current growth patterns, development is inevitable
with or without the implementation of this project.
' 4.2 Neighborhood Impacts
The proposed project is located within a rapidly growing urbanized area. The connection of
the Cary Parkway is expected to increase traffic in the vicinity of the existing termini. The
t completion of the project is expected to accelerate development resulting in additional
subdivision construction along the alignment.
' 4.3 Relocation Impacts
The proposed alignment will not impact any occupied structures and no relocation will be
necessary.
4.4 Community Facilities
There are no Community Facilities within the project area.
4.5 Utilities
' Utilities will be within the right-of-way of the proposed alignment. Utilities issues will be
handled in the design phase of the project. Utilities are expected to include: water, sewer,
power, communications, gas, and CATV.
The Colonial Pipeline is routed from the railroad right-of-way south of the Bristol-Myers
' facility southeast toward the Weatherstone PUD. The Colonial Pipeline eight-inch main that
transports kerosene will need to be replaced within the project area to meet traffic rating

requirements. To maintain uninterrupted service of the main, a traffic-rated pipe will be
installed within the 50-foot Colonial Pipeline right-of-way, parallel to the existing main. The
heavier parallel line will be tied into the existing main at either end of the Cary Parkway right-
of-way and the lighter pipe will then be taken out of service. Efforts will be made to keep the
proposed piping within the 50-foot right-of-way, but if necessary, acquisition of additional
right-of-way will be pursued to ensure adequate measures have been taken to protect the
pipeline from damage.
The Metroplex Communications of North Carolina, Inc. (Metroplex) has the WRBZ AM 850
radio station's five transmission towers within the project area south east of the existing
Bristol-Myers facility and south of the railroad right-of-way. These towers will not be affected
by the preferred alignment. Metroplex has a lease agreement on the property with Adelphi
Realty Company that extends to September 2086.
CP&L has a 230 KVA high transmission power line that parallels the railroad right-of-way.
MCI has fiber optic lines on these structures. These lines will require raising due to the
railroad crossing overpass and embankment. CP&L will coordinate the replacement of these
towers with MCI.
Public Service Company of North Carolina has an eight-inch high pressure transmission
natural gas line routed in an east west direction through the Silverton and Weston PUD
approximately 3300 feet south of Evans Road at the proposed Cary Parkway Extension.
Proposed roadway grades of Cary Parkway and existing grades of nearby Sheldon Drive will
require that this gas line be relocated and/or lowered.
An existing AT&T fiber optic cable is located in Weston in a 10-foot easement which parallels
the 30-foot Public Service Company easement. This cable will require relocation and/or
lowering due to proposed roadway grades.
NC 54 at the proposed Cary Parkway intersection has overhead telephone and CATV lines as
well as an underground fiber optic cable in a 4-ft x 4-ft conduit paralleling the south side of the
road. A 16-inch Town of Morrisville ductile iron (DI) water main, a six-inch Public Service
gas main that reduces to four-inch in front of the Park Place development and overhead power
lines parallel the north side of NC 54. A Town of Morrisville eight-inch gravity sewer and
12-inch DI water main serves Park Place. CP&L is working on a relocation design for the
overhead power lines and poles on NC 54. Bell South Telecommunications, Inc. will be
relocating their telephone lines and poles and will coordinate with Time Warner Cable in
relocating the CATV lines.
Evans Road at the northern approach has underground power, telephone and four inch Public
Service gas main parallel to the curb and gutter. A Town of Cary 12-inch water main is
located beneath the Evans Road pavement. A Town of Cary 12-inch water main is located in
the median of the existing NW Cary Parkway with underground power, telephone and natural
gas lines located parallel behind the curb and gutter.
12

r

The southern approach to the extension from High House Road has a 24-inch water main in the
median with laterals at most intersections. Other underground utilities in this vicinity include
power, and CATV lines
The proposed Cary Parkway will also cross the existing Town of Cary sanitary sewer
interceptor near Coles Branch. Preliminary design information indicated that this segment of
sewer line will not require relocation.
A 24-inch water line will need to cross through the railroad right-of-way. Geotechnical reports
indicate that the subsurface beneath the railroad is solid rock. Alternate designs are being
reviewed.
The 12-inch Town of Cary water reuse line and the Town of Morrisville 12-inch waterline will
be suspended from the bridge that crosses the railroad right-of-way.
It should be noted that all utility locations will be coordinated during design. All costs of these
required relocations will be funded by the Town of Cary and the developers in accordance with
the Construction Agreement.
4.6 Economic Impact
The proposed Cary Parkway Extension has influenced development and subsequently economic
growth during the early planning stages. The project has had and will have short and long-
term economic impacts.
Presently, the impacts are with the development of the Preston PUD, the Silverton PUD, the
' Preston Medical Center, Weston Industrial Park, and the Park Place commercial center.
Short-term economic growth is expected to provide employment to contractors and laborers
during the construction period. Right-of-way acquisition is expected to have a minimal
' reduction in the real property tax.
' Long-term impacts will continue to increase residential, commercial and industrial
development. This will have a major positive impact on the local tax base and also provide
employment to contractors during the development and construction as well as permanent
' employment for commercial and industrial development. Real estate property values should
increase.
' 4.7 Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources
State-funded projects are subject to review pursuant to GS 121-12(a) which requires the
identification of archaeological and historic architectural properties listed in the National
' Register of Historic Places, and present within the area of potential effect for the project. This
is followed by an evaluation of the impacts the undertaking of the project may have on these
' properties. If a state action will have an adverse effect upon a property listed in the National
Register of Historic Places, the North Carolina Historical Commission will be given an
opportunity to comment.
13
The area of potential effect for the proposed project was delineated, and the maps and files of
the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) were consulted. This search
revealed there are no historic architectural properties or archaeological sites within the project
area of potential effect listed in the National Register of Historic Places or on the North
Carolina State Study List. See letter from SHPO in Appendix A. This completed compliance
with GS 121-12(a).
Specific areas identified as needing wetland permits may be determined to need additional
cultural resource consultation in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The determination of the need for investigation will be made by the Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Department of Cultural Resources.
4.8 Air Quality
4.8.1 Background
The federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (42 USC 750(c)), was enacted for the
purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's air resources to benefit
public health, welfare, and productivity. In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of
Section 109 of the act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established primary
and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Six pollutants of
concern were designated: ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide, (SO2),
Nitrogen dioxide (N02), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM-10). North
Carolina has adopted these national standards as the state standards.
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 this area as a "moderate"
nonattainment area for 03 and for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data.
this area was redesignated as "maintenance" for 03 on June 17, 1994, and
"maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995. Section 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 1997 TIP has been determined
to conform to the intent of the SIP. The Metropolitan Planning Organization approval
date for the TIP is November 21, 1996. The U.S. Department of Transportation
approval date is April 4, 1997. The current conformity determination is consistent with
the final conformity rule found in 40 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 51.
There had been no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used
in the conformity analyses.
Air pollution originates from various sources, with emissions from industrial processes
and internal combustion engines the most prevalent sources. Other sources of outdoor
air pollution are solid waste disposal and combustion and any form of fire. The impact
resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern
when determining the impact of a new roadway facility or the improvement of an
14

' existing roadway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides
(NO,,), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb)
' (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the
major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented
is concerned with determining expected CO levels in the vicinity of the project due to
' traffic flow.
Hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxides emitted from vehicles are carried into the atmosphere
' where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive
emissions of HC and NO,. are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new vehicles. However, in
' regard to area-wide emissions, these technological improvements may be offset by the
increasing number of vehicles on the transportation facilities in the area.
' Ozone is the main component of smog. Since ozone if formed by chemical interactions
with sunlight, ozone concentrations are generally higher during the daytime and in late
' spring through early fall when temperatures are above 60°F and sunlight is more
intense. The photochemical reactions which form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require
several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur six to
' 12 miles downwind of a hydrocarbon or nitrogen oxide source. Urban areas as a whole
are regarded as sources of ozone precursors, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other
photochemical oxidants.
' Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent of particulate
matter emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources such
as industrial processes and commercial and agricultural activities. Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason
' to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
' A
bil
i
h
utomo
es w
t
out catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The burning of
regular gasoline emits lead because regular gasoline contains tetraethyl lead, which is
' added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic
converters burn unleaded gasoline, eliminating lead emissions. Also, the EPA has

' required a reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead
content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.45 grams per liter. By 1989, this average had
dropped to 0.002 grams per liter. In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease
as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced.
' The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded
gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons,
' it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to
be exceeded.
15
4.8.2 Analysis Methodology
Carbon monoxide concentrations at a receiver near a roadway are comprised of two
components; local and background concentrations. The background, or ambient,
concentrations vary by region and are based on air quality monitoring data and regional
modeling. For the project area, the background hourly average carbon monoxide
concentration is 1.8 parts per million (ppm) (NC DEM, 1995).
Local carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated using the EPA's line source
dispersion model CAL3QHC (1992), with input from the EPA's emission factor model
MOBILE5a (1993). Inputs to the models were based on the NC DEM's "Guidelines for
Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facilities" (1995).
The project areas modeled were those near the proposed Cary Parkway intersections
with NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road) and Evans Road. Intersection areas tend to experience
higher carbon monoxide levels than free-flowing road segments because vehicles idling
at intersections emit more carbon monoxide than moving vehicles.
The CAL3QHC model results are added to the background concentration to determine
the total 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations at a receiver near a
roadway. These total values are then compared to the ambient air quality standards to
determine whether the receiver would experience air quality impacts. The 1996 and
2020 build conditions at the Cary Parkway/NC 54 and Cary Parkway/Evans Road
intersections were modeled.
4.8.3 Analysis Results
Table 3 lists the predicted maximum 1-hour and 8-hour average maximum carbon
monoxide concentrations for receivers modeled near the intersections of Cary Parkway
with NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road) and Evans Road. As shown in Table 3, model results
indicate that state and federal ambient carbon monoxide standards would not be
exceeded in 1996 or in 2020 with construction of the proposed project.
For the Cary Parkway/NC 54 intersection, the highest carbon monoxide concentrations
occur in 2020 in the southwest quadrant of the intersection, adjacent to NC 54. The
1996 maximum 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations are predicted to be 8.3 ppm and 5.0
ppm, respectively. The 2020 maximum 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations are predicted
to be 9.3 ppm and 5.6 ppm, respectively. These values are well below the state and
federal standards. The maximum carbon monoxide concentrations are higher in 2020,
even though future emissions from individual vehicles are expected to be lower, due to
the increase in traffic volumes and in the number of lanes at the intersection. More
lanes along NC 54 would allow more vehicles to idle in the area near the intersection,
rather than being queued in a line extending away from the intersection. This
configuration would create a greater concentration of pollutants which takes longer to
disperse
16

TABLE 3
PREDICTED MAXIMUM CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
Cary Parkway from North of High House Road (SR 1615) to Evans Road (SR 1653)
Project U-3408, Cary, Wake County
1-Hour Avg. CO 8-Hour Avg. CO
Wind Concentration Concentration
Intersection Year Receiver Location Direction (ppm) (ppm)
Cary Parkway / 1996 Northwest Quadrant - From the 8.3 5.0
NC 54 adjacent to Cary Pkwy southeast
2020 Southwest Quadrant - From the 9.3 5.6
adjacent to NC 54 northeast
Cary Parkway / 1996 Southwest Quadrant - From the 8.0 4.8
Evans Road adjacent to Evans Rd northeast
2020 Southwest Quadrant - From the 7.5 4.5
at corner of north
intersection
* ppm = parts per million CO = carbon monoxide
Note: The federal and state ambient air quality standards are 35 ppm for a 1-hour average and
9 ppm for an 8-hour average.
' For the Cary Parkway/Evans Road intersection, the highest carbon monoxide
concentrations occur in 1996 in the southwest quadrant of the intersection, adjacent to
Evans Road. The 1996 maximum 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations are predicted to be
' 8.0 ppm and 4.8 ppm, respectively. The 2020 maximum 1-hour and 8-hour
concentrations are predicted to be 7.5 ppm and 4.5 ppm, respectively. These values are
well below the state and federal standards. At the Cary Parkway/Evans Road
' intersection, the expected decrease in future emission rates from individual vehicles
offsets the increases in traffic volumes projected to occur between 1996 and 2020,
resulting in higher predicted concentrations for 1996.
4.9 Noise
4.9.1 Traffic Noise Analysis
' A preliminary noise analysis was conducted for the proposed project in order to
determine existing noise levels, evaluate future traffic noise levels, determine impacted
' areas, and examine the feasibility of traffic noise mitigation measures.
4.9.1.1 Characteristics of Noise
' Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources, including
motor vehicles, airplanes, railroads, power generation plants, and factories. Motor
vehicle noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noise from engine exhaust,
' drive trains, and tire-roadway interaction.
Most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed to noise from many sources as they go
' about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance from these noises
17
depends on three factors: 1) the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2) the
relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise, and 3) the type of
activity occurring when the intruding noise is heard (Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc.,
1973:1-19).
Over time, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their daily lives,
particularly if the noises are steady or occur at regular known intervals. Many of these
noises are subject to regulations, including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise,
and highway traffic noise.
In this report, all noise levels are expressed as average A-weighted decibels dBA
Leq(h). The hourly average sound level (Leq(h)), is the level of constant sound which
in an hour would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound. The A-
weighted scale is used almost exclusively to describe traffic noise because A-weighted
sound quantities often correlate well with the subjective response of people to the
magnitude of a sound level.
4.9.1.2 Existing Noise Levels
Ambient noise levels are defined as "the composite of airborne sound from many
sources near and far associated with a given environment. No particular sound is
singled out for interest" (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] Standard
C634-89). Ambient noise level measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels and to provide a base for assessing
the impacts of traffic noise level increases.
A Rion NL-10A Integrating Sound Level Meter was used to measure existing noise
levels on August 26, 1996, at seven locations surrounding the project alignment. Three
measurement locations were adjacent to major roadways and four locations were in
areas away from direct traffic noise sources. Measurement periods were 10-15
minutes at each site.
Figure 9A thru 9C show the locations of the ambient readings and Table 4 summarizes
the results. At locations near NC 54 and Evans Road, noise levels averaged 59.7-60.8
dBA Leq. In the four measurement areas where traffic noise did not dominate the noise
environment, the ambient noise levels averaged 48 dBA Leq.
18
E

r
TABLE 4
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Cary Parkway from North of High House Road to Evans Road
Project U-3408, Cary, Wake County
Site Date and Location Description Measured Avg.
Number Time Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Al 8/26/96 NC 54 at Linda Dr 245 ft from NC 54 55.5
3:45-4:OOpm
A2 8/26/96 NC 54 near proposed 70 ft from road - measurement of 60.8
4:25-4:40 pm Cary Pkwy traffic noise on NC 54
Intersection
A3 8/26/96 Evans Rd near Cary 45 ft from road - measurement of 59.7
6:00-6:15 pm Pkwy traffic noise on Evans Rd
B1 8/26/96 End of Innsbrook Measurement of background 45.0
2:55-3:10 pm Court noise levels away from traffic
132 8/26/96 Gray Horse Dr near Measurement of background 47.3
11:20-11:30am Crabtree Crossing noise levels away from traffic
Pkwy
133 8/26/96 North end of Measurement of background 48.2
10:05-10:20am Wilson St near noise levels away from traffic -
proposed Cary Pkwy Industrial noise from Presspart
alignment Industries could be heard
throughout measurement period.
134 8/26/96 Winfair Dr near Measurement of background 49.7
5:30-5:45 pm Pebble Ridge Farm noise levels away from traffic
Ct
Note: All measurements taken with a Rion NL-10A Integrating Sound Level Meter, which was calibrated
before and after each measurement period.
1 4.9.1.3 Noise Abatement Criteria and Analysis Methodology
To determine whether highway noise levels are, or are not, compatible with various
' land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement
criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways (23
CFR 772). A summary of the FHWA noise abatement criteria for various land uses is
' presented in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, land uses are grouped in Activity
Categories. All land uses evaluated in this report belong in Category B or C.

19
TABLE 5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Activity Leq Description of Activity Category
Category (hour)*
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
(exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue
to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries,
and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities noise included in
(exterior) Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
* Hourly A-weighted Average Noise Level
Source: Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration.
Traffic noise impacts occur when either; a) the predicted traffic noise levels approach or
exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria for the applicable Activity Category, or b) when
the predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels (23 CFR 772).
Noise abatement measures must be considered for receptors impacted under either case. The
NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines (1996) state that noise levels within one decibel of the
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria are considered as `approaching' the criteria. The guidelines
also define `substantial increase' as an increase of 15 decibels when existing noise levels are 50
dBA Leq or less and an increase of 10 decibels when existing noise levels are greater than 50
dBA Leq.
Traffic noise levels which would occur in 2020 with the proposed project were
predicted using the STAMINA 2.0 computer model. This model calculates noise levels
at selected receiver locations using input parameters such as projected hourly average
traffic; vehicle mix, distribution, and speed; roadway lengths and gradients; distances
between sources, barriers, and receptors; and shielding provided by intervening terrain,
barriers, and structures.
4.9.2 Analysis Results
4.9.2.1 Traffic Noise
Receptors representing all of the residences within 200 feet of the proposed Cary
Parkway were modeled in STAMINA 2.0. The following additional receivers were
20

' also modeled: a day care facility currently under construction near the southern end of
the project, a commercial complex currently under construction adjacent to the
intersection of proposed Cary Parkway and NC 54, and Presspart Industries at the
intersection of proposed Cary Parkway and Sheldon Drive. Modeled receivers are
shown on Figure 9B. Figure 9C depicts the receptors and measurement location on the
eastern third of the alignment.
The traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table 6. The table
' includes existing and predicted noise levels for the modeled receptors and their
estimated noise level increases. Noise levels at Receptors 11, 13, and 14 are dominated
by traffic noise from NC 54. Cary Parkway is the primary traffic noise source for all
other receptors. As shown in the tables, 26 residences are predicted to experience
future traffic noise levels which approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement
Criteria and 13 residences and one business are predicted to experience substantial
' increases in noise levels.

TABLE 6
EXISTING AND PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
Cary Parkway from north of High House Road to Evans Road
Receptor
Number' Activity
Category Number of
Residences/
Businesses
Represented Approximate
Distance to Cary
Parkway
Centerline (ft) Existing
Ambient Noise
Level dBA
Leq(h) Predicted
2020 Noise
Level dBA
Leq (h) Change in
Noise
Levels2
1 B 1 190 48 64 16 $
2 B 1 210 48 63 15 $
3 B 1 225 48 62 14
4 B 1 280 48 61 13
5 B 1 380 48 60 12
6 B 1 420 48 59 11
7 B 1 230 48 63 15 $
8 B 1 360 48 60 12
9 B 1 450 48 59 11
10 C (Presspart) 1 110 48 66 18
11 B 1 230 61 71 10
12 B 1 260 48 63 15 $
1 21
TABLE 6 cont.
EXISTING AND PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
Cary Parkway from north of High House Road to Evans Road
Receptor
Number' Activity
Category Number of
Residences/
Businesses
Represented Approximate
Distance to Cary
Parkway
Centerline (ft) Existing
Ambient Noise
Level dBA
Le (h) Predicted
2020 Noise
Level dBA
Le (h) Change in
Noise
Levels'
13 B 1 530 61 72 11
14 C (Theater) 1 260 61 69 8
15 B 2 300 48 60 12
16 B 1 160 48 65 17 $
17 B 2 110 48 68 20
18 B 8 340 48 60 12
19 B 4 125 48 67 19
20 B 5 125 48 67 19
21 B 2 215 48 63 15 $
22 B 2 160 48 66 18 *
23 B 3 125 48 67 19 *
24' B (Apts) 3 125 48 64 16 $
25' B (Apts) 12 210 48 60 12
26' B (Apts) 2 125 48 63 15 $
27' B (Apts) 12 210 48 60 12
28 B 3 120 48 69 20 *
29 B 4 100 48 69 21 *
30 B 9 300 48 61 13
31 B 1 220 48 63 15 $
32 B 1 100 48 69 21
33 B (da care) 1 270 48 61 13
* Predicted noise level exceeds FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or is a substantial increase over existing noise levels.
1. Receptor locations are shown in Figures 9A,913, and 9C.
2. * - receptor is projected to experience future noise levels which approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria.
$ - receptor is projected to experience future noise levels which are a "substantial increase" over existing noise levels.
3. Receptors 24-27 represent apartment buildings which face perpendicular to Cary Parkway. Therefore, a shielding factor of 3 decibels
was applied to these receptors since their outdoor living areas (patios and balconies) are perpendicular to the roadway and have a view of
only half the road.
22

In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are, no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
' development within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of
Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed
highway program will be approval date of the final environmental document or the
Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this
public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible for insuring that noise
compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.

The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 26 and 53 meters,
respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This information should assist
the local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped
lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper
information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of the adjacent
roadway.
4.9.2.2 Construction Noise.
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers by and those individuals living or working near the
project, can be expected, particularly from paving operations and from earth moving
equipment during grading operations. Overall, construction noise impacts are expected
to be minimal since the construction noise is relatively short in duration and is generally
restricted to daytime hours.
4.9.3 Abatement Measures
There are three major types of abatement measures which can be implemented to reduce
traffic noise: highway alignment modifications, traffic system management measures,
and construction of noise barriers.
4.9.3.1 Highway Alignment Selection
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection
of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance
between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters.
For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the
roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the vertical
alignment by decreasing or increasing the elevation of a road can create cut and fill
slopes which may provide shielding between the roadway and a receptor. As discussed
in previous chapters, no other horizontal alignment, except the one currently proposed,
is considered reasonable and feasible. The proposed vertical alignment falls within the
design criteria for the roadway classification and takes into account the existing
topography of the area, intersections with existing roads, and a planned grade-separated
23
railroad crossing. Changing the highway alignment at this stage of the project is not a
viable alternative.
4.9.3.2 Traffic System Management Alternative
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time
of operations can be effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level of service on the proposed roadway.
4.9.3.3 Noise Barriers
Noise barriers reduce noise levels by blocking the sound path between the noise source
and noise sensitive areas. This measure is most often used on high-speed, limited-
access facilities where noise levels are high and there is adequate space for continuous
barriers.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and
long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the roadway. The
barrier must also be feasible to construct as well as economically reasonable. The
NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines (1992) provide guidance on determining the
reasonableness and feasibility of providing noise barriers. Feasibility considers
source/receiver relationships and the engineering aspects of constructing a barrier at
impacted sites. Determination of feasibility includes consideration of whether a
minimum of six decibels of noise reduction can be achieved, whether a barrier can be
built on the site topography, and whether other noise sources are present in the area.
Access openings in barriers severely reduce the noise reduction provided by barriers,
making barriers along roadways which lack access control generally unreasonable to
construct.
An evaluation of reasonableness should include the following criteria: barrier cost,
decibel reduction achieved, public support, the degree of noise impact, required sound
barrier height, and consideration of potential safety and/or drainage problems. A
reasonable barrier must be cost effective. The NCDOT considers a cost-effective
barrier as one costing no more than $25,000 per effectively protected site (a site having
4 decibels or more of reduction). In general, barriers are not considered reasonable for
businesses or isolated residences (NCDOT, 1992).
A qualitative evaluation was performed to identify those areas/receptors for which a
noise barrier is clearly infeasible or unreasonable. The factors considered in the
qualitative evaluation included each receptor's Activity Category, source-receptor
relationships, impacted site densities, access-control, and the ability to construct
continuous barriers. For reasons described below, the qualitative evaluation resulted in
the elimination of all impacted areas from further detailed consideration of a noise
barrier.
Noise barriers were considered unreasonable along Cary Parkway south of NC 54
because the road is not access controlled. Existing and potential future driveway
24

' openings would severely reduce a noise barrier's effectiveness. Noise barriers were
also considered unreasonable for impacted receptors north of NC 54 due to lack of
' access control along Cary Parkway and NC 54 and the low residential densities.
4.10 Natural Resources
' 4.10.1 Introduction
The following is a compilation of data collected with respect to Natural Resources in
' the vicinity of the project.

1

1

4.10.1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this section is to describe the various natural resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed action. The entire environmental assessment attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these
resources. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigations will need to be conducted.
4.10.1.2 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 maps, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil
Conversation Service) soil information, NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area
and NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). Water- resource information was obtained
from various publications of the NCDEHNR and from the USGS Water Resources.
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
species and federal species of concern, and the NCNHP database of rare species and
unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by Soil &
Environmental Consultants, Inc., biologists Chris Huysman, Steve Roberts and Bob
Zarzezki between May 1996 and April 1997. Field reconnaissance was performed
between May 22-29, 1996 and April 8, 1997. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or
more of the following observation techniques: active searching, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineations Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). See the Figure 10 Cary, NC USGS Topographic
Quadrangle for the approximate bounds of the study area. General notes pertaining to
the existing environmental conditions were made upon pedestrian and aerial photo
inspection.
25
4.10.1.3 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Chris Huysman, Biologist & Wetland Scientist, S&EC, Inc.
Education: Biological Sciences, University of Connecticut, College of Life Sciences
Experience: National Park Service, Biologist
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Coop. Extension Service, Technician
R.J. Goldstein & Associates, Biologist
Expertise: Wetland delineation; Section 7 field investigations
4.10.1.4 Definitions
Definitions for the terminology used in area descriptions contained in this section are as
follows: Project Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits;
Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.5-mile on all sides of the project study
area, and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS
quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
4.10.2 Physical Resources
Soils and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. Soil,,
and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The
topography within the project region is characterized by Piedmont areas frequently
dissected by streams. The project area is situated in the headwaters of the Crabtree
Creek sub basin within the Neuse River Basin.
4.10.2.1 Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service has published
a soil survey of Wake County, North Carolina (November 1970). Review of data
contained in the publication indicates that the subject area soils belong to the Cecil
Appling and Creedmoore-Whitestone Associations.
The Cecil-Appling Association of soils is characterized as having gently sloping to
steep terrain with deep, well-drained soils that have a subsoil of firm, clay soil. The
soils were formed from weathering of gneiss and schist.
The Creedmore-Whitestone Association of soils is characterized as having gently
sloping hilly terrain, with deep and moderately deep, well drained soils that have a
firm, clayey subsoil. The soils were formed from weathered sandstone, shale and
mudstone.
The following table lists the soils series along the proposed route and the soils
suitability for highway location. The data is based on an interpretation of the Wake
County Soil Survey data.
26

TABLE 7
SOILS: ENGINEERING INTERPRETATIONS FOR HIGHWAY
LOCATION
Soil Series Engineerin
tion
Altavista .,
seasonal high-water table
Cecil frost-susceptible material
Chewacla flooding, high-water table; unsuitable ditch slopes
Creedmoor highly plastic material
Ma odan frost-susceptible material
Pinkston rock material
White Store highly plastic material
In general, all soils with slopes between zero and eight percent that are adequately
' drained at a sufficient depth to maintain cultivated crops are classified as prime
farmlands. Additionally, these soils cannot be frequently flooded during the growing
' season. Factors such as stones, boulders, adverse chemical properties, erosion and
wetness reduce or exclude some soils from the prime farmlands classification.
' Soils within the corridor in the series Altavista, Cecil, Chewacla, and Mayodan that
conform to the aforementioned criteria may be considered prime farmland.
' Approximately 23.5 acres of land will be disturbed for the development of this project.
All lands in the general area are zoned as residential, industrial or commercial lands.
The current land use patterns in the general area do not tend toward agriculture. Since
' this is an urban area no farmlands calculations were assessed and no further
consideration of potential impacts to prime and unique farmlands is required.
' 4.10.2.2 Topography
The proposed right-of-way is located in or near the cities of Morrisville and Cary in
Wake County, North Carolina. Wake County lies mostly within the Piedmont
physiographic province with gently rolling topography.
' The elevation of the subject area ranges from 330 feet to 430 feet above mean sea level.
Surface drainage within the subject area is received by the drainage basin of Crabtree
Creek. The Neuse River and its tributaries drain about 80 percent of the county.
' 4.10.2.3 Regional Geology
The Geologic Map of North Carolina indicates that the study area is located within the
' Raleigh Belt, near the fault dividing the Triassic Basin from the Eastern Slate Belt. The
portion of the subject area that lies within the Triassic Basin is characterized as the
Chatham Group/undivided with conglomerate, fanglomerdie, sandstone and mudstone.
' The portion of the subject area that lies within the Eastern Belt is characterized as
Metavolcanic - Epiclastic Rock - with metamorphosed anfilsite, mudstone, volcanic
' sandstone, conglomerate and volcanic rock (Parker, 1979).

27
4.10.2.4 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resources information encompasses physical aspects of
the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water
quality resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as means
to minimize impacts
4.10.2.4.1 Water Impacts and Characteristics
Waters in the project vicinity are part of the Neuse River Basin. The upper reaches of
Neuse River Basin include the Eno River, Little River, Flat River, Falls Lake and the
Neuse River. The Neuse River flows in a southeasterly direction toward the Atlantic
Ocean and discharges into the Pamlico Sound. Waters within the project area are
located in the Crabtree Creek sub basin (Index No. 27-33-(1)) which is within the
headwaters of the Crabtree Creek watershed that discharge to Crabtree Lake (Index No.
27-33-(3.5)). Also within the project area is Coles Branch (Index No. 27-33-3), a
tributary a Crabtree Creek. :3(2, 9 -/ 7
The proposed Cary Parkway Extension crosses two perennial streams and two
intermittent streams as defined by the USGS Cary, NC Topographic Quadrangle
(Figure 10). The perennial stream crossings include an unnamed tributary of Crabtree
Creek (labeled as A) which is in the northern most portion of the project area and Coles
Branch which is in the southern portion of the project area. The intermittent stream
crossings include an unnamed tributary of Crabtree Creek (labeled as B) and an
unnamed tributary of Coles Branch (labeled as C).
4.10.2.4.1a Flood Hazard Evaluation
The Town of Cary and the Town of Morrisville both participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program. The project will include one FEMA jurisdictional flood plain
crossing of Coles Branch. The approximate 100-year flood plain, as determined by
FEMA is shown on Figure 7A for this crossing. The 100-year flood plain elevation at
Section A of the Wake County Flood Insurance Study (FIS), which is in the proximity
of the proposed crossing is 329 feet above mean sea level with a floodway width of 245
feet as depicted by the March 1992 map number 37183C0292 E as published by
FEMA. Coles Branch is designated by the Wake County FIS as Basin 18 Stream 24.
The crossing will be constructed in accordance with FEMA "Procedures for `No Rise'
Certification For Proposed Development in Regulatory Floodways". This procedure is
targeted at not allowing any rise in the 100-year flood plain as previously established
and documented by FEMA and the COE.
4.10.2.4. lb Hydraulics
There are two significant stream crossings with regards to hydraulics. The Coles
Branch stream crossing is within the Preston PUD. The preliminary hydraulics
analysis indicates that triple 9-ft x 8-ft box culverts will be required to cross the stream
without causing an increase in the 100-year flood profile. All necessary FEMA
approvals required for this crossing will be obtained prior to construction. Based on
28

' preliminary' studies, it would appear that this crossing will require a Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). Directly
' downstream of this crossing is a Wake County flood control dam (Structure #18). This
USDA, NRCS designed impoundment is part of the PL 566 Flood Control program to
relieve flooding in the Crabtree Creek drainage area. It is not anticipated that Wake
' County Structure #18 will be adversely affected by the project. During construction,
Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to minimize the impact of sediment
entering the stream as a result of this construction.
'
The other significant stream crossing is located within the Silverton PUD near Evans
Road (labeled A on Figure 10). This proposed roadway crossing is located upstream of
' the detailed limits of the Wake County FIS for Crabtree Creek Tributary # 6 (Basin 18,
Stream 20). Therefore, no FEMA approvals will be required for this crossing. The

t crossing was originally designed and approved by the Town of Cary as half of the
required 86 feet back to back median swale section previously constructed for Cary
Parkway. The roadway embankment for the Cary Parkway will be the dam of a
proposed lake which has appeared on the approved Silverton PUD documents since its
' completion and approval in the early 1980's. The proposed drainage for this crossing is
actually the riser barrel spillway structure for the proposed dam. This spillway structure
' is contingent upon receiving approval from the North Carolina Dam Safety Division.
The spillway structure consists of a 7-ft x 7-ft box culvert and a 10-ft x 15-ft riser
structure. The dam design is currently being reviewed by the Dam Safety Division of
' the NCDEHNR. The owners of Silverton will be providing this approval letter and also
providing any wetlands permits required for the impoundment. This permitting will be
completed separately from the Cary Parkway permitting. Actual construction of the
' dam and the concrete spillway will be a part of this project.

' All upstream lots that have been recorded show the proposed 100-year flood elevation
based on the Town of Cary approved design drawings for the dam. This impoundment
should improve water quality downstream by containing sedimentation pollution from
developing areas upstream and by the removal of pollutants associated with urban
development by providing a highly efficient settlement area for the removal of solids.
The proposed impoundment area may be used as an erosion control basin during
construction and be cleaned out prior to impounding water. Additional erosion control
sediment basins will also be located at the downstream side of the roadway on both
sides of the stream to minimize the effect of erosion and sedimentation during the
' project construction.
There are two smaller intermittent stream crossings associated with this project that will
' require culverts. These crossing locations are depicted on Figure 10 as B and C.
Crossing B will require a 48-inch diameter pipe and crossing C will require a 60-inch
' diameter pipe. These preliminary culvert sizes are based on a headwall/diameter ratio
(HW/D) of 1.2 and a 25-year peak discharge for the two drainage areas of
approximately 27 acres and 29 acres which are zoned commercial. There are two
' additional crossings, depicted as D and F that will require an 18-inch and 30-inch
diameter pipes, respectively.
29
The culvert requirements for these watercourses will be analyzed in detail during the
design phase of this project. These preliminary sizes are based upon future
development of all upstream property in accordance with the Town of Cary and Town
of Morrisville comprehensive growth plans. It is not anticipated that these culverts will
have any adverse impacts on the upstream or downstream properties.
4.10.2.4.2 Best Usage Classification
Surface water quality is classified by the State of North Carolina's DWQ.
Classifications for water bodies are based on watersheds and their "best usage's". The
project site is located in the upper reaches of the Crabtree Creek drainage basin where
the "best usage" of these waters include: aquatic propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Waters with these uses are officially
known as Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) DWQ: Neuse River Watershed.
Crabtree Lake is Class B NSW which is primarily recreational water contact sports and
any other best usage specified by Class C in the State of NCDEHNR, Administrative
Code Section: 15A NCAC 2B .0211, Fresh Surface Water Classifications and
Standards. Crabtree Creek from the mouth of Haleys Branch to the mouth of Richland
Creek Index No. is 27-33-(6) Class B NSW. The NSW is an additional classification
that is defined under 15A NCAC 213 .0214 and .0300.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-l: undeveloped watersheds
or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.0 miles of the project study area.
4.10.2.4.3 Water Quality
4.10.2.4.3a Surface Water
All streams within the drainage area are classified as NSW. These streams have
limitations on nutrient input. No additional nutrient input will result from this project.
Although the project will intensify short term sedimentation and siltation in the
immediate area of necessary construction activities, potential adverse effects will be
minimized by the contractor's application for erosion control measures in accordance
with applicable regulations of sediment control. These regulations include BMPs
developed by the North Carolina Division of Highways, adopted by the Board of
Transportation, and approved by the North Carolina Sedimentation Control
Commission.
Effects on water quality in the project area will be minor with implementation of these
and other applicable erosion control measures.
Based on a review of the public record there are no major point sources discharges
(greater than one half of a million gallons per day) under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) on these tributaries.- There is no record of
water quality sampling locations within the area of interest.
30

' Additional water quality issues are associated with wetland impacts as dictated by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. These issues are discussed in Section 4.10.4
' Jurisdictional Topics of this report.
4.10.2.4.3b Groundwater
The site is located on the Crystalline Rock Aquifer where groundwater quality is
generally acceptable for human consumption. Most groundwater samples from this
aquifer do not exceed drinking water standards; however, treatment of some
' groundwater supplies may be necessary. Wells constructed in optimum areas, such as
valleys and draws where the chance of intercepting interconnecting fractures is greatest,
can yield up to 200 gallons per minute (gpm). Groundwater in this general area has the
potential for radon-gas contamination due to the underlying crystalline rock and the
wells may need to be tested accordingly.
Most observed changes in groundwater quality are related to land use and waste
disposal patterns. Underground storage tanks, waste lagoons and disposal landfills are
' commonly responsible for point-source contamination. However, more dispersed
contamination by non-point sources is increasing and is manifested by petroleum,
pesticide and biological contamination (National Water Summary 1986). No land uses
commonly associated with groundwater contamination were encountered during the
pedestrian inspection.
' No adverse impacts to groundwater are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.10.2.4.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
' Construction of the proposed project will impact water resources by one or more of the
following processes: box culvert, and pipe construction. Construction activities are
' likely to alter and/or interrupt stream flows and water levels at each aquatic site. This
disruption of the stream reduces stream flow downstream of the project. Temporary
diversions of water flow will raise the water level upstream of the project and lower the
' water level downstream of the project.
A summary of possible surface water impacts as a result of project construction
include:
' • Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and /additions to
surface and groundwater flow from construction. .
' Changes in water temperature due to vegetation.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
' Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction,
ill
d i
l
i
d
hi
tox
ncrease
ve
c sp
s an
cu
ar use.

31
4.10.3 Biotic Resources I
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This Section describes
those communities encountered in the study area. Composition and distribution of biotic I
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influence, past land uses and present land use in the study area. Descriptions of
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and I
follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are
described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
plant and animal species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et al.
(1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et
al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will
be by common name only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
4.10.3.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities
Five general plant community types occur on the site and immediately adjacent to the
site. The community types are: 1) Mixed Pine - Hardwood Forest, 2) Mixed
Hardwood Forest 3) Pine Forest, 4) Floodplain Forest and 5) Rights-of-Way and
Residential Areas. Plant species found in each plant community are listed below the
type (alpha ordered). Classifications were compared to Schafale and Weakley (1990)
when possible. Prior agricultural and silvicultural practices have left few areas that
conform to the natural community classification system (see Figure 11 Plant
Community Type Approximation Map for approximate bounds).
4.10.3.1.1 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
This plant community type accounts for a large percentage of the vegetational coverage
along the proposed route. This forest type is typical of the late stages of successional
Dry-mesic Oak/Hickory Forest. Since this community was historically harvested for
timber, most hardwood specimens do not exceed eighteen inches in diameter at breast
height (dbh). Pine species are dispersed throughout the forested areas; large specimens
are located primarily within drainage features. This community grades into the Mixed
Hardwood Forest.
Portions of this habitat type have been recently harvested for timber or for
development. Harvested areas are identified as a different community type on Figure I
11. These areas differ primarily in age and species composition. Harvested areas are
comprised of the more vigorous species from those listed below: American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), black cherry (Prunus serotina), I
blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), cranefly
orchid (Tipularia discolor), dogwood (Corpus florida), grape (Vitus spp. ), greenbrier
(Smilax spp. ), heartleaf (Hexastylis spp. ), hickory (Carya spp. ), ironwood (Carpinus I
caroliniana), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
32

' partridge berry (Mitchella repens), pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), rattlesnake
plantain (Goodyera pubescens), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer
rubrum), red oak (Quercus rubra), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), sourwood
(Oxydendron arboreum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and white oak (Quercus alba).
' 4.10.3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community type resembles the climax stage of the Dry-mesic Oak/Hickory Forest.
An area identified as this community was historically harvested for timber. Most
hardwood specimens in this community do not exceed eighteen inches dbh. Few pine
species are dispersed throughout the forested areas; pine composition was field
' estimated to be less than 15 percent of the biomass. Species noted in the mixed
hardwood forest included American beech (Fagus grandifolia), American holly (Ilex
opaca), black cherry (Prunus serotina), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor), dogwood (Corpus
florida), grape (Vitus spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), heartleaf (Hexastylis spp.),
hickory (Carya spp.), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Japanese honeysuckle,
(Lonicera japonicera), partridge berry (Mitchella repens), pipsissewa (Chimaphila
maculata), rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
' red maple (Acer rubrum), red oak (Quercus rubra), sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum),
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and white
oak (Quercus alba).
'
4.10.3.1.3 Pine Forest
Areas identified as this community type are such because of current silvicultural
' practices. These areas are apparently managed for timber production. The basal area
is high and the understory is limited to invasive vines and some shrubby undergrowth.

' The forested areas are even aged which further supports the notion that these areas are
managed for timber. No portion of the pine forested areas is contiguous with more
than 300 acres of similar habitat type. Species noted included blueberry (Vaccinium
spp. ), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), dogwood (Corpus florida), grape
' (Vitus spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), sourwood (Oxydendron
arboreum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
4.10.3.1.4 Floodplain Forest
' The flood regime of Coles Branch produces a community type that is similar to the
classification of Bottomland Hardwood. Vegetation has followed natural succession
toward species adapted for these conditions. Understory is limited to invasive vines
' and small saplings. Portions of this community type appear to have historically been
harvested. This forest, where it extends into drains, is "dryer" than a typical floodplain
' forests; however, these areas have been classified as such to create a meaningful
mapping unit. Species noted included American elder (Sambucus canadensis), black
berry (Rubus spp. ), black willow (Salix nigra), chain fern (Woodwardia areolata),
' Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), greenbrier
(Smilax spp. ), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), persimmon (Diospyros
1 33
virginiana), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch
(Betula nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and white ash (Fraxinus americana).
4.10.3.1.5 Rights-of-Way and Residential Areas
This community type was characterized by low shrubby invasive and pioneer plant
growth; all areas identified as such are regularly maintained. Within these areas small
outcroppings of trees provided diversity suitable for many edge species of wildlife.
This habitat is associated with roadsides, existing utility lines and lands cleared for
development.
Residential areas are similar in species composition to the rights-of-way areas. Species
noted during field investigation included blackberry (Rubus spp. ), cherry (Prunus spp. ),
grasses, lespedeza (Lespedeza stipulacea), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sumac (Rhus spp.) and sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
4.10.3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Portions of the proposed route have historically been developed and disturbed areas are
evident throughout the corridor. The corridor is crisscrossed by paths and vehicle
roads, home to feral domestic animals and partially vegetated with exotic species. The
upland habitat provides wildlife with food and shelter. Animal communities typically
benefit from diverse habitat types such as agricultural fields, successional areas and
open areas.
Animal tracks along the proposed route consisted of gray squirrel* (Sciurus
carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), domestic dog* (Canis familiaris), white tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginiana), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and humans. Bird species
observed on the property are those commonly associated with semi-urban development;
i.e. house sparrow* (Passer domesticus), Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis),
house wren* (Troglodytes aedon), Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), mocking
bird* (Mimus polyglottos), blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), bluebird (Sialis sialis),
rufous-sided towhee* (Pipilo erythropthalmus), American robin* (Turdus migratorius),
and common crow* (Corvus brachyrhyncos). Dead and dying trees have evidence of
recent woodpecker activity. No woodpeckers were observed during field
investigations. Portions of the property provide suitable resting zones for migratory
song and prey bird species.
Reptiles associated with the study area include black racer (Coluber constrictor), broad-
headed skin (Eumeces laticeps), brown snake (Storeria dekayi), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), eastern kingsnake
(Lampropeltis getulus), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrum), green anole (Anolis
carolinensis), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), northern fence lizard (Sceloporus
undulatus), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), rough
green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), scarlet kingsnake (Lampropeltis elapsoides), scarlet
snake (Cemophora coccinea), smooth earth snake (Virginia valeriae), snapping turtle
34

C
(Chelydra serpentina), southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), stinkpot
(Sternotherus odoratus), and worm snake (Carphophis amoenus).
Some amphibian habitat is associated with wetland areas. One toad species (Bufo spp)
was observed during an inventory of wet areas. Ofter species that may occur in the
study area include American toad (Bufo americanus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana),
fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), green frog (Rana clamitans), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opaca), northern dusky salamander (Desmograthus fuscus), northern
cricket frog (Acris crepitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), red salamander (Pseudo
triton ruber), red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus), slimy salamander
(Plethodon glutinosus), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), spotted
salamander (Ambystoma maculata), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), and three-lined
salamander (Eurycea guttolineata).
Avifauna associated with the study area include American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis),
American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), American woodcock (Scolopax minor), barn
swallow (Hirundo rustica), barred owl (Stryx varia), black-crowned night heron
Nycticorax nycticorax), blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), blue-gray gnatcatcher
(Polioptila caerulea), brown creeper (Certhia familiaris), brown thrasher (Toxostoma
rufum), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla),
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis), Carolina
wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), common
crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), dark-eyed junco
(Junco hyemalis), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), fox sparrow (Passerella
iliaca), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), green heron (Butorides striatus), hairy
woodpecker (Dendrocopus villosus), hermit thrush (Hylocichla guttata), house
sparrow* (Passer domesticus), house wren* (Troglodytes aedon), indigo bunting
(Passerina cyanea), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), warbler (Dendroica coronata),
ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), parula warbler (Parula americana), pine siskin (Spinus
pinus), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), purple martin (Progne subis), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamacensis), robin* (Turdus migratorius), rough-winged swallow
(Stelgidopteryx rufrcollis), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), ruby-throated
hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), rufous-sided towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthalmus),
rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea), song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), tree sparrow (Spizella arborea),
tuffed titmouse (Parus bicolor), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), white-breasted
nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), white-throated sparrow
(Zonotrichia albicollis), winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), wood thrush
(Hyclocichla mustelina), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and yellow-throated
warbler (Dendroica dominica).
Mammals associated with the study area include beaver (Castor canadensis), big brown
bat (Eptesicus fuscus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern gray squirrel
*(Sciurus carolinensis), eastern mole (Scalopus aguaticus), eastern pipistrel
(Pipistrellus subflavus), evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), gray fox (Urocyon
35
cinereoargenteus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), long-tailed weasel (Mustella frenata),
meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), mink (Mustella vison), muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red bat
(Lasiurus borealis), red fox (Vulpes fulva), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda),
silver-haired bat (Lesionycteris noctivigans), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
volans), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and whitetailed deer (Odocoileus
virginicus).
4.10.3.3 Aquatic Habitat
Coles Branch, its unnamed tributaries and the unnamed tributary of Crabtree Creek
provide aquatic habitats that can support populations of fish, invertebrates and
amphibians. The distribution of organisms is dependent on channel characteristics such
as riffles and pools. The biological diversity of streams is dependent on stream and
water quality characteristics.
Amphibious species rely on aquatic habitats for at least part of their life cycle. This
document has listed these animals in the terrestrial portion of this document. Aquatic
habitats directly correlate with areas identified as wetlands on the attached maps.
Amphibious organisms have a wider distribution than the aquatic areas. Some reptilian
species, such as turtles, rely on aquatic habitats.
Aquatic species likely to be found in waters associated with the project region include
Asiatic clam (Corbicula manileusis), brown bullhead (ktalurus nebulosus), carp
(Cyprinus carpio), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus),
redbreast sunfish (L. auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus),
caddisfly (Hydropsyche sp.), mayfly (Stenonema sp.), cranefly (Tipulidae); aquatic
snails: (Pseudosuccinea columella), (Physella sp.), (Elimia catenaria), (Helisoma
anceps), (Leptoxis carinata), and (Gillia altilis); and crayfish (Cambarus acruminatus),
and (C. latimanus).
4.10.3.4 Impacts to Biotic Communities
The location of the proposed right-of-way is shown on Figure 11. The right-of-way
area is approximately 110 feet wide and 12,000 feet long and will result in the clearing
of more than 14 acres of terrestrial habitat (Table 8) not including existing residential,
cleared and rights-of-way (i.e. railroads, power transmission lines and sewer lines).
To minimize additional adverse impacts to terrestrial resources a sediment and erosion
control document will be drafted and followed. Additionally, the following provisions
should be clearly listed in the final construction document:
1) All merchantable timber is to be sold, where practicable.
2) Measures will be taken to control fires at burn piles in accordance with local and
state guidelines for air quality.
3) Skinning of trees, outside rights-of-way, will be minimized.
4) Soil compaction and filling will be minimized outside of the right-of-way.
5) Spilling of petroleum products will be avoided.
36

t

TABLE 8
IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES

Plant Community Type Total Acreage Within
Study Area Proposed Alignment
Acreage by Community
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest 36.1 acres 3.4 acres
Mixed Hardwood Forest 35 acres 8.9 acres
Pine Forest 17.1 acres 1.8 acres
Flood lain Type Forest 0.3 acre 0.1 acres
Total to Clear 14.2 acres
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest(cleared) 11. acres .7 acres
Residential 3.9 acres 1.0 acres
Cleared 10.4 acres 3.8 acres
Rights-of-Way 10.7 acres 1.8 acres

4.10.3.4a Habitat Fragmentation
' Habitat fragmentation occurs when parcels of otherwise suitable habitat are isolated and
rendered less suitable for wildlife, thereby adversely affecting faunal diversity and
' richness. The degree of impact on wildlife and species diversity depends on the
sensitivity of the species. Groups of species directly impacted by habitat loss through
fragmentation include those with large home range requirements, very specific micro
habitat requirements and poor dispersal abilities.
Many of the natural habitat types in the study area have already been fragmented by
' subdivisions, golf courses and industrial development. The greatest fragmentation will
occur in the mixed pine-hardwood plant community.
' Fragmentation will be in the form of a long linear cleared corridor; approximately 110
feet wide. The edges of this corridor are likely to follow natural succession toward a
habitat type that is beneficial to urban dwelling edge species of fauna.
' 4.10.4 Jurisdictional Topics
' This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
important issues--Waters of the U.S. and rare and protected species.
' 4.10.4.1 Waters of the U.S.
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the U.S.," as
defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3. Surface waters as defined by the COE is water present
' above the substrate or soil surface. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
' vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to
1 37
place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the COE under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Current wetland regulations are based on Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The COE is the lead federal agency
charged with the defining and regulating of wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Permits to
discharge fill material into wetlands and waters are covered by what is commonly
referred to as Section 404 wetland permit. Many 404 permits require an additional
certification to ensure that water quality is not adversely effected; this certification is
known as a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The issuance of Water Quality
Certifications (Section 401) is handled by individual states. In North Carolina Section
401 is administered by NCDEHNR DWQ.
The COE and the EPA are responsible for making the determination of regulated
wetlands. The COE issues permits for discharge under Section 404.
4.10.4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
The definition of wetlands and their boundaries on the landscape has resulted in various
manuals and policy statements from different governmental agencies. The "Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Wetlands" was issued jointly by the COE, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), EPA, and the USDA NRCS in an attempt to
achieve a single, consistent approach for identifying and delineating wetlands from a
multi-agency perspective. The following definition is that used by the EPA and COE
for administering Section 404:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs
and similar areas.
The definition emphasizes hydrology, vegetation, and saturated soils. As a result, the
manual seeks to give technical criteria for defining and delineating these three
characteristics: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric soils, and 3) wetland hydrology.
4.10.4.1.2 Vegetated Wetlands
One area has been identified as a vegetated wetland in the inspection area. The area has
been confirmed to be outside the proposed construction area. The area totals 0.30 acres
and has characteristics described below. However, this area may not be jurisdictional if
it is determined that it is an active sediment and erosion control device and is
maintained in accordance with the sediment and erosion control plan.
4.10.4.1.3 Hydric Soils
Hydric soils within the inspection area are limited to the vegetated wetland area
identified above and the bottoms of channels. Hydric soils that are present have a
chroma below three and some sulfidic odor.
38

4.10.4.1.4 Hydrophytic Vegetation
Vegetative indicators of wetlands are species that require significant wet periods to
' grow. Wetland plants within this area included: Black Willow, Soft Rush, Cattails and
Sedges. Plants located within the wetland areas are supported by the hydrology of the
area. No vegetation was noted in channel bottoms.

4.10.4.1.5 Hydrologic Indicators
Hydrologic indicators provide visible proof that water inundates or saturates an area for
a sufficiently long enough period of time to support hydrophilic vegetation and hydric
soils. Some of the following hydrologic indicators were observed within the wetlands
on-site; saturation, inundation, drainage patterns, and sediment deposits.
4.10.4.1.6 Waters of the U.S. (Surface Waters)
Most drainage features within the study area are identified as Waters of the U.S. The
drainage features that are present on the site have consolidated flows, gravely substrates
and evidence of scouring.
Channels that are found within the study area are deeply incised non-meandering high-
energy channels of the Piedmont region. Channels are typically greater than 3 feet deep
(measured from the top of bank) with gravel substrate and evidence of bank erosion.
Intermittent streams of the project area are generally less than 5 feet in width and
consist of a sandy/clay substrate with occasional cobbles. Coles Branch and an
unnamed tributary of Crabtree Creek are the only surface water that shows on the
USGS map as a perennial water body and were field confirmed to be so. Coles Branch
is approximately 15 feet wide at the proposed crossing and has a cobble substrate and a
riffle-run structure.
4.10.4.1.7 Permits
Impacts to wetlands are in-part regulated based on their size, relationship to
headwaters, and habitat water quality. Wetland impacts are regulated by both COE and
DWQ.
An evaluation of jurisdictional wetlands identified less than 1.2 acres of wetlands and
' Waters of the U.S. within the study area. Table 9 summarizes these impacts by channel
width and Figure 12 depicts the locations. The loss of wetlands by the construction of \
this project will be approximately 0.12 acres. Areas identified as Waters of the U.S.
are classified as channels. Channels are not special aquatic sites and will be permitted
utilizing Nationwide Permit 14.

1 39
TABLE 9
WETLAND IMPACTS
Channel Width Proposed Alignment Impact
Area (Acres) Studied Area (Acres)
5 ft 0.08 0.60
10 ft 0.03 0.48
15 ft 0.01 0.09
4.10.4.1.7a Section 404
All crossings of Water of the U.S. are above headwaters and to non-special aquatic
sites. The COE has issued a Nationwide Permit for the project (see Appendix B).
4.10.4.1.7b Section 401
All projects with impacts greater than 150 linear feet to streambed must obtain a 401
Water Quality Certification from the DWQ. DWQ typically requires mitigation for
projects that have excessive impacts to perennial channels. An application for the 401
Water Quality Certification has been made.
DWQ cannot issue the 401 Water Quality Certification until this project has received a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD).
4.10.4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Rare plant and animal species may be protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act
of 1973, administered by the USFWS. Protected rare species are listed by USFWS as
endangered, threatened, proposed endangered and proposed threatened. Information
presented herein follows recommendations of a Non-Environmental Impact Statement
or Minor Resource Impact Project as provided by USFWS, Ecological Services in
Raleigh, North Carolina.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its associated legislation mandates
that no federal permits, money or land be utilized for projects that adversely impact
endangered species. Consequently, the presence of an endangered species within a
proposed alignment utilizing federal permits, money or land could be cause for
redesigning the specific project. Wetland permits, for instance, will not be issued if the
proposed activity adversely impacts a known population of an endangered species. The
same scenario emerges when activities are funded by the federal government and/or are
proposed on public lands. If an endangered species population is identified within a
project area, it will require further study, consultation with the USFWS and potential
mitigative and minimization activities.
4.10.4.2.1 Literature Review and Background Investigations
Plant and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
40

provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. The current (August 23, 1996) USFWS list of threatened, endangered and

' rare species for Wake County, North Carolina (Appendix C. USFWS Comment Letter)
listed four federally protected species in Wake County. A literature review for the
federally protected species was conducted to gather vital information on the species:
range, preferred habitat, life history, historic distribution and confirmed presence
' within two miles of the site.

1

NCNHP datafiles were reviewed on May 22, 1996 to identify known occurrences of
federally protected species within the study area. No occurrence of protected species is
reported within two miles of the site. The August 23, 1996 Endangered, Threatened
and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina list for Wake
County is identical to the revised April 1, 1996 Federally-Listed, Candidate Species and
Federal Species of Concern list for Wake County.
4.10.4.2.2 Field Survey Methods
Information regarding the unique characteristics of the species, its habitat requirements,
its reproductive biology and locations of its previous local sittings are compiled and
reviewed before surveying commences. Aerial photo inspection and field
reconnaissance of the site locates potential suitable habitats for the protected species:
after which, transects are traversed by foot. Survey methods are consistent with
recommendations of recognized professional biologists and scientific literature.
4.10.4.2.3 Species Descriptions and Status
Unique characteristics of the species, its habitat and its reproductive biology will be
discussed for the species. An assessment of the species presence or absence will be
made on the basis of limiting habitat and biological features. Impacts to known
populations, and the existence of the species, will be assessed if suitable habitat is
found on or believed to be adjacent to the site.
4.10.4.2.3a Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagles are federally listed as threatened in the southeastern U.S.
Bald Eagles are large and dark in the body, 32-43 inches (81-109 cm) long, with a
white head, white tail and yellow bill. The wingspan is about seven feet (2.1 m).
Young birds lack the white head and tail, and have a dark bill and pale markings on the
belly, tail and under the wings. The lower section of the leg has no feathers. Nests are
cone-shaped, six to eight feet (1.8-2.4 m) from top to bottom and six feet (1.8 m) or
more in diameter.
Bald Eagles in the southeast frequently build their nests in the transition zone between
forest and marsh or open water. Nests are typically constructed in dominant live pines
or cypress trees that provide a good view and clear fight path, usually less than a half of
a mile from open water.
41

No large bodies of water, suitable for nesting bald eagles, are within a half mile of the '
project.
Biological Conclusion: No effect '
4.10.4.2.3b Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Picoides borealis
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are listed as endangered throughout the U.S.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is eight inches (20 cm) long. It has a black cap
and is black on the nape of its neck. The back is barred with black and white; the
underside is white with black spots on the sides. There is a large white patch on each
cheek, which is a distinguishing characteristic from other woodpecker species. The
male has a small red spot behind the eye, which may or may not be visible. Fledgling
males have a red patch on the crown of the head. RCW's live together in family
groups, but each adult has its own roost cavity. Foraging takes place during the day;
birds return to their roost cavities at dusk. Cavity trees are often highly visible, as the
birds peck the bark around the cavity, causing the tree to ooze large amounts of light-
colored sap.
The preferred habitat of RCW's is open, parklike pine savannah with little
undergrowth. Most populations are found in forests of longleaf pine, but loblolly,
shortleaf, pond, slash and occasionally Virginia and pitch pine are also used. Living
pines (30+ years old) are preferred for foraging habitat and mature, live trees (60+
years old) are used for roosting and nesting cavities.. The territory of a group of birds
is at least 125 - 175 acres (50 - 70 ha) in size; normally they do not travel more than a
half mile to forage. RCW's are the only birds to regularly excavate cavities in live
southern pines, although other birds are known to nest in dead limbs of live trees.
No cavity trees or individuals were observed along the proposed route. The most
suitable habitat was associated with areas identified as pine forest. These areas were
determined to be not suitable for this species because of its isolation from large tracts of
pine.

Biological Conclusion: No effect
4.10.4.2.3c Dwarf wedge Mussel, Alasmidonta heterodon
The dwarf wedge mussel is listed as endangered throughout the U.S. '
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small bivalve, usually less than two inches (5 cm) long. '
The outer shell is somewhat ridged and dark colored, often with a greenish tinge. The
bottom of the shell may have a slight, gradual indentation and the shell is usually wider
and more rounded than other species of mussel. The most effective way to identify this '
species is to examine the interior of the shell (after an individual has died). The right
valve of the dwarf wedge mussel has two lateral teeth while the left valve has one
lateral tooth. In all other NC species, the opposite is the case. '
42 1

This mussel is found close to stream banks, under overhangs and around the tops of
submerged logs. This species is also known to live on firm substrates of sand, gravel
and muddy sand with a slow to moderate current. The mussel requires water that is
well-oxygenated and free of pollution.
' No portion of the project is in a watershed known to support populations of this mussel.
Impacts to intermittent channels will not have an impact on this species. Field surveys
for mussels produced no specimens of the protected mussel (Mottesi, et al., 1996).
The fact that the study area supports significant domestic and industrial uses and minor
agricultural land uses further supports this conclusion.
' Biological Conclusion: No effect
4.10.4.2.3d Michaux's Sumac, Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac is listed as endangered throughout the U
S
.
.
Michaux's sumac is a low, deciduous, fuzzy shrub, one to three feet (30-91 cm) tall.
The leaves are alternate and consist of long rows of nine to 13 leaflets. The leaflets are
1.6 to 3.5 inches (4-9 cm) long, 0.8 to 2.0 inches (2-5 cm) wide, hairy with toothed
' edges. Flowers grow at the top of the plant in a dense, erect cluster colored greenish-
yellow to white. The fruit is grouped in the same manner, is reddish and fuzzy.
Flowering occurs April through June, fruiting occurs August through November.

The plant prefers sandy or rocky open, upland woods and wood margins and grows
best where disturbance has maintained an open area. It has been found along roadsides
' and power line rights-of-ways.
Inspection of maintained rights-of-way produced no specimens of Michaux's sumac.
' No field edges with the appropriate disturbance regime are within the inspection area.
No impact to Michaux's sumac is anticipated.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
' 4.10.4.3 Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species
As of August 23, 1996 there are a total of nine Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed
for Wake County. These species are: Bachman's sparrow, the southern hognose snake,
' the southeastern myotis, the yellow lance, the Atlantic pigtoe, the green floater, the
Diana fritillary butterfly, sweet pinesap, and the Carolina least trillium. FSC were
formerly classified as C2 Candidate species are defined as "species which may or may
' not be listed in the future..., and ... are under consideration for listing for which there
is insufficient information to support listing" (USFWS 1996). The definition of a C2
' Candidate species was a taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability but for
which there are not enough data to warrant a list of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened at this time.
43
These FSC species also have a North Carolina protection status as well. Plants or
animals with state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern
(SC) are given some protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture. However, the level of protection given to state listed species does not
apply to NCDOT activities.
These species listed herein are mentioned here for information purposes should they
become protected in the future. Surveys for these species were not conducted during
site visits nor were any of these species observed.
4.11 Secondary Impacts
The Cary Parkway Extension will connect two sections of the existing Parkway and complete a
major radial thoroughfare around roughly three-quarters of the perimeter of Cary. In
anticipation of the completion of this project, significant development has been planned and is
under construction or completed. The development includes residential, commercial and
industrial growth. As the majority of the study area is undeveloped woodland, it is expected to
change with or without the planned project due to the surrounding development pressures.
Sheldon Drive, presently a dead end street in the Weston Industrial Park, will be tied into the
Cary Parkway and will provide a means of ingress and egress to Weston Parkway. This will
accelerate the already anticipated industrial development in this area.
The existing Silver Oaks Subdivision southeast of the Evans Road/NW Cary Parkway
intersection will be provided with additional access to promote safety and distribute traffic
more evenly through the subdivision. Additionally, the Silverton Parcel K subdivision has
been approved for construction by the Town of Cary. These developments are a direct result
of the anticipation of this project in the vicinity of the northern terminus.
The Town of Cary has also approved for construction plans for Preston Medical Center North,
which includes approximately 1,400 feet of northeastern road frontage along the proposed
Cary Parkway just north of the project's southern terminus. Several commercial/office
developments will be located within this project. Weatherstone Way will be extended to
Maynard Road at a later date. This will provide a link between the proposed Cary Parkway
and Maynard Road.
Preston PUD will continue development of residential areas as well as office and light
industrial properties from the current southern terminus to the railroad right-of-way. James
Jackson Avenue will be extended in the future as a part of this development and will provide a
direct link between the proposed Cary Parkway and Maynard Road.
The Park Place Shopping Center has been approved by the Town of Morrisville and is under
construction on NC 54. The western boundary of the property was proposed as a part of the
Cary Parkway Extension right-of-way.
44

' Bristol-Myers Company located west of the proposed alignment on NC 54 had indicated that
there are plans for additional development of their property. However, they have recently
announced that they will be closing this plant down within two and a half years. This leaves
' the status of future development of this site in question.

I

4.12 Visual Impacts
The project is predominantly undeveloped woodland with gently rolling hills and small creeks.
Therefore, visual impacts to existing development will be limited to businesses along NC 54
and Sheldon Drive and single family homes in the Preston and Silverton subdivisions. The
four-lane divided urban thoroughfare will be constructed to allow for landscaping and
screening to mitigate adverse visual impacts. Landscape berms may be considered along the
Cary Parkway Extension as part of adjacent subdivision construction to further mitigate visual
impacts.
4.13 Hazardous Material Sites
The NCDOT Geotechnical/GeoEnvironmental Section conducted a field reconnaissance survey
and file search for potential environmental hazards that could be encountered during right-of-
way acquisition or construction that may result in an environmental liability. The hazards
considered included underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites, landfills, dumps and
similar sites. The study does not include any intrusive or geophysical means for identifying
subsurface features. The methodology is restricted to surficial review for visual indications
and a file search which includes:
4.13.1 CERCLA
Review of the lists of sites registered in the Wasteland Remedial Report as potential
superfund sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) indicates no CERCLA sites are listed within a one-mile radius
of the study area.
4.13.2 RCRA
Table 10 is a summary of the findings from a September 1996, review of the list of
businesses that may generate or store hazardous waste registered under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in the immediate project vicinity.
TABLE 10
RCRA REGULATED FACILITIES
No.

Facility Name
T 1

Location

EPA ID No.
-7

EPA Desi ation
40 AMP Madison Ave, NCD 075 569 368 Inactive
Incorporated Cary
89 Bristol-Myers 1331 W. Durham NCD 000 623 082 Large Generator
Products Rd.
45

4.13.3 Hazardous Spill Incident Records
Table 11 summarizes the finding from a September 1996, review of the NCDEHNR '
files pertaining to hazardous material spills in the project vicinity.
TABLE 11
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILL
No. Date Location Incident Remediation
389 5/15/90 603 E. Chatham St. Diesel fuel discharge Contained
396 7/7/89 Huntington Apart, Ground soaked with Unknown
Morrisville septage
505 12/13/89 2213 Bedford Ave -200 gal home heating oil Reportedly
spilled into storm drain contained
1137 3/24/94 521 Old Apex Rd Improper dumping of No known
motor oil and transmission remediation
fluid
1139 5/26/94 300 block of High "40 gal diesel spilled from Spill contained
House Rd. leaking tank
1233 3/11/95 Evans Rd. & -40 gal diesel spilled into Raleigh HAZMAT
Weston Pkwy lake as a result of a traffic contained
accident
1235 5/8/95 280 Lake Drive, 5-8 gal of gasoline leaked YRAC Fire Depart

.L-
I Cary I from damage fuel tank contained s ill
4.13.4 UST Leak Incidents
Table 12 summarizes the findings of a September 1996 review of the leaking
underground storage tank (UST) files for Wake County maintained by NCDEHNR.
TABLE 12
UST LEAK INCIDENTS
Facility Name Location T Incident No.
Preston Wood, Inc. 109 Summerlakes Dr., Cary 9010
Preston Wood, Inc. 110 Summerlakes Dr., Cary 7381

4.13.5 Solid Waste
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the study area. The ,
review shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dump sites are evident within
46

the study area. However, during field reconnaissance a property north of NC 54 was
observed to have trash piles mainly consisting of shingle and associated construction
debris. A concrete island, presumably from a gasoline station was observed in the
' same vicinity. It appeared that the island had been moved from its original location and
discarded in the present location.

L?

4.14 Construction Impacts
During construction of the Cary Parkway Extension there will be various impacts that will
require mitigation. These impacts are expected to include but are not limited to natural
resources, water quality, air quality, noise, solid waste, land disturbance, vector propagation,
and utilities. Federal, state and local requirements, ordinances and guidelines will require
sediment and erosion control measures be approved and implemented, and open burning will
be limited if necessary by permit.
Construction impacts can be mitigated by implementing the following construction guidelines:
• Contractors will be required to observe and comply with all laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders, and decrees, including those of the North Carolina State Board of
Public Health, regarding solid waste. All solid waste will be disposed of in accordance
with the Standard Specifications of the Division of Highways.
• Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right-of-way and provided
by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans and special provisions or
unless disposal within the right-of-way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of waste
or debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior
approval by the engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of
the engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
• During construction of the proposed project, all material resulting from clearing,
grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, and
disposed of by the contractor. Any merchantable timber should be salvaged with an
emphasis on selling all wood products to minimize burning. If vegetation is disposed of
by burning, all burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with NCAC
2D.0520 and G.S. 113-60.24.
• Provisions will be taken during construction 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
prevent skinning tree trunks by heavy equipment, exposing roots, smothering trees
from fill dirt around the base, or accidentally spilling petroleum or other damaging
substances over the root systems.
• Borrow pits and ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
Care will be taken to prevent the blockage of existing ditches.
47

• Adherence io the sediment and erosion control plan will be required, including limiting '
areas and duration of exposed earth and stabilizing exposed areas as quickly as
possible. An erosion control schedule will be prepared by the contractor prior to '
initiation of work. The schedule will outline phases of work and temporary measures
implemented during those phases.
'
• Measures will be taken to alleviate the dust generated by construction when the control
of dust is necessary for protection, safety, and comfort of motorist and nearby
residents. '
• Although the high equipment noise levels are expected to be the main contributor to the ,
construction activity noise emissions, noise impacts during construction will be
relatively short term. It is anticipated that the major source of noise will be heavy
equipment operation from earth moving, hauling grading, pile driving and paving. '
General construction noise impacts will be limited to daylight hours.
Prior to construction, a determination will be made in regards to utility relocation I
and/or adjustment of existing utilities in the project area.
• Traffic service in specific areas of the project may be subject to brief disruptions during '
construction. Measure will be taken to maintain the flow of traffic as dictated by
NCDOT specifications.

48
J
CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
' There will be a public hearing help following the publication of this document. Advance
notification will be provided in the local newspapers and by letter to those that have requested
correspondence.

1

1 49
i
CHAPTER 6 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Comments on the proposed Cary Parkway Extension were requested in a scoping letter from
the listed agencies. Responses were received from those agencies in bold text. These
comments were addressed in this document and copies are included as Appendix A.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington, N.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh, N.C.
U. S. Forest Service
U. S. Geological Survey - Raleigh, N.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV - Atlanta, Ga.
N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Administration
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
Division of Water Quality (Environmental Management)
Division of Land Resources
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Town of Cary
Town of Morrisville
Silverton Homeowners Association
Wake County
50

' CHAPTER 7 REFERENCE
' A Re-evaluation of the Mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey.
North Carolina State Museum of Natural Science, Raleigh, NC.
' Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc.
Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. Prepared for the Federal Highway
Administration. Report Number P13-222-703. June 1973.
Cooper J.E. S.S. Robinson and J.B. Funderburg (eds.). 1977. Endangered and Threatened
Plants and Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Science,
Raleigh, NC.
' Earley, L.S. 1991. Going, going...? Wildlife in North Carolina 55(3):14-19.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987, COE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical report Y-87-
1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Frazer, M. 1993. Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina.
' unpublished.
Hardin, J.W. 1977. Vascular plants. In: Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg
' (eds.). Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. North
Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC.
' Mottesi, Gabriela B., Mara E. Savacool, July 1, 1996, William B. Umstead State Park
Aquatic Inventory. NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapters, 2B, 2H, 2L and 2N
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources - Division of
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1992 NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines.
Parker, John M. I11, 1979. Geology and Mineral Resources of Wake County, Bulletin 86
NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Land
Resources, Geological Survey Section.
Environmental Management
1993 Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the Neuse
River Basin.
1995 1990 Ambient Air Quality Report. September. Prepared by the Air Quality Section.
1995 Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facilities.
' March. Prepared by the Air Quality Section.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Land Resources, Geological Survey Section (Bulletin 86), Geology and Mineral Resources
of Wake County, 1979
r
Radford, A.E., H.E.'Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1964. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. SCS. 1970. Wake County Soil Survey.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Species of the
Southeastern United States (The Red Book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Division of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1986. National Water Summary - 1986 - Groundwater Quality:
North Carolina. GPO. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. User's Guide to CAL3QHC Version 2.0:
A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections. EPA Report Number EPA-454/R-92-006.
8/ngsinol of iunoW A4308 Ol
W
O
d LL Od HOPE
ny NEW
r m o
" R n Sf°d vc7
°?1.

y = °?r 'a8 NOOHGAI
? v u r1/dY ~ o
a ? >
O o- m W
O
PO '3AY = 0j1NY.,lY N m 4
a i
QQ? 0 0 W = m
am
N6U x Oby_ d a D eOp 1\01
00 1S3 ?+ m Aa z
m bOd 311VtA y¦o =?3 ST. Y
7
F © 04.E ?, a '^ E V` ? ?
/ q0. J oc1??0?
vOO
?o FORy,S Otl IIIW H31155Y1
AV o ¦
r° ,HOOD '`^ ov`? D is H3C
ac L - GLEN ,?. ?? Z JE
o by P _>_¦ f a °d
m 61 Ob ?., F v N
^? w N1jb38O •v c? EY
3 f v o z a o `a o
OY3 H1 3 31%10 J ?. Z
o
? o °?` o v 3 od ?
3 F" • Is
Oyr m ?. ? z a F•
z .y°? -+ 3901a
Rv' S 'J, w Z t ?
z
a ?° i ¦p ¦
DURAlE1GH RO P° ¦ < v o: v
o'
G1{URGH
Z C7 1'•' m ,Z r-
P 4.°
4,'LF, p? ? ?' P
?? N
4 Y
4 O
Vi
I
= n
3 e
•

?°
Obd?
rs,
NnS

e
m E
rv o
M
N
in
N
N
0
0
010
i
13
v 2v
?O
GO Z.OH OtlO85b3^r
N GARHER
? b S
m ?y cjN?bdS ? /
K • d
OWWYN O
2
a >
39V1S 010
OH
a
U
= SN
0 o V°
E
z E
0
Y V
a r
31,YT
o c
rc o

SON/bdS ? w
A] Z
3^Y ti ? ? a = y ? a
o o
? `

r
o t
?
ebb o: A r- y
ry V vt

3ti\YOIIN
4 V

W
<
11
O o >
{ ;
2 Otl a

wtlve ti
y? u a
a d ? ?W ev =
?
ti ? u R0 = i x ? L

r
-\ ?1 d Ne rw w
`
M i '3r o h d J-0 tier •?
1
d 3 ?
Q
y
OdbiV J. GP y-
by

K +
W
6 e
W
¢
b0
®
I d _ti? u'1
wr.?
?^ U n1 111. ?- V CL.
? O\
d
d
J J
,y
d
a. d
?o
8sA
by
aer.=
O V O ? j
? U >>
u d d n Y
? O d ? t
d
?g?0m
m° c rn.c r
o aC'a`
is ?cdiC
Z
O
N
Z
W
li.
Y
U
Go
O
M
t

T
'm

"rop ? pp
d? u ea
?€
o g Ana
I

,
b
` I

d i • w ¢ Pu° ? G m p

'
, .5
6
6 NM
ti
P b Y V
° C 4
NS
l 1
- 6 ? ? S I ? -
? d
q S6X,bSS
bs
q
6 tlM
MM ;a
O
D n V bb ? 6
V> I ? ? ?
a `` ?
M G
`?S ?
¢ C
?r ?a IN `'?
? ? ? b TIN
gnrypn TnF In
? ?
;yY "4
G6 ?
/d dJ
/'
'Y?
8 y1d' 6 dS J6 ? P N.-N F
8 M1. ?1°
_ R' F'??° A ?,N PA
,
bY
M?
? S DI
i V7
I 3 ? 5 µWy WFnO ?

S4 ?
a ar,
?u a

\

- a

kFa
a
b
rb
40
?
. bv l
d p W
y
I
44 VNAVV443,
? 6
` I 6, '9 0? b 3 Wdr 6 y ? b I
? 2
_

,- p??Q ? ..? • \ I N
q
i
®

V

Z
a
l `T? i

bbb 0 ?

5
W q IAM

ql ~ ? 0 Q
a
lI ? \?

G 5'b7 Ywui

p
?Uilt
PH
a r n
POOM
l?
\
u
N I, ? rqy

T l
YWool
b?
Z
?l
P
S? F
`a
05
G M
a. YR
q Flw

~
tl ? ? I
?
tag
dS
6 ? >) 8
S
nn
D
3 6 I q 1? ?pQ?
?•
6
a ?s ?: °
, ? b
e ,
to e
W°Y ?,
3 q O
a
F e b 7 1,• ? _ B

- _- - _ 1
i?
__ -
, g? 4 G M
b a LL F - a o
1 t5 P
a
...ear
1
'
aaa o
a°u . ;,?,?
-`
m?3 ?`
p e
II?s• 0
i? Ig_
5 5
!
q / a
3 Zy r.G ? ? ?
b 6
0 ? 5
?
1? ? fv
9?
s
y? ?L ?,ie,
J1
I q wMi?.?
I
(_ '
iM"WmM \y, I
8 ,? ? J b
g
? viT,eP ?
.._ 4
L
J
.• ,
DYI ?
I a
? SIA M ,p - - a .o
? - ? IrW?? o
/'
8 p ?1
_ _
- V°MA b 3 s- d
G 4 d $ ??
- ?•.
?
k$.'? SIAVO'V
J 1dd q'o3A SM

I
%
F I'
5
1? ? . d /--h i

I
I ,?
Hu
v s Q
roWYO?°x Oa ' qq b 6
YM O ? 8
h?.
_
I ? ' .nyidl
'

I x
v

I ._ ?.
I
I s? ?I', -Wd

v

,q
j' 1A
c'? ?' 15 'r.:
ha+4q ? i ?4 p
yR` 1Mn'wg '
g a 1 Ln
HO
-_ ___ k
u1 ?tl01v
3

3
Tz
O
U)
Z
N
to
a
o
M

0
0
N
T
wll
T
J
U
Q
Y
fr
C.7 Q
Z
U
x ?
W U
'44
r
LL)
1? y
{
0r
d'
C'
-C W,
/ J
,.I J4 -
?. --Z - r
d I 3Nft3d y
LLJ
' ,1 ??t• ?// ?? /
Lr_
I l
i J
?? f o
Q 5?(
Z a
Z
W U
? J
Q?
oa
T
W Q
a?
V) LL_
0
xz
Wo
z ?-
0
0
zW
0x
0 Q
Z
O
Z
H ?
W
} EL
Q t?
}
U W
ao 3
O
M

a
............==mmI=mm==s==I,
m 4w rtwr - .4 .? ...r.. ,.
?..m d. ..gym pwn?m
.. dw ? _ n•f.n....A.?l.l m
9 '? A ?? +V 41d?? P Pr
?•• w_r df?+? •••i m tm ogAl_
dwq ... a_ wo r .o.n
s? ww•d ?qr ?•• ?M >n?">o
•••A ? ?yMW w ?•r.?.r? ? ?.. Ru
attuevctea
966T `9z jagolz)0
Ilauno0 uAtoy Savo aq'l Sq pa'ldopy
?1 •t•t9A YN
AZ -r,.q,t •U CI 4-13 J-n-d

ae "M tw9 mam n .V_•g1+ m
K •t•tt1A +vtvd+vJ of 7+•d -Rpwnt
C ••a.lgitr a -qov1
R a>wr a •o Mft q.•7
m 4-A wr L --A -1-M
02 v°It°19•Y o -A fnq.tow
m •vt.ogY.r o •t•n/A sgvtva
wt _"-us ? V--A .ttn+g?
AI q+m [.••w?9 C q•?4gv19
of uvp m t -RA-9
0 A. q-d f
8 1AMMWkWM M AAM wo.tw ru OLOWMr

fww? r

gi 9w1YM .f?ea d?irq

•dam allow pppg aq3 uo urogw 7ou aJV waogmnu ono own lvuoljlpucyj g"N qa I .rle 10 l e 1 :3Jewwa3 ZB
Ol 1o14UeP1eeH
OlH
Joe# U1 eras
-' leuol4n41geu1 9 eo1?j0 lo m ZL 1e13uePleew M H
0000& 0009 0
ewoH el!goW
HWM
CY6lfl/fi Sulwuo}uoo] 0'c it+I4uePIeeH
JOEH:
quewdolene0 41un Peuutald Ofld = Z6 Sllwej-Ig1nW 1e14uePleeH ZLdWH M OE 1e14uePIeaw OEHIfl1111
laligenpul AnoeH 21 M 101quepleeH uMOquMOO WO M CfB/" /6 OulwJO}uoal Ot 1014USPISO
H
OOH IAA
1e1i4enpul 44511 AI M 9 Sllwed-IglnW Iel4uePlaeH BdWH? Of lammPleeH OVH
ue4ue0 quewSoldw3 peuuold 39dITtT
9 PeXIW 1014uePIse
H
WH
u0149nJesu03 eO.tnoesy
3H ?
4o 1.tge I O eeeu I ene L B M B 10 14ueP I GOW BH QNMIDN7

M
M
m

a
Z
O
C/)
Z
LLI
F
W
2
V3 Z?
i O
N
U
co
3

O
W?
J
<rc>
(66) (w
(91 .. n
NN M

zsgi as 'oF 3nN3nd NOSINdVH *N
?V
A
N
'o
_g$
V v
iA
a
U
Z
0
I
CO M
b
M
-A
o•
^v 0
V
A
IAIA O• 1
AN,
? a4?
0
ao•o -
?V
P
?v
v
v?o m:. =?4
C]
o i
a
ZN
O
Z0
O
Z_ UJ
F' J
N co
x U
p ®Ca
a?aQa
%0 %0 0 0
ON ON N ?-
2 2! cc..) Oz zo
?z
x ? v
0
Fig
3
O
a LL
z w!j
U aie
LU w0
U W
Z(D
UZ
> - U CD
J Ned LLI
?Q°oYW
O Z
C) C)
U
z 2: U P CL
N IJJ Q N
W 95 W
000-0
o0CL xr
W, N
No
-" v
?n
e
- N _
v "O .t
1?N
V•
vV
`^
^
•oo C
F.? N
` V
` n n °O
p?O?? I?AaO ??`f OEM N I- A
` /y`` -?, N olA N ln??
47? V Q3G -v V
` -/- SS
2!
? U')
?? aL* ao ?p
` v N
Aq? ol 99
?d??avd ?ad?
A 'o
ZvN Q^8 vV -W) .-.n
04 M11
N
v v v
1 ? 1
$V? Opp A :-: Sp
00 N S 1;,gp,
04 C14 W)
V PEr
2 0"
W
O

f'
Z
O
Cl)
Z
H_
W
Q J
W
a
V
M
3

IA
W

9
= = = m m m =

6
S S
t ?

f
1
/
ov,
will
c t? r 1U y,'+
V
i b ac ;1 Y" 1,' ???,

?

lrA li' (?y ?
? ?? :L
C
_( MI
yr

`r 1ti..
1??I9 ,? '1y
110 l '
r 1
? - ? i 1 f w

^ IP
?

c to - r ? fit+`'? `??

?I?'.?
4?lYI -'
Z
O
Z
W ,,ww
V
Q
V
V
O
M

= = m
N?p?M

r,;! xr

Z
O
N
Z ^
W ao
H ?
W
0
Q a
33
?v
ao
0
3

t

C!

1

EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever-is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-213;
143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
2D .0800
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
%.0803 IGHWAY PROJECTS
Environmental assessments regarding highway projects shall be
rev' wed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
L 'e North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. If there is no assessment,
or if an assessment shows that there may be a problem in complying with
an ambient air quality standard, or if the environmental impact
assessment fails to show that the highway project will not result in
violations of applicable portions of the control strategy, and will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national standard, then
the following regulatory provisions shall apply:
(1) A person shall not construct or modify any highway if that
highway will result in a contravention of ambient air quality
standards;
(2) Before construction or modification of any highway with an
expected maximum traffic volume of 2,000 vehicles per hour or
more within 10 years, a person shall apply for and have
received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600 , and shall
comply with any terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1);
143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
.0804 AIRPORT FACILITIES
Before constructing or modifying any airport facility designed to
have at least 100,000 annual aircraft operations, or at least 45
peak-hour aircraft operations (one operation equals one takeoff or one
landing) , the owner or developer of the airport facility shall apply
for and have received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600, and
shall comply with all terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary
March 8, 1994 for a
Until the Permanent
Whichever is Sooner;
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
S 27
Amendment Eff.
Period of 180 Days or
Rule is Effective,
D-800-2

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number: . Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/cr approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions reqarding 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

Regional Office. Normal Process
Time

PERMITS I SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct 3 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPOES • permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application 180 days beicre begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, cotain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPCES. Reply (NIA)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Pre application technical conference usually necessary 3C days
_ (NIA)
? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation or a well. (15 days)
Application copy must foe served on each ad;acent ricaran property c5 days
Credge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to =ill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Feceral Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06C NIA f90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 21).0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733-0820. (90 da
s)

Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20
0800
- copc?U6 IS )? Lk'F}L LO •c?o3 y
.
- 7
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion 3 sedimentatio

u control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Cuality Sec;.) at least 30 20 days
davs before becinnino activity. A fee of 530 for the first acre and S20.C0 for each additional are or part must accomeanv the plan. (3C days)
J The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued
?I North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
I exceeds 4 days (NIA)
-l Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "it more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

J 90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (NIA)
It permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
_ Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR aoorev•
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Carps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verity Huard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac•
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a

Normal Process
Time
- PERMITS .SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURE'-- or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

' -------------
File surety bond of 55,000 with EHNR running to Slate of N.C. -----
10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
' abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
? I Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. I (NIA)
' Slate Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
i
f
d
i
i 1520 days
pt
escr
ons 3 draw
ngs o
structure 3 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (100 days)

' ?
GAMA Permit Icr MAJOR development
S2`_0.00 fee must accompany aDDlicahon 55 days
`50 d
aysl

u 22 days
CAMA Permit Icr MINCR development S51CO fee must accompany application <c days)
' ?, Several gecce!;c monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please nosily
( I I N.C. Geodetic Suryey, Box 27687, Raleign, N.C. 27611
' C I Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subcnacter 20.0100.
CI Notification of the proper regional office is requested if 'crpnan'undergreunC stcrage tanxs (USTS) are CiscovereC during any excavation oceraticn.
' Compliance .vith 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stcrmwaler Pules) is required. a` days
lJ I (NIA)
* other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
' L
d C
li
an
ua
ty: Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NC DOT's
acoreved program. In particular, adecuate sediment controls must be designed for the
perimeter of all affected areas, and stable stormwater conveyances and outlets must be
' provided. Particular attention must be given to protection of Coles Branch.

' REGIONAL OFFICES
O
i
uest
ons regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Euildinc
' Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
C Mooresville Regional Office ? Ralei
ional Cffice
h Re
' 919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 g
g
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleich, NC 27609
[phone] (919) -7/33-2214
? Washington Regional Office rr--11
L Wilmington Regional Office
' 1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
f?t
L Winston-Salem Regional Office
' 8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 2710E
NCI, RC-, HCF FALLS' LAKE
TF ' 9 1a :=-9 ; -?' ? Flay 7 ' 96 11 : 0, No .002 F .06
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission L7"
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charies R. Fullwocd, Executive Director
.MEMORANDUM
TMelba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental AlTairs, DEHNT,
FROM: David Cos, Highway Project Coo ator
Habitat Conservation Prokrar )_
DATE: 'Yiay 13, 1996
SUBJECT: Request for info,-.-mation from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns fur the Cary Parkway
Extension, from the current terminus in the Preston P.U.D. to Evauis Road
(SR 1653), Wake County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-3408, SCH Project
No. 96-0665.
This memorandum responds to a request from ivir. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCD(-)I' 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 project, and our comments are provided in
accordarice with provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 1 13zZ-
1 et seq., as Lurnended, 1 NCAC 25).
A this time we have no specific eo1lunents or concerns regarding the suriect
project, however, our general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources witltin the project area.
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endarngered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing ol'designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage P oorani
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,

H

CWRC,HCP , FRLLS LRK:E
Memo

TE' ..J1 __-3 _,4.3 J- 9 1.1aa 11 C:? I10.F,D% CJ 7
2 May 13, 1)96
NC'DA Plattt Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected b}' the project. The nccd for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities,
3. C OVel' tyre maps showing wetland acreages impactod by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undc;ao
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other dminave, or filling for
project const-n:ction. Wetland idertirlc ttion may be ?ccompli`he:I thruuah
coordination with the U. S. A= Corps of'Engineers tf the C:C)r..
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be idcntilicd and
crircria listed.
4. (.ever ,vpc maps showing acreages of unl; nd wildlife habitat InlU?lettd by tl-
propose:! projoct. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to wh>sch the project will result in loss, degradation. or
fr-znnentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating fur direct and indirect
degadanon in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cuniulauve impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
5. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which NN-ill result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. It' constnlction of this facility is to be coordinated with other stl,tc, municipal,
car private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the ertvironinental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early pla1u11ng staecs foi-
l -
this project. 1f 1 can further assist Your office, please contact me at (919) _525-9556.

/ 1 .
tudv?
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 7611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
May 16, 1996
Get V
M Q? 2 ? 1996
E7VVIR?
50? ,
This is in response to your memorandum of April 8, 1996, to our Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office requesting scoping comments on the "State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for Cary Parkway Extension from current
terminus of four lane section in Preston P.U.D. to Evans Road (SR 1653), Town of
Cary, Wake County, TIP No. U-3408" (Regulatory Branch Action 1. D. No. 199602182).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
In keeping with current coordination procedures, please also provide a copy of
'future requests for comments to Mr. Coleman Long of our District Office. We
appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shu rd, Jr), E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure

I

Appendix B

1 ENDANGER&D, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SFZCM
AND FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN IN NORTH CAROLINA
1 This list was ads ed *= the North Csroura Natural Hwrltags Prvpam's County Species List.
It is a listing of North Carolfrtu': feddcslly listed and proposed wAse eivd, daWenW, and
1 candidate species and Federal a mcm of coed (for a complete list of rare species in the state,
please contact the North Caromut Nawal Heritage Progtan). The inforimalon on this list is
compiled item a variety of sou rm, including field surveys, musatn m and herbariums, literature,
1 and personal communications. The Nm* Carolina Nat>orod Heritage Fmgmm'a database is
dynamic, with new records being added and old records bed crAW as ngw i anuation is
received. Please note that this list cannot be conAdered a definitive record of listed species and
1 Federal species of concern, amd it should not be eomidered a subsdb2z for held surveys.

i WAXI COUNTY
CO
'
MMON NAME SCtENTI>f
iC NAMZ STATUS
1 Vertebrate.
Bachman's sparrow Aixmpkila antivois FSC
Bald eagle Haltaserua 1"coosl+4WW Tbreatened
Southern hogaose make Hd&vdoa:lilac! FSC`
1 Southwstcm myot v M+otfs auaaroripaliw FSC
Rcd-cockaded woodpecker pko"a borealis Endangered
inyxothm=
Dwarf wedge mussel Alm%Wvn t hetemdlow Emwwred
Yellow lance Etioda 1W%c6olata FSC
Atlantic pigtoe PlC emia maoxi FSC
Green floater Laasrigoxa j#bWrkbw FSC
1 Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dtmta F9C*

1 Vascular Punta
Swett pinesap MOW&OPslt odowa FSC
Michaux's fume Rho )"k awsii Endangered
Carolina least bn1hum Trift'RntPWIllox ear, P"Uh in FSC
'
KEY;
Sums Onion
Endangemd A twwn "in datSer ofexlt action dmmgboutall or t sisaffiew posuion of its rasfge
"
1 .
nweatened A taxon "Nicely to becom andangsred wifto tine fiorsaasabis ff an tbrougtlout all at
a sageaihaa ut pution of its range."
1 FSC A Federal species of comm . a species that may or may not be listed m the A#=
(fomtarly C2 candidate speeise orspacies mader eonaiderstion for listing for winch
there to annuli wd iofe notion to support listing].
1 3pocies with 1.2.3. or 4 aste isb behind them indicate biseods. abscu4e, or ir? records.
*Historic esoord • the specie was last obser and is the mmly more tlrm SO years ago.
1 A
a r ?3.1996 Pm I ofl

i
Appendix C

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
' WILMINGTON DISTRICT
'fiction ID. 2970042 County Witt
' GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NA-MONWIDE) VERIFICATION
' Property Owner/Agent JoW of CarvfATTN• Mr_ Tim RaLiley_ ^
ddress PO 59218005
-C NC 27,512
Telephone No.
Size and Location of project (waterway, road name/number, town, etc.) Town of Cary rocv
located Northeast and Southwest of NC 54 connecting DQ present termini gf the Ca PUWy
' 4nd crgg*ii g tribIgar_iCs Uf CrabtMC Creek and Cole Branch in Caa, North-
Carolina-Description of Activity
(,1711stmi. ction of proposed roadway (linew Ma way Mquirea six ne=ndicular crossings of bank-
' wank waters of IJte US)Osulting in 0,12 acres of iMpacta i he j didictional waters of the
t 1 S . as shown on the plans received =h 14. 1997,
X....Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
' Section 404 and Section I0.
14 Nationwide Permit Number.
' Any violation of the conditions of the Regions! General or Nationwide Permit referenced above
may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal
action.
Thi, Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwi:de Permit verification does not relieve
the undersigned permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or
' local approvals/permits, The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies
before beginning work.
Regulatory Project Manager Signature c
Date April 25. 1997 Expiration. Date AZzdl 25, 19W
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE
CF; Soil & Environmental Consultants (By Fax)

11

soil
2 Vi \C Ir i
onmental Consultants, Inc
>r??lt?`dt<?c1`tlc?i?;C?,'N<?rtli (:;irc?lina L7(iO?) ¦(?)19) ?/(r59UO ¦ I?ax(919)i?/(i-9i(
WET?RC' "?' .
970227
November 10. 1990
NCDEHKNR - DWQ
Attn: Mr. John Donley
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer and Mr Dorney.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Attn. Mr Eric Alsmeyer
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6846
The purpose of this letter is to request a Nationwide Permit 14, and a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for the project known as U-3408 Cary Parkway Extension. The project corridor is to
be acquired by the Town of Cary, NC and is located near the cities of Cary and Morrisville, NC
(Wake County). The site is shown on the enclosed plans and Cary, NC, USGS Topo Quad vicinity
map,
It will be necessary to impact 0.12 acres (see map) of jurisdictional Waters of the US above
headwaters for the placement of the proposed road. Six pipe and fill crossings are proposed under
Nationwide Permit 14. No single crossing impacts more than 150 linear feet of Waters of the US.
Impacts are shown in detail on attached map and grade plans.
The roadway is needed to alleviate potential traffic burdens in the local area.
Please call if you have questions or require further information. If you intend to perform a site
visit please call and we will arrange for someone to accompany you.
Sincerely,
Christopher Huysman,
Biologist
\.1ill.111,o, ¦ M.11)pIllv,, ;110 ¦ \\4-tlmid., ¦ V 1\
c )ii `;il?? \\';i?,l? "Iii .i?iii?•ni `,??.til??ni?;, I?.valti;iii??ii ,ui?l I>? ,i}',ii
DI:M ID _ _ Corps Action II)
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit Il) 14
Pre-Construction Notification Application
1?or Nationwide Permits that Require
I ) Notification to the Corps of 1?ngincers
?) Application for Section 401 Certification
3) Coordination with the NC Division of Coastal Management
Send the original and ( I ) copy of this completed form to the appropriate field office of the Corps
of Engineers (see agency addresses sheet). Seven (7) copies should be sent to the NC Division o1'
Environmental Management (see agency addresses sheet). PLEASE'- PRINT
I . Owner's Name
2 Mailing Address
'T'OWN OF CARY, ATTN TIM BAILEY
PO Box SOO,
Subdivision Namc:
City: CARY
State: NC Zip Code: -'7,? 1:'
Project location address, including subdivision name (if different from mailing address above)
SEE PART 5
3) 'telephone Number (home): (Work): FAX 919 / 460-4935
4) If applicable, agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
SOIL. &, l"1NVIR0NMF.NTN. CONSI II.TANTS, INC 1'11 (919) 8 ?10 244 W M11.1.BROOK ROAD

RALEIGII, NC 27609
5 Location of work (provide a map, preferable a copy of USGS topographic map or aerial
photograph with scale):
County: WAKE COUNTY Nearest town or city. CARY, NC
Specific I.ocation (include road numbers, landmarks, etc )
NORI HFAST AND SOUTI IWEST OI, N('54 CONNI;CTING IFWO ITFISENT
TFIRMINI OFTI IF GARY PARKWAY AND CROSSING IRIBI ITARIFS OF
('RAB'fRI:I?. ('RI:E:K AND COI,I:S BRAN('H Sl?,l: A'I"IACHI':D VI('[NI'1'Y
MAP
0 Impacted or nearest stream/river TRIII( I ARILS 0 1? ('RAIVIR I"I -: CRL, I-:K
River Basin NFUSI" RIVFR BASIN
7a Is project located near water classified as trout, tidal saltwater (SA), high quality waters
(HQW), outstanding resource waters (ORW), water supply (WS-I or WS-II)?
Y1;S ( ? ) NO ( X ) lf"yes, explain:
7b. If the project is located within a North Carolina division of coastal management area of
environmental concern (AEC)? YES ( ? ) NO ( X )
7e If the project is located within a coastal county (see page 7 for list of'coastal counties), what
is the land use plan (LUP) designation?
8a Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property?
YF,S (? ) NO ( X ) If yes, provide Action ID number of'pervious permit and any
additional information (including photocopy of 401 certification)
81). Are additional permit requests expected for this property in the iirture?
YES ( ? ) NO ( X ) If yes, describe anticipated work
9a. Estimated total number of acres in tract of land 125 IN INSPECTION AREA
96 F.stimated total number or acres of wetlands located on project sites 1.5 ACRFS
I0a Number of acres of'wetlands impacted by the proposed project by
Filling Excavation
Flooding Other 1'IPI" AND FILL 0 12 A('Kl,,S
Drainage Total acres to be impacted 0 12 ACM"S
lot) (1) Stream channel to be impacted by the proposed project (11' relocated
distance both before and after relocation)
Length before EAC1I SEGMENT LESS THAN 150' After.
Width Before (based on normal high water contours):
Width After:
Average depth before: LESS 10"
After:
(2) Stream channel impacts will result from: (check all that apply)
provide
Open channel relocation: ? Placement of pipe in channel X
Channel Excavation ? Construction of a Dam/Flooding: ?
Other:
I I if construction of a pond is proposed, what is the sire of the watershed draining to the
pond?
What is the expected pond surface area?
12. Description of proposed work including discussion of type of mechanical equipment to be
used (attach plans S 1/2" x 11" drawings only):
CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED ROADWAY WITH MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TYPE OI,
CONS'T'RUCTION.
*4 0
4 V',
SI'm I OF NmRriI CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARIANI) B. GARRH JR.
G(A] RNt'R I,(), 14 A .),SMI RAI 1 161 1, N.C.:?7011 5711 SWRI 1ARY
RECEIVED
April 8, 1996
APR 15 19%
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
^RAnarN
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
Division of Environmental Manageme t
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Z
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUB.iECT: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact For Cary Parkway Extension from current terminus
of four lane section in Preston P.U.D. to Evans Road
(SR 1653). 'T'own of Cary, Wake County, TIP No. U-3408
The firms of Withers and Ravenel Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (WRES) located in
Cary, North Carolina has been retained to prepare a State Environmental Assessment
(FA) for the proposed extension of Cary Parkway from the current terminus of the four
lane section in Preston P.U.D. to Evans Road (SR 1653). The attached figures show the
project location (Figure 1) and the approximate study limits and features of interest
(Figure 2).
The roadway will be located within both the Town of Morrisville ETJ and Town of Cary
E'T.I. The approximate length of this roadway extension is 2.25 miles (11,900 LF). The
roadway cross section will be a four-lane median divided thoroughfare. Signalization of
the NC 54 and Evans Road intersections will be required. As shown in Figure 2 the
parkway extension will be required to cross the Southern Railroad Line and Coles Branch.
The construction of a bride will be required to cross the railroad while the installation of
box culverts will be utilized to cross Coles Branch.
While the town terminus of the parkway extension are set, no work has been completed to
identify either potential or the preferred alternatives. However, there are several existing
and "approved for construction" structures within the corridor which, together with
environmental and engineering design constraints, will limit the possible routes. These
structures, shown on Figure 2, include the WKIX radio towers, the Bristol Myers
industrial facility, a shopping center currently under construction on NC 54, and existing
and approved for construction subdivisions. During the initial portion of the EA our
P W
LO&
ti
consultants will be creating a base map on which natural resources within the corridor will
be overlain on the existing conditions. This map will be used to assist in the selection of a
preferred alternative.
The EA will evaluate the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed
project. Specific issues to be addressed include natural resources, wetlands, air and noise
impacts, water quality, flood plains, hazardous materials, archaeology, historic sites, and
other relevant impacts.
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this project. This
letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to this project.
In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, it is requested
that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts of the proposed
project relating to the interest of your agency. For our consultants to stay on schedule and
for your input to be included in the planning and environmental document, please respond
within 30 days.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Mr. Tom Kendig at
[phone], Ext. 263
HFV/tp