19980497 Ver 1_Complete File_19980618

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
Environmental Sciences Branch
May 7,1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Whitfield
THROUGH: John Dorne
FROM: Eric Galamb D
SUBJECT: New Hope Road Extension
City of Raleigh, N.C.
An interagency meeting was held in the RUST office on April 19, 1996.
The meeting minutes accurately reflect the discussions. Given the alternatives
presented, DEM concurs that alternative 2 is the least environmentally
damaging. DEM requests that no weep holes be installed in the bridge(s). DEM
believes that wetland compensatory mitigation will be required for this
project. The wet pasture adjacent to the project should be investigated for
restoration/ enhancement opportunities.
Should you have any questions, please contact Eric Galamb at 733-1786.
cc Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh COE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
:. DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
NCDENR June 16' 1998 s a ?'
I x JUG
8 19,98 F
JAMES B. HUNTJR
GOVERNOR MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
WAYNE MCDEVITr
SECRETARY - Director
Division of Water Quality -
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
RoGER N. SCHECTER Inland "404" Coordinator
DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
n l The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199602022 dated June
4, 1998 describing a proposed project by The City of Raleigh (New Hope Road Extension, etc.)
is being circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or
Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form by 7/2/98. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at
-",,-733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1-7687 / 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/1 O% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
LT X.? FA
NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNT.JR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
June 16, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
ROGER N. SCHECTER Inland "404" Coordinator
DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199602022 dated June
4, 1998 describing a proposed project by The City of Raleigh (New Hope Road Extension, etc.)
is being circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or
Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form by 7/2/98. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at
733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.

Signed

t r

Y. T

Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Date
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1-7687 / 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIvEACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED110% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615-6814
Action ID. 199602022
June 4, 1998
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE CITY OF RALEIGH, 222 WEST HARGETT STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH
CAROLINA 27602, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA)
permit TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF DREDGED AND FILL
MATERIAL IMPACTING A TOTAL OF 2.6 ACRES OF WETLANDS, FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOPE ROAD EXTENSION (SR 2036) BETWEEN
POOLE ROAD (SR 1007) AND ROCK QUARRY ROAD (SR 2542), CROSSING
WALNUT CREEK, UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES, AND ADJACENT WETLANDS,
southeast of Raleigh, in Wake County, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data
provided by the-applicant and from observations made during
onsite visits by a representative of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Plans submitted with the application show the
placement of fill material impacting a total of 6-fires of
c« ?- , RRO 4 knt t,o Wa^lnv-t-Cr?ek} _ tow, head Pter?, nd, two
arre a
s bove hedwafes'southe:as.;f ,RghF_n
Wake County, North Carolina. These impacts are necessary for the
construction of the extension of New Hope Road from its existing
southern end south of Poole Road, south to Rock Quarry Road,
approximately 1.5 miles. Thr?<pi ll= : crossY•e t"ubo
to h. <o= :Walnut Cr{e :ar 48 and-_.6V .'cu'l erts,
.? dway.. rs s 4 ialn:ut__Greek va.-a__a brid_ e
apps CO feet Tong,crd..b:_y four perswithin the
a, ,areas
The proposed construction will permanently impact 2.6 acres
of vegetated wetlands by filling. The impacted wetlands are
comprised of several different types of ecosystems, including
bottomland hardwood forest (1.6 acres), wet pasture (0.8 acre),
and emergent marsh (cattail) wetlands (0.02 acre). Within the
wetlands adjacent to Walnut Creek, and adjacent to Big Branch on
the south end of the project, four additional culverts will be
used to allow for hydrologic flow underneath the roadway.
2
The City of Raleigh is proposing a wetland mitigation site
adjacent to the west side of the project corridor on the south
side of Walnut Creek, within and adjacent to a wet pasture. Non-
wetland areas (? .acres will be modified to create and restore
wetlands, by removing 0.5 acre of sand deposits in the
floodplain, and 2.0 acres of a high ridge adjacent to a swale,
and grading down a small upland area adjacent to Big Branch
wetlands. The levee along Big Branch will be repaired to prevent
future scouring of the mitigation site. Wet pasture (7 acres)
will be enhanced by eliminating cattle grazing, and revegetati.ng
with bottomland hardwood species. In addition, a minimum of 1.00
feet of upland buffer will be established on the slope above the
mitigation site, and an additional acreage of wetlands adjacent
to,Big Branch upstream of the site will be preserved. Bottomland
hardwoods adjacent to the Walnut Creek north of the site will be
used as a reference for the mitigation site.
The purposes of the work are to provide an automobile travel
corridor from Capital Boulevard (US 1) to I-40 South, across
Walnut Creek, in eastern Raleigh, and to relieve road congestion
in the area. The applicant has considered several alternatives
to the proposed project, including four alternative alignments to
the proposed alignment. The applicant has also considered
alternative designs to minimize wetland impacts, including minor
relocations of the corridor. In addition, the applicant has
implemented measures to avoid and minimize wetland and stream
impacts, including steeper side slopes on fills, elimination of a
landscaped median in wetlands, and additional culverts to
maintain lateral flows through wetland areas. Plans showing the
proposed construction are included with this public notice.
The State of North Carolina.will review this public notice to
determine the need for the applicant to obtain any required State
authorization. No Department of the Army permit will be issued
until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been
received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a Department of
the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality has determined the applicability of a Water Quality
Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section
404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may
request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this
V
3
application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published
version of the National Register of Historic Places for the
presence or absence of registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and the project
does not impact any registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of
the National Register constitutes the extent of cultural resource
investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise
unaware of the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown
archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical data may
be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer is not aware, based on available
information, that the activity will affect species, or their
critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether-to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation of the probable.impacts, including cumulative impacts,
of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed
activity may have on the public interest requires a careful
weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected
to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to
authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it
will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome
of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect
the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics,
general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use,
navigation; shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply
and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and
fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied
if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would
4
not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other
applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted
unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary
to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the
public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian
Tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to
determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit
for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to
assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water
quality, general environmental effects, and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in preparation
of an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact
Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing
and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will
not be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether
or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302,
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this
public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the
NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act
certification may be reviewed at the offices of the Environmental
Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person
requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for Clean Water Act certification should do so in
writing delivered to the Division of Water Quality, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 4401
Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607, on or before June 26, 1998,
Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
V
5
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined
above, will be received in this office, Attention:
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, until 4:15 p.m., July 2, 1998, or telephone
919-876-8441, extension 23.
1 � Yt,k
`4ey
I I U = N I
1
`ook.
�e,���l
I I U = N I
1

-PLAN' 1?-
_
? iI i I WETLAND BOUNDARY 4`0
? 1 I 1
• I ; 15
I I x
• GEORGE A DAVIS 1
1
• ? )))? i ??YI Iw J. BROW
? / I ? 1 f ?t? ? FRANCES N. WYNNE
/ I 1 l\
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
11 i .
I 1 }
t ! ' 9'- Pf 5ft Irv-27.
? ? 1 1
I 11 1
w
-n STw 33.64 /GEORGE A DAVIS
• ,1 I 1 ?WILLIAM J. BROWN
q I
I 1 1 \ 1
1
1 ? 1 x \1
I I I 1 1 /k/ ' WETLAND BOUNDARY
¦
s
IPROFILE
?yy? ROCK QUARRY ROAD FINISH GRADE WETLAND BOUNDARY
200
- ?-
180
?/? 15' CULVERT
160 WETLAND BOUNDARY 66' CULVERT EXISTING GROUND
140
12V
26 27 28 29 30 31 32
c,
D
E
c
0 50 100 NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION o
c
WAIF COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE: 1" = 100' APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 2 OF
PLAN
Ac, 1 . FRANCES H. WYME
>r
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
iE d -L-pr SALM c:)
low
0 - 77
177,
:LZ; / 41
ZZZZZ4
w
x
A ?! M MOCrE ~ J
14 r
_ WETLAND BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - 2
FRANCES H. WYNNE
PROFILE
FINISHED GRADE Lij c:)
WETLAND BOUNDARY z O
220 w -- WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND BOUNDARY J +
,? 18• CULVERT -- -- ?- U L0
EXISTING GROUND J ?' - - - - - Q
50 51 52 53 54 55 56
PLAN WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
r
FRANCES N.WYNNE E • w r r r r r
WILLIAM J. BROWN
?e[-ra[-moo[
AWE LAND BOUNDARYI WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED wr r
- \ x l r O
O O
Q \?. %? M w w M w r w r M
- - - - ? ---- co
co' c0
L
Q ? FQ-
r w r w r
-------------------
w
w
z Z
J J
= r I r r r r w r • •
E U
AECIr AM'iJI, A6 SIAB ItivO? Rn? i r r r r r r r r
WETLAND x
BOUNDARY
z
r r M r r r r
O
0
PROFILE
CD
+ N
r ?
FINISHED GRADE
-
y? co
wo IQ- CE
p? (A
72• CULVERT-
c^ - w
1W EXISTING GROUND-? Z N
WETLAND BOUNDARY WALNUT CREEK J
n
U a
56 57 58 59 60 6f 62 63 Q
wo
zo
J +
2 co
o 1O
0 50 /00
6mmmmi
SCALE : 1" = 100'
NEW HOPE RD. Ex7rENSION
y
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 3 OF 9
-PLAN Wu.uw J. BROWN •? ?`
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
,
• \

O
C)
IMAMS
O
C)
.
p . .00010 CO
? CO
Q - - - -
_ _ _ /1108 A'M ? ? Q
_ =

w
z

A/

41 14

, q r w

Z
--? J
U WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED . U

R „ WETLAND BOUNDARY'S nr
r
e, rRT K BROWN BROWN
PROFILE
FINISHED GRADE 18' CULVERT
O
w O
+ F?
180
I60
I Z
J
_72 CULVERT
_/ = 00
WETLAND BOUNDARY co
U OV EXISTING GROUND WETLAND BOUNDARY
Q? 140
? `? 120
63 64 65 66 67 68
PLA N ; T;
,a
>, w% nor
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED n 1 ROBERT K BROWN

WETLAND BOLN DARI'•
r
O aaec
+ .,. -

ao
co . s

Q -/ . WETLAND BOUNDARY
_
w
z M Sr \ or
J
Q
-F
_nc\- --?---
- --------------

2 -------- ----
r

ROBERT K BROWN

PROFILE
EXISTING GROUND
w O
Z0
= co Ian O
FINISHED GRADE
15" CULVERT

o(o
Q d 160 WETLAND BOUNDARY

? ? 140
68 69 70 71 72 73 74
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
0 50 /00 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: APRIL,21998998
SHEET 4 OF 9
E
L
n
0
n
E
L
n
u
U
PLAN

WLLIAM J. BROWN WLLUW J. BROWN
In
v
?

/. $
Y,
v

COIM
G /OIII10M M
/ OOR
WETLLANAN
/ D AREA TO BE FILLED
OMK
woos
PK OK -
I
v
-55 00
g00
'
?
-- -/ 1
X55 - ?- - -

? ---
M •
? ---!------------
------ ?``
------%
P/ -'-
/ /
v v
WLLIAM J. BROWN
w Sao vao
/ /
ooi .oaos
/ / v +
WETLAND BOUNDARY
r ff
ooae voon
/
~ v
M '
M
v WETLAND
BOUNDARY
PROFILE
270

250 FINISHED GRADE
230

210 60' CULVERT
?--
WETLAND BOUNDARY --
--?
1 IXISTING GROUND WETLAND BOUNDARY
ffo let
81 82 83 84 85 86 87
NEW HOPE RD. EXIrENSION
0 50 X00 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
SCALE: 1" = 100' PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 5 OF 9
E
C-
CU
a
R
C,
a
E
C-
CU
ca
D
n
U
-PLAN . /

BROADMI. FAMILY TRUST
.p
'K?
-Mr
A. CLIFFORD
& ALMA K. OUPREE

aos.?
i

? I ?.w??.oc•l-wc-•?-?x--?-wt-w?-pc-wc
-wc-.a-wcl,et
??

e or - 's a

.11
-c- ' i WETLAND AREA TO BE RUED
'
_ _ _ - - - - - - - 'C - - - 'c - - - - '
- -
- - - - - -
P
•
-
- - - - - - -
_ - - -
- _
MY. pow Ap. RA
A. CLIFFORD Is ALMA K. DUPREE • •
OEM •aas /
7
am soon
BROADWELL FMXY TRUST /
L
PROFILE
290
270 FINISHED GRADE
se CULvERT WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING GROUND
1210
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
IN WETLANDS AREA

661-0" R/w SS'-0" R/w
Ow
24'-0w E

12'-0" 12'-0" ip-
pw
W
sEwr I sERr
I
GRADE
_ POINT - B'-0
1i"/FT "/FT "/PT 1w
Ilk
M '
FT"
/F7
2'-6" CONCRETE M /
CURB i GUTTER
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
0 50 100 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
SCALE: 1" = 100' PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 6 OF 9
E
r
N
cl
0
a
E
L
a
D
U
F- o

C
o
w d
?
z w cc
c
C7 ° = rn

W
O _
'- d
J VI
I (U/1
I ? U
t I U F-
I I
1

L

O
O
L W
J
c,
z y z I'i
N Z J Wi
Z O
t7
x H O a
W H F
W Z Gag
O O H
N
C) ca
I NI 11%
r
e 1
I
:
• / ?` ' ?) ?; , it
111 ,
'? ?'i '•\ W \ "?? ? ? i ]? \%? 1,
.
mo't`
I 1
1 '
1 /
,
C30
i `
i
1
/
1 .
1
Y
I
/
\
off',
u
Q
W
OC
Q
W Z
to
N
0
0
N
Q
N N
v
. f
o,. CN
G
W
OD
x Z
J
I-
W
3
Z
< Ld
CL
Z N
O Y.
M
w
F-
M
a Y

0 3

N
0
$

y

` N
?

°
o
3

?
°
= a
``
o
_

LL' °
' °
C7 o Y a
.. d ?
m o a
`
J c y
o u m° >
J o f
m to

O ' Z\
1
LO ui
z a`
H Q J ?
Cl) ..1 0. a
F d
x o?.0
W CO H
z a
I H cs
Cl)
N ? H
ZH
Ig a
s d iz
Y ^r O a // / \ . (a
W 13
11 x ..
x
t ti
/
\ ! J
_ i
• Y
t
x
k YfY ,Y . -
XxTx.XxXx
x X yy X \
\ k X )! , x
It-?11, ,,:IJ Xx ?Ix"i ?-
11 i / ?X;Y, xY x `\\•:\ i`
.: Y % %x x)
Y
wlx
xxxxxx
a iI n rt xX%S% ¦XYX: ...
?? r f . I • ' I . .It MYYt x x xX ..?/.\?/ II \
}: x"Y
i dxyxSlxxxxxx '
lxx
I +? Y ///???•••xxxY% x x
,'?? F ixMx% Yx%xi mxxx
xxx ? /
i % xy*x Y xxxxxx ..
x r x /
x x x
x x Y"xyx x
x x Y x
r „ Yx x % x
r •x x x /
x x .k
xxx
x X x"xx YXX%x x X x x%
xX x
Y X_\z
X"K.Rx !.!x F X x x x?X x
I\ 1\ .' .. Y Y , X x X X
Y?Xx"
Xx%x xxxxxxOx xxxx x
.xxxx xxxx"X" x XxXIx"x"xxx"x"x"xX
% T X Mx x Y x x'Y xxx Yx Xx%:.'i YYX 1F/;
I A x _ xY x
I? Y" X .11 Y %
1 - %Xxx xx
?. 7`XXx % X
x X x
. Yj
xxX x%x %x Mxx'x Y %
.
.. R x R x x
x M x Y %
x
Y
I.' %x% xY x Y x X x XxY x Y?Y x% ..: ..
\ i X x; x i x x% Y
% %
\
x x
% xx"
%x Yxx
., 1 Y x x xYi% ,.:
x Y Y Y
/. 4 X % M % ... \
.............. X % % r % X .... .
1 1 ?. ixXx
XxX Yx
YY
%YY
\ xxXXX _
X X
Y x x x x ;z
x x x x
Xp
?XX X.
N Yx %
y*
}xYx
x
xX /
Mkx ..
YXY x
X
\ M %
X% x
i
• / /.. //.... ) d M
- / N
\
I
? 211111,
/
,...., is
------ / \d N,
,
,
?APN '
y?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO July 10, 1998
Regulatory Division
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199602022
juL 1 4 iM a
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department
Environment and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is the application of the City of Raleigh, for a
Department of the Army permit and a State Water Quality
Certification to discharge fill material in waters of the United
States, for construction of the New Hope Road Extension (SR 2036)
between Poole Road (SR 1007) and Rock Quarry Road (SR 2542),
crossing
and impacting a total of
southeast of Raleigh, in Wake County, North Carolina.
Your receipt of this letter verifies your acceptance of a valid
request for certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of
our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water
quality certification may be required under the provisions of Section
401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be
granted until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days after
receipt of a request for certification is a reasonable time for State
action. Therefore, if you have not acted on the request by
September 8, 1998, the District Engineer will deem that waiver has
occurred.
Please address questions or comments to me at [phone],
extension 23.
Sincerely,
-G
Eric C. Alsmeyer
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
2
APPLICATION FOR DEPAI LENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) I Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of
Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington,
VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location
of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable waters
of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of
dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure:
Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached,to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
An aoalication that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
City of Raleigh
Stewart J Sykes, PE - City Engineer
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
222 West Hargett Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business [phone] b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
New Hope Road Extension
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Walnut Creek
Not Applicable
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Wake NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/or Accessors's Parcel Number, for example.
Project is located between Poole Road (on the north) and Rock Quarry Road (on the south)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From 1-440 take Rock Quarry Road southeast to Jones Sausage Road. Project begins about 300 feet
beyond Jones Sausage Road. Project extends in a northerly direction from beginning of project at Rock
Quarry Road to its intersection with New Hope Road at Poole Road.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
1 8. Nature of Activity (Description of project, inch features)
Construction of New Hope Road extension between Poole Road and hock Quarry Road. Road will be 2-
lane curb and gutter. A 450-foot bridge will be constructed over Walnut Creek.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Construction of New Hope Road Extension will complete the New Hope Road corridor from Capital Blvd.
To 1-40 (via Jones Sausage Road). It will provide a north-south travel route for eastern Raleigh, and help
relieve traffic congestion in the area. See Alignment Study for additional detail.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Road must cross Walnut Creek with extensive wetland areas. Other wetland areas could not be avoided
as well. Alternative analysis performed to determine Alternate with the least wetland impacts. Center
median eliminated in wetland areas to reduce fill. Also 2:1 slopes used to minimize impacts in wetlands.
See Alternatives Analysis in Alignment Study for additional detail.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Clean fill (soil) will be discharged into wetland areas - 87,400 cubic yards into 4 separate areas
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
2.6 Acres of wetlands to be filled
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes - No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
Francis H Wynne William J. Brown
104 Gordon St 121 Dunedin Court
Clayton, NC 27520 Cary, NC 27511
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NC Div of Water Quality Sed. Erosion Control Plan
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
applicati plete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly a ze age the applicant.
S PLICANT DA SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
Additional Landowners
Robert H Brown
121 Dunedin Court
Cary, NC 27511
Alma Dupree
1505 Gleneagle Drive
Garner, NC 27529
Broadwell Family Trust
c/o Kathryn Broadwell
4725 Clifton Road
Knightdale, NC 27545
_ I
SHADED AREA INDICATES
COUNTY LOCATION IN N.C.
VICINITY MAP
,?, .-zu ?'?,N' f ? „T.Q '';`i n • a art ? s. _' .
r t ?R
wJ-
t
1', s
i fl?/ x666 f ?A7
( r H
I? ?4 ? sl??- II
?;:R \
`POp 'V
djNlrXl?t?ori% Ww tiop Rtio ad\r
s?^ Site
?c? jl
:-
I'
!rj
Cl-
SCALE 1:24 000
1
1 2 0 1 MILE Q
Q
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
c
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER Cl
c
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
c
' c
m
E
c-
a
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH*i
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998 i
1
SHEET 1 OF 6
IM r? ? ? /
PLAN 1 _
+ 1 1 , WETLAND BOUNDARY
+ f 1 1 x
11 I ,
+ I ' t 1 /5 1
1
• GEORGE A DAVIS I 1 i 1 x/
? + + J? ? i ??YI I? J. BItAM
AC a 2595.03 FRANCES H. WYNNE
1 1 ??
11
1 _ WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
1 L - -
1 11 I k
•
j -Y- PT 5% AS• , • •1 1
)J 1 1
II 1
? i 1 11 1 -
t x ,I ' ,
1 6 _
N P I 1 - - - -----
t- A I
-Y- SYA )6-33 .64 GGEORGE A DAVIS \WILLIIW J. BRAYN
' x 1 1 on.c .ooos
a + / q j 1
/
11 1 1 x
1 ,
1 1 x `i
I ?' I 1 1 /" ' WETLAND BOUNDARY
IPROFILE
ROCK QUARRY ROAD FINISH GRADE WETLAND BOUNDARY
200
c^ 15" CULVERT
160 WETLAND BOUNDARY 66" CULVERT EXISTING GROUND
140
120
26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Lr)
LH
Q
m
S2
c
o,
E
c
5o 100 NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
.3
WAIF COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA a
SCALE: 1" = 100' APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 219 1998
SHEET 2 OF 6
PLAN

I
FRANCES H. WYNNE

C
? WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
-:::'
7*
-roc-max,
L- pr -9&.W.89M

°

- iE d
-_ - I -I - - - -
- - - - - - - - - o
- ' ---
,,WZVlFd- ?RM'S
- - - - - CD
lf Q

tI
-? w
z
°lE q? N irvo#ZE J

_ WETLAND BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FRANCES K WYNNE
PROFILE

220 FINISHED GRADE
w c:)
WETLAND BOUNDARY O
z
iyw WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND BOUNDARY J
/

wV
G

18' CULVERT

? _

U
EXISTING GROUND - -- - - - - - -- ?.- Q Q
co
50 51 52 53 54 55 56
PLAN WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED x

FRANCES H. WYN
w w r O 2 r ?
r r o
?
r

WETLAND BOUNDARYI WILLOW J. BROWN
WET tl

r
??
1 LAND AREA TO BE FILLED swwr
rOaocC
O Yr ? x
+
\
k M O
w
Q - 7
F ?r k M M 1? M w
- - - +
- -
-
+
1
co

/Vi01! R ' -
co
7
;
CO
L

IM ?0' w w w ¦ M ?n

V?
VI ?
W : 1 l it z
z

w
w w
J
w
N r w r w E U

I1iY M
BEGIN AMJ'kVp/ SLAB
w
w w w r
w w b?R
r
I ?
WETLAND
BOUNDARY'
x
w
w M M w
M ?
PROFILE O
0
+
N
FINISHED GRADE ce)

?
180 '

160
? _72
CULVERT
D(ISTING GROUND J w
WETLAND BOUNDARY WAI.NUT CREEK J
140
U
56 57 56 59 60 61 62 63 2
wo
Z o

r NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION

2 0 ??
50 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
U) APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 3 OF 6
c
E
L
CL
CL
m
0
a
E
L.
a
u
PLAN A.LIAM J. BROWN
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED ?
?
k\
p
4WENPOW TOMSI!
k
cr) • woo=
•
co

-
- -
.,7

z
K 4 8 rt w
z
J
= _
WETLAND AREA
TO BE FILLED •
H ;
_

• • • WETLAND BOUNDARY
•
-+o[ .oaxo
gg •
08ERT N. BROWN
PROFILE
FINISHED GRADE 48' CULVERT
w
w 0
Z O
J +

c)
I80 Z 0
_72CULVERT_

= 00
T
W
_ 160 E
LAND BOUNDARY (p
EXISTING GROUND WETLAND BOUNDARY
~ I c~n
c
n 120
63 64 65 66 67 68
PLAN '?vt ...
°SAi' WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED ROBERT K. BROWN

WETLAND BOUNDARY •
O oobc
+
00 •n. •65

=s s

-? . WETLAND BOUNDARY
Ayr. Rff

w
Z • Iz \ ¢ N
y
J
Q
f
" jr?
?\
?------
\------------------------

\ ROBERT K BROWN

PROFILE
EXISTING GROUN
w C)
Z O

_ cc)
J180 Q 15" CULVERT FINISHED GRADE
WETLAND BOUNDARY

68 69 70 71 72 73 74
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
0 100 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: APRIL,21998998
SHEET 4 OF 6
E
C-
CU
n
0
a
E
C-
CU
u
PLAN

I %` W?L4YA J. BROWN WILLIAM J. BROWN
/ tn • •

COSH
. OOM10M NT OCa[ •0005
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
/ /a /OL OEM WOODS
9S?

•
.00
X55
•
L ?rp?'-\L?C[ r0[ N[
-- l
X55 - GI - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

•
WILLIAM J. BROWN
•
oem T* m arivo ro
/ / • •
WETLAND BOUNDARY
M
??/f
/
M •
•
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
PROFILE
270

250 FINISHED GRADE
230 ??

Do -- 60. CULVERT
-- --
WETLAND BOUNDARY ?? ?- ?- •? ?? ??
- -
so EXISTING GROUND WETLAND BOUNDARY
no
81 82 83 84 85 86 .87
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
0 50 100 WAIF COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
SCALE: 1" = 100' PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 215 1998
SHEET 5 OF 6
E
c -
(D
d
0
.,
E
c -
M)
CL
a
U
PLAN /

BROADWELL FAMLY TRUST
D
n "c?
-
lc .I
A. CLIFF
ORO it AL4A r. =E
ror?roc v7
wool
i

r >

d
-am
- -.oc
1
I
-.x
---4u
,dc? i
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
IC7
' e cam" i a
x `r a'
a, a, x
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
- _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _

A. CLIFFORD >1 ALMA K. DUPREE • r
°dM '0°°s moot
8ROI10WEl.L FAMILY TRUST /
• r r
PROFILE
290
270 FINISHED GRADE
250 •? 54" CULVERT
t•x.0000X tdT.6?00X ? ? ?- - - -- ?-
WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING GROUND
2/0
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
IN WETLANDS AREA
?- E
55'-0" R/w 55'-0" R/M
24'-0" 24'-0"
13'-010',0"
BERM
T
GRADE
POINT 3'
-F7 "/FT lf{"/FT 1" T.
1 ..1.• - _ FUTURE
!r ?C
2'-8 CONCRETE U"/FT "/FT
CURB a GUTTER
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
50 0 100 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
SCALE: 1" = 100' PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 6 OF 6
E
L.
N
cl.
0
Y
E
L.
IL)
D
U
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
, VAR
1••
-- 7101W
f
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 24, 1998
Wake County
DWQ Project # 980497
COE Action ID No. 199602022
Mr. Stewart J. Sykes, P.E., City Engineer
City of Raleigh
222 West Hargett Street
Raleigh, NC, 27602
Re: Application for 401 Water Quality Certification for New Hope Road Extension
Dear Mr. Sykes:
On June 4, 1998 we received the Public Notice of your application to the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification for your proposal to f112.6 acres of
riparian wetlands associated with construction of the New Hope Road Extension in Wake County.
This project is currently under review by the State Clearinghouse. DWQ cannot issue the 401
Certification until the project has received an Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact (EA/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 Clearinghouse 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 am 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 [phone] to discuss the
matter.
Sincerely,
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
980497.scitr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

City Of CRaleigh
Jlrorth Carolina
August 3, 1998 6\ F'%
Mr. John R. Dorney v,Np s? `' " ''~
Water Quality Certification Program ER ?..
W?
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Re: Application for 402 Water Quality Certification for New Hope Road Extension
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I have reviewed your letter of July 9, 1998, to Stewart Sykes concerning the New Hope Road
project in Raleigh (DWQ Project # 980497). The letter states that you are placing the project on
indefinite hold until the state clearinghouse has issued the FONSI or ROD. I do not understand
the meaning of this statement or the basis for this type of suspension of a valid permit request.
Please help me understand the status of our request.
It is pertinent to note that the City has been in active discussion with the Division of
Environmental Management for over two years on this project. A May 7, 1996, memo is
attached. There was an oral concurrence with minor modifications to the plans on October 29,
1997, at a review meeting.
Sincerely,
XW
D. E. Benton
City Manager
Attachment
cc: Stewart Sykes
TELEPHONE: [phone] • FAX: [phone]
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 590 • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Recycled Paper
_IV 7= D
.. fi,r l ± 1??G
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
Environmental Sciences Branch
MEMORANDUM
May 7,1996

To: Kim Whitfield
THROUGH: John Dorne
FROM: Eric Galamb f
SUBJECT: New Hope Road Extension
City of Raleigh, N.C.

An interagency meeting was held in the RUST office on April 19, 1996.
The meeting minutes accurately reflect the discussions. Given the alternatives
presented, DEM concurs that alternative 2 is the least environmentally
damaging. DEM requests that no weep holes be installed in the bridge(s). DEM
believes that wetland compensatory mitigation will be required for this
project. The wet pasture adjacent to the project should be investigated for
restoration/ enhancement opportunities.
Should you have any questions, please contact Eric Galamb at 733-1786.
cc- Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh COE

D
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Enginee
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615-6814
Action ID. 199602022

June 4, 1998
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE CITY OF RALEIGH, 222 WEST HARGETT STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH
CAROLINA 27602, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA)
permit TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF DREDGED AND FILL
MATERIAL IMPACTING A TOTAL OF 2.6 ACRES OF WETLANDS, FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOPE ROAD EXTENSION (SR 2036) BETWEEN
POOLE ROAD (SR 1007) AND ROCK QUARRY ROAD (SR 2542), CROSSING
WALNUT CREEK, UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES, AND ADJACENT WETLANDS,
southeast of Raleigh, in Wake County, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data
provided by the applicant and from observations made during
onsite visits by a representative of the U.S. Army f
Engineers. Plans submitted with the applicatio s o the
placement of fill material impacting a total f 2.6 ac es of
wetlands, adjacent to Walnut Creek, below heaawatar--sand two
unnamed tributaries, above headwaters, southeast of Raleigh, in
Wake County, North Carolina. These impacts are necessary for the
construction of the extension of New Hope Road from its existing
southern end south of Poole Road, south to Rock Quarry Road,
approximately 1.5 miles. The roadway will cross the two
tributaries north of Walnut Creek via 48" and 60" culverts,
respectively. The roadway will cross Walnut Creek via a bridge
approximately 450 feet long, supported by four piers within the
adjacent wetland areas.
The proposed construction will permanently impact 2.6 acres
of vegetated wetlands by filling. The impacted wetlands are
comprised of several different types of ecosystems, including
bottomland hardwood forest (1.6 acres), wet pasture (0.8 acre),
and emergent marsh (cattail) wetlands (0.02 acre). Within the
wetlands adjacent to Walnut Creek, and adjacent to Big Branch on
the south end of the project, four additional culverts will be
used to allow for hydrologic flow underneath the roadway.
2
The City of Raleigh is proposing a wetland mitigation site
adjacent to the west side of the project corridor on the south
side of Walnut Creek, within and adjacent to a wet pasture. Non-
wetland areas (2.60 acres) will be modified to create and restore
wetlands, by removing 0.5 acre of sand deposits in the
floodplain, and 2.0 acres of a high ridge adjacent to a swale,
and grading down a small upland area adjacent to Big Branch
wetlands. The levee along Big Branch will be repaired to prevent
future scouring of the mitigation site. Wet pasture (7 acres)
will be enhanced by eliminating cattle grazing, and revegetating
with bottomland hardwood species. In addition, a minimum of 100
feet of upland buffer will be established on the slope above the
mitigation site, and an additional acreage of wetlands adjacent
to Big Branch upstream of the site will be preserved. Bottomland
hardwoods adjacent to the Walnut Creek north of the site will be
used as a reference for the mitigation site.
The purposes of the work are to provide an automobile travel
corridor from Capital Boulevard (US 1) to I-40 South, across
Walnut Creek, in eastern Raleigh, and to relieve road congestion
in the area. The applicant has considered several alternatives
to the proposed project, including four alternative alignments to
the proposed alignment. The applicant has also considered
alternative designs to minimize wetland impacts, including minor
relocations of the corridor. In addition, the applicant has.
implemented measures to avoid and minimize wetland and stream
impacts, including steeper side slopes on fills, elimination of a
landscaped median in wetlands, and additional culverts to
maintain lateral flows through wetland areas. Plans showing the
proposed construction are included with this public notice.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to
determine the need for the applicant to obtain any required State
authorization. No Department of the Army permit will be issued
until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been
received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a Department of
the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality has determined the applicability of a Water Quality
Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section
404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may
request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this

3
application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published
version of the National Register of Historic Places for the
presence or absence of registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and the project
does not impact any registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of
the National Register constitutes the extent of cultural resource
investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise
unaware of the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown
archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical data may
be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer is not aware, based on available
information, that the activity will affect species, or their
critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation of the probable.impacts, including cumulative impacts,
of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed
activity may have on the public interest requires a careful
weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected
to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to
authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it
will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome
of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect
the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics,
general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use,
navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply
and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and
fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied
if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would
4
not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other
applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted
unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary
to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the
public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian
Tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to
determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit
for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to
assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water
quality, general environmental effects, and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in preparation
of an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact
Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing
and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will
not be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether
or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 30201
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this
public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the
NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act
certification may be reviewed at the offices of the Environmental
Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person
requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for.Clean Water Act certification should do so in
writing delivered to the Division of Water Quality, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 4401
Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607, on or before June 26, 1998,
Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
i
5
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined
above, will be received in this office, Attention:
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, until 4:15 p.m., July 2, 1998, or telephone
919-876-8441, extension 23.
i
ilIAOED AREA INDICATES
COUNTY LOCATION IN N.C.
VICINITY MAP
is
R
SCALE 1:24 000
1 Z 0 1 MILE Q
C7
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
c_-
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER C\-
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION 1?
C
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH'i
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1996,
SHEET 1 OF
PLAN
WETLAND BOUNDARY
• I ; 15
• GEORGE A. DAVIS ! t x /
• ! I ??1'I 1#v J. BROW
• l I i ?t? ? FRANCES H. WYMNE
. !? WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
'' ` - -
---------

i

i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.L. A
-r• Sr~'? J.>LN AGEORGf A. OAVIS 0 1
• / 10 ?WILLIAM J. BROWN
eoac .ooos
•
N 1
?

'
I l i l 1 / WMAND BOUNDARY
PROFILE
200 ROCK QUARRY ROAD FINISH GRADE WELAND BOUNDARY
180
160 0 - - - WErvwD BOUNDARY7 15' CULVERT
W, CULVERT EXISTING GROUND
140
120
i
26 27 28 29 30 31 32
0 50 X00 NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION o
.l
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE: 1" = 100' APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH C-
PROJECT: PW-1998-16 a
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 2 OF
PLAN TRANCES H,wYNNE
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
-c- Pr SAL.W-dlm C)
8
_----F--l---- in
----------
- ___
?'INIFOiY ?hMt1/A7r - - - Q

Lw
' ILL!
Ad+E ?l OttE
N Yr0 J

WETLAND BOUNDARY C)

----------------- ---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---
:zm
FRANCES H. WYNtE ?-
PROFILE
M FINISHED GRADE
220
WETLAND BOUNDARY Z LIJ C)
O
ryy? -- -
WETLAND BOUNDARY
G WERAND BOUNDARY =
-
180 CULVERT
WW EXISTING GROUND 7--)r
-? --- - - - -_ _ _- _- _ _ -- -- U

Q

50 51 52 53 59 55 56
PLAN WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED x n-
FRANCES H" WYNNE E » » r p r
?O r r r
WILLIAM J. BROWN
WETLAND BOLINDARYI WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
*
`A srr r

»? o
w r
`
? r • k » »
Q
{* %
r r
- +
' (D

f-- l r r r r r f
17
w
W 1 l Z

z _

J
J
_
H I *
• ? w r w r
{" x r `» E r »
?ST
?- - U
Q
- - -
•

f?MIOR RA % r w w w
'GIN APPI?I6 SLAB
r r » »

WETLAND %
BOUNDARY
x
w

w r r r r
PROFILE o
+
pr q M
FINISHED GRADE
-? ?
<

180
16 _ _72" CULVERT_ W
EXISTING GROUND 1
WETLAND BOUNDARY WALNUT CREEK
140 U
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
W
z?
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION

0 /00
50

WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 3 OF 9
E
L
cl
0
y
E
L
PLAN WLLIAM J. BROWN
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED 1

O • \ O

O
+
cv)
goo= +
10

LLJ
A/;

K r[ W
J
J
U
WETLAND AREA TO BE FIIIIFD " U
!R !R
r ? _ / F c
C
• " " WETLAND BOUNDARY
M
oy •RT M. BROMINH. 6ROMIN
PROFILE
FINISHED GRADE CULVERT
W
WO

Z +

180
c^
1 0 O
Z
r1=cuLVERr .?
_ O
wETLAwD BOUNDARY
D(ISTiNG GROUND Q
wETLAND BOUNDARY
Q? 140
120
63 64 65 66 67 68
PLAN „
„ °o
ROBERT H, BROWN
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED n \
w
\?
1
? t

O
O
+ WETLAND BOUNDARY
M
oa.c
WERAND BOUNDARY

CA) M Ir r.- _ ? ?-
U-I
z !r 1w
a b
J
f
?
?•t
r-.
r_ . -----------r------.-r-_r

ROBERT H. BROWN
PROFILE
EXISTING GROUND
W O
Z O

co
180 Q 15' CULVERT FINISHED GRADE

Q 0
?W WETLAND BOUNDARY
Q 140
68 69 70 71 72 73 74
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
0 50 100 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: APRIL521998998
SHEET 4 OF 9
E
C-
CU
n
0
a
y
E
c -
w
U
PLAN

?` 1Ml LUW1 J. BROWN WILLIAM J. BROWN
t
w
ODW .ours
sasa c sosso" wr
/ / T LAND
WETLAND AREA TO BE FlL1ED "

00
?a5
????rcc
1
_ _ _ _
_?_?_???_wc_roc-roc •

? e • •
- _ _ •

- - - - - - - - - - - - - //?f/
" •
WILLIAM J. BROWN
R LOO lD
Dow .0m
WETLAND BOUNDARY oossc ,?

" "----?WETLAND
BOUNDARY
PROFILE
G, 0

25
00 F1 ISHED GRADE
=
230
Pio L
60" CULVERT
WETLAND BOUNDARY
1w XISTING GROUND WETLAND BOUNDARY
170
81 82 83 84 85 86 .117
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
0 50 100 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
SCALE: 1" = 100' PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 5 OF 9
E
C-
CU
0
C
n
E
c
d
10
11
PLAN /
L? 6ROADWELL FMAILY TRUST
n
p A. CLIFFORD ALMA K. 0UPRE4 wo
- - _ - - - - - _? -?????-1K ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? - -
Aw. AM
Q• ? LV'
MN .?l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C- -pr- WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
c___-- - + _- _ --- /
AMP. AM Aw. mow
A. CLFFORD & ALMA K. DLVKE
oat .aos '°` .sot /
BROADWELL FAMY TRUST /
r r r
PROFILE
290
270 FINISHED GRADE
50 54• CULVERT
=0 ^ ?•l?OOOOX tlx6?X
3 WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING GROUND
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
IN WETLANDS AREA
55'-0" Raw 351-0" RIB
24'-0" 24'-0^ Poo 12'-0" 121-0"
sEar ? sERN
GRADE
POINT
tat"/FT "/FT l?"/FT 1" ;.
1 -.•l• FYTURE ...
''.
?.
At.
2'-B" CONCRETE "/? '/FT • f
CURB i GUTTER
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
0 50 100 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
SCALE: V = 100' PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 6 OF 9
E
c -
w
0
E
C-
10
U
o

p
o
w v
z a-
?d
c
W .2
c
C7 0
O a °
C N ID
W i N W
J !n N U U 1?

1
t I
1
1 '
1

O
12
O
O LU
-J
CD
C) a
O (j)

\
t
1 \
/ / I = N
o
-s
•
,

•
'''
r
I s. ,
a
lx t I ? '.
?,g QI
1
\
z N z r?
H Z < w
U) Q C.
H ~ Z N
x 1- o
us N
t0 Z C7
N 'O+ F+I
cc V
C'3 .v
z ,z
~ J
I- P
iw
°s X
W
n
ti
x
m
m
M
N
E
C
C
0
.a
a
w
.?
ti
0
ti
V
,
l
3 3 / ?{
o -
Z
0 c -
?Y E -- j/ -_ ?\ -
c d a p \ -. \-- O b m o CO 4L7 p \?•, .t
LO LU
x
N
/ /? :j 1 L \
xxxxxx,
z z k \. i ',,\ I
x ; '!
Yx.:., 1.
I i K%x%Y k'xY Y.xk - J \
x:?xxx'xxx„yxxx x
if K''. xi `•:\ 1 / ,'
„%x YxM x% xx ... I
`. '', \, • X" "x?
....'t .... ,
x% x x x
X x
?. _ .
Y.: txYxYK
%K%xxx% .
........
zKZ!`xzx YxYzx%z %%. -i ..•..... ,
• l % - l(
•
z z .
%%% I! %?J[
%% %
X
r
.,. „ i x K%% % ..
z
K
% Y
.n ' I ?i/xx z-xYxX x x ..,'..\? 1 I ........
' Y. z M XZX xXX!
. .R. % K x x x K x
MK x Y x rxxxxxxxx ?
.... ............ i 1/
%
y xx
i %
i'/.: •:' x x YXYXxX K X X%x%XMxx%xX%xx%I /
K
x xK%xxxx x% %
% x x
Y K %K
?• K x x Y u
• K % %
K x x % % %%
m
xK%y x %„ ...\\_ %
\ .? '. ::. xX it-%Ynt%,issz?XX4( x X'k: Y .x xxx^
x x
x x
Y Y
z z x z xxx %xxxxx/ ,
x
z %
1 X K %xK
x x x .K; KKM Zxz %xkxx x i
' yxxx Yyxyx%xx- i.
x : K x x ., R xxxx xxxx''KxXxXxXxXxx x >,
1 f x x ..kxxi xxx%xxxxxx Yx Yx)i\,x xK !FxxxXx%x%x . 1
x R %xx?Kz z%yK%xyx„x„i '%1rx
x % % %
x x
. Y Y, X M x"x kY
I Yxx .X. % X
% '
%„
f „x x %0, ! x k xK -
%Y x Ki \
xxxxmx Y
. x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Yx \ ...
xxxxxxx x \ \
xx
x
xxxxxxx
...
x x x
x K
„Yxxx
%x
\ T x xxX
x x x z
.' 11 x x x ...
xK
11 \
x
K x% %% Y Y
I z x x x K
/ x xx z x ! \.
.. \ \? x x x K x'. \
Xx XKXXX%XOt' .
/ i . z .? K
........ ...
i , I/ / XXXxX ?
x n
xxx x
.x x % I i. x
x x x x
KKKKKK //
/..
S x ?..
x
x \
z
C O
i,
yK%
_-
` u
,
.?.- ..-...-, / -
Ii
Z Z
w Q p
y J iL
LLI IL 0
X U.
U.
F?
LU
i. Z i=
40
M ~ F?
N Z fa
a 7E
J 0
a F?
w uu
c. ?o
o .
x
f N/II?
lv
P
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of
Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington,
VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location
of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable waters
of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of
dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application fora permit. Disclosure:
Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
An analication that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
City of Raleigh
Stewart J Sykes, PE - City Engineer
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
222 West Hargett Street lb .?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 10J ,
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business [phone] b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
New Hope Road Extension
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) I 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Walnut Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Wake NC
COUNTY STATE
Not Applicable
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/or Accessors's Parcel Number, for example.
Project is located between Poole Road (on the north) and Rock Quarry Road (on the south)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From 1-440 take Rock Quarry Road southeast to Jones Sausage Road. Project begins about 300 feet
beyond Jones Sausage Road. Project extends in a northerly direction from beginning of project at Rock
Quarry Road to its intersection with New Hope Road at Poole Road.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE
(Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Construction of New Hope Road Extension between Poole Road and Rock Quarry Road. Road will be 2-
lane curb and gutter. A 450-foot bridge will be constructed over Walnut Creek.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Construction of New Hope Road Extension will complete the New Hope Road corridor from Capital Blvd.
To 1-40 (via Jones Sausage Road). It will provide a north-south travel route for eastern Raleigh, and help
relieve traffic congestion in the area. See Alignment Study for additional detail.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Road must cross Walnut Creek with extensive wetland areas. Other wetland areas could not be avoided
as well. Alternative analysis performed to determine Alternate with the least wetland impacts. Center
median eliminated in wetland areas to reduce fill. Also 2:1 slopes used to minimize impacts in wetlands.
See Alternatives Analysis in Alignment Study for additional detail.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Clean fill (soil) will be discharged into wetland areas - 87,400 cubic yards into 4 separate areas
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
2.6 Acres of wetlands to be filled
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes - No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
Francis H Wynne William J. Brown
104 Gordon St 121 Dunedin Court
Clayton, NC 27520 Cary, NC 27511
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NC Div of Water Quality Sed. Erosion Control Plan
. Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
=,,PLICANT accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
he applicant.
DA SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE
(Proponent: CECW-OR)
Additional Landowners
Robert H Brown
121 Dunedin Court
Cary, NC 27511
Alma Dupree
1505 Gleneagle Drive
Garner, NC 27529
Broadwell Family Trust
c/o Kathryn Broadwell
4725 Clifton Road
Knightdale, NC 27545
SHADED AREA INDICATES
COUNTY LOCATION IN M.C.
VICINITY MAP
SCALE 1:24 000
1 2 0 1 MILE coo
m
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
0
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER cv
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
E
c
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION o
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA y
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH E
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: AFRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 1 OF 6
PLAN
'-
1
}
?

+ 1 1 , WETLAND BOUNDARY r.'0
? ;1 ? 1

'
;
t 1
/5

•
h + •
GEORGE A. DAVIS 1
'

,
f I i ??WI I(W J. BROW
a pJ • '
t
1 '8
I FRANCES N. WYNNE
y ,
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED

It 1
.
1 1 _

It 1

' d

t= SrA IG•JS64 /GEORGE A. DAMS II I 1
?WILLIAM J. BRAWN
oo.c .oon
/
: 11 1
1

{
'
1
x
1
1

WETLAND BOUNDARY
I PROFILE
? ROCK QUARRY ROAD FINISH GRADE WETLAND BOUNDARY
2W
1180
160WETLAND BOUNDARY 15" CULVERT
66" CULVERT EXISTING GROUND
140
120
26 27 28 29 30 31 32
E
L
0 50 100 NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION N
0
ca
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE: 1" = 100' APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 2 OF 6
PLA N , - FRANCES K WYN E
6 WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED

O

- -
-
l -
- - - - - - - - -

l? /Ril U)
Q

K W
Z
A>Li? N NrV0fZE
_
WETLAND BOUNDARY ?-
•__?- --------- -------------------

FRANCES K WYNrE
PROFILE
220
GV FINISHED GRADE
Z O
WETLAND BOUNDARY
Z
.
W WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND BOUNDARY
0
G
/
? 18• CULVERT
-?
E
?'
U to
XISTING GROUND -- - - - - - - - - - -- . Q Q
U) 11,1111
50 51 52 53 54 55 56
PLAN WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
FRANCES K WYME /

t
p r
w r r 2
r r i-b r
?AW ?
WETLAND BOUMARY
I WILLIAM J. SROVY

?
r ? WETLAND AREA TOO BE FILLED wr - -

1
J
?? OWN
O
O -
+ ? r w • r w r r r w
i - - - - - - _ - +
CO
Lo
ce)
co
\ Q
w r w r

W

Z
•? N
W
Z
I x
k r M r
M r r r
J
N
L G
NifGlM Pmp IN r r r k r r
r r N??T1'
{ .
WETLAND
BOUNDARYI
x

r

r r w r r ?
PROFILE °
o

N M
FINISHED GRADE CD
1¢-
"'
180 -
c^
/6O __ _72
CULTVERT_
EXISTING GROUND) w
Z
W ETLAND BOUNDARY WALNUT CREEK J
/40 7-
C)
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
w0
Z o

-r (D
NEW HOPE RO
EXTENSION
Lf) .
0 /00
50

WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
7771 APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
SCALE: 1" = loo' DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 3 OF 6
E
L
N
d
R
a
E
L
a
0
0
U
PLAN WILLIAM J. BROWN
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED
1{• ??

• • M ?
r
O •5
\
Hors O
.70
r O
co r x r rooom
CO

Q

LU

J

A

R rt

8 it W

z
J
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED

• • r WETLAND BOUNDARY tir
r
-.ac .mom
es
OBERT K BROWN
PROFILE
FINISHED GRADE 48" CULVERT

LU O
Z +

80
c^
160

72CULVERT7,?._

WETLAND B
ND
R W
00
Z
J
2 O
EXISTING GROUND A
Y
OU
WETLAND BOUNDARY U CO
Q 140
c/) 120 11111111111
63 64 65 66 67 68
PLAN Nm
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED \ ROBERT H, BROWN

O X WETLAND BOUNDARY x
O
0
x
' 7Y oast

Q
„? .
rmp
WETLAND BOUNDARY
gm .
U) -ow
LU
Z r JP \ rt N
rt
J

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ROBERT H. BROWN

PROFILE

L EXISTING GROUND
U O
Z O
_
cc) 180
0 15" CULVERT FINISHED GRADE
Q ¢ 160 WETLAND BOUNDARY

u) 140
68 69 70 71 72 73 74
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
0 50 100 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH
PROJECT: PW-1998-16
SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: APRIL,21998998
SHEET 4 OF 6
T PLAN

?,"' 1MLLIAM J. BROWN WLLUWI J. BROWN

L.1iM6 locator w / M
u' ? r
Y GENK .ooas
0000
OOS r0oaf
WETLAND AREA TO BE FILLED SS'
r //
00
-55
-+ix._?x-roc_rot°"?roc?rac ?
-
'Z-
r
-----
-

7
°? ' r r "000,-
--- f ------------
-
gg
/ / WLLWI J. BROWN • r
w?aosca
/
/
nos roans
/ / r r
WETLAND BOUNDARY
r ff

oas roods
/

r r WETLAND
BOUNDARY
PROFILE
270

250 FINISHED GRADE
230

ZIO 60" CULVERT

WETLAN
1w D BOUNDARY
EXISTING GROUND WETLAND BOUNDARY
I70
8/ 82 83 84 85 86 -a
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION ;
0 50 X00 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH"
SCALE: 1" = 100' PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SHEET 5 OF 6
' PLAN
/

BROADWELL FAMILY TRUST
A. CLIFFORD & ALMA K. O?
r r r ? mec Loos

?Nt?p?-??1?? ? I
??FOt?re[-ao[-?o[-iec-rOt-r6[?rx
?
-----------E??`?,??„?a -? - - --------------- ----- r -'-
-?
_"K
C?R' -
'r a
' c

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ tw % - - . - WETLAND AREA TO BE RLLED
c ----- -
- __--------
•
-------__,-._
- /
Ewa!" pw."
A. CLIFFORD it ALMA K. DUPREE + r «
mac mac oooc /
r00Df BROADWELL FAMILY TRUST /
• r r /
f
PROFILE
2910
270 FINISHED GRADE
.1' l Ilr6?OX 54' CULVERT ?_ ??
IXISTING GROUND
230 (.XW WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND BOUNDA
RY
2/0
l00 101 102 103 109 105 106 107
ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
IN WETLANDS AREA

55'-0" R/MI 55'-0" R/w
24'-0" 24'.0"
c
101-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 13'.0"
BERM BERM
N
GRADE
_ POINT 3,-0"
Ll
F
" c
l
/
T "/FT W/FT 1
1.• "/ • FUTURE ... •?
Z. .'s
?q
.
"/FT "
/FT
.?
2'-B" CONCRETE
CURB a GUTTER i
t
t
t
s
NEW HOPE RD. EXTENSION
0 50 I00 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA `
APPLICATION BY CITY OF RALEIGH E
SCALE: 1" = 100' PROJECT: PW-1998-16
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998 i
t
SHEET 6 OF 6
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE

TEL:[phone] Jul 10'98 8:02 No.003 P.02
0 North. Carolina wi ' e Resources CommissionEai _
8' 919-733.3391
512 N. Salisbury Streeti Ralei s Nor& R. fFullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO. Die Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
vROM: David (,'ox, Highway Project C ina
14abitat Conservation Pros
DATA'.: July 9, 1998
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action ID No.
199602022, review of application for North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to fill 16 acres of jurisdictional wetlands to
construct the New Hope Road Extension from SR 1007 (Poole Road) to
SR 2542 (Rock Quarry Road), a distance of approximately 1.5 miles
primarily on new location, crossing Walnut Creek, unnamed tributarscs,
and adjacent wetlands, Wake County, North Carolina.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlifo Resources Commission (NCWRC) gave
reviewed the inibrmation provide by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and performed
site visit can November 12, 1997. our comments are provided in ac oordance with certain
provisions oi'thc Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Dish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
We do not object to the preferred alternative for this project. However, after
reviewing the permit application and mitigation plan we have the following comments:
I . Box and pipe culverts should be designed to allow fish passage. GMra llv,
this means than the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least. I foot below the
natural stream bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells
should be placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to
Lyons#ield design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe
during; normal flows to scoommodate fish movements. If culverts are long,
baffle systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas !or fish and
other aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to rernai.tt dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Jul 10'98 8:03 No.003 P.03
Memorandum, 2 July 9, 1998
3, Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realig nnent or
widening is required, Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usual ly causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed,
5. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the strewn.
6. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
7. Tf possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream,
9. Tf temporary access roads or detours are cowiructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
=-reespccies Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
should be planted with a spacing of not mare than 10'x 10,
if possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
9. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
Comments on the Mitigation Plan:
1. Hydrologic monitoring wells should be installed in the wetland creation area.
Installation of an additional well in the jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to the
creation arc may also reveal useful information, assuming the creation area is
of the same soil type.
2. On page 10, Section 5.2, vegetation success criteria states that the site vNi I I be
deemed successful if 320 trees per acre remain after 5 years. We feel that this
should be change to 260 trees per acre.
We do not object to the issuance of the 4404' permit for this project, provided our
comments are considered in the project design.
Thank you fnr the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application.
If we can he of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Dish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
John Parker, Inland 404 Coordinator, DCM
Cyndi Bell, DWQ, Raleigh
- JUN 29 '98 02:14PM EHNR-PUBLIC
pee 4t6 Fax Note 7671 Gate 1 Page
RTICLE 1.
' Envirc?nriiental Policy Act.
§ 113A-1, Title.
This Article shall be known as the North Carolina Environrnen-
tal Policy Act of 1971, (1971, c. 1203, s. 1; 1991, c. 431, s. 1.)
Raifoes Note. - Session i..aws 1971,
c. 1203, s. 12, as amended by Session
Laws 1973, c. L19, s. 1,.Swsion Laws
1977. c. 532, s. 1, and Session Laws
1981, c. 658, s. 1, formerly provided that
the act which enacted this Article would
become effective on October 1, 1971, and
remain in effect until September 1,
1991, and that no act or preceading re-
quired or authorized under the act
should be initiated after September 1,
1991. However, Session Laws 1991. c.
431, r,.. I amended Session Laws 1971, c-
120.3, s. 12, as amended, ao 66 tq delete
the sunset provision.
As to the,exemption of the Office of
SLatq Budget and Management from the
roquirements of this Article in adminis-
tration and implementation of the
Prison Facilities Leeislative Bond Act of
1990, we Session Laws 1989 (Reg. 5ess.,
1990). c, 933, s. GO),
As to exemption of the Office of State
Budget and Management from the re-
quirements of this Article in the imple-
mentation of the providing of prison fa-
cilities under the provisions of the $taie
Prisor; and Youth Services Facilities
Bond Act. see Session Laws 1,989 (Reg.
$eas.. 1990), c. 936, s. 6(a)(4).
Session Laws 1991, c. 669, s. 239(fi. as
amended by 1991 Meg. Seas, 19921, c.
1044, s. 41(b) provides: 'With respect to
facilities $uthorized for the Department
of Correction, the Otl'ice of State Budget
and Management may contract for and
supervise all aspects of administration,
technical *ssistance, deaiga, conetmc-
Lion or demolition bf prison facilities in
order to implement the providing of
prison facilities under the provisions of
this act without being subject to the re-
quirements of the following statutes and
rules implementing those statutes: G,S-
143.135.26(1), 143.128, 143-129,
143-191, 143-192, 143-134, 143-1$5.26,
113A-1 through 113A-10, 113A•50
through 113A-66, 133.1.1(8), and
14s"ns.i; provided, however, of the
funds allocated tinder the provisions of
this act for the construction v(' prison fa-
cilities. the Oftiee of State Budget and
Management shall have a voriftable ten
percent (10%) goal for participation by
minority and women-owned businesses.
All contract for the design, construction,
or demolition of prison facilities shall in-
clude a penalty for failure to complete
the work by a specified date.
'The proposals for prison facilities au-
tharized in this section shall be invited
by advertisement in newspapers having
general -circulation in the State. The
form of advertisement shall be prepared
in the form of Section 301 of the State
Contraction Manual of the Department
of Administration, and shall be pub-
lished in one issue of the newspaper. A
minimum of at least seven full days
shall lapse between the date of publica-
tion and the date of the opening of bids.
Initiation of the advertisement shall be
by the Office of State Budget and Man-
agement.
"The Office of State Budget and Man.
agement shall consider alternative de-
livery systems that could expedite the
delivery of prison facilities. Such deliv-
ery systems as design-build, using mod-
ular or conventional building systems,
shall be considered. However, in order
for suah alternatives to be used, the De-
partment of Correction must approve
the proposed design for operational pro-
gramrning and cost of operations And
maintenano9.
'The OtUce of State Budget and Man-
agement shall involve the Office of State
Construction of the Department of Ad-
ministration in all aspects of the projects
to ensure that all prison facilities are
constructed consistent with Office Of
State Construction standards and proce-
dures. Such involvement shall indade
but not be limited W the review of plans
and specifications for each project prior
to the award of contracts. Attendance at
scheduled prgieat meetings, on-site in-
spections, review of all change orders,
final inspections. review of punch lists of
project deficiencies and written verifica-
tion of the correction of such defiden-
ciee, and certification of the identity of
the designer of record on each project-
P.1 J-r3
Y M-
JUN 29 '98 02:15PM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS
"'The Office of State Budget and Man•
agement shall involve the Department
of Correction in all aepects of the
Proi-As to the extent that wch involve.
ment relates to the Department's Pro-
gram needs and to its responsibility for
the care of the prison population.
"Tire Office of State Construction, the
Department of Insurance, and the De-
partment of Correction shall immedi-
ately report any concern= regarding the
prison construction program to the Of-
fice of State Budget and Management.
Any concerns not satisfactorily resolved
with the Office of State Budget and
Management shall be reported immedi.
ately to the Joint Legislative Commis-
sion on Governmental Operations. The
Office of State Construction, the Depart.
tn&nt of Insuranco, and the Doganrnant
of Correcuon shall report quarterly to
the Joint Legislative Commission on
COVCrnmental Operations on thair in-
volvement with the Office of State Bud-
get and Management and the project
manager in the prison construction pro.
gram."
Session La-2s 1991, c. 689, s. 352 pro-
vides- "Except for *Atutcry changes or
other provisions that clearly indicate an
intention to have etreots beyond the
1991-93 biennium, the textual provi-
sions of Titles I, II, and III of this act
shall apply only to funds appropriated
for and activities occurring during the
1991.93 biennium."
CASE NOTES
The North Carolina State, Envimn-
mental Policy Act (S£PA) requires
preparation of ;m emironmento im-
pact statement (EYS? for publicly
funded actions that significantly of
feet the environment For the same
reasons that an EIS if required under
the Nation$I Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), one must be prepared in accor.
dance with SEPA. Mullin v. Skinner,
-6 F. Supp, 904 (E.D.`.C. 1990)-
§ 113A-2. Purposes,
Environmental. Impact Statement
Required -- Bridge Construction. -
For a case holding that state and federal
agencies ..-ere required to file environ-
mental impact statements, under both
federal law and this chapter, concerning
a coastal bridge replacement project, see
Mullin v. Skinner. 756 F. Supp. 904
(E.D.N.C. 1990).
The purposes of this Article are= to declare a State policy which
w11 encourage the wise, productive, and beneficial use of the natu-
lral resources of the State without damage to the environment,
maintain a healthv and pleasant environment, and preserve the
natural beauty of the State; to encourage an educational program
which will create •a public awareness of our environment and its
related programs; to require agencies of-the State to consider and
report upon environmental aspects and' consequences of their ac-
tions involving the expenditure of public moneys or use of public
land; axed to provide means to implement these purposes. (1971, c,
1203, s, 2; 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 945, s. 1.)
Editor's Note. - Se_snon•l,aws 1991
(Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 945, which
amended this section, in s. 6 provides.
"In accordance with C.S. i5as-
21.1(aX2), State agencies may adopt
temporary rules to implement this act,
including temporary rules to astablish
minimum criteria. If, prior to adopting a
temporary rule, an agency- puWshes no-
tice of the text of the proposed tempo.
rary rule in the North Carolina Register
and provid" an opportunity for submit-
ting written comment on the rule for at
least au days after the text is published,
the agency may specify an expiration
date for the temporary rule of up to one
year from the date the rule becomes ef-
fective notwithstanding G.S.
1508-21.1ie?. An agency may not adopt
a temporary rote under this section after
1 Januarv 1993."
159ect or Amendments..-- The 1991
(Reg. SeS3.. 19921 amOndmentr eftctlve
October 1. 1992, and-applicable to any
action invol% ing twe of public land for a
project or program that is authorized an
or after that date, inverted "or uoa of
public land- near the vnd of the ndion,
P.2
JUN 29 '98 02:15PM EHNR-PUDIC AFFAIRS
§ 113A-3. Declaration of State environs rental pol-
Icy.
The General Assembly of North Carolina, recognizing the pro-
found influence of man's activity on the natural environment, and
desiring, in its role as trustee far future generations, to assure that
an environment of hi h quality will be maintained for the health
and well-being of all, Vares that it shall be the continuing policy
of the State of North Carolina to conserve and protect its natural
resources and to create and maintain conditions under which man
and nature can exist in productive harmony. purther, it shall be the
policy of the State to seek, for all of its citizens, safe, healthful,
productive and aesthetically pleasing surroundings; to attain the
widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degrada-
tion, risk to health or safety; and to preserve the important historic
and cultural elements of our common inheritance. (1971, c. 1203, s.
H.)
CASE NOTES
Toxic waste Disposal pails avitw.
Zone of Protected Insterest& ..-
County had standing to challenge the
creation of a toxic waste disposal cite
within its borders under the North Caro-
lina Environrnental Policy Act as such a
site falls within the zone of interests pro.
tested under this soWwn. Warren
County v. North Carolina, 528 F, supo'
276 (E.D.N.C. 1991).
Quoted in Orange County Sensible
Hwys. & Protected EnvU, Inc. v. North
Carolina Dept of Transp., 46 N.C. App.
350, 265 $_E 2d 890 (1990), In re Ii'nvi-
ronmental Mgt. Comm'n, 53 N_C- App. liame & Hoene, 63 N.C. App. 674, 281
135, 284 S.E.2d $20 (1981Y, State v, Wil- S.E2d 721 (x981).
113A-4. Cooperation of agencies; reports; avail-
ability of information.
The General Assembly anthorszes and directs that, to the fulle_z
extent possible.,
(1) The policies, rules, and public laws of this State shall oe
interpreted and administered in accordance with the poli.
cies set forth in this Article; and
(2) Every State agency shall include in every recommendation
or report' on any action involving expenditure of public
moneys or use of public land for projects and programs
si'Ti#"icantly affecting the quality of the environment of
this State, a detailed statement by the responsible ofc'.al
setting forth the following;
a. The environmental impact of the proposed action;
b. Any sipii;icant adverse environmental effects whi,h
cannot be avoided should the proposal be imple-
mented;
c. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact:
d. Alternatives to the proposed action;
e. The relationship between the short-term uses of the en-
vironment involved in the proposed action and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term produc-
tivity; avid
f. Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental
changes which would be involved in the pro;mwd .::•
Lion should it be implemented.
P.3
' JUN 29 '98 02:16PM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS P.4
(ga) Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsib"e
oflieial shall consult with and obtain the comments of a: 4-
agency which has either jurisdiction by law or special re•
pertise with respect to any environmental impact invol?-ed
Any unit of local government or other interested party the-
may be adversely affected by the proposed action may
mit written comment. The responsible official shall con-
sider written comment from units of local government and
interested parties that is received within the established
comment period. Copies of such detailed statement and
such comments shall be made available to the governor. -o
such agency or agencies as he may designate, and to t e
appropriate multi-county regional agency as certified ;•?
the Secretary of Administration, shall be placed in thf?
public file of the agency and shall accompany the proposal
through the existing agency review processes. A copy of
such detailed statement shall be made available to the
public and to counties, municipalities, institutions and in-
dividuals, upon request.
(3) The Governor, and any State agency charged with duties
under this Article may call upon any of the public institu-
tions of higher education of this State for assistance :n
developing plans and procedures under this Article and in
meeting the requirements of this Article, including with-
out limitation any of the following units of the Universi!%-
of North,-Carolina: the Water -Resources Research Insti-
tute, the Institute for EnvironmenW Studies, the Triangle
Universities Consortium on Air Pollution, and the Insti-
tute of Government. (1971; c. 1203, 's. 4; 1987, c. 827, s.
125: 1991, c_ 431, s. 2; 1991 (Reg. Sess,, 1992), c. 945, s- 2,)
Editor's Note..- Session Laws 1991
(RA9. Sess., 1992), 845, which
amended this section, in s. 6 provides:
"In accordance with G.$. 150B-
21.1(a)(2), State agencies may adopt
temporary rules to implement this act,
including temporary rules to establish
minimum criteria. If, prior to adopting a
temporary rule, an agency publishes no-
tice of the text of the proposed tempo-
rary rule in the North Carolina ster
and provides an opportunity for submit-
ting written comment on the rule for at
least 30 days after the text is published,
the agency may specify an expiration
date for the temporary rule of up to one
year from the date the rule becomes ef-
feotive notwithat ending G.s.
150$-21.1(e), An agency may not adopt
a temporary rule under this section after
1 January 1993_"
Effect of Amendments. -- The 1991
amendment, effective June 27, 1991,
designated the paragraph following sub-
division (2)f as subdivision (2a); in sub,
division (2a) added the second and third
sentences, and in the second to last sen-
tence substituted "Secretary" for "Direct.
tor of Deparbuene; and in subdivision
(3) before "In the Institute of Govern-•
ment" deleted "Me University Couatcii
on Marine Sciences,"
The 1991 (Reg, was., 1992) Amend.
ment, effective October 1, 1992, and ap-
plicable to any action involving use of
public land for a project or program that
is authorized on or after that date, sub.
stituted "Every State agency shall in.
elude in every recommendation or report
on any action involving expenditure of
public moneys or use of public land" for
"Any State agency shall include in every
recommendation or report on proposals
for legislation and actions involving ex-
penditure of public moneys" in the intro-
ductory language of subdivision (2).
CASE NOTES
1. Gencrai Consideration,
1. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.
Reasons for State Environmental
IImPact Statements Are the Same as
under Federal Low. - 7%e North Car-
olina State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) requires preparation of an envi-
ronmental impact staternertt (EIS) for
publicly funded actions that ;ignifi-
"ritiy affect the environment. For the
same reasons that an EIS is required un-
der the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), one most be prepared in
accordance with SEPA, MuUin v.
Skinner, 756 F. Supp. 904 (E.D.N.C.
1990).
Cited in North Buncombe Asa'o of
Concerned Citizens v. Rhodes, 100 N.C.
App. 24, 394 S.E.2d 462 (1990). •
JUN 29 '98 02:16PM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS
113A-5. Review of agency actions iuvolwing
modor adverse changes or confliets.
Whenever, in the judgment of the responsible State official, the
information obtained in preparing the statement indicates that a
major adverse change in the environment, or conflicts concerning
alternative uses of available natural resources, would result fronn a
specific program, project or action, and that an appropriate alterna.
tide cannot be developed, such information shalt be presented to the
Governor for review and final decision by him or by such agency as
he inay designate, in the exercise of the powers of the Governor.
(1971, c. 1203, s. 5.)
§ 113A-6. Conformity of administrative procedures
to State environmental policy.
All agencies of the State shall periodically review their statutory
authority, administrative rules, and current policies and proce-
dures for the purpose of determining whether there are any defi-
ciencies or inconslsterf6es therein which prohibit or hinder full
corn. liauce with the purposes and provisions of this Article and
dial( propose to the Governor such measures as may be necessary to
bring their authority, rules, policies and procedures into conformity
with the intent, purposes and procedures set forth in this Article.
(1971, c. 1203, s. 6; 1987, a. 827, o. 126.)
CASE NOTES
Stated in Orange County Sensible Carolina Dept of Tran9p., 0 N.C. App.
Hwys. & Protected Env'ts, Inc. V, North 350, 265 S.E.2d 890 (1980).
$ 113A-7. Other statutory obligations of agencies.
Nothing in this Article shall in any way affect nor detract from
specific statutory obligations of any State agency
(1) To comply with criteria or standards of environmente.l
quality or to perform other statutory obligations imposed
upon It,
(2) To coordinate or consult with any other State agency or
federal agency, or
(3) To act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recom-
Inen$ations or certification of any other $tate agaucy or
federal agency. (1971, c. 1203, s. 7.)
CASE NOTES
Relation Between Federal and
State Law. - The North Carolina
Board o(Trensportation would be acting
within the North Carolina Environmen.
tall FRMt84ticn Act if it were complying
with'either the State or federal environ-
un ' LiLl regulations or procedural • re-
quirements, and to the extent that the
federal environmental law is relied upon
to meet the requirements of the North
Carolina Environmental Protection Act,
the federal requirements are by refer-
ence enrurceabk agwaat North Carolina
agencies as state law. Orange County
Sensible Hwys. & Protected Env'ta, Inc.
v. North Carolina Dop'L of Transp., 46
N.C. App. 350, 265 S.E.2d $90, cert. de-
nied, 301 N.C. 94, -- S•ir.2d - (1980).
P.5
JUN 29 '98 02:16PM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS
§ 113A-$. Major development projects.
(a) The governing bodies of all cities, counties, and taiWnS acting
individually, or collectively, may by ordinance require any special-
purpose unit of government or private developer of a major develop-
ment project to submit detailed statements, as defined in G.S.
113A-4(2), of the impact of such projects for consideration by those
governing bodies an matters within their jurisdiction. Any such
ordinance may not be designed to apply to only a particular major
development project, and shall be applied consistently.
(b) Any ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall exempt
those major development projects for which a detailed statement of
the environmental impact of the project or a functionally equiva-
lent permitting process is required by federal or State law, reple-
tion, or rule.
(c) Any ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall estab-
lish minimum criteria to be used in determining whether a state-
ment of environmental impact is required. A detailed statement of
environmental impact may not be required for a project that does
not exceed the minimum criteria and any exceptions to the mini-
mum criteria established • by the ordinance. (1971, c. 1203, s. $;
1991, c. 431, s. 3.?
Effect of Amendment& -'!he 1991
amendment, effettive June 27, 1991,
designated the farmer eingle paragraph
that comprised this section as subsection
(a); in subsection (a), substituted "may
by ordinance" for'are h9reby authorized
to," substituted "or private developer"
for "and private developer," added "for
woeideration by these -governing bodies
in matter within their jurisdiction." and
added the last sentence; and added -sub-
geotiona (b) and (c).
CASE NOTES
Cited in North Buncombe Assn of
Concerned Citizens v. node. 100 N.C.
App. 24, 394 S.E.2d 462 (logo).
§ 113A.-9. Defimtions_
As used in this Article, unless the :context indicates otherwise,
the term:
(1) "Environmental assessment" (EA) means a document pre-
pared by a State agency to evaluate whether the probable
impacts of a proposed action require the preparation of an
environmental impact sttement under this Article.
(2) "Environmental document" means an environmental as-
sessment, an environmental impact statement, or a finding
of no significant impact.
(3) "Environmental impact statement" (EIS) means the de-
tailed otatement described in G.S. 113A-4(2),
(4) "Finding of no significant impact" (FONSI) means a docu-
ment prepared by a State agency that lists the probable
environmental impacts of a proposed action, concludes that
a proposed actions will not result in a silFnificant adverse
effect on the environment, states the specific reason or rea-
sons for such conclusion, and states that an environmental
impact statement is riot required under this Article.
(5) "Major development project" shall include but is not limited
to shopping centers, subdivisions and other housing devel-
opments, and industrial and commercial projects, but shall
not include any projects of less than two contiguous acres
in extent.
P.6
JUN 29 '98 02:17PM EHNR•PUBLIC AFFAIRS
(6) "Minimum criteria" means a rule that designates a particu.
lar action or class of actions for which the preparation of
environmental documents is not required.
(7) "Public land" means all land and interests therein, title of
which is vested in the State of North Carolina, in any State
agency, or in the State for the use of any State agency or
political subdivision of the State, and includes all vacant
and unappropriated land, swampland, submerged land,
land acquired by the State by virtue of being sold for taxes,
escheated land, and acquired land.
(8) "Special-purpose unit of government" includes any special
district or public authority.
(9) "State agency" includes every department, agency, institu-
tion, public authority, board, commission, bureau, division,
council, member of Couneil of State, or officer of the State
government of the State of North Carolina, but does not
include local governmental units -or bodies such as cities,
towels, other municipal corporations or political subdivi-
sions of the State, county or city boards of education, other
local special-purpose public districts, units or bodies of any
kind, or private corporations created by act of the General
Assembly, except in those instances where pro s,
projects and actions of local governmental units or adieu
are subject to review, approval or licensing by State agen-
cies in actordance with existing statutory authority, in
which case local governmental units or bodies shall supply
information which may be required by such State agencies
for preparation of any environmental statement required
by this Article.
(10) "State official" means the Director, Commissioner, Secre-
tary, Administrator or Chairman of the State agency hav-
ing primary statutory authority for specific programs,
projects or actions subject to this Article, or his authorized
representative.
(11) "Use of public lard" meaxts activity that results in
changes in the natural cover or topographer that includes:
a. The grant of a lease, -easement, or permit authorizing
private use of public, land; or _
b. The use of privately awned land fer an project or pro-
gram if the State or any agency of the Mate has agreed
to purchase the property or to exchange the proppeerty
for Public land.. (1971, c. 1203, s_ 9; 1991 (Reg. Seas.,
1992), c. 945, s. 3.)
Editoen Note. - Session Laws Iasi
(Reg. Seas., 1.994 c, 945, which
amended this section, in s. 6 provides:
"In accordance with G.S. 1508•
21.1(ax2), State agencies may adopt
temporary rules to implement this act,
including arnporary rules to ootabl!A
minimum criteria, If, prior to adopting a
temporary rule, ea agency publishes no-
tice of the'text of the proposed tempo.
racy rule in the North Carolina Register
and provides an Opportunity for submit-
ting written comment on the rule for at
least 30 days after the text is published.
the agency may specify an expiration
date for the temporary rule of up to one
year from the data the rule becomes ef-
fective notwithstanding G_S.
150B•21.1(e). An agency may not adopt
A temporary rule under this section after
1 January 1993."
Effect of A.mendiments. - The 1991
(N,eg. Sess., 1992) amendment, o(l'eetive
July 14, 1992, added "the term" in the
introductory language, added sul)divi.
sions (1) through (4). redesigaated for.
mer subdivision (1) as subdivision (5)
and deleted "Me term" at the beginning
of that subdivision, added subdivisions
(6) and (7), redesignated former subdivi.
sion (2) as subdivie(ou (9) and deleted
"The term" at the beginning of that sub.
division, -redesignated former subdivi•
lion (3) as subdivision (9) and deleted
"The term" at the beginning of that
subdivison, redesignated former aubdivi-
lion (4) as subdivision (10) and in that
subdivision deleted `The term responsi-
ble" at the beginning, and substituted
"'State official,' means" for "'State
of(ical; as used in this Article shall.
mean". and added subdivision (111_
P.7
JUN 29 '98 02:17PM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS
§ 113A-12. Environmental document not required
in certain cases.
No environmental document shall be required in connection
with:
(1) The construction, maintenance, or removal of an electric
power line, water line, sewage line, stormwater drainage
tine, telephone line, telegraph line, cable television line,
data transmission line, or natural gas line within or across
the right-of-way of any street or highway.
(2) An action approved under a general permit issued under
G_S_ 113A-118.1, 143-215.1(b)(3), !or 143-21$.108(c)(8).
(3) A lease or easement granted by a State agency for,
a. The use of an existing building or facility.
b. Placement of a wostew*wr line on. or tinder eubmer ed
lands ppursuant to a permit granted under S.
143-215.1.
c. A shellfish cultivation lease granted under G.S.
113-202.
(4) The construction of a driveway connection to a public road-
way. (1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 945, ss- 5, 7(a); c. 1030, s.
51.15.)
Editor's Note. - Session Laws 199 L
(Reg. Sena., 1992), c. 945, a. 8 made this
section effective upon ratification. The
act was ratified July 14, 1992.
SQasio:t Laws 1991 (Reg_ 5esa., 1992),
c. 945, which enacted this section as
4 113a-11, In s, 7(a) provided: -In the
event that House Bill 1$83 is ratified.
G.S. 113A-11 and G.S.-113A-12, as en-
acted by So4ivn 6 of thin act. are redea-
ipated as G.S. 113A-12 and G.S.
113A-13 respectively." House Bill 1583
was ratified as Session Laws 1991 (Reg.
Sets, 1992), c. 899, effective July 8,
1992. This section and 9 113A•13 have
ben renumbered accordingly.
Session Laws 1991 (Reg, Sees.. 1992).
o. 845, which enacted L66 aectfon, in a. 6
provides: "in accordance with G.S.
150B-21M02). State agencies may
adopt temporary rules to implement this
act, including temporary rules to estab-
lisp minimum criteria. If, prior to adopt-
ing a temporary rule, an agency pub-
lishes notice of the text of the proposed
temporary rule in the North Carolina
Rce4kr andprvvidea an opportunity for
submitting written comment on the role
for at least 30 days after the text is pub.
fished, the agency may specify an expi-
ration data for the temporary rule of up
to one year from the date the rule be-
come; effective notwithstanding G.S.
130B-21.1(e). An agency may not adopt
a temporary rule tinder this section after
1 January 1993."
Effect of Amendments. - Session
Laws 1991 (Rag. Seas., 1992), c. 1030, a.
51 _15, ai£activo July 24, 1992, substi-
tuted "143-215.108(c)(8)" for
-143-215.100(b)(8)" in SubdiVisiDh (2) of
this section, as enacted by Session Laws
1991 (Reg. Seas., 1992), c. 945, s. 6.
113A-13. Administrative and judicial review.
The preparation of an environmental document required under
this Article is intended to assist the responsible agency in deter-
3 ining the appropriate decision on the proposed action. An envi-
ronmental document required under this Article is a necessary part
of an application or other request for agency action. Administrative
and judicial review of an environmental document is incidental to,
and may only be undertaken in connection with, review of the
agency action. No other review of an environmental document is
allowed. (1991 (lteg. Sess., 19921, c. 946, so. 5, 7(a).)
P.8
JUN 29 '98 02:17PM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS
113th-10. Provisions slxppiexnental.
The policies. obligations and provisions of this Article are supple-
mentary to those set forth in existing authorizations of and statu?
tort' provisions applicable to State sgencies and local governments.
In those instances where a State agency is required to prepare an
environmental document or to comment on an environmental docu-
ment under provisions of federal law, the environmental document
or comment shall meet the provisions of this Article. (1971,'c. 1203,
s. 10; 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 945, s. 4.)
Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1991
(Reg. Son,, 1992), c. 945, which
amended this section, in s. 6 provides:
"In eeoordance .--ith G.S. 1509-
21.1(aX2), State agencies may adopt
temporary rules to implement this act,
including temporary rules to establish.
minin7um criteria. lf, priorfto adopting a
temporary rule, an agenry publishes no-
tice of the text of the proposed tempo-
rary rule in the North Carolina Register
and provides an opportunity for gubmit-
ting written comment on the rule for at
least 30 days after the text is published,
the agency. may specify an expiration
date for the temporary rule of up to one
year from the date the rule 13et0me6 ef-
fective notwithstanding G.S.
166013-21.1(e). An agency may not adopt
a temporary rule ender this section after
1 January 1993."
Effect of Amendments. - The 1991
(Rog. Sege., 10$2) amendment, effective
July 14, 1992, substituted "document or
to comment on an environmental docu-
ment under provisionv of federal law.
the environmental document or com-
ment shall" for "statement, or comments
thereon, under provisions of federal law.
such statement or comments will" in the
second Sentence.
§ 113A.-11. Adoption of rules.
(a) The Department of Administration shall adopt rules to imple-
ment this Article.
(b) Each State agency may adopt rules that establish minimum
criteria. An agency may include a particular action or class of ac-
tions in its minimum criteria only if the agency makes a specific
finding that the action or class of. actions has no significant impact
on the environment. Rules establishing minimum criteria shall be
consistent with rules adopted by the Department of Administra-
tion. In addition to all other rule-making requirements, rules estab-
lishing minimum criteria are subject to approval by the Secretary
of Administration, (1991 (Reg. Secs-, 1952), c. 899, s. 1, c. 945, s.
7(b).)
Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1991
(Reg. Sees., 19921. c. 899, s. 2 made this
ssation effective upon ratification- The
act was ratified July 8, 1992.
Session Laws 1991 (Reg. Sees-, 1992),
c. 945, s. 7(b) provided: "in the event
that House Bill 1583 is ratified, the sec-
vnd aentenee of G.B. 11SA-11(b), as en-
acted bz ratified House Sill 1583, is re-
pealed. House Sill 1583 was ratified as
c- $99, ofrentiva July 9, 1992, and the
second sentence of subsection (b) of this
section, which read: "Minlinurn criteria
designate particular actions or classes of
nations for which the preparation of the
detailed statement described in 0,S-
113A.4(2) is not required," has been
omitted from the text above.
Effect of Amendments. - The 1991
(Reg. Sees., 1992) amendment. effective
July 14, 1992, deleted the second sen-
tence in subsection (b), which read:
"Minimum criteria designate particular
actions or claeges of actions for which
the preparation of the detailed state-
ment described in G.S. 113A-4(2) is not
required." See the Editor's Note.
P.9
JUN 29 '98 02:18PM EHNR•PUBLIC AFFAIRS
§1 13A.38 POLLUTION CONTROL. FTC. . 4113A-39
Editors Note, - Session Laws 1991
(Iteg. Sess.. 1992), C. 945, s. 8 made this
section effective upon ratification, The
act was radOed July 14, 1992.
Session Laws 1991 (Reg, Sess,. 19921_
C. 945, which enacted this section as
* I13A-12, in s. 7(a) provided: "In the
event that House Bill 1583 is ratified.
G.S. 113A-11 and G.S. 113A-12, as en-
actod by Section 5 of this aci, are redes-
ignated se G.S. 113A-12 and G3.
113A-13 respectively," Douse Bill 1683
wa; ratified as Session Laws 1991 (Reg.
Sess., 1992), a 699, effective July 8,
1592. This section and li 113A-1;Z have
been renumbered accordingly.
Session lAws 1991 (Reg. Sess.. 1992),
c. 945, which enacted this section, in s. 6
provides: "in accordance with G.S.
150B-21.1ta)(2), State agencies may
adopt temporary rules to implement this
act, including temporary rules to estab-
lish minimum criteria. If, prior to adopt,
ing a temporary rule. an agency pub•
lishe5 notice of the text of the proposed
temporary rule in the North Carolina
Register and provides an opportunity for
submitting'written comment on the rule
for at least 30 days after the text is pub,
lished, the agency may specify an expi-
ration date for the temporary rule of up
to one year from the date the rule be-
comes effective notwithstanding G.S.
150B-21.1(x). An agency may not adopt
a temporary rule under this section after
1 January 1993."
P.10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ALIGNMENT STUDY
FOR THE
NEW HOPE ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT
ROCK QUARRY ROAD (SR 2542) TO
OLD POOLE ROAD (SR 1007)
Prepared for:
CITY OF RALEIGH
u?S{ CF R4`F?pZ
yo _ ?
9ry~CARO?`2
Prepared by:
RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE
5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
JANUARY 1998
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................1
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................. 1
3. PROJECT NEED AND PURPOSE ............................................ 3
4. ALTERNATE ALIGNMENTS ............................................... 4
A. Design Criteria .........................................................4
B. Alignment Descriptions .................................................. 7
C. Intersection Analysis ................................................... 10
D. Cost Estimates ........................................................11
5. EFFECTS ON AREA RESOURCES .......................................... 12
A. Wetlands .............................................................12
B. Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................... 14
C. Floodplains, Floodways and Hydraulics ..................................... 18
D. Water Quality ......................................................... 23
E. Land Use .............................................................24
F. Greenways ...........................................................25
6. IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED ALIGNMENT ............................ 26
A. Alternate Evaluation .................................................... 26
B. Project Phasing ........................................................30
7. AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................... 30
A. Agency Coordination ...................................................30
B. Public Involvement .....................................................31

LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Summary of Project Impacts ................................................ 12
2. Federally Protected Species for Wake County ................................... 14
3. Federal Species of Concern and NC Protected Species for Wake County .............. 17
4. Recommended Major Hydraulic Structures ..................................... 21
5. Wetland Impacts by Type for Alternates 2 and 5 ................................. 27
6. Wetland Impacts by Waterway for Alternates 2 and 5 ............................. 27
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Project Location on the Thoroughfare Plan ...................................... 2
2. Projected 2010 Traffic Volumes .............................................. 5
3. Typical Cross-Sections ...................................................... 6
4. Alternate Alignments, Resources and Facilities ................................... 8
5. Preferred Alternate ........................................................ 29

ALIGNMENT STUDY
FOR THE
NEW HOPE ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT
ROCK QUARRY ROAD (SR 2542) TO
OLD POOLE ROAD (SR 1007)
Prepared for:
CITY OF RALEIGH
- AA
o??{ GF R4`F'pZ
Zo r?
9r?'*_cARC``?
? a
Prepared by:
RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE
5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
JANUARY 1998

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
1. INTRODUCTION
This alignment study report summarizes the information considered by the City of Raleigh in their
selection of a preferred alignment for extending New Hope Road south from Old Poole Road to
Rock Quarry Road.
The proposed project requires a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of
the federal Clean Water Act and a water quality certification from the NC Division of Environmental
Management under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. This report is intended to
supplement information in the permit/certification applications and to describe the efforts made to
develop a reasonable and feasible alignment which minimizes impacts to natural resources.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the extension of New Hope Road (Secondary Route [SR] 2036) on new alignment
from Rock Quarry Road (SR 2542) to its existing terminus at Old Poole Road (SR 1007) in the City
of Raleigh, Wake County. As shown in Figure 1, this proposed roadway extension is located outside
' the I-440 Beltline southeast of downtown Raleigh.
The ultimate configuration for the New Hope Road extension is anticipated to be four lanes with
curb and gutter and a landscaped median within a 110-foot right of way. In wetland areas, the
median would be eliminated. All alternates would require a bridge to cross over Walnut Creek. A
i 16-inch water main would be installed within the project right of way, consistent with the water
system shown in Raleigh's Comprehensive Plan (City of Raleigh, 1992) for the Southeast District.
Project construction is planned to be accomplished in phases (See Section 63). The first phase
would be construction of two lanes of roadway between Rock Quarry Road and Old Poole Road.
All alternate alignments would be designed to accommodate future greenway trails at the crossings
of Walnut Creek and Big Branch. Walnut Creek is planned by the City to be a major greenway
' corridor which will ultimately connect Lake Johnson in southwest Raleigh to the Neuse River.
u

January1998
' 1

? Primary Arterial
mmme Secondary Arterial
Major Thoroughfare
Minor Thoroughfare
Upgrade to Freeway Thoroughfares in this
area subject to review
Existing by NCDOT
- s - - Proposed ' a•A
Raleigh ET1
i/eesvi//e R > ? ?OzJ.
0/, c j.Y
d , 'Dc eo' , A,iar Ar Posed N.
??fs r ckland a e
in
G? Psi. ?°? ? 3 3 ';x
°0'• ?? p
: N
?ry
roo Rd.
V?
r?
as
/Fee co 05- 1-440 /
koy/ Ary ?a 1 I
t
\114-11 0
1 ') m
7 m WadL ,e i'
CARY "a?eo Rq
a`9h s,
?°,
EIGH
Junklin
JS?IbA\Kee??3 fEd kli`n
??.AOIA4?
Tryon Rd9
ar a*
c
sAW? o
? ..
? 0 ? ? jtr -'0
FOs,
e

l?
0
a
7 °
> ? a
o`
'?,Se Z
Lo
a :a) ?
I
7
Road D JS ?p
C
l '
s
Z
0O

¦i s
?
US 64 East

4 US 64 East Relocation
(freeway)
^
tea. ?
°CD j E Poole Rd.

PROPOSED
PROJECT

7

I Source: City of Raleigh Comprehensive Plan I
NEW HOPE RD. (SR 2036) EXTENSION
of RA(
?j,S?cy
.45,?yo2? PROJECT LOCATION
?l ON THOROUGHFARE PLAN
FIGURE 1

11

New Hope Road Extension
3. PROJECT NEED AND PURPOSE
Alignment Study
The proposed action is consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the Capital Area
Municipalities' Planning Organization (Thoroughfare Plan), as shown on a map dated June 18,
1997. The Thoroughfare Plan identifies the segment of New Hope Road from Rock Quarry Road
to Old Poole Road as a proposed major thoroughfare.
The New Hope Road Extension also is included as a proposed secondary arterial in Raleigh's
Comprehensive Plan (City of Raleigh, 1992). The nomenclature in the Comprehensive Plan is
different than the nomenclature in the Thoroughfare Plan because the Comprehensive Plan includes
more classifications than the Thoroughfare Plan. Otherwise, the two plans show the same existing
and proposed roadways.
' For the southeastern portion of Raleigh, the Plan states that "Lack of proximity and access to the
major employment and retailing centers, other than downtown Raleigh, has also been a disadvantage
to this [Southeast] District. Although the opening of the southern Beltline has improved access,
additional roads to connect US 64 East, Rock Quarry Road, Poole Road, and Garner Road will
further improve access and marketability" (City of Raleigh, 1992).
' The City's Comprehensive Plan shows greenwa y corridors along Walnut Creek and Big Branch in
the project study area. The proposed project would accommodate access to these planned future
greenway trails.

The 16-inch water main proposed for the project is consistent with the planned water system for the
Southeast District of Raleigh. The Comprehensive Plan shows a proposed 16-inch water line
connecting the existing 16-inch water lines located under New Hope Road to the north and under
Jones Sausage Road to the south.
The proposed project is the final link which would complete the New Hope Road corridor from
Capital Boulevard on the north to I-40 on the south (via Jones Sausage Road). With completion of
the proposed project, the New Hope Road corridor would become the outermost continuous
north/south travel route for eastern Raleigh (See Figure 1) and would help relieve traffic congestion
on other roadways in the area. This corridor is also part of a major circumferential route around the
City. This route includes New Hope Road and Jones Sausage Road on the east side of the city,
Millbrook Road on the north side, and Duraleigh Road and Blue Ridge Road on the west side (See
Figure 1).
January 1998
' 3

1

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
Figure 2 shows projected year 2010 average daily traffic volumes on the area's roadway network
with and without the proposed project. These projections assume full implementation of the adopted
Thoroughfare Plan. As can be seen on the figure, almost all major roadways in the area would
experience lower future traffic volumes because of the additional north/south route provided by the
proposed project. Year 2010 traffic volumes on the I-440 beltline between I-40 and Poole Road are
projected to decrease 13 percent, from 78,000 vehicles per day (VPD) to 67,500 VPD, with the
proposed project in place. Traffic on I-40 between I-440 and Jones Sausage Road is projected to
decrease by 20 percent, from 80,300 VPD to 64,600 VPD.
4. ALTERNATE ALIGNMENTS
A. Design Criteria
The design criteria for this project conform with the standards established by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets (1990) and by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
The ultimate four-lane roadway is planned to have curb and gutter with a maximum superelevation
of 0.04. Superelevation is the slope of pavement from one side of a lane group to the other. The
design speed is 50 mph and the minimum radius for a roadway curve is 955 feet (6 degrees). The
roadway is proposed as not access-controlled. Driveways will be allowed by permit.
Figure 3 shows the typical cross-sections for the project. One roadway cross-section is for areas
outside of wetlands and includes four lanes of roadway with a landscaped median. The other
ultimate roadway cross-section is for areas in wetlands and includes four lanes of undivided
roadway. The landscaped median would be eliminated through wetland areas in order to minimize
impacts. The two bridge typical cross-sections show the interim two-lane bridge and the ultimate
' four-lane bridge. As discussed in Section 2, the project is planned to be built in phases. The first
phase of the project includes construction of two lanes of roadway from Rock Quarry Road to Old
Poole Road.
1
11
11

January 1998
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
O
G?
O ?
4
68.200 0 54.300
67,400 r 48,900
1 fi
65,900
62,300
25.900
22,500
v
m 20.000
24,900
C
D:
F- 18,600
60.600 16,600 3,800
C 55,300 9,500
11,400
7,900 -? m
T
C
0
N
21,200
17,200
'E 28.000
22,800
120.200
18,600 -'
23,600
21,000
I Tryon Rd. Ext.
17.700
15,300
4.100
?- 13,700
14,900
6,000 -'
F 78,000
67,500 ¦
17,900 4 0
10,700 Zo ? 23,000
=a'ti
9oc
4 , 900
6,300 d
a"
y?
80,300
r? F d E 5,000
64,600 c 15,700
0 7?
58.600
57,600
?a,
Bern Ave.1
42.600
37,700
U.S. 64 Bypass
11.500
15,000
Poole Rd.
LEGEND NEW HOPE RD. (SR 2036) EXTENSION
RA?i M . 2010 ADT WITHOUT PROJECT
35 2010 ADT WITH PROJECT PROJECTED 2010
•
INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ry CAR O GRADE SEPARATION
ADT = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
FIGURE 2

f -L-
8'-6" 2'-0" 12•-0" 12•_0"
? NIN.J
1._60
t (MIN.
ry1x
14 "/FT 14"/FT 1 !:7
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
(2-LANE)
V.-L-
8'-6" 2'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 2'-0" 51-6"
YIN.)
% "/FT !%I"/FTY4"/FT % "/FT
GRADE
POINT
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
(ULTIMATE)
551-0" R/W 551-0"
32'-0" 32•_00
` 12•_00 I? 0" i 10•_0••
12•_0•• _ 12'-0" _..8'.o" _ D" "1 ?l4
BERM
GRADE
POINT
14"/FT Nt"/FT Ld"/FT.
FUTURE
--------- ---
VAR.
2'-6" CONCRETE"/FT HINGE PO IN VAR. SLOPE
CURB 8 GUTTER FOR FILLS ?• SLOPE '
HINGE POIN
FOR CUTS
ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
f.-L-
55'-0" R/W 55'-0" R/W
24•_0" 24•_00
12'-0" 12'-0" 13•_0" 10•_00
BERM I BERM
GRADE
POINT 3
U"/Fr U"/FT 14FT 1../FT.
FUTURE
L 14"/FT L4FT
2'-6" CONCRETE
CURB i GUTTER
ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
IN WETLANDS AREA
NEW HOPE RD. (SR 2036) EXTENSION
of RAIE?
9U? TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
H C p?p?.
FIGURE 3
' New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
' B. Alignment Descriptions
Five alternate construction alignments were developed and evaluated for the proposed project. These
alignments are shown in Figure 4 and described below. All alternates begin at Rock Quarry Road
' and cross Walnut Creek and Big Branch before ending at the existing New Hope Road/Old Poole
Road intersection. As shown in Figure 4, Alternates 2, 3, 4, and 5 include a future project to tie the
' New Hope Road extension into Jones Sausage Road.
Alternate 1
Alternate 1 begins at the intersection of Rock Quarry Road and Jones Sausage Road (See Figure 4).
The alignment crosses Big Branch and heads northeast toward the west side of the Carolina Power
& Light (CP&L) power easement. The alignment continues north adjacent to the power easement,
' crosses Walnut Creek, then curves slightly west to tie into the existing New Hope Road/Old Poole
Road intersection.
Alternate 1 is approximately 8,770 feet (1.66 miles) long, and is the shortest alternate. Bridges
would be required over both Walnut Creek and Big Branch (See Section 5.C). The crossings of
' Walnut Creek and Big Branch would be designed to accommodate future greenway trails underneath
the roadway.
' In the ultimate configuration, Alternate 1 likely would also require widening two existing bridges
near the Jones Sausage Road/Rock Quarry Road intersection to accommodate additional through and
' turn lanes; the existing bridge on Jones Sausage Road (NCDOT Bridge No. 35) just before the
intersection, and the existing bridge on Rock Quarry Road (NCDOT Bridge No. 36) just east of the
intersection. Bridge No. 35 was constructed in 1982 and has a sufficiency rating of 94.5 out of a
possible rating of 100. Bridge No. 36 was constructed in 1963 and has a sufficiency rating of 49.8
(NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Department, personal communication, May 28,,1996).
Alternate 2
' Alternate 2 begins at Rock Quarry Road approximately 540 feet east of the existing Jones Sausage
Road/Rock Quarry Road intersection (See Figure 4). The alignment heads north toward the west
side of the CP&L power easement, crossing a minor tributary to Big Branch. Upon reaching the
power easement, the alignment runs north adjacent to the easement, crossing Walnut Creek then
tieing into the existing New Hope Road/Old Poole Road intersection. Ultimately, the alignment
would extend approximately 1,420 feet south of Rock Quarry Road and tie into Jones Sausage Road.
i
January 1998
' 7
ri rr r? r r? r r¦ rr r r? r? rr rr rr rr r? rr r? r
o?
m Fi
mA
?N
m
g°n
O
G
O
m
m

v
c
>
n Z
m
c? m
?o
z

-I m
v
z
v
a
r
? N
o
? v

m
r
~ z
Bc v
m

H m
z
m

m z

Cl)
H
N N z
7
J

1

1
New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
The new four-leg intersection of New Hope Road/Rock Quarry Road/Jones Sausage Road would
then replace the existing Rock Quarry Road/Jones Sausage Road intersection.
Alternate 2 is approximately 10,585 feet (2.00 miles) long. Major drainage structures include a
bridge over Walnut Creek and a culvert at Big Branch (See Section 5.C). The crossings of Walnut
Creek and Big Branch would be designed to accommodate future greenway trails underneath the
roadway.
Alternate 3
Alternate 3 begins at Rock Quarry Road approximately 920 feet east of the existing Rock Quarry
Road/Jones Sausage Road intersection (See Figure 4). The alignment heads north toward the CP&L
power easement and crosses a small tributary to Big Branch. As the alignment approaches Walnut
Creek it bends westward, then crosses Walnut Creek about 450 feet west of the power easement.
North of Walnut Creek, the alignment curves back toward the power easement, then runs adjacent
to the easement until it ends at the existing New Hope Road/Old Poole Road intersection.
Ultimately, the alignment would extend approximately 2,370 feet south of Rock Quarry Road and
tie into Jones Sausage Road. The new four-leg intersection of New Hope Road/Rock Quarry
Road/Jones Sausage Road would then replace the existing Rock Quarry Road/Jones Sausage Road
intersection.
' Alternate 3 is approximately 10,690 feet ( 2.02 miles) long. Major drainage structures include a
bridge over Walnut Creek and a culvert at Big Branch (See Section 5.C). The crossings of Walnut
' Creek and Big Branch would be designed to accommodate future greenway trails underneath the
roadway.

r

1

This alternate crosses Rock Quarry Road approximately 300 feet from the Rock Quarry
Road/Chelmshire Court intersection. City design standards require a minimum spacing of at least
400 feet between intersections along a Major/Minor Thoroughfare. The intersection location for
Alternate 3 could not be moved away from the Rock Quarry Road/Chelmshire Court intersection
because of design standards for minimum curve radii and increased wetland impacts over
Alternates 2 and 5.
January 1998
' 9
' Alternate 4

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
Alternate 4 begins at Rock Quarry Road at the same location as Alternates 2 and 5; approximately
540 east of the existing Rock Quarry Road/Jones Sausage Road intersection (See Figure 4). The
alignment heads northeast, crossing a minor tributary to Big Branch, then crossing the CP&L power
easement about 900 feet north of Rock Quarry Road. The alignment continues northeast beyond the
power easement, then curves west to cross Walnut Creek approximately 900 feet east of the power
easement. The alignment then crosses the CP&L power easement about 3,200 feet south of Old
Poole Road, then continues north to tie into the existing New Hope Road/Rock Quarry Road
intersection. Ultimately, this alternate would extend approximately 1,420 feet south of Rock Quarry
Road and tie into Jones Sausage Road. The new four-leg intersection of New Hope Road/Rock
Quarry Road/Jones Sausage Road would then replace the existing Rock Quarry Road/Jones Sausage
Road intersection.
Alternate 4 is approximately 11,570 feet (2.19 miles) long, and is the longest alternate. Major
drainage structures include a bridge over Walnut Creek and a culvert at Big Branch (See
Section 5.C). The crossings of Walnut Creek and Big Branch would be designed to accommodate
future greenway trails underneath the roadway.
1 Alternate 5
1-7
1

L
1
n

Alternate 5 begins at Rock Quarry Road approximately 540 feet east of the existing Rock Quarry
Road/Jones Sausage Road intersection, at the same location as Alternates 2, and 4. Alternate 5
continues north toward the CP&L power easement, crossing a tributary to Big Branch, on the same
alignment as Alternate 2. Near Walnut Creek, Alternate 5 curves west to cross Walnut Creek just
west of Alternate 2. Alternate 5 then head north, about 250 feet away from and parallel to the west
side of the CP&L power easement. The alignment ends at the existing New Hope Road/Old Poole
Road intersection. then runs adjacent to the easement south of Walnut Creek. Near Walnut Creek,
the alignment curves slightly west and crosses Walnut Creek. Ultimately, the alignment would
extend approximately 1,420 feet south of Rock Quarry Road and tie into Jones Sausage Road. The
new four-leg intersection of New Hope Road/Rock Quarry Road/Jones Sausage Road would then
replace the existing Rock Quarry Road/Jones Sausage Road intersection.
Alternate 5 is approximately 10,575 feet (2.00 miles) long. Major drainage structures include a
bridge over Walnut Creek and a culvert at Big Branch (See Section 5.C). The crossings of Walnut
Creek and Big Branch would be designed to accommodate future greenway trails underneath the
roadway.
January 1998
' 10

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
C. Intersection Analysis
The ultimate intersection of Rock Quarry Road with the New Hope Road Extension was analyzed
to determine if a traffic signal would be warranted and to estimate the intersection's 2010 level of
service. The Old Poole Road/New Hope Road Extension intersection was not analyzed due to the
proximity of the existing Poole Road/New Hope Road intersection to the north. The Poole
Road/New Hope Road intersection is already signalized and it carries the east/west through traffic
in the area. Old Poole Road carries local traffic and its intersection with New Hope Road would not
be a major intersection.
The projected 2010 traffic volumes at the New Hope Road Extension/Rock Quarry Road intersection
' warrant a traffic signal under criteria established in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(Federal Highway Administration, 1988). Therefore, a signalized intersection analysis was
performed to determine morning and evening peak hour levels of service. The analysis used the
' procedures contained in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 1994).
' Levels of service (LOS) for signalized intersections are "defined in terms of delay, which is a
measure of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time" (Transportation
Research Board, 1994:9-6). The LOS is given as a letter designation from A through F, with LOS
A representing the best operating conditions. In urban areas, it is generally acceptable to design an
intersection for LOS D or better.

1

As input to the analysis, it was assumed that, in 2010, the New Hope Road Extension would be four
lanes wide and Rock Quarry Road would be two lanes wide. In order to achieve an intersection
which operates at LOS D or better in 2010, New Hope Road Extension, on any alternate alignment,
would require an exclusive left-turn lane, a through lane, and a through-right lane in both directions.
Eastbound Rock Quarry Road would require an exclusive left-turn lane and a through-right lane.
Westbound Rock Quarry Road would require an exclusive left-turn lane, a through lane and an
exclusive right-turn lane.
Prior to the ultimate build out of the New Hope Road Extension, interim phases should be designed
so that future intersection improvements associated with later project phases can be completed with
minimal disturbance and traffic flow interruptions.
D. Cost Estimates
Costs for constructing Phase 1 were calculated for Alternates 1, 2, 4 and 5. These costs are:
Alternate 1 - $4.6 million, Alternate 2 - $3.8 million, Alternate 4 - $4.3 million, and Alternate 5 -
January 1998
' 11
New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
' $3.8 million. Costs were not estimated for Alternate 3 since it was eliminated from further study
early in the process due to intersection spacing problems. Alternate 3 would likely be slightly more
' expensive than Alternates 2 and 5 since the bridge over Walnut Creek required for Alternate 3 would
be 20 feet longer.
' Phase 1 of Alternate 1 would cost the most since it would require a bridge at Big Branch. The other
' alternates would not cross Big Branch in Phase 1, thereby eliminating the cost of the required
culverts associated with this crossing. Alternate 4 is substantially longer than the other alternates,
which contributes to its higher costs. A bridge length over Walnut Creek was not calculated for
' Alternate 4. For cost estimating purposes, this bridge was assumed to be the same length as the
bridge required for Alternate 2.
5. EFFECTS ON AREA RESOURCES

A summary of the impacts of each alternate, based on the 110-foot right of way , is presented in
' Table 1.
Table 1
Summary of Project Impacts
t ISSUE Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate
1 2 3 4 5
' Length (feet) 8,770 10,585 10,690 11,570 10,575
Wetlands (acres) 5.05 4.62 4.98 5.21 4.42
' Floodplains (linear feet) 2,450 2,070 2,060 1,945 1,945
Floodways (linear feet) 1,405 1,175 1,245 1,015 1,150
i Required Major Hydraulic 2 bridges 1 bridge 1 bridge 1 bridge 1 bridge
Structures -- 1 culvert 1 culvert 1 culvert 1 culvert
' 4 pipes* 3 pipes* 3 pipes*
C
i 3 pipes* 3 pipes*
ross
ngs of Proposed
Greenway Easements 2 2 2 2 2
Phase 1 Construction
$4.6 $3.8 N/A
Costs (millions) $4.3 $3.8
' Note: These impact quantities are for an impact area 110 feet wide (the right of way needed for the ultimate
project cross-section), and include the entire length of the alternate.
* Pipes are 10-72 inches in diameter.

January 1998
' 12

fl

L

LI

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
A. Wetlands
Existing Conditions
As shown in Figure 4, wetlands are present along Walnut Creek, Big Branch, and several small
unnamed tributaries to these creeks. The wetland areas north of Rock Quarry Road and west of the
CP&L power easement were delineated by Rust biologists on January 24 and 25, 1996. The COE
conducted a site visit on February 9, 1996 and concurred with the wetland delineation in a letter
dated March 22, 1996. These wetlands were then surveyed.
The wetland area south of Rock Quarry Road surrounding Big Branch was surveyed and shown on
a recombination plat submitted to the City by Scott and Company for the property owner. The
wetland area north of Rock Quarry Road and east of the CP&L easement was delineated by a Rust
biologist on July 11 and 12, 1996. The COE concurred with this delineation during a site visit on
July 16, 1996 and in a letter dated November 18, 1996, but this wetland area was not surveyed.
The primary wetland type present along the larger creeks is bottomland hardwood forest. These
wetlands are dominated by green ash, sweet gums, red maple, river birch, and swamp-chestnut oak.
The understory contains ironwood, elderberry, Vibernums, and privet. Common herbs include
cinnamon fern, poison ivy, giant cane, lizards tail, and jewel weed. These bottomland hardwood
wetlands are considered to be medium quality wetlands providing wildlife habitat as well as flood
storage.
The other predominant type of wetland in the project area is wet pastureland near the confluence of
Big Branch and Walnut Creek. This area has been heavily grazed and consists of a mosaic of wet
pockets. It is dominated by fescue grass with soft rush occurring in the wetter areas. This wetland
area is considered to be low quality.
A small cattail marsh is also present in the study area. This marsh consists of a former farm pond
that has since been drained. It is dominated by cattails, tag alder, and bullrush, and is of low quality.
Protect Impacts
' Wetland impacts were estimated based on the ultimate 110-foot right of way for the project, and
where applicable, included the future extension of New Hope Road from Rock Quarry Road south
' to Jones Sausage Road (Alternates 2-5). The wetland impacts for each alternate are listed in Table 1.
As shown in the table, Alternate 4 would impact the largest area of wetlands (5.21 acres).
January 1998
' 13
' New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Stud,
' Alternates 2 and 5 would impact the smallest areas of wetlands, 4.62 acres and 4.42 acres,
respectively.
Any action which proposes to dredge or place fill material into Waters of the United States is subject
' to the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) administered by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Wetlands are considered Waters of the United States, as defined
in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 328 (33 CFR 328). The COE grants
individual or nationwide Section 404 permits for activities occurring in Waters of the United States,
depending on the activity and the level of impact. The proposed project would require an individual
' Section 404 permit.
' Activities requiring a Section 404 permit also require a water quality certification under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1341). In North Carolina, Section 401 Certifications are
administered by the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources - Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) under regulations described in the North Carolina Administrative Code
(15A NCAC 2H.0500).
B. Threatened and Endangered Species
Existing Conditions
' Federally Protected Species. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists four federally protected
species for Wake County as of May 1, 1997. These species are listed in Table 2.

January 1998
' 14

H

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
Table 2
Federally Protected Species for Wake County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Notes: "E" Denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
"T Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species, along with a
conclusion regarding potential project impact, follows.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: 1970
1 The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small to medium sized bird 18 to 20 cm (7.4 to in) long with a
wing span of 35 to 38 cm (14 to 15 in). The back and top of the head are black. The cheek is white.
Numerous small white spots arranged in horizontal rows give a ladder-back appearance. The chest
' is dull white with small black spots on the side. Males and females look alike, except males have
a small red streak above the cheek.

Among woodpeckers, the red-cockaded has an advanced social system. They live in a group termed
a clan. The clan may have from two to nine birds, but never more than one breeding pair. The other
adults are usually males and are called helpers. The helpers are usually the sons of the breeding male
and can be from 1 to 3 years old. The helpers assist in incubating eggs, feeding young, making new
cavities, and defending the clan's area from other red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those which are infected with a fungus
producing red-heart disease. A clan nests and roosts in a group of cavity trees called a colony. The
colony may have one or two cavity trees to more than twelve, but it is used only by one clan. In most
January 1998
' 15

I?

0

n

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
colonies, all the cavity trees are within a circle about 450 m (1,500 ft) wide. Open stands of pines
with a minimum age of 80 to 120 years provide suitable nesting habitat. Longleaf pines are the most
commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands of pines, or
stands that have a dense hardwood understory are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and
pine hardwood stands 30 years or older, with foraging preference for pine trees 25 cm (10 in) or
larger in diameter. The woodpeckers' diet consists mainly of insects, which includes ants, beetles,
wood-boring insects, and caterpillars.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: 1978
The bald eagle is a large raptor, with a wingspread of about 2.1 m (7 ft). Adult plumage is mainly
dark brown with a pure white head and tail. First year juveniles are often chocolate brown to
blackish. The head and tail become increasingly white with age until full adult plumage is reached
in the fifth or sixth year.
The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near large bodies
of water where it feeds. Selection of nesting sites varies depending on the species of trees growing
in the particular area. In the Southeast, nests are constructed in areas where pines or bald cypress
are an important component of the canopy. Nests are usually constructed in live trees, but dead trees
are occasionally used. Nest trees are typically the largest tree in an area with an open view of the
surroundings. The nests are constructed of large sticks with a softer material added as a nest lining.
The nests are very large, up to 1.8 m (6 ft) wide, and weigh hundreds of pounds. Many nests are
used year after year. Nesting eagles are particularly sensitive to human activity.
Bald eagle wintering areas possess many of the same characteristics as nest sites. However, the birds
are not as closely limited to shores at this time, with both adults and immatures gathering food where
it is most easily available. Roost sites are an important component of wintering areas. Eagles may
roost singly or in groups exceeding a hundred birds.
An opportunistic predator, the bald eagle feeds primarily on fish but also eats a variety of birds,
mammals, and turtles when fish are not readily available. Both live prey and carrion are eaten.
Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1990
January 1998
' 16

1

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small freshwater mussel reaching a maximum length of about 57 mm
(2.2 in). The outer surface of the shell is usually brown or yellowish-brown in color with faint green
rays that are more noticeable in young specimens. The inside of the shell is silvery white or bluish.
The right valve has two lateral teeth and the left valve only has one. The shell outline is
subrhomboidal or subtrapezoidal, and sometimes slightly elongate. In the female, the shell is slightly
wider than the male, allowing extra space for egg development.
The reproductive cycle of the dwarf wedge mussel is similar to other species in this family, although
its reproductive life is shorter than in other mussels. Males release sperm into the water column, and
the sperm are drawn in by the females through their siphon as they respire. Females have been found
carrying fertilized eggs from February to late August.
The dwarf wedge mussel is found in large rivers and small creeks where the current is slow to
moderate and where there is little silt. This filter feeder can inhabit sand, muddy sand, and gravel
bottoms, however finer substrates are preferred. The dwarf wedge mussel is generally found in
association with other mussels, but it is never very numerous. Reasons for its decline are likely due
to human impacts on water quality such as pollution and runoff from agricultural, industrial
commercial, and domestic sources.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 1989
Michaux's sumac is a low shrub, 0.3 to 0.9 meters (1 to 3 feet) tall, that often forms dense clumps.
Both the twigs and leaves are densely hairy. The compound leaves are divided into 7 to 13 leaflets
on a hairy axis. The axis may be narrowly winged toward the apex. The leaflets are 4-9 cm (1.6 to
3.5 in) long and 2-5 cm (0.8 to 2 in)wide, oblong to oblanceolate, sessile and finely toothed.
Individual plants are either male or female. The flowers are in dense terminal panicles and have
four to five tiny, greenish yellow to white petals. The plant flowers from June though August,
forming a deep red, densely pubescent fruit in August to October.
Michaux's sumac is typically found in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils.
However, it is also associated with areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area.
Remaining populations are found on roadsides, highway rights of way, and maintained clearings.
January 1998
' 17
1

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not
legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 3
includes FSC species listed for Wake County and their state classifications. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979;
however, the level of protection given to state listed species would not apply to the proposed project.
Table 3
Federal Species of Concern and NC Protected Species For Wake County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat present
Heterodon simus* Southern hognose snake SR No
Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis Sc No
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T Yes
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater E Yes
Speyeria diana* Diana fritillary butterfly SR Yes
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C No
Trillium pusillum var. pusillum Carolina least trillium E No
Notes: Source, LeGrand, 1993 and Weakley, 1993
T - Threatened, E - Endangered, SC - Special Concern, SR - State Rare, C-Candidate
* - Denotes a historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Project Impacts
The proposed project would not impact any federally protected species. The studies conducted for
the red-cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, dwarf-wedge mussel, and Michaux's sumac are described
below.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Biological Conclusion: No Effect. The project area was evaluated
for suitable nesting and foraging habitat by walking two transects parallel to the powerlines at 23 m
(75 ft) intervals. Potential foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is present in the project
area. The upland wooded areas are a mix of loblolly pines and hardwoods. No suitable nesting
January 1998
' 18

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
habitat was observed in the project area or adjacent areas. A search of the NHP database found no
occurrence of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the project vicinity and no individual birds were
observed during field activities. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered
species.
Bald Eagle. Biological Conclusion: No Effect. No habitat exists in the project area for the bald
eagle. There are no large bodies of water or suitable nest trees in the project area. A search of the
NHP database found no occurrence of the bald eagle in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
the project will not impact this Threatened species.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel. Biological Conclusion: No Effect. No shells or other evidence of mussels
' were observed during an in-stream survey of Walnut Creek conducted in October, 1997. At the time
of the search, the water was low and clear. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of
' the dwarf wedge mussel in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact
this Endangered species.
Michaux's Sumac. Biological Conclusion: No Effect. The area associated with the power
easement may be suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac. This area was searched for the presence of
' Michaux's sumac. No individuals were observed on the day of the site visit. A search of the NHP
database found no occurrence of Michaux's sumac in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
the project will not impact this Endangered species.
C. Floodplains, Floodways, and Hydraulics
' The section summarizes the hydraulic analysis report (Ma
y 1996) and subsequent updates prepared
' for the project by Richard Scarce and Associates.
Existing Conditions
The major streams in the project study area are Walnut Creek, Big Branch, and an unnamed tributary
' to Big Branch. Walnut Creek flows east through the project study area to the Neuse River about two
miles downstream. As shown in Figure 4, the unnamed tributary flows east into Big Branch just
' south of Rock Quarry Road. Big Branch flows north and drains into Walnut Creek north of Rock
Quarry Road.

January 1998
' 19
' New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
Drainage patterns in the project study area are predominantly towards the east, except for areas south
of Walnut Creek where the land drains both eastward and westward to Big Branch.
The two existing major hydraulic structures in the study area are the Jones Sausage. Road bridge
(NCDOT Bridge No. 35) built in 1982 over the unnamed tributary to Big Branch, and the Rock
Quarry Road bridge (NCDOT Bridge No. 36) built in 1963 over Big Branch.
In the project area, Walnut Creek has a coarse sand bed and is slightly sinuous. The main creek
channel is about thirty feet wide and six feet deep below the floodplain. Normal water depth is about
two feet.
' Big Branch has a course sand bed, and there appears to be beaver populations all along the stream.
Big Branch is crossed by the alternate alignments at three different locations (See Figure 4). Near
Alternate 1, the creek channel is about 20-25 feet wide and four feet deep below the floodplain.
' Normal water depth is about one foot. Near the crossings of Alternates 2, 3, 4, and 5, the Big Branch
channel is about eighteen feet wide and four feet deep below the floodplain. Normal water depth
' is about 0.8 feet.
' NCDOT Bridge Maintenance personnel reported that none of the roads in the project study area have
ever been overtopped during floods. However, debris has been a problem at the existing Jones
Sausage Road bridge over the unnamed tributary to Big Branch. Debris has to be pulled away from
the structure two to three times per year. During a field reconnaissance by Richard Scarce and
Associates staff in the first half of 1996, debris was observed on the superstructure of the Jones
Sausage Road Bridge. Beaver dams were also observed along reaches of Big Branch, which could
account for higher than expected water levels.
' The City of Raleigh and Wake County are both participants in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. Detailed flood studies and floodways have been established on Big Branch and Walnut
' Creek by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The most recent floodplains and
floodways for the area are defined on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 37183C0555E dated
March 3, 1992.
Project Impacts
Floodplain/Floodway Encroachment. The 100-year floodplain and the floodway are shown in
' Figure 4. The approximate linear feet of floodplain and floodway crossed by each alternate is listed
in Table 1. Alternates 4 and 5 would traverse the shortest distance of floodplain (1,945 linear feet)
i
January 1998
20

ii
1

0

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
and floodway (1,015-1,150 linear feet). Alternate 1 would traverse the longest distance of floodplain
(2,450 linear feet) and floodway (1,405 linear feet).
Major Hydraulic Structures. Table 4 lists the types and sizes of the major hydraulic structures
recommended for each alternate alignment. Minor drainage structures will be sized and designed
during the final design phase of the selected alternate.
Near the alternate crossings west of the power easement, the Walnut Creek drainage area is
43.2 square miles. According to the FEMA flood study, the 50-year and 100-year flood discharges
are 8,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 10,500 cfs, respectively. The design 50-year flood
discharge is 10,600 cfs and takes into account estimates of the future development potential of the
watershed.
All alternates would require a bridge over Walnut Creek and a modification of the floodway.
Alternates 1, 2 and 5 cross Walnut Creek at approximately the same location and, based on the
projected flood volumes, the bridge would be approximately 380 feet long. Alternate 3 would
require a 400-foot long bridge. A bridge length was not calculated for Alternate 4. In addition to
the bridge, two 72-inch pipe are proposed under all alternates in other areas of the Walnut Creek
floodplain to nourish wetlands and provide access for small animals.
The five alternate alignments cross Big Branch at three different locations (See Figure 4). At the
Alternate 1 crossing, the drainage area of Big Branch is 12.1 square miles. The design 50-year
discharge is 4,800 cfs and the 50-year and 100-year flood events are 2,674 cfs and 3,500 cfs,
respectively. West of the main channel, the floodplain decreases in elevation and is nearly as low
as the channel bed. Based on FEMA studies, about 85 percent of the 100-year flood is conveyed
along the western flood plain, whereas only 7 percent is conveyed by the channel. This site
experiences backwater from Walnut Creek.
A bridge is required at the Alternate 1 crossing of Big Branch. If a box culvert was constructed at
the Alternate 1 crossing of Big Branch, it would be so wide that its outside barrels would likely silt
up and not function well during a flood. Also, beaver could attempt to build a dam at the culvert,
which could alter flood flow characteristics. The bridge would be about 280 feet long and would
require a channel change under the bridge to keep bridge piers from obstructing channel flow.
January 1998
' 21

1

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
Table 4
Recommended Major Hydraulic Structures
Alternate Stream Drainage Floodway
Alignment Crossing Area Modification Recommended Structures'
(sq miles) Required
1 Walnut Creek 43.2 yes BRIDGE - five 76-ft spans with two 72-in. pipes
2 Walnut Creek 43.2 yes BRIDGE - five 76-ft spans with two 72-in. pipes
3 Walnut Creek 43.2 yes BRIDGE - five 80-ft spans with two 72-in. pipes
4 Walnut Creek 43.2+2 yes BRIDGE - spans and pipes not sized
5 Walnut Creek 43.2 yes BRIDGE - five 76-ft spans with two 72-in. pipes
1 Big Branch 12.1 yes BRIDGE - four 70-ft spans with two 60-in. pipes
2 Big Branch 5.8 yes CULVERTS- four 12x9-ft RCBC3
one 10x8-ft RCBC3
one 72-in. pipe
3 Big Branch 5.8 yes CULVERTS- four 12x9-ft RCBC3
one 10x8-ft RCBC3
one 72-in. pipe
4 Big Branch 5.8 yes CULVERTS- four 12x9-ft RCBC3
one 10x8-ft RCBC3
one 72-in. pipe
5 Big Branch 5.8 yes CULVERTS- four 12x9-ft RCBC3
one 10x8-ft RCBC3
one 72-in. pipe
1. The 60-inch and 72-inch pipes are proposed to nourish wetlands, provide proper drainage of floodplains, and to
' provide for additional passages for small animals.
2. The drainage area for Alternate 4 was not calculated. However, since this alternate crosses Walnut Creek
downstream of the other alternates, the drainage area will be greater than 43.2 square miles.
' 3. RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert. The 10x8-ft culvert is a pedestrian culvert which will accommodate a
future greenway trail.

E
January 1998
' 22

1

1

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
In addition to the bridge, two 60-inch pipes are proposed along Alternate 1 in other areas of the
floodplain to nourish wetlands and provide access for small animals (See Figure 4). The Alternate 1
alignment splits the Big Branch floodplain in half, which would eliminate much of the low
floodplain where 85 percent of a flood is currently carried. Also, FEMA requirements would limit
the combined effects of floodway and bridge backwater from Big Branch to one foot of increase,
without consideration of backwater from Walnut Creek. Backwater effects from this proposed
crossing of Big Branch should be further limited so as to not raise water levels at Rock Quarry Road.
For these reasons, and due to expected high construction costs, Alternate 1 is not recommended from
a hydraulic design standpoint.
Where Alternates 2, 3, 4, and 5 cross Big Branch, the drainage area is about 5.8 square miles. The
design 50-year discharge is 2,900 cfs and the 50-year and 100-year flood events are 2,100 cfs and
2,800 cfs, respectively. The recommended main channel culvert at these crossings is four 12-foot
by 9-foot reinforced concrete box culverts. A 10-foot by 8-foot box culvert would be installed to
provide future greenway trail access under the road. In addition, one 72-inch pipe would be required
in another area of the floodplain to nourish wetlands and provide access for small animals.
Other Design Recommendations. The rolling topography in the study area can facilitate the
attainment of grades on all alternates sufficient to eliminate cuts that could undercut existing
drainage swales and lead to extensive and lengthy systems to outlet water. There appears to be a
sufficient number of cross drainage swales such that storm drains can be outlet without requiring
extensive and large trunk lines.
' General hydraulic recommendations include setting the minimum roadway elevations to
accommodate the 50-year design discharges. If a greenway culvert is required at culvert crossings,
it should be set above the 2-year flood level in order to reduce the frequency of flooding and siltation
' of the greenway access. For larger floods, the greenway culvert would assist in conveying flood
flows.
D. Water Quality
Existing Conditions
1

The information is this section was obtained from the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan (NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quality, 1993).
January 1998
' 23
New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
The project area is within the Neuse River basin. The Neuse River basin covers approximately
6,192 square miles and includes all or parts of 19 counties. One sixth of the state's population is
' located within the basin. The Neuse River originates northwest of Durham and flows southeasterly
for over 200 miles to the Atlantic Ocean.
' The project area is located in the Upper Neuse basin in Subbasin 03-04-02.
J This subbasm contains
the City of Raleigh and surrounding urban areas. It encompasses an area of about 726 square miles,
or 12 percent of the total basin area.
' As discussed in the Water Quality section, the major streams in the project study area are Walnut
Creek, Big Branch, and an unnamed tributary to Big Branch. Walnut Creek flows east through the
' project study area to the Neuse River about two miles downstream. The unnamed tributary flows
east into Big Branch just south of Rock Quarry Road. Big Branch flows north and drains into
Walnut Creek north of Rock Quarry Road.
There are four NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permitted point source
dischargers on Walnut Creek, three upstream of the project area and one downstream of the project
area. All dischargers generate less than 0.05 million gallons per day. There are no NPDES
' permitted dischargers listed along Big Branch.
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification that is designed to maintain, protect,
' and enhance water quality within the State. Walnut Creek and Big Branch have a primary
classification of C and a supplemental classification of NSW. Class C freshwater standards apply
' to all freshwater, unless a more stringent standard has been adopted. Best usage for this primary
classification includes secondary recreation, aquatic life propagation, and agriculture. Supplemental
Class NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) are waters needing additional nutrient management because
' they are experiencing excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
The Use Support status of a waterbody, assigned by the NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources - Division of Water Quality, describes how well a waterbody supports its designated uses.
' Within the project area, Walnut Creek is "Partially Supporting" its designated uses and Big Branch
is "Supporting" its designated uses.

January, 1998
' 24

I

f
New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
Project Impacts
Water quality impacts to surface waters could include an increase of toxic substances such as
petroleum products due to non-point discharge of stormwater runoff from the proposed roadway.
Increased road surface runoff, reduced infiltration, and degradation of stream channels and aquatic
habitats could occur. Increased non-point source pollution from roadway runoff would consume
some of the area streams' assimilative capacities and could cause a deterioration of water quality.
Research by the Federal Highway Administration indicates that roadways carrying less than 30,000
vehicles per day have minimal impact on receiving waters. The proposed project is projected to
carry 23,000 vehicles per day by 2010. Therefore, minimal impact from highway runoff is projected
to occur.
The proposed facility would be constructed with curb and gutter. Curb and gutter outlets will be
' routed to avoid direct discharge to surface waters and will be designed to promote sheet flow where
practicable. The non-point source discharges from the highway surface will be minimized through
' the use of Best Management Practices in accordance with NC Administrative
Code T15A.02B.0233(1)(f).
E. Land Uses

1

Existing Conditions
The topography of the area is rolling, with land sloping down to the drainages of Walnut Creek and
Big Branch. Walnut Creek and Big Branch are also the area's major natural features.
A CP&L easement containing two sets of poles/towers runs generally north/south through the study
area. There is a sewer line running northeast/southwest through the area, with a pump station located
near the confluence of Walnut Creek and Big Branch.
The land crossed by the alternate alignments is undeveloped and currently zoned for residential uses.
The land south of Walnut Creek and north of Rock Quarry Road is being used as pasture. Scattered
residential subdivisions and individual residential lots surround the project study area.
January 1998
' 25

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
Project Impacts
' The proposed project would convert undeveloped cleared and forested lands to a public roadway.
The project would not adversely impact any neighborhoods, nor would any of the alternate
alignments require relocations of residences.or businesses.
' F. Greenways
Existing Conditions
The project study area includes portions of the City's proposed greenway system. Figure 4 shows
' the proposed greenway easements; none of which have been acquired by the City. These proposed
greenways are located along Walnut Creek, Big Branch, and a tributary to Big Branch which
' connects to Big Branch near the existing Rock Quarry Road/Jones Sausage Road intersection.
The greenway easement boundaries are proposed by the City to be 100 feet on either side of Walnut
Creek, 75 feet on either side of Big Branch, and 50 feet on either side of the Big Branch tributary.
Proposed trails are indicated along Walnut Creek and along Big Branch north of Rock Quarry Road.
These boundaries are preliminary and are subject to change when detailed studies are conducted for
acquisition of easements and construction of trails.
Project Impacts
' As shown in Figure 4, all project alternates would cross the proposed Walnut Creek greenway
easement and the Big Branch greenway easement. The project's impacts on City greenways would
be beneficial. The future greenway trails would be accommodated at Walnut Creek and Big Branch
' under all alternates. Where a bridge is proposed, the bridge would be designed to accommodate a
10-foot wide path with an 8-foot high vertical clearance. Where a culvert is needed, a 10-foot wide
' by 8-foot high culvert would be installed specifically for pedestrian access. Project earthwork in the
area would be designed to allow access to the future greenways from the roadway.

1
C
January 1998
' 26

J

1
r_
New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
6. IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATE
A. Alternate Evaluation
Reasonable and Feasible Alternates. Alternate 1 was eliminated because it would impact the longest
lengths of floodplain and floodway. It would likely require widening of the existing bridges
(NCDOT Bridge Nos. 35 and 36) near the Rock Quarry Road/Jones Sausage Road intersection to
accommodate additional through and turn lanes. Modifications to these bridges would impact
surrounding wetlands and create additional costs. This alternative also was not recommended based
on the requirement for a bridge at Big Branch and hydraulic design concerns regarding backwater
effects.
Alternate 3 was eliminated from further study because the distance between the New Hope Road
Extension/Rock Quarry Road intersection and the Chelmshire Court/Rock Quarry Road intersection
did not meet City design guidelines for intersection spacing.
Alternate 4 would impact the least linear feet of floodplain and floodway, but the most acres of
wetlands, including the most bottomland hardwood forest wetlands around Walnut Creek. This
alternative also is the longest of the five alternates.
Alternates 2 and 5 were determined the most reasonable and feasible alternates for this project.
Alternate 5 would impact the second shortest lengths of floodplain and floodway. Alternate 5 would
impact the smallest area of wetlands and Alternate 2 the second smallest area.
Further studies of Alternates 2 and 5 were conducted to determine wetland impacts in more detail.
Preliminary construction footprints were developed for both alternates for the initial two-lane
roadway and the ultimate four-lane configuration. Tables 5 and 6 list the wetland impacts, based on
the preliminary construction footprints, by wetland type and by waterway.
Preferred Alternate. Based on the study results, Alternate 5 is the Preferred Alternate (See Figure 5).
As shown in Table 5, Alternate 5 would impact less wetlands overall than Alternate 2. Also,
Alternate 5 would impact less bottomland hardwood forest and, as shown in Table 6, Alternate 5
would impact less wetland area around Walnut Creek than Alternate 2.
January 1998
' 27
' New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
' Table 5
Wetland Impacts by Wetland Type for Alternates 2 and 5
WETLAND TYPE
Alternate Roadway Bottom land Cattail Marsh Wet Pasture TOTAL
' Phase Hardwood Forest (acres) (acres) ACRES
(acres)

[7

E

2 Interim 2-lane 2.09 0.19 0.24 2.52
Ultimate 4-lane 4.37 0.27 0.28 4.92
5 Interim 2-lane 1.23 0.10 0.66 1.99
Ultimate 4-lane 3.29 0.16 0.80 4.25
* Wetland impacts calculated based on preliminary construction footprint. The bottomland hardwood forest is along
Big Branch, tributary to Big Branch, Walnut Creek, and the northernmost tributary to Walnut Creek. The cattail
marsh is along the first tributary north of Walnut Creek. The wet pasture is along the southern side of Walnut Creek.
Table 6
Wetland Impacts by Waterway for Alternates 2 and 5
WATERWAY
Alternate Roadway Big Tributary to Walnut Tributaries (2) TOTAL
Phase Branch Big Branch Creek North of Walnut' ACRES
(acres) (acres) (acres) Creek
2 Interim 2-lane 0.0 0.30 1.84 0.38 2.52
Ultimate 4-lane 1.51 0.49 2.37 0.55 4.92
5 Interim 2-lane 0.0 0.30 1.46 0.23 1.99
Ultimate 4-lane 1.51 0.49 1.90 0.35 4.25
* Wetland impacts calculated based on preliminary construction footprint
January 1998
' 28
ww w w w w w w w w w w w w ?w w w w w w I
y?
mF
tt?? a
vN
m
g
0
in
n
Oc-
f'ZI _0

? fI
Mz
z
111 ? a)l ? ia_
171 .. ;??`? ?? aN
? g
m m = N111,
m
\\
'
J 00

h j J
N
C) g
1

m o :
p? m
_ o
m s
m m v
ao r o
E° -n
o v
m G?
M

- r rom = s Z
G
r o o r r z m > s

_ co
O >
m m m o
m r
rr

O 00

CD
c
m
°
r
-?

.
m
O
i
>
>
>
41,N? m

i
l`

i l,..n

M -1

?.
9 77 7
12?
A.
1

u

New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
B. Project Phasing
The Preferred Alternate (Alternate 5) would be constructed in phases. A 110-foot right of way
would be acquired from Old Poole Road to Rock Quarry Road, which is the width needed to
construct the ultimate four-lane roadway. In the first phase, the City of Raleigh would construct two
lanes of roadway within the 110-foot right of way and install the 16-inch water line. The right of
way not needed for the two lane roadway will remain undisturbed. When future traffic volumes
warrant additional lanes to operate at an acceptable level of service, later phases will widen the two
lane roadway to four lanes and extend the roadway south of Rock Quarry Road to connect to Jones
Sausage Road. It is anticipated that the later phases will be needed by 2010.
7. AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Agency Coordination
An early agency coordination meeting was held on April 19, 1996 at the offices of Rust Environment
and Infrastructure, 5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200, Raleigh, North Carolina. Representatives from
the City of Raleigh, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality, and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission attended the meeting. Alternates 1, 2, and 3 were
presented at the meeting. Issues discussed at the meeting included the potential presence of the
dwarf-wedge mussel in Walnut Creek, wetland impacts, and possible mitigation for wetland impacts.
A second agency coordination meeting was held on October 29, 1997 in the Rust offices.
Representatives from the City of Raleigh, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality, and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission attended the meeting. Alternates 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were
presented at the meeting and the results of the studies conducted for these alternates were described.
The City identified Alternate 5 as the Preferred Alternate. The COE, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division of Water Quality, and Wildlife Resources Commission concurred with the selection of
Alternate 5 as the Preferred Alternate.
January 1998
' 30
' New Hope Road Extension
Alignment Study
' B. Public Involvement
' A corridor public meeting was held on June 24, 1997, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Worthdale
Community Center in Worthdale Park. The park is located in southeast Raleigh, at the end of
' Cooper Road. Displays at the meeting showed Alternates 1 and 2, wetlands, floodplains and
floodways, greenway easements, utility easements, and property boundaries. Alternate 3 was not
shown because it had already been eliminated from further study due to intersection spacing
' problems at Rock Quarry Road. Alternate 4 was eliminated from consideration in January 1997 due
to greater costs and wetland impacts compared to Alternate 2. Alternate 5 was developed shortly
' after the meeting.
Representatives from the City of Raleigh gave a presentation about the project and the meeting was
opened to questions and comments from the attendees. Approximately twelve people attended the
meeting. Concerns expressed at the meeting were focused on right-of-way issues.
A second corridor public meeting to present Alternate 5 was determined not necessary since
' Alternate 5 is similar to Alternate 2, which was presented at the June public meeting. Alternate 5
affects the same property owners as Alternate 2. The City of Raleigh is in the process of contacting
' those property owners directly affected by the roadway to describe the changes in the proposed
project design.
u

1
1

t
1
A design public meeting to present more detailed plans for Alternate 5 will be held.
January 1998
' 31
ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE
04 F.
04 7 RUST Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200
May 29, 1998 Raleigh, NC 27609
Tel. [phone] • FAX [phone]
Ms. Cyndi Bell
NC Dept. of Environment, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: City of Raleigh Project - Extension of New Hope Road (SR 2036) from Rock Quarry Road (SR 2542)
to Old Poole Road (SR 1007)
Individual 404 Permit Application
Dear Ms. Bell:
Enclosed are seven copies of the Application for Department of Army Permit for placement of fill into wetlands
associated with the construction of New Hope Road extension in Raleigh, North Carolina. Included as part
of the application is a wetland mitigation plan for compensatory mitigation of the wetland impacts and an
Alignment Study detailing our Alternatives Analysis and steps taken to avoid and minimize impacts to wetland
areas. I have only included 4 copies of the alignment study. I more copies are needed please let me know.
Per discussions with Eric Alsmeyer, once you have reviewed the permit application and wetland mitigation
plan, I would like to set up a meeting with the you, Eric Alsmeyer, and other commenting agencies. I will be
contacting you soon to determine the best time for that meeting.
If you need additional information please call me at 676-5133.
If you need additional information or will not be attending the meeting, please call me at 676-5133.
Sincerely,
Ronald G. J nson
Senior Biologist
Enclosures
c: Mr. Dean Fox, P.E., City of Raleigh
Master File 34526.500
Q:\34526.500\WETLANDS\MITIGATE\PERMIT1.LTR Quality through teamwork 01
Cyndi_B
From: Melba McGee [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 2:15 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sorry
I didn't get back with you about the Raleigh project. I was being pulled in too many directions
on Friday. What you need to mention is in compliance with the State Environmental Policy
Act Article 1 Chapter 113A of the General Statutes. I hope your weekend was fabulous and
watch that smilax (spelling???) but you know what I mean.
What's this mountain climbing stuff? You need to tell me all about
this adventure/hobby ...or are these classes getting you ready for more
DOT site visits:>
6P 9/9J>
476 IAI7b?
7ff-L6
71
OJA&/-) ?7-
?fr Rust Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
A Rust International Company Phone [phone] e i?C?
5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Fax [phone] DFC
Raleigh, NC 27609 15 199
December 9, 1997 'EN""04G'Nr4
1SQENCE
l r 3 1 07 S
Ms. Cyndi Bell
NC Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: City of Raleigh Project - Extension of New Hope Road (SR 2036) from Rock Quarry Road (SR 2542)
to Old Poole Road (SR 1007)
Meeting to View Proposed Wetland Mitigation Site
Dear Ms. Bell:
Our Client, the City of Raleigh is proposing to construct a two-lane extension of New Hope Road from Rock
Quarry Road to Old Poole Road in the eastern part of the city (Figure 1). We have begun the process to
prepare a wetland mitigation plan for the wetland impacts associated with the project and would like to meet
with you on the project site to view the proposed area. We have determined that approximately 1.99 acres
of wetlands will be filled due to road construction. The City is proposing to use a pasture area within the
floodplain of Walnut Creek as compensatory mitigation. This pasture, which is adjacent to the project, is about
11 acres in size. A map showing the project location and the proposed mitigation area is attached to this
letter.
There are at least 2.0 acres of uplands within or adjacent to the pasture area (See Figure 2) which may be
used for the creation or restoration of wetlands. This would be accomplished by lowering the elevation by 6
to 10 inches to match the elevation of the surrounding wet pastureland and by removing sand deposits within
the pasture area. The remainder of the pasture (about 9.0 acres), would be suitable for enhancement. This
wet pasture currently possesses many of the hydrological characteristics and hydric soils necessary for a
wetland. However, the existing vegetation is dominated by fescue grass with soft rush occurring in the wetter
areas and is of low quality. The pasture is heavily grazed and the wetter areas are heavily disturbed by cattle.
Enhancement would consist of eliminating grazing, improving hydrology, and revegetating with bottomland
hardwood species.
The City also is proposing that a 100 foot upland buffer be established to help protect the site and the water
quality in Walnut Creek. No additional plantings would occur in the buffer, but it would be allowed to naturally
revegetate. The buffer may be used in the future for a greenway that the City is proposing along Walnut
Creek.
An on-site meeting to view the proposed mitigation area has been scheduled for Wednesday, December 17,
1997 at 1:00 pm. The site can be easily accessed off Rock Quarry Road. A dirt road on the north side of
Rock Quarry Road at the powerline easement just east of the intersection with Jones Sausage Road will
provide a convenient point to meet.
0 Quality through teamwork
If you need additional information or will not be attending the meeting, please call me at 676-5133.
Si ere
Ronald G. Johnson
Senior Biologist
Attachments
c: Mr. Dean Fox, P.E., City of Raleigh
Master File 34526.500
Q:\34526.500\WETLANDS\MITIGATE\AGENCY. LTR
L'l U
P.E.-
a

u.
r
R?
r
F?

0

O
Cl)

v

m
-? Z
r m

Z =
v M
m
3

m
n
I--1 .•
N
M

m D
0W
a o ?
r-
Z m
-n I X

?
70
N m M
m
a
m
>

? ?
z
N
°z
1 1 1
11
I I II
I I II
I I II
t t I I I
I I I I
I I
I
I
I
n I
D '
A
11 ( m
z o I
m
z
N
I r
0
/ 11 I m
D
m
h m
I zz
I I I m
t
I I II
I I
I I

i
v

J •A`, 1
1 •

? ? 1
1

-71
-Ti
m \

v

i

a
r
J
N
O
N
O
0
0
0
O
N
O
O
m n r*i ?
o_
n CD ?
o c
Q fD rt
En
o
r. rn
D ? ?
o
v D
m
?

0
0
D
r
m
m
z
0
1MI Rust Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
A Rust International Company
5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
April 22, 1996
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
MINUTES OF MEETING
RF????F®
QpR
%1 ? 619
RpyM?????
6
Project: New Hope Road (SR 2036) Extension from Rock Quarry Road (SR 2542) to Old
Poole Road (SR 1007)
Location: Rust offices
5510 Six Forks Road - Suite 200
Raleigh, NC
Date: April 19, 1996 at 1:00 pm
Attendees: Dean Fox
Eric Alsmeyer
Howard Hall
David Cox
Scott Boyles
Jill Gurak
Ron Hairr
Ron Johnson
Kim Whitfield

City of Raleigh W W-0
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Division of Environmental Management
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
Ron Hairr opened the meeting. An agenda was distributed, along with an impact summary table and
a color 11x17 map showing the three alternative alignments, wetlands, floodways, floodplains,
proposed greenway easements and trails, and sewer and power lines. A 100-scale version of the map
was on the table for review at the meeting.
Ms. Whitfield began the meeting with introductions and stated that the objective of the meeting was
to receive input from the resource agencies to assist the City in selecting a preferred alignment. The
ultimate roadway will be four lanes, however, the City is proposing to construct two lanes at this time
and will acquire sufficient right of way with this project to build the additional two lanes in the-future.
The impacts of the roadway are being evaluated based on the full right of way width, which is 110
feet. A typical section is currently being developed for the interim two lane facility and the ultimate
four lane facility. A 10-space parking area and access to the proposed greenway trail would be
provided as part of this project. A site for the parking lot has not been selected and will depend on
which alignment is selected as the preferred alignment.
GA34526.500\0419mtg.min
0 Quality through teamwork
Page 2
Resource Agency Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1996
Ms. Whifield explained that the proposed project had been a part of the the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program. However, the City wished to accelerate the project schedule and has since
taken on the project. There are currently no State or Federal funds involved. Therefore, an EA or
EIS is not required. Rust is preparing an alignment study report for the City which will include
information on wetlands, floodways, floodplains, proposed greenway easements, and land uses. The
agencies all expressed interest in receiving a copy of the study. Ms. Whitfield said they would each
receive a copy.
Ms. Whitfield described the alternative alignments and the engineering constraints in the study area.
An important constraint was the large CP&L power easement along the east side of the study area.
Another constraint was the existing Jones Sausage Road bridge over Big Branch. If Alternative 1
was selected, that bridge might have to be widened which would create a difficult situation for traffic
routing. An entrance road to a residential subdivision to the west was also a constraint based on
spacing requirements for a major intersection.
Jill Gurak described the resources in the area and the impacts of each alternative alignment. Ms.
Gurak pointed out that a bridge is currently proposed over Walnut Creek and a culvert is proposed
at Big Branch. For both creeks, pedestrian access will be provided under the roadway to
accommodate the proposed greenway trail. As shown in the attached table, Alternative 2 would
impact the smallest area of wetlands and the least linear feet of floodway/floodplain. None of the
alternatives would require residential/business relocations.
Ron Johnson stated that the wetland boundaries shown on the map have been delineated, surveyed
and concurred with by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Johnson described the wetlands and
uplands in the study area and discussed the wetland values and quality. Mr. Johnson also stated that
he did not find any threatened or endangered species in the study area.
Howard Hall asked whether a search was made for the endangered dwarf wedge mussel. Ron
Johnson replied that he checked with the NC Natural Heritage program and there were no recorded
sightings of the mussel in the study area and that the streams were too high for a good inspection.
Mr. Hall stated that a field review should be conducted to determine whether suitable habitat exists
in the study area for the dwarf wedge mussel. Mr. Johnson said he could conduct that review.
The group reviewed the presentation map and a discussion began regarding other potential
alignments. Jill Gurak and Kim Whitfield explained that a major goal of the alignment development
process was to minimize wetland impacts. Alternative 2 was the result of the minimization process.
David Cox asked whether Alternative 3 could be modified to run adjacent to the power easement like
Alternatives 1 and 2. Ms. Whitfield explained that moving the alignment adjacent to the easement
would make the alignment move further west into a wider wetland area south of Rock Quarry Road
due to constraints on allowable curve radii. In addition, the new alignment would probably end
farther south on Jones Sausage Road, impacting more properties, increasing project costs, and
G:\34526.500\0419mtg.min
Page 3
Resource Agency Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1996
possibly impacting a business development. David Cox asked if we could provide him with some data
on a modified Alternative 3. Kim Whitfield agreed to do so. David Cox and Eric Alsmeyer also
requested a breakdown of wetland impacts by stream. Ms. Whitfield said she would fax that
information early next week.
A discussion then began regarding potential wetland mitigation. Ron Hairr mentioned that the
NCDOT has given Rust permission to contact the biologists working with NCDOT. These biologists
have been searching Wake County and the Neuse River basin for suitable wetland mitigation sites for
NCDOT's US 64 project. Sites which the NCDOT can not use may be suitable for the New Hope
Road Extension project. Ron Johnson will be talking with the NCDOT biologists in the coming
weeks.
Ron Hairr also mentioned that mitigation sites are difficult to find in Wake County. The possibility
of preservation/conservation as mitigation was then brought up. Howard Hall stated that the USFWS
has not liked pure preservation in the past. They prefer that there is at least an enhancement
component to a project's mitigation. Ron Johnson mentioned that the wet pasture land in the project
study area could be a viable candidate for enhancement and that the surrounding wetlands could be
viable as a preservation/conservation mitigation. Eric Galamb, Eric Alsmeyer, and Howard Hall were
favorable to the concept.
Eric Galamb also mentioned that longer bridges might be required for avoidance/minimization of
wetland impacts and that weep holes on the bridge would not be desirable. He also stated that the
DEM rules likely to go into effect in September would require a minimum of l: l restoration or
creation of wetlands as mitigation. Dean Fox stated that the City is already planning to construct the
roadway without a median through the wetland areas as a means to minimize impacts.
Purchase of upland buffers as part of a potential mitigation plan was also discussed. Eric Alsmeyer
said that uplands would have a high water quality credit and would be taken into account in
determining the acreages of mitigation.
Dean Fox asked what uses would be allowed in a wetland mitigation area since the City's Parks and
Recreation Department may be interested in jointly purchasing the area for a park. The agencies said
that passive uses, such as a porous-surfaced hiking trails, are normally allowed.
Ron Hairr then asked Eric Alsmeyer, Howard Hall, Eric Galamb, and David Cox whether they had
a preference at this time regarding the alternative alignments. Eric Alsmeyer, Howard Hall, and Eric
Galamb all said that, based on the information presented, Alternative 2 appears to create the least
impacts to natural resources. David Cox wanted more information about a modified Alternative 3
and a breakdown of wetland impacts by stream before stating a preference. Ron Hairr requested that
the agencies put in writing the fact that they preferred Alternative 2. The agencies said they would
provide that.
G:\34526.500\0419mtg.min
ti
1
AGENDA
APRIL 19, 1996
City of Raleigh
New Hope Road Extension Project
from Rock Quarry Road to Old Poole Road
1. INTRODUCTION -Kim Whitfield
2. PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION - Kim Whitfield
3. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS - Jill Gurak/Kim Whitfield
4. IMPACTS TO AREA RESOURCES - Jill Gurak
5. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
Meeting Objective - To receive comments from participating resources agencies regarding the
three New Hope Road Extension alignment alternatives in order to assist the City of Raleigh in
their selection of a Preferred Alignment.
IMPACT SUMMARY
City of Raleigh
New Hope Road Extension Project
from Rock Quarry Road to Old Poole Road
IMPACT ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE
1 2 3
Wetlands - Wet Pasture

Land (acres) 0.40 0.40 0.40
Wetlands - Bottomland

Hardwoods (acres) 4.46 4.03 3.91
Wetlands - Cattail Marsh

(acres) 0.19 0.19 0.19
Wetlands - Total (acres) 5.05 4.62 4.98
Floodway traversed

(linear feet) 1,403 1,181 1,247
Floodplain traversed

(linear feet) 2,469 2,237 2,059
Number of stream crossings 3 4 4
Number of proposed
greenway easement 2 2 2
crossings
Residential/Business

relocations 0 0 0
Number of crossings of
major power transmission 0 0 0
easements
Number of water/sewer line

crossings 5 4 4
34526.500\a1gnstdy\hdout419. j sg
??
;?,
??
ENVIRONMENT &
RUSTINFRASTRUCTURE
"-
March 28, 1996 el (% RUST' Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200
?'iy J1.90
Mcigh, NC 27609
?h9l?$ Tel. [phone] • FAX
(919) 76-5259
Mr. Eric Galamb
NC Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Fti14
Division of Environmental Management
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Subject: City of Raleigh Project - Extension of New Hope Road (SR 2036) from Rock Quarry Road (SR
2542) to Old Poole Road (SR 1007)
Dear Mr. Galamb:
The City of Raleigh is proposing to construct a two-lane extension of New Hope Road from Rock Quarry Road
to Old Poole Road in the eastern part of the city. Right of way (110-feet wide) will be acquired to accommodate
a future ultimate four-lane secondary arterial roadway with a median. Rust, in consultation with the City of .
Raleigh, has developed three preliminary alternative alignments for the project. The enclosed Figure 1 shows the
three alignments under consideration. Figure 2 shows the wetland area (gray-shaded area) at a closer scale.
The land in the project study area is mostly undeveloped. A 200-foot wide CP&L easement is located along the
eastern side of the study area. As shown in the enclosed figure, the project alternatives would cross Walnut
Creek, Big Branch, and other small streams and wetlands. A bridge is proposed over Walnut Creek. A planned
greenway trail adjacent to Walnut Creek will be accommodated in the design of the bridge. Culverts are proposed
for other stream crossings, including Big Branch.
The wetland boundaries shown on the map in all areas, except the southeast quadrant of the Rock Quarry
Rd/Jones Sausage Rd intersection, were surveyed by Rust personnel and were concurred with by the US Army
Corps of Engineers on March 22, 1996. Wetland boundaries shown in the southeast quadrant of the Rock
Quarry Rd/Jones Sausage Rd intersection are those shown on the recombination plat provided by Scott & Co.
for the Herman G. Williams property. Assuming that all wetlands within the 110-foot right of way would be
impacted, it is estimated that Alternative 1 would impact 5.1 acres, Alternative 2 would impact 4.6 acres, and
Alternative 3 would impact 5.0 acres.
The City of Raleigh would like to hold a coordination meeting with your agency and other agencies to discuss
the preliminary alternative alignments. A Project Team member will be calling you to schedule this meeting.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at [phone] or Mr. Ron Hairr
at [phone].
Sincerely,
G U,
Kim Whitfield, P.E.
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Dean Fox, P.E., City of Raleigh
Master File 34526.500
G:\TRANS\PROJECT\34526.500\COORDMTG.LTR
Quality through teamwork 0
AGENDA
OCTOBER 29, 1997
City of Raleigh
New Hope Road Extension Project
from Rock Quarry Road to Old Poole Road
Meeting Objective - To obtain concurrence from participating resource agencies on the
selection of Alternate 5 as the Preferred Alternate for the New Hope Road
Extension Project.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. History
B. Consistency with Area Plans
C. Purpose and Need for Project
3. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATE ALIGNMENTS
A. Alternate 1
B. Alternate 2
C. Alternate 3
D. Alternate 4
E. Alternate 5
4. IMPACTS TO AREA RESOURCES
A. Land Uses
B. Endangered Species
C. Floodplains and Floodways
D. Water Quality
E. Wetlands
5. PREFERRED ALTERNATE - ALTERNATE 5
6. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

cc,
1 J?Ja -4 r ef --
k
C: _/-1.5 -
1,A -f

r ?? l\ L??r'•?4•? ?(4 ??
?
c
?Ly? df

?fr Rust Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
A Rust International Company Phone [phone]
5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Fax [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27609
October 1, 1997
Ms. Cyndi Bell
NC Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
-v
0
18? ? 199j
Subject: City of Raleigh Project - Extension of New Hope Road (SR 2036) from Rock Quarry Road
(SR 2542) to Old Poole Road (SR 1007)
Dear Ms. Bell:
The City of Raleigh is proposing to construct a two-lane extension of New Hope Road from Rock Quarry Road
to Old Poole Road in the eastern part of the city. Right of way (110-feet wide) will be acquired to
accommodate a future ultimate four-lane secondary arterial roadway with a median or a turn lane.
The land in the project study area is mostly undeveloped. A 200-foot wide CP&L easement is located along
the eastern side of the study area. The project alternates under study cross Walnut Creek, Big Branch, and
associated wetlands. A bridge is proposed over Walnut Creek. A planned greenway trail adjacent to Walnut
Creek will be accommodated in the design of the bridge. Culverts are proposed for other stream crossings,
including Big Branch.
An early agency coordination meeting was held on April 19, 1996 in Rust's offices. At that time, three
alternates were presented for input and comment. Since that meeting, two additional alternates have been
developed and evaluated, and the City has tentatively identified a preferred alternate.
The City would like to present the results of the alignment studies and receive input and concurrence from
your agency and other agencies on their alternate selection. A meeting has been scheduled as follows:
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997
Time: 9:30 am
Place: Rust Environment & Infrastructure
5510 Six Forks Road - Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina
A map showing the five alternative alignments studied is being prepared. This map and additional information
about each alternative will be mailed on or about October 15, 1997, for your review prior to the meeting.
Ms. Jill Gurak from our office will be calling you next week to confirm your attendance at the October 29
meeting. If you need additional information, please call me at 676-5149, or Ms. Gurak at 676-5107.
Sincerely,
?G
Scott Boyles, P.E.
Project Manager
c: Mr. Dean Fox, P.E., City of Raleigh
Master File 34526.500
0:\..\34526.500\cord2mtg.Itr
0 Quality through teamwork
RUfr Rust Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
A Rust International Company Phone [phone]
5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Fax [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27609
October 16 1997
Ms. Cyndi Bell
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Subject: City of Raleigh Project - Extension of New Hope Road (SR 2036) from Rock Quarry
Road (SR 2542) to Old Poole Road (SR 1007)
Dear Ms. Bell:
As discussed in our last letter (dated October 1, 1997), the City of Raleigh is proposing to construct
a two-lane extension of New Hope Road from Rock Quarry Road to Old Poole Road. Right of way
(110 feet wide) will be acquired to accommodate a future ultimate four-lane roadway.
The City has studied five alternate alignments for the proposed project. The ultimate 110-foot wide
right-of-way corridor for each alternate is shown in the attached exhibit. The impacts of each
alternate, based on the 110-foot right of way, are summarized in Table 1.
Alternate 3 was eliminated from further study because the distance between the New Hope Road
Extension/Rock Quarry Road intersection and the Chelmshire Court/Rock Quarry Road intersection
did not meet design standards for intersection spacing.
As shown in Table 1, Alternate 1 would impact the longest length of floodplain and floodway, and
would also require a bridge at Big Branch to adequately convey water flow, whereas the other
alternates would require less expensive culverts. Alternate 4 would impact the least linear feet of
floodplain and floodway, but the most acres of wetlands. Alternate 5 would impact the second
shortest length of floodplain and floodway and the least amount of wetlands. Alternate 2 would
impact the second smallest acreage of wetlands.
After careful review, Alternates 2 and 5 were determined the most reasonable and feasible
alternates for this project. Further studies of these two alternates were conducted to determine
wetland impacts in more detail. Preliminary construction footprints were developed for both
alternates for the initial two-lane roadway and the ultimate four-lane configuration. Tables 2 and 3
list the wetland impacts, based on the preliminary construction footprints, by wetland type and by
waterway.
As shown in Table 2, Alternate 5 would impact less wetlands overall than Alternate 2. Also,
Alternate 5 would impact less bottomland hardwood forest. As shown in Table 3, Alternate 5 would
also impact less wetland area around Walnut Creek than Alternate 2.
0 Quality through teamwork
October 16, 1997
Page 2
Based on the study results, briefly described above, the City has identified Alternate 5 as the
preferred alternate. We look forward to presenting the study results to you at the October 29, 1997,
9:30 a.m. meeting and receiving your input and concurrence on the preferred alternate.
A map showing the location of the meeting site, Rust Environment and Infrastructure, is attached.
If you need additional information or further directions, please call me at 676-5149, or Ms. Jill Gurak
at 676-5107.
Sincerely,
Scott Boyles, P.E.
Project Manager
c: Mr. Dean Fox, P.E., City of Raleigh
Master File 34526.500
0:1..134526.5001 cord2mtg. fnf

ISSUE TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ULTIMATE PROJECT IMPACTS
Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate
1 2 3 4

Alternate
5
Length (feet) 8,770 10,585 10,690 11,570 10,575
Wetlands 5.05 4.62 4.98 5.21 4.42
(acres)
Floodplains
(linear feet) 2,450 2,070 2,060 1,945 1,945
Floodways
(linear feet) 1,405 1,175 1,245 1,015 1,150
Required Major 2 bridges 1 bridge 1 bridge 1 bridge 1 bridge
Hydraulic -- 1 culvert 1 culvert 1 culvert 1 culvert
Structures 4 pipes' 3 pipes' 3 pipes* 3 pipes* 3 pipes"
Crossings of
Proposed 2 2 2 2 2
Greenway
Easements
Crossings of
utility 3 1 1 3 1
Easements
Note: These impact quantities are for an impact area 110 feet wide (the right of way needed for the
ultimate project cross-section), and include the entire length of the alternate.
* Pipes are 60-72 inches in diameter.
TABLE 2
WETLAND IMPACTS BY WETLAND TYPE
WETLAND TYPE
Alternate Roadway Bottomland Cattail Marsh Wet Pasture TOTAL
Phase Hardwood Forest (acres) (acres) ACRES
acres
2 Interim 2-lane 2.09 0.19 0.24 2.52
Ultimate 4-lane 4.37 0.27 0.28 4.92
5 Interim 2-lane 1.23 0.10 0.66 1.99
Ultimate 4-lane 3.29 0.16 0.80 4.25
* Wetland impacts calculated based, on preliminary construction footprint. The bottomland hardwood
forest is located along Big Branch, tributary to Big Branch, Walnut Creek, and the northernmost
tributary to Walnut Creek. The cattail marsh is located along the first tributary to Walnut Creek north
of Walnut Creek. The wet pasture is located along the southern side of Walnut Creek.
TABLE 3
WETLAND IMPACTS BY WATERWAY
WATERWAY
Alternate Roadway Big Tributary to Walnut Tributaries (2) TOTAL
Phase Branch Big Branch Creek North of ACRES
(acres) (acres) (acres) Walnut Creek
acres
2 Interim 2-lane 0.0 0.30 1.84 0.38 2.52
Ultimate 4-lane 1.51 0.49 2.37 0.55 4.92
5 Interim 2-lane 0.0 0.30 1.46 0.23 1.99
Ultimate 4-lane 1.51 0.49 1.90 0.35 4.25
* Wetland impacts calculated based on preliminary construction footprint.
o?
sa
U
m
0
'Ar
J/
-j X
?l yy55??-• i _?
V
/fin i? rG t \ Nl?

?i -
zM1 7

?$
8$
U
?o
U Q x'
o?a
ZN
o
N
,,JP
rn
Toc
co
?N ?
N IF
X

z
m

m y„ m
o ?
° -? 0 = o
C 0 o -
m m
m z 0r 17 m
F ? 0 0 o
m A : m
a m 0
z a o v a m
0 r 0 c 0
r
c o m o m m
-
--j z
m o -?
? z a i m
- --i ° 0 z
m cn a Cl)
cn o -
0
z
00
O
O O
O

r
m -P
°
(
I

r

I

Q

O
\ O

0

O
O
ON
r

z
K
W

=

s

A m

z
co
o

a

m
am

s

m
mo
my

?°

m

m

i
3w _
r°
?°

rom
,
?

p
G
;B
2 s
m
o

r

a
c
ic-

s

f
o
Z

_
'4 m
G7

M

C3
z

nom
l ??? OG7
\r?i.i \

O !

Xt- 14
OUR

Rust Environment and Infrastructure
V.. IR
N I
ON m N QM Z'i YOT, O..- D N S.
I ? ? m2 y ?
? 2
RO
CEDA END O ? ?
¢y oV <? 3
41 F ?
S 0 ?
T
Y E S ARTREK O
<
U wC O /?_
"{Y

v t
McN
Q ? ' N a y H A
F n
? R RA
m0
NR D ST e` m `?°F a: N cq
3 .
9 W
O Z
Z
OROfi F
RAN E T RESA
V? F
¢
N MAS
9P HUNTI 3 CF
o

U FO Eq w
Cc) BREC N W
= ?`BRIp? I
? S F(C o ?. //s , Z 2 i
LIINM N E NF 9 WE TBR 'Y O O Z 2

?
F 0 z
R
N? H
N e
T 5 V R o m
?

RAVE LL
'
O RIDrr
NRD <
N
` ° r _ 2 ?
(
®
aT l
? ? O PD BF?F
D M.
m. ?C
F JOHN DAL
P-4
N R
p° W? n g <Y Q
?Gj? W? 4
ARFST
? m
y
o NN Sky Np 9P OP
W Ow
0
o
W
wy E f o
C
Q
C
¢
UWIM
O
0 F£ 9 ? P
9 O
o
S OF GjQ 00 ? W
P O 'i KI INOT y N
?
A ? ??_ R ILL ? E
GO

~ Y .° BITT R VJE T
Y
M R ESO
.
\
_ ORT R V L
S CK, E
8 k i '??q
O EO D p9 LARD yy,
D ??. GREc.1y ?'+ Q- ¢
O
c y
N Rust B 1 SILVER
s
P? F
e
N
c e/
M
ILLBROOK RD o k 55 (0 Six Forks Rd I >

OP
9? F
C T MP
O

Q
? 2nd Floor
/
C
q, i F
Ai F
kNFR ,9jF: Hw
/OGe

OD
? 3
p
Y
C
Q0 -
Gy , TOWN M U 22
ACi E
, C NTRV ?. "r hFSr _ m ¢
y
,
NRIpOF y" r ]NO% WIM N
Sw D ? NDE

T
E T N
- N
D

- z
? o c
sR
O
M/
. BR w
Y
Du MEA w
a J ¢

Y
a
M1

¢

z
-
Q'c'' x
yCy ? RE _

00 o <.
W
w i, Q
z
O
w
OLO
/ O h CO DB Om O C D w r
PVE? ?A
w
<
F o y O q
T <

H a u

' ?-

?
r FREt H
- v RTHW R e.
??- O A p
NT ¢
N
' v WE n N 4 ? W

Q:
N RTHFI O S
KI ER V 'F (/ qLE. r
' O
W'. c
U

J

8
E qR RFI L z

y
O O HB
G
'T ORqM
AVID N LL
RING' O
-2 Np.EV SO 'If
f
(\
N
O? P
Fq - N J C
9y
Gp US D
0 OP
? P TIM F - ? Il¢
A
if IN

?
C
GAO
/? ?T ? V RN N P NE
2 LL
H R
R O' CATAW O?
CN ? 5 O M f h F! M ONq
RY iAYB

\'Y..
?
URq ?
da0 ? P R
a y
R
R

Al

O i
?
?
e9p
?.
\qs aao
A'
P ? I
T
2 -
m SIN LETON IN USTRI
1A,r l,?FM RD/M NT
q
m
'(
0Q?
O F 06 /.
DPS OD
.. L
vARN i
ab0 f MPP I'?ILL1gM Y
p ¢
m
~ cH qY
`
0 9 O COMP S AN
?Y
q OPS.I(NE HILLANDALE
O R O G
h ?
?..:6 EN I F/ F
? -V
m O
¢ C 9
??. ?
C40
Z 9
?
?
m D
c oP o ?' 2= V

W
CF' PA K
fr
- ? v
U 5-
P
0 ¢'
} T ,
UtM NS E
2 EP
E p
.. O yQP , D q Fpq
m _ VRON ) 0
A D N. ?' P? V,m O ?
o r m m zwf q E D
m 95-De L o e
Mag 14.00
Wed Oct 15 09:13 1997 ° Secondary SR, Road, Hwy Ramp
Scale 1:37,500 (at center) o State Route
200 Feet
OUS Highway
DInterstate/Limited Access
1000 Meters
Railroad
Population Center
Lake, Ocean, Large River

R?CEIVED
RM Rust Environment & Infrastructure Inc.

A Rust International Company Phone [phone]
5510 Six Forks Road. Suite 200 Fax [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27609
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 31, 1997
To: Attendees, Roger Lewis (REI), Mark Pearson (REI)
Copy: File - New Hope Road (SR 2036) Extension from Rock Quarry Road (SR 2542) to Old
Poole Road (SR 1007)
From: Scott Boyles - Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Subject: Record of Meeting
Meeting Date: October 29, 1997 at 9:30 a.m.
Meeting Location: Rust Environment & Infrastructure (REI) offices
5510 Six Forks Road - Suite 200
Raleigh, NC
Attendees: Dean Fox City of Raleigh
Eric Alsmeyer US Army Corps of Engineers
Howard Hall
C
di B
ll US Fish and Wildlife Service
i
i
i
?
?'
yn
e v
NC D
s
on of Environmental Management `•
F .
??
David Cox NC Wildlife Resources Commission ??p?
Scott Boyles REI ?
`-

Ron Hairr REI
Ron Johnson REI
Chris Whiteside REI
Scott Boyles opened the meeting and distributed the agenda (attached). A 200-scale version of a map
showing the five alternates studied was on the table for review. Also, the Greater Raleigh Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan was hung on the wall.
Jill Gurak gave a history of the project and summarized the alignment study. The project is included on
the Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan as a major thoroughfare. It completes the New Hope Road
corridor from Capital Boulevard on the north to I-40 on the south (via Jones Sausage Road) and will
relieve traffic congestion on other roadways in the eastern Raleigh area.
0 Quality through teamwork
? w
Agency Coordination Meeting
October 29, 1997
Page 2
The ultimate configuration of the New Hope Road Extension is anticipated to be four lanes with curb and
gutter and a landscaped median within a 110-foot right of way. In wetland areas the median would be
eliminated. Project construction is planned to be accomplished in phases. The first phase, to be
constructed by the City of Raleigh, would be two lanes from Old Poole Road to Rock Quarry Road.
Five alternate alignments were studied. Tables summarizing the impacts were included in the letter sent
to the attendees on October 16, 1997. Alternate 1 would impact the longest length of floodplain and
floodway, and would also require a bridge at Big Branch to adequately convey water flow, whereas the
other alternates would require less expensive culverts. Alternate 4 would impact the least linear feet of
floodplain and floodway, but the most acres of wetlands. Alternate 5 would impact the second shortest
length of floodplain and floodway and the least amount of wetlands. Alternate 2 would impact the
second smallest acreage of wetlands.
After careful review, Alternates 2 and 5 were determined the most reasonable and feasible alternates for
this project. Further studies of these two alternates were conducted to determine wetland impacts in
more detail. Preliminary construction footprints were developed for both alternates for the initial two-
lane roadway and the ultimate four-lane configuration. Alternate 5 would impact less wetlands overall
than Alternate 2. Also, Alternate 5 would impact less bottomland hardwood forest and less wetland area
around Walnut Creek than Alternate 2.
Based on the study results, briefly described above, the City identified Alternate 5 as the preferred
alternate.
It was also noted that Ron Johnson visited the site about a month ago to search for dwarf wedge mussels.
He walked Walnut Creek in the project area on a day when the water was low and clear. He did not find
any specimens.
After the brief background discussion, the meeting was opened to questions and comments.
Howard Hall stated that there did not appear to be any impacts to endangered species. No specimens of
dwarf-wedge mussel or Michaux's sumac were found during field studies, nor is there habitat for the red-
cockaded woodpecker. Mr. Hall asked if the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make a
determination of no impact. Eric Alsmeyer replied that they would, with Mr. Hall's input.
Cyndi Bell asked if there was any "tie-in" with the NCDOT. Dean Fox replied that there was none at this
time, but noted that the NCDOT likely will assume maintenance for the roadway and may be the entity
which builds the next phase of the project.
Cyndi Bell stated that there are new, more stringent, rules in effect for the Neuse River basin. There is a
comment period on these rules lasting until November 13. Ms. Bell did not expect substantial changes to
be made to the rules, which are already in effect. The new rules do provide allowances for new roads
constructed for public benefit. A project such as New Hope Road is still allowed under the new rules,
but the requirement to avoid and minimize wetland and stream impacts is stronger.
Ms. Bell stated that under the new rules, they need to see very good minimization techniques applied to a
project's design. These techniques can include extended bridges, especially in riparian areas. She also
stated that a bridge should be considered for Big Branch south of Rock Quarry Road and that she would
like to see a cost comparison made between building a bridge and installing a culvert. A bridge should
Agency Coordination Meeting
October 29, 1997
Page 3
be rejected only if the costs are prohibitive. Mr. Boyles pointed out that the crossing of Big Branch south
of Rock Quarry Road would be constructed at a later phase of the project.
Other minimization techniques mentioned by the group included use of the steepest fill slopes feasible,
elimination of a median, perpendicular crossings of waterways, installation of erosion/sedimentation
control devices in upland areas, and minimization of temporary construction impacts.
Cyndi Bell stated that stormwater runoff should be diverted to grass swales wherever possible. Her
agency may be considering a restriction on bridge weepholes, particularly those directly over waterways.
David Cox stated that energy dissipators should be used to convey stormwater runoff as sheet flows,
otherwise piped stormwater runoff creates ditches that carry water rapidly to a waterway, thereby
defeating the purpose of diverting stormwater runoff away from direct discharge to a waterway.
Ms. Bell also recommended that the City coordinate the project with planned greenway trails and
crossings as early as possible. Early coordination can result in potential savings and better designs for
the greenway system.
Howard Hall stated that a potential restoration area is the area of Jones Sausage Road between Rock
Quarry Road and the future link to New Hope Road. This section of roadway will not be needed when
the link is constructed. The group agreed that this is a good area for potential restoration. However, this
area would not be needed until the link is constructed at a future date. Ron Hairr and Ron Johnson
explained that for the proposed two-lane roadway, mitigation is being considered in the wet pasture area
along Walnut Creek.
The agencies stated that the preliminary mitigation plan should include a list of techniques proposed to
minimize impacts. Also, a cost comparison should be made between the cost of the bridge required for
hydraulic considerations and a bridge which spans all the wetlands around Walnut Creek. If economical,
a longer bridge may be required as a means to minimize impacts.
David Cox noted when a preliminary mitigation plan is submitted, a meeting should be set up for
everyone to visit the site and discuss the proposed plan in the field. Eric Alsmeyer stated that he
typically needs a 30-day notice to be able to attend meetings. Also, each agency indicated that at least
30 days was needed for review of submittals.
Ron Hairr asked if Eric Alsmeyer, Cyndi Bell, David Cox and Howard Hall could concur with the
selection of Alternate 5 as the preferred alternative. Mr. Alsmeyer, Ms. Bell, Mr. Cox, and Mr. Hall all
concurred that Alternate 5 was the preferred alternate and the one which should be carried forward.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m.
The above notes are Rust's understanding of what was discussed at the meeting. If these minutes are in
error or if you would like to expand them, please contact Mr. Scott Boyles at [phone] or Ms. Jill
Gurak at [phone] by November 12, 1997.
J
AGENDA
OCTOBER 29, 1997
City of Raleigh
New Hope Road Extension Project
from Rock Quarry Road to Old Poole Road
Meeting Objective- To obtain concurrence from participating resource agencies on the
selection of Alternate 5 as the Preferred Alternate for the New Hope Road
Extension Project.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. History
B. Consistency with Area Plans
C. Purpose and Need for Project
3. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATE ALIGNMENTS
A. Alternate 1
B. Alternate 2
C. Alternate 3
D. Alternate 4
E. Alternate 5
4. IMPACTS TO AREA RESOURCES
A. Land Uses
B. Endangered Species
C. Floodplains and Floodways
D. Water Quality
E. Wetlands
5. PREFERRED ALTERNATE - ALTERNATE 5
6. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
A,
bT
m?
`.9m
8
Qi i

i_ i I It <
z

m
?
m m
° ° -
?o
m m
? r, m
°

m 0 0
0
x
?
o
m
a
o
- M
°
° 10
c o
a
o
a

c 0
z m a
M
m r
m
F m o m < --q _
-a --1 o o z
m N a cn
w o
0
z
-Tj
r {II((
.g
?o
W N
(?o x
sm„
Om O
,N
Z
GO m
o
N ?
v?a
N
R N R
O
-yn O
X
¦
a
p

l l 1 1
u I 1 1 r -
m

¦

m
NEW HOPE ROAD e9' - -
EXTENSION CITY OF RALEIGH
END f
PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS PROJECT
MARCH 27. 1998 v?o9o? _ ??\ ??
SCALE: 1' = 800' 23
O ao
. _ .?
v
iZ,
o ?
o°
o
O
o
,
J
. 30
a
" _... ._.. ?._ a OO ?
d o ?"O D
•? 0 ?O O
_ _ __ I° 'o o ? O O
ct?l
?Iz I? p?@., ?? D dp, p0
d ?o
oQC,obC) ?
\ O o? Q
i
i
5AN1T?FiY $E'•? q
???? ? Q ?_ 1*30 / r -
_ 2.00,"- -\
AL&
d of ! 'N I .? ?l 1
o? ? d
cz,
4'W'
-o v
s??rs?Y? ,BEGIN ?' / ?\ \
o
DO NOT USE 11" IIISYUUCT:om
DO NOT USE X00 U/? ACOUIOYIO?
???/ J? //'?( '' t O
m? ?, ?, r o
J • ? ? ?? .?? LEGEND
? ? 3 00 0 9
°? 0 0\wG' o -' - FLOODWAY LIMITS
'2_ ' - WETLANDS
x•30 ,, I `Z,?•? CB .°:P Q _'--
-'\?? - FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
n-
^- T \
1 WFTLNJD OUNDAAY.JNFORMATION' m " f O
Q N, THE SOUL EnST QUAD-1 OF THL P ?-• -Q \?,
O _ W w Rio of sR uu a SR s54\ "b\
IS AS SHOWN ON RECOMBINATION PLAT
PRO•ADO) BY SOOTT a 00. FOR
HERMAN G. WLLIAMS, PROPERTY
f?
cs 1030
I
I?
I
o ;
00 N®Y USE F®k CONSTRUMON
Do mov r\z Pon
I
n ---
117
N
i
---------- ----------
I
oQ - 1 m
J
\?b Q o "O o Q. 4' 00'
o
°
- i5;
ANA BEGIN ?. II
s J /?
' I
Q' r
411-
400'
GJ C? 3° 00 C,
.9
o ?
?I 'oy
4 30 t71`,?? o?
WETLAND OUNDHRY_.INFORMATION IN THE SOUT EAST OF
QUADRANT THE I ?`l R11` II^.O
Q '
INTERSECTIO OF SR 2547 & SR 2542
IS AS SHOWN ON RECOMBINATION PLAT
PROVID BY SCOT
,
HERMAANDG. WILLIAA S, PROOPERTY \ ?, l` S V A i 1" 400
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B', Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes; Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 4, 1996
Ms. Kim Whitfield .
Rust Environmental & infrastructure Inc.
5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
Subject: New Hope Road Extension, City of Raleigh
Dear Ms. Whitfield:
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has reviewed
the roadway alignment for the New Hope Road Extension. The DEM
is concerned about water quality and wetland impacts from this
project. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps indicate that.
large expanses of bottomland hardwood wetlands are present along
Big Branch and Walnut Creek. If jurisdictional wetlands are
present, DEM will expect that wetland avoidance options are
thoroughly examined. DEM suggests that an alternative that
closely follows the power line.be studied to reduce impacts.
Wetland minimization efforts such as reduced median widths and
2:1 side slopes in wetlands need to be considered. Compensatory
wetland mitigation may be required for impacts to significant.
wetlands.
Alternatives that minimize water quality imparts need to be
considered. Stream relocations, particularly to Big Br.<Zrnch
should be avoided. Interchange designs with SR 2542 that.-. would
reduce impacts to wetlands and water quality will also need Lo be
studied such as a half clover design.
This project probably will require a 401 Water Qua.l.i.t.y
Certification. The avoidance/minimization analysis should be
included with the application.
Should you have any questions, please contact Eric Galamu al-.
733-1786.
-Si i y
J 'hn Dorney
E lvironment.a?/ Supervisor
CC: Eric Alsmeyer, COE
Eric Galamb
Central Files
Tolophono 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]%
P.O. Box 29535, Rcleigh, Nortfi Carolina 27026-Olo
-35
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumor po{>nr
V ?l?: v Ja

Mr. Preston Howard ily+.: - OIRECToR-g OPFICE
Director
North Carolina Department of Health and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
?
?G ?0
Rust Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
A
A Bust International Company Phone [phone] p.
5510 Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Fax [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27609
February 21, 1996 c)r?
FEB 2.6 1996
11. FEB 26
?' 1 N OF ENVIRON?irw rAi MOT
Re: Start of Study Notice for New Hope Road Extension, City of Raleigh, Wake County
Dear Mr. Howard:
This letter formally requests your comments regarding the proposed New Hope Road Extension
project located in Raleigh. Rust Environment & Infrastructure has been retained by the.City of
Raleigh to begin an alignment study for this roadway project. A project location map is attached for
your information.
The proposed New Hope Road. Extension begins at Poole Road and extends approximately 1.7 miles
to Rock Quarry Road. The project is proposed as a four-lane divided, primary arterial roadway. The
project is scheduled for right-of-way acquisition in 1997 and construction in 1998. Approximately
28,000 vehicles per day are projected to use the facility by the year 2010. The project is located
within the Neuse River Watershed and crosses Walnut Creek.
The alignment study for the project will review the existing resources in the area and identify
alternative roadway locations. In order to fully evaluate the potential impacts of these alternatives,
it is requested that you provide your comments and any additional information which should be
considered during the development of the project in writing by March 27, 1996.
If you have any questions regarding this project or cannot submit your comments by March 27, 1996,
please call Mr. Ron Johnson, at [phone]. Thank you for your assistance.
34526.500\Howard.Ltr
0 Quality through teamwork
F.yy ??? ???GF
X022 ?-9I
J 19; rte''
1

Mr. Preston Howard
February 21, 1996
Page 2
Sincerely,
'4 A?wd
Kim Whitfield, P.E.
Project Manager
KW/nr
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dean Fox, P.E.; City of Raleigh
Mr. G. Wayne Wright, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Scott Boyles, P.E.
Mr. Ron Johnson
Mr. Ron Hairr
34526.500\Howard.Ur
r

Off'
Cl
oe
is
S •l0 S4) ,, ? ?
3
m
MW
Om
C-
M
I; Z-
t
?6
2z
?v
0
/Q *s
9E,o

z
m

o
0

o -
0
3 m
Gp O

A

00 M °
=
m w0
?
rn
m p° ?O
(A? zZ
C
c
Z ?N N
N Z v
l'y
N ;C
r
i
??I
x
v
3
f+
V
3
i
f+
H
i
0
C ?o
m N
A E d
iy E?
0
m
:01 co
O
cc:
W m
C y N
? p U
C x Z
N ? L
O)
O 'd

4J
N
N
N
4.J
cd a O
x -1 N
? ?n U
o z
4
co p
N o rb ?4
P +-) z O bD
a v xz•,?
• ?+ A C,J r-I
-4 cd
A Z Lr) W
Y
E
t
0
a
0