U-3441_complete file

0?.
o-?c SfnTEo
°:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GovERNOR SECRETARY
January 13, 1998
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
FROM: Michele James, Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Minutes of Scoping Meeting for the proposed widening of
SR 2233 (North Smithfield Road), from SR 3590 (Carrington
Drive) to SR 2049 (Forestville Road), Knightdale, Wake County,
State Project No. 8.2406401, Federal Project No. STP-2233(2),
TIP U-3441.
A scoping meeting was held on December 11, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. in the Planning and
Environmental Conference Room (470). The following people were in attendance:
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Parks Icenhour Location
Stephen Lowry Traffic Engineering - Congestion Management
Bob Shultes Traffic Engineering - Traffic Control
Glenn Mumford Roadway Design
John Alford Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Buddy Murr Traffic Engineering - Signals & Geometrics
John Schrohenloher FHWA
Lanette Cook Program Development
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Betty Yancey Right-of-Way
Marianne Moss Right of Way/Property Owner
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Teresa Hart Planning & Environmental
Michele James Planning & Environmental
Sherri Field Planning & Environmental
The following narrative presents the highlights of scoping items pertaining to the above
subject project:
L l'

?l
1. Construction of this project is broken into two parts. Section A commences at Carrington
Drive and terminates at US 64 and is scheduled for post year construction. Section B
commences at US 64 and terminates at Forestville Road. Construction of this section of
roadway is scheduled to begin in October, 2003.
2. Roadway design recommended increasing the 3-lane cross section for Section B to a 5-lane
section as the 3-1ane section proposed in the 1993 Knightdale Thoroughfare Plan would
barely meet the current anticipated need and cause added expenses for future widening.
Therefore, it was the consensus of the group that a 5-lane cross section for the entire length of
the project be studied. Roadway Design felt that a 90' R/W width would be sufficient to
construct a 5-lane curb and gutter section through the entire project. Additional R/W may be
necessary at the Smithfield Road/US 64 intersection for added turn lanes.
3. Asymmetrical widening through the school zone is recommended to avoid any impact to the
school yard which is on the study list for the National Register. This may cause a greater
impact to the cemetery located directly across from the school.
4. Debbie Bevin of SHPO stated there are two properties listed on the National Register of
Historic Places and one property listed on the Study List for the National Register. The two
properties listed on the National Register are well defined and should not need any further
survey. The property on the Study List will need to be evaluated for eligibility. She also
stated no surveys for Archaeology would be required.
5. The realignment of the northern terminus of Smithfield Road (SR 2233) with Horton Road
(SR 2231) should be accomplished by solely realigning SR 2233 with the current alignment
of SR 2231 to avoid any impact to the Beaver Dam property which is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. The property located in the northeast quadrant of the project,
through which the realignment is proposed, is currently undeveloped; however, construction
of a church was scheduled to begin last month. Coordination between NCDOT, the Town of
Knightdale, and the church will be required to minimize impacts to the church.
6. The Congestion Management section of the Traffic Engineering Branch recommended
providing dual left turn lanes for northbound Smithfield Road traffic accessing US 64
westbound. Dual left turn lanes were also recommended for traffic traveling westbound on
US 64 turning south onto Smithfield Road. Traffic signals may be required where Carrington
Drive, McKnight Drive, and Forestville Road intersect Smithfield Road.
7. A rough preliminary design including construction limits should be available from Roadway
Design in late September 1998.
8. A Citizens' Informational Workshop will likely be scheduled for early 1998. The
Environmental Assessment is scheduled to be complete November, 1998
MLJ/sf
N'sTnTEo
?b w,rm of
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
November 6, 1997

RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM TO
Ms. Cyndi Bell
ND 10 0971
WATER UJAILITY
Non-Di harge ? Ry
DWQ - DENR
FROM:. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 2233 (North Smithfield Road)
from SR 3590 (Carrington Drive) to SR 2049 (Forestville Road);
Wake County, State Project No. 8.2406401, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-2233(2), TIP No. U-3441
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project
(See attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for December 11, 1997 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental
Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting
or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Michele James, Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 213.
MJ/plr
Attachment
340;1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP # U-3441
Project # 8.2406401
F.A. Project # STP-2233(2)
Division 5
Date 11-6-97
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
County Wake
Route SR 2233 (North Smithfield Road)
Functional Classification Rural Local Collector - SR 3590 to US 64
Rural Lcoal - US 64 to SR 2049
Length 1.6 km (1.0 miles)
Purpose of Project:
To widen existing SR 2233 (North Smithfield Road) to multi-lanes to accomodate
future projected traffic volumes and improve safety.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements of work:
To widen existing SR 2233 (North Smithfield Road) to a 5-lane curb and gutter facility
from SR 3590 (Carrington Drive) to SR 2049 (Forestville Road) in Knightdale (see
attached map).
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA/FONSI
Environmental study schedule: EA Nov 97 - Nov 98
FONSI Jan 99 - Apr 99
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) or (%)
How and when will this be paid?

Type of Facility: The proposed facility is 5-lane, 64 foot, curb and gutter.
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: The existing facility is a two lane, 7.2-meter (24-foot) with a 1.2-
meter (2-foot) paved shoulders north of US 64. South of US 64, the
facility alternates between a two and three lane, which varies in width
from 7:2-meter (24-foot) to 10.8 (36-foot) with 1.2-meter (2-foot)
paved shoulders. The proposed improvement will consist of a 5-lane,
64-foot, face to face, curb and gutter roadway.
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section of Roadway: The proposed cross section is multi-lane curb and gutter
?,vith paved shoulders.
Traffic: Current 5100-12.400 Design Year (2025) 8.000-20.000 % Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 45 mph (school in project area
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate: 64' F-F
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies)... $ 3.100.000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util., and acquisition)....... $
Force Account Items ................................... $
Preliminary Engineering ..................... . ......... $ _
Total Cost ................................................. $ _
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction ..........................................$ 2.800 000
Right of Way ......................................... $ 1.300,000
Total Cost........... .............................. $ 4,100,000
2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS 64' F-F COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface ......................................
Resurfacing ...................................
Milling & Recycling (Removal) ....................
Turnouts ....................................
Shoulders: Paved ............................
Earth ............................
X Earthwork ........................................
Subsurface Items ...................................
X Subgrade and Stabilization ..........................
X Drainage (List any special items) ......................
Sub-Drainage ......................................
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x .......
New Bridge x .......
Widen Bridge x .......
Remove Bridge x ...... .
New Culverts:
$773,850
$403,500
$ 126,675
0
$285,00
Size Length Fill Ht. ..... $
Culvert Extension .............................. $
Retaining Walls:
Type Avg. Ht. Skew . .
Noise Walls ..................................
Any Other Misc. Structures ....................
X Concrete Curb & Gutter ............................
Concrete Sidewalk .................................
Guardrail .........................................
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. ...........
X Erosion Control ....................................
Landscape ........................................
Lighting ..........................................
X Traffic Control ....................................
Signing: New ................................
Upgrading ...........................
X Traffic Signals New ..........................
X Revised .......................
RR Signals: New .............................
Revised ..........................
With or Without Arms .............
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement.......... .
Roadside Safety Enhancement.......... .
Realignment for Safety Upgrade......... .
X Pavement Markings:
Paint Thermo x Markers x ........
Delineators ........................................
$ 123.565
$ 21,000
$57,000
$ 25,000
$
$ 22.800
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
X Other (Mob.andMisc.).(Manhole Adjust, Firehydrants) ....$ 694,360
X (Utility construction- water) ........................... $ 150,150
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 1683.000
Contingencies & Engineering .............................. $ 417.000
Construction Cost: $ 3,100,000
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Existing Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost: (Includes R/W) $
Cost Estimates Prepared By: Doug Lane Date: 7/24/97
Scoping Sheets Prepared By: Michele James Date: 11/6/97
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design _
Roadway _
Structure _
Design Services _
Geotechnical _
Hydraulics _
Loc. & Surveys _
Photogrammetry _
Prel. Est. Engr. _
Planning & Environ. _
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering _
Project Management _
County Manager _
City/Municipality _
Others _
INIT. DATE
_ Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
_ Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper.
_ Secondarv Roads Off.
_ Construction Branch
_ Roadside Environmental
_ Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
_ FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
_ Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheets for local officials will be sent to the Division Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and initial and date after comments.
4
-7,w7 7 77
'? yjht'f ',apt t$` -•>sbi ?t-?`wi '£? -M;
aw?
'.? b ?`5,31t ^, r s .w 3? M 1 .. a N `',"?' t?•' hS>
r
eo
--? 2049 1' -•.\ 2232
-9
ERO CT '-1
9
TS i- `i204
I 1 / 1
I "? I 1
???-17•m. 1 1 ? 1
sc - I . rs / I
I 1 / I i ?/ I
20-9
I I
?I
1 I e I
1 > I ? !.. 2233 , I zs
i i 1 n v.l .
FIGURE I
50
ores
•
9'•
Rose
1":2 C
r 5
?Apex
?n 55 1 1 ? ' MCCallersj -
.! Mdly 5 insV`
g \` 1301 1 ?Benson

E wako
b( k ? Liza
.vs.: ? Ea¢r
Nm gntd :.e Rock ?.
Wend,
Garner
i

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 2233 (NORTH SMITHFIELD ROAD) k
FROM SR 3590 (CARRINGTON ROAD)
TO SR 2049 (FORESTVILLE ROAD)
4- ' KNIGHTDALE, WAKE COUNTY z .
TIP NO. U-3441
s`uut ` FIGURE 1 t
?.s 0

l `-
C,5t')
AUo
C ,Lj 5?
y4
5??5-e llv+A)f
P -7_ 3;?
C, /V StJ
lve-us-e-
llkjo(rd? /AuwP
Ncvs e 9.11eo

CL
1? o
0

c
4

d
46
6-1

O
0

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
REVISED
Date 12-4-97
Revision Date 12-4-97
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP #U 3441
Project # 8.2406401
F.A. Project # STP-2233(2)
Division 5
County Wake
Route SR 2233 (North Smithfield Road)
Functional Classification Urban Collector - SR 3590 to US 64
Urban Local - US 64 to SR 2049
Length 1.6 km (?1.0 miles)
Purpose of Project:
iotz ? .;,1991
??p?N1Al5ClFS1CE?
To accomodate future projected traffic volumes and improve safety by widening existing
SR 2233 (North Smithfield Road) to multi-lanes.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements of work:
To widen existing SR 2233 (North Smithfield Road) to a 5-lane curb and gutter facility
from SR 3590 (Carrington Drive) to SR 2049 (Forestville Road) in Knightdale (see
attached map).
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA/FONSI
Environmental study schedule: EA Nov 97 - Nov 98
FONSI Jan 99 - Apr 99
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount:
($) . or (%)
How and when will this be paid?

f f
i
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: The proposed facility is 5-lane, 19.5-meter (64-foot), curb and gutter.
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: South of the US 64 intersection, the existing facility alternates
between two, three, and four lanes, which vary in width from 7.2-
meters (24-feet) to 15.8-meters (52-feet). The 15.8-meter (52-foot)
section is located only at the intersection to accommodate both left
and right turn lanes. North of US 64, the facility tapers from a 3-lane,
10.8-meter (36-foot) section at the intersection to a 2-lane, 5.8-meter
(19-foot) roadway with unpaved shoulders. The proposed
improvement will upgrade SR 2233 (North Smithfield Road) to a S-
lane, 19.5-meter (64-foot), face to face, curb and gutter roadway.
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway: The proposed cross section is 5-lane curb and gutter.
Traffic: Current 5.100-12.400 Design Year (2025) 8.000-20.000 % Trucks 2
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 45 mph (school in project area)
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies)... $ 3.100.000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util., and acquisition)....... $
Force Account Items ................................... $
Preliminary Engineering ...................... ......... $
Total Cost ................................................. $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction...... ..................................$ 2,800,000
Right of Way ......................................... $ 1.300,000
Total Cost ........................................... $ 4,100,000

rM;
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
X Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface ...................................... $ 773.850
Resurfacing ................................... $
Milling & Recycling (Removal) .................... $
Turnouts .................................... $
Shoulders: Paved ............................ $
Earth ............................. $
X Earthwork ........................................ $ 401600
Subsurface Items: .................................. $
X Subgrade and Stabilization ........................... $ 126.675
X Drainage (List any special items) ....................... $ 285,000
Sub-Drainage ...................................... $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x ........ $
New Bridge x ........ $
Widen Bridge x ........ $
Remove Bridge x ......... $
New Culverts:
Size Length Fill Ht. ..... $
Culvert Extension .............................. $
Retaining Walls:
Type Avg. Ht. Skew ..... $
Noise Walls ................................... $
Any Other Misc. Structures ...................... $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter & Concrete Driveways ......... $ 123.565
Concrete Sidewalk .................................. $
Guardrail ......................................... $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. ............ $
X Erosion Control .................................... $ 21,000
Landscape ........................................ $
Lighting .......................................... $
X Traffic Control ..................................... $ 57.000
Signing: New ................................ $
Upgrading ........................... $
X Traffic Signals New .......................... $
X Revised ........................ $ 25,000
RR Signals: New .............................. $
Revised ........................... $
With or Without Arms ............... $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement .............. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement ............. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade............ $
X Pavement Markings:
Paint Thermo x Markers x ......... $ 22,800
Delineators ........................................ $
PROJECT SCORING SHEET
X Other (Mob.andMisc.).(Manhole Adjust, Firehydrants) ....$ 694,360
X (Utility construction- water) ........................... $ 150,150
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 2.681000
Contingencies & Engineering .............................. $ 417,000
Construction Cost: $ 3,100,000
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Existing Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost: (Includes R/W) $
Cost Estimates Prepared By: Doug Lane Date: 7/24/97
Scoping Sheets Prepared By: Michele James Date: 11/6/97
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE INIT.
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
DATE
Scope Sheets for local officials will be sent to the Division Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and initial and date after comments.

WAKE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
50
pr
. •?F'al1cLak
falls Lake??
rri ogle $f. Rec. A?eo'
k
Neuse
70 10
IlGakn B. Cresakehams
? lI L,T ??
L(+"II
r 12
Ape
I
shell

?- PROJECT
• - \ LIMITS ¦ 03
J ??
? 049
2
.1 S
N -\ 1
1
1
Lockhart' Elom.
¦
+ ON?
• IS
2049
PROJECT
I N LIMITS
100,
es'
2233
I
/ ?i
e
ro Raer?p
I 2049
V
2563 2513
.05
2233 r:
55
6
i McCuller
L
ke°
r Spr
ngs a
401 2 B
6
e Will pn
quay Va(ma
55 6 '
1

I
%
Q E Wakefiek
ook + Lizard 10
Lic
64 4
agce, p 64I
<nightd Rock
Wen e"
1 ,r
4SP
AuDurrf,?
\Y
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NORTH SMITHFIELD ROAD (SR 2233)
FROM CARRINGTON DRIVE (SR 3590)
TO FORESTVILLE ROAD (SR 2049)
KNIGHTDALE, WAKE COUNTY
TIP NO. U-3441
0 mi. 0.25
0 km 0.40
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
March 12, 1998
MEMORANDUM
D E N F = I
TO: Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator /l:::?
BAR 1 3 r
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #98-0503; WQS# 11967; Smithfield Road
(SR 2233) to Forestville Road (SR 2049), Knightdale, Wake County,
Federal Aid No. STP 2233(2), State Project No. 8.2406401, TIP No. U-
3441
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F . The following wetlands information should be included in the EA, as appropriate:
1. Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. If no wetlands are found, the EA should still include information
on how this determination was made, including the methods used in
surveying for their presence and the qualifications of the survey staff in
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If wetlands are to be impacted by the project, have they been avoided as
much as possible? (Please ensure that sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands).
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
98-0476 DOT Scoping
March 12, 1998
Page 2
3. Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
5. Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
6. Quality of wetlands impacted.
7. Total wetland impacts.
8. List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
G . If wetlands are anticipated to be impacted by the project, the following measures
should be taken to reduce the impacts -
Wetland impacts should be avoided (including placement of sediment and
erosion control structures / measures outside of wetlands). If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required if impacts are greater
than one acre.
2. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
3. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan, if appropriate, to help
the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
a. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible.
b. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-
kind mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-
kind mitigation.
C. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly preservation.
H. The EA should discuss (in detail) project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road construction, such as mass-transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
I. The National Environmental Policy Act and the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) require that the EA or EIS for this project evaluate all direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment. It is the relationship between
transportation projects and their impacts to changes in land uses that the
environmental document should focus its indirect impacts section. This section of
the document should discuss the known relationship between new or widened
roads, highways and interchanges and resulting inducements for urban
development along the project right-of-way, at interchanges and along connecting
arterials. The EA must further address the long-term environmental impacts of this
road project, including the potential indirect impacts of the induced urban
development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
98-0476 DOT Scoping
March 12, 1998
Page 3
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, at
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use figures were used in this estimate)?
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, such as turn lanes
and traffic signs and signals?
iii) How will traffic patterns and traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along this proposed road and all secondary
roads be influenced by the access or increased traffic flow provided by this
project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?
vi) Will these parcels become more likely to develop into urban uses with the
provision of public road access, adequate road frontage or traffic safety and
control features from the project?
vii) Will this road widening serve as an inducement to additional urban
development on the adjacent parcels, given the provision of additional traffic
handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in the
future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g. sewer,
water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this road widening
encourage and facilitate urbanization of this corridor?
viii) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
way, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the road project and this
additional urban development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that are applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In additiop to reporting on the types and significance of each
direct and indirect impact of the project, the document should define how
DOT (with their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(with land use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
For Environmental Assessments (EA's), the SEPA rules and statutes require that
prior to issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts must
98-0476 DOT Scoping
March 12, 1998
Page 4
be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant, or a FONSI
should not be issued. Therefore, an EA for this project should show how the
indirect effects of the project, including those effects of urban development, are not
going to significantly impact the environment, including water quality. If
significant impacts are unresolved, a FONSI cannot be issued and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
J. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues (in addition to other issues
besides water quality), as applicable to the specifies of the project, should be
discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc.
An indirect impact analysis of a transportation project should evaluate increases in
development in the vicinity of the road project if the project will be providing new
or improved access to future growth areas that are currently undeveloped. Indirect
water quality impacts of induced development might include: increases in ground
and surface water withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in
wastewater collection and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in
surface water discharges; and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater in the
project service area and along connector streets that experience increases in land
development due to the project. Land-disturbing activities associated with road
construction and land development may also result in increased stream
sedimentation and secondary wetland impacts. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and streams, loss of
aquatic habitat and wetlands and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as
fertilizers, pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters.
These impacts could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with
state and federally endangered species or if the waters are high quality, nutrient
sensitive, or used for public,.water supply.
K. Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department. Please be aware that 401 Certification may
be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
98-0476 DOT Scoping
March 12, 1998
Page 5
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mis:V80503 DOT Scoping-widening
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Non-Discharge Branch, Wetlands/401 Unit