R-2416

I -f
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 9, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Alan Clark
C12- oogq
SUBJECT: EA/EIS for US 401, NC 42-55 to SR 2753 Fuquay-Varina
State.Project No. 6.401064, R-2416
The subject document has been reviewed by this-office. The
Division of Environmental Management is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the
EA/FONSI prepared' for this project.
1. As stated above, a 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required for this project.
2. Wetlands should not be impacted due to the disposal of
excavated spoil material or as a source of borrow
material for this project.
3. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the
denial of the 401 certification upon application if
wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.. a
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to Ron Ferrell in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
AC:RF/kls
Melba.mem/ARC3
it 4
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
Z 61 4r/
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: j Date Resp a (firm deadline):
L- f J x /.-
041 Ve'Cl - S '`?? ( h-? G 4 2- 5 S S ?L 2 S 3, FJ4>J rJ?? ?-c -JAvA b
'901
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: SEC 1, 41q! V
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? Ali R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning

? Mo
ill ? Water El Water Resources ? Environmental Health
oresv
e
? Groundwater
Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster

? Wilmin
ton ? Coastal management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
g ? Others Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem vt.. \ f
?r
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: /Agency:
In-House eviewee
r/
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated In attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
P$.104
l

US 401
From NC 42-55 to SR 2753
Fuquay Varina, Wake County
R-2416
State Project No 6.401064
4

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act
For further information contact:

Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
APPROVED:
7 Zq/
Date L. 'Ward, P.E., Manager
)11-1P?i anning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
US 401
From NC 42-55 to SR 2753
Fuquay Varina, Wake County
R-2416
State Project No 6.401064
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental
Branch By:

Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Engin er
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Assis ant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
ONpffrrIt"010
o''
S I •'• ,7 '??
is
Y o »
? i •??? Q''T • n
_ SEAL =
17 282 '
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
Page
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ...................................... 1
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. General ... ..................................... 1
B. Thoroughfare Plan ................................... 1
C. Traffic/Truck Volumes ................................ 1
D. Levels of Service ................................... 2
E. Accident Rate ....................................... 3
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Length of Section Studied ........................... 3
B. Existing Cross Section .............................. 3
C. Right of Way ........................................ 3
D. Bridges ...... ................ . ... ............. 4
E. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control ............ 4
F. Speed Limits ...................................... 4
G. Access Control ...................................... 4
H. Utilities .. .................................... 4
I. Project Terminals ................................... 4
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. No-Build Alternative ................................. 5
B. Build Alternatives ................................... 5
1. Cross Section .................................. 5
2. Alignment .... ............................... 6
3. Bridge Alternatives ........... 6
4. Cost Summary ................................... 7
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
A. Length of Project .. ...............................
B. Design Speed Proposed ...............................
C. Cross Section .......................................
D. Alignment ..........................................
E. Right of Way ......................................
F. Access Control ......................................
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ..........
H. Railroad Work Required ..............................
I. Bridge Work Required .................................
J. Parking .............................................
K. Sidewalks ............................................
L. Bicycles ..........................................
M. Speed Limits ........................................
N. Cost Estimates ......................................
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.Page
VI. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
Y A. Ecological Assessment
1. Study Area ...................................... 9
2. Man Dominated Systems .......................... 9
3. Natural Systems ................................ 10
4. Wildlife ..... ................................ 11
5. Protected Species .............................. 13
6. Soils .......................................... 14
7. Water Resources ................................ 15
B. Wetland Involvement ................................. 15
C. Cultural Resources .................................. 17
D. Social Setting and Impacts .......................... 17
E. Relocation Impacts .................................. 18
F. Land Use ............................................ 18
G. Construction Impacts .............................. 20
H. Floodplain Involvement ...... .................... 21
I. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction
Noise Analysis ................................. 22
J. Air Quality Analysis ........................... 25
K. Hazardous Materials Involvement...... ... .......... 28
L. Special Permits Required of the Division of
Highways ....................................... 28
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............. 28
VIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................... 29
Figures
Appendix
4
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation proposes to widen US 401 from NC 42-55 to SR 2753 on
the northern side of Fuquay-Varina. The 1.8 mile project will widen
the existing two 'lane roadway to a four lane facility divided with a
30-foot grass median. The estimated project cost is $4,985,750
including $935,750 for right of way acquisition and $4,050,000 for
construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive impact by improving the safety and traffic handling capacity
of this major thoroughfare. No relocatees are anticipated. There
may be erosion and siltation during construction, but erosion control
measures will minimize these impacts. No significant impacts to
plant or animal life are expected. Approximately 1.5 acres of
wetlands will be impacted by project construction. It is anticipated
that the Above Headwaters Nationwide Permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)]
will apply to all wetland crossings. There will be no impact to
properties or structures listed in the National Register of Historic
Places.
3. Alternatives Considered - Three Build Alternatives have been
considered for this.project:
Alternate 1 involves constructing a five lane shoulder section
along the entire length of the project. This alternative is
estimated to cost $5,009,000.
Alternate 2 involves constructing a five lane shoulder section
from NC 42-55 to approximately 3000 feet north of the Norfolk
Southern railroad bridge with a transition to a four lane median
divided section (30-foot median) at that point. This
alternative is estimated to cost $5,072,875.
Alternate 3 involves constructing a four lane, median divided
roadway (30-foot median) along the entire project length.. This
alternative is estimated to cost $4,985,750.
Alternate 3 is recommended because it will best serve the facility's
primary function of mobility. Alternate 3 will minimize the project
cost. It will also allow the most efficient maintenance of traffic
operations during construction.
The alignment of each Build Alternative was designed to maximize the
use of the existing right of way.
The existing Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge must be replaced as
part of this project. Two alternatives were considered for
replacement of this bridge:
The first involved constructing a new permanent bridge
approximately 50 feet south of the existing structure. New
right of way, would be required for the realigned railroad. The
existing bridge and approach tracks would be removed.
The second bridge alternative involves constructing a temporary
detour structure approximately 50 feet south of the existing
bridge. A new permanent bridge will be built along the
alignment of the existing bridge. A temporary construction
easement will be required for construction of the detour bridge.
This alternative is recommended because it will allow for more
efficient maintenance of traffic during project construction.
There is little cost difference between the two bridge
replacement alternatives (see cost summary on page 7).
The No-Build alternative was considered, but rejected because it
would allow increasing traffic congestion. This would cause a higher
potential for accidents and would increase traffic delay through the
corridor.
4. Coordination - Several federal, state, and local agencies were
consulted during preparation of this environmental assessment.
During preparation of this report, comments were received from the
following:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Centralina Council of Governments
Wake County Commission
N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
5. Action Required by Other Federal Agencies - NCDOT will apply for an
Above Headwaters Nationwide 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
6. Additional Information - Additional information concerning the
proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting the following:
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
US 401
From NC 42-55 to SR 2753
Fuquay-Varina, Wake County
R-2416
State Project No. 6.401064
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen
US 401 from NC 42-55 to SR 2753 on the north side of Fuquay-Varina in Wake
County (see Figures 1 and 2). The proposed project will widen the
existing two lane roadway to a four lane median divided facility. The 1.8
mile project is included in the 1991-1997 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with construction scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
1994-1995. The estimated project cost in the 1991-1997 TIP is $3,350,000.
The project is currently estimated to cost $4,985,750 including $935,750
for right of way acquisition and $4,050,000 for construction.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. General
The proposed improvements will increase the safety and traffic
handling capacity of this section of US 401. The existing facility is
highly congested and will become more congested unless additional travel
lanes are provided.. Further development along the project and in the
surrounding area will generate increasing traffic volumes. US 401 is an
important route linking Raleigh to Fuquay-Varina and Lillington.
US 401 is a multi-lane facility from SR 2753 northward to Raleigh.
US 401 is scheduled to be widened to a five lane facility from NC 42-55
southward to NC 55 (Ennis Street) in Fuquay-Varina with NCDOT Project
R-2026. If the subject section of US 401 were not w.idened, a 1.8 mile gap
between multi-lane sections would exist. The subject project will provide
for system continuity along US 401 from Fuquay-Varina to Raleigh. .
B. Thoroughfare Plan
US 401 is designated as a major thoroughfare in the mutually adopted
Fuquay-Varina Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 5).
C. Traffic/Truck Volumes
Projected 1996 average daily traffic volumes along this section of
US 401 range from a low of 21,700 vehicles per day (vpd) near SR 2886 to a
high of 23,300 vpd near NC 42-55. Traffic is projected to increase by the
year 2016 to range from a low of 38,700 vpd to a high of 41,400 vpd along
the roadway.
2
Projections for truck volumes are as follows:
1996 2016
Low High Low High
Dual Tired Vehicles (vpd): 868 932 1548 . 1656
Truck Tractor Semi Trailer (vpd): 651 699 1161 1242
See Figure 3 for additional traffic data.
D. Levels of Service
Level of Service is an engineering term used to describe the
operating conditions of vehicles in a traffic stream. Operating
conditions are based on such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six
levels of service are defined and are designated with letters from A to F.
Level A represents the best operating conditions with free flow and
virtually no delay at signalized intersections. Level of service F
represents the worst operating conditions and occurs when traffic volumes
exceed the capacity of a roadway. At level of service F, long lines of
traffic tend to form, and delays at intersections tend to exceed 60
seconds.
A capacity analysis of the subject roadway yielded the following
results:
No-Build Alternative
1. If no improvements are made to this section of US 401, the
facility will operate at Level of Service (LOS) E with projected
1996 traffic.
2. If no improvements are made, the facility.will operate at LOS F
with projected 2016 traffic.
Build Alternatives
Capacity analyses were performed for the build alternatives by
considering both the free-flow condition north of NC 42-55 and the `
signalized intersection at NC 42-55:
1. North of NC 42-55 - This section will operate`at LOS B with
projected 1996 traffic, and will operate at LOS D with projected
2016 traffic.
2. US 401/NC 42-55 intersection - This intersection will be
designed under project R-2026 with the configuration shown in
Figure 4.
a. The intersection will operate at LOS C with projected 1996
traffic.
3
b. The intersection will degrade to LOS F with 2016 traffic.
A US 401 bypass of Fuquay-Varina would greatly reduce the
traffic volumes at this intersection and would allow the
intersection to operate at an acceptable Level of Service.
A US 401 bypass is included in the Fuquay-Varina
Thoroughfare Plan, but it is not included in the 1991-1997
Transportation Improvement Program.
E. Accident Rate
The accident rate for this section of US 401 over a recent three year
period (June 1, 1987 - June 30, 1990) was 169.11 accidents per 100 million
vehicle miles. This is below the statewide average of 182.60 acc/mvm for
similar routes over that same time period. The highest percentage of
accidents on US 401 over this time period involved rear-end collisions (58
percent). A high incidence of rear-end collisions is typical of a two
lane roadway operating beyond its capacity. A fatal rear-end collision
occurred on this section of US 401 on April 26, 1991. The proposed
project will provide a safer facility and should lower the accident rate.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Length of Section Studied
The length of this project is approximately 1.8 miles.
6. Existing Cross Section
Currently, this section of US 401 is .a two lane facility with 12-foot
travel lanes and grass shoulders approximately 6 to 10 feet wide. US 401
widens to a four lane roadway, divided by a 30-foot median, just south of
SR 2753. The four lane section has 12-foot travel lanes.
C. Right of Way
The existing right of way width along this section of US 401 is 150
feet. The right of way is symmetrical about the existing centerline from
NC 42-55 to 4550 feet north of NC 42-55. From that point, northward to
SR 2753, existing right of way is offset 100 feet to the west side of
existing centerline and 50 feet to the east (some parcels show right of
way at 48 feet east and 102 feet west).
Existing NCDOT right of way for intersecting streets is as follows:
1. SR 1404 - 60 feet
2. SR 2886 - 60 feet
3. SR 2753 - 60 feet
4
D. Brid es
A Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge is located approximately 900 feet
north of NC 42-55. This structure must be replaced because its horizontal
underclearance (40 feet) is insufficient to accommodate the proposed
widening project.
E. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control
The following streets and highways intersect this section of US 401:
1. NC 42-55: signal controlled
2. SR 1404 (Johnson Pond Road): stop sign controlled
3. SR 2886 (Meadow Drive): stop sign controlled
4. SR 2753 (Dwight Rowland Road): stop sign controlled
F. Speed*Limits
The existing speed limit for this section of US 401 is 45 mph from
NC 42-55 to approximately 150 feet north of the railroad bridge. North of
that point, the speed limit is 55 mph.
G. Access Control
There is no control of access along this project.
H. Utilities
Overhead powerlines parallel the project on both sides from NC 42-55
to approximately 3400 feet north of the NC 42-55. Power poles are setback
approximately 60 feet from the roadway centerline. Along the northern
half of the project, power poles are located on the west side of the
roadway and setback approximately 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
The power lines include a Carolina Power and Light Company distribution
line.
Underground utilities along the project include a water line and
telephone lines.
1. Project Terminals
The southern project terminus is NC 42-55. South of NC 42-55, US 401
• will be widened to five lanes with curb and gutter (64 feet from face to
face of curbs) under project R-2026. This project extends from NC 55
(Ennis street) to NC 42-55. Construction of R-2026 is scheduled to begin
in 1992.
The northern project terminus is SR 2753. North of SR 2753,'US 401 is
a four lane roadway divided with a 30-foot grass median. US 401 maintains
this cross section north to Raleigh.
5
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative was considered and rejected. The No-Build
Alternative would do nothing to decrease traffic congestion along this
section of US 401. The increasing traffic congestion would cause a higher
potential for accidents and would increase traffic delay through the
corridor.
B. Build Alternatives
To provide an acceptable Level
project must have two through-lanes
left turning vehicles. Three Build
described below.
of Service, alternatives for this
in each direction with provisions for
alternatives were studied and are
1. Cross Section
Alternate 1 - Alternate 1 involves widening US 401 to a five
lane roadway from NC 42-55 to SR 2753. The estimated cost of
Alternate 1 is $5,009,000. This alternative is not recommended
because the primary function of this section of US 401 is
traffic mobility. This will best be served by a median-divided
cross section. In addition, this alternative would cause great
difficulty in maintaining traffic opeations during project
construction.
Alternate 2 - Alternate 2 involves widening US 401 to a five
lane section from NC 42-55 to approximately 3400 feet north of
NC 42-55. From this point, the project would transition to a
four lane facility divided with a 30-foot grass median. The
estimated cost is $5,072,875. Alternate 2 is not recommended
because it is estimated to be $87,125 more expensive than
Alternate 3 and it will cause the same problems in maintaining
traffic during constructing as Alternate 1.
Alternate 3 - Alternate 3 involves
divided with a 30-foot grass medi
(the entire project length). The
Alternate 3 is recommended because
Build Alternatives, it will best
function, and it will allow for b
operations during project conttr
median-divided cross section will
existing US 401 north of SR 2753.
will provide more positive contra
than Alternates 1 and 2.
widening US 401 to.four lanes
in from NC 42-55 to SR 2753
estimated cost is $4,985,750.
it is the least costly of the
erve the facility's mobility
atter maintenance of traffic
action. The four lane
match the cross section of
The median-divided section
1 of left-turning movements
6
2. Alignment
The studied alignments for the Build alternatives follow
existing NCDOT right of way as closely as possible. This
minimizes the project's cost and impacts to surrounding
properties. To use existing right of way, median divided
alternatives involve constructing two new lanes to the west of
the existing lanes. The two existing lanes would become the
northbound lanes. Alternatives with a five lane cross section
symmetrically widen the existing roadway from NC 42-55 to
approximately 3400 feet north of NC 42-55. North of this point,
widening is asymmetrical to the west.
3. Bridge Alternatives
The existing Norfolk and Southern Railroad bridge north of
NC 42-55 must be replaced due to its insufficient horizontal and
vertical underclearance. Two alternatives were considered for
this bridge replacement.
To achieve the proper vertical underclearance beneath the new
railroad bridge, the roadway elevation of US 401 must be
lowered. This causes difficulty in maintaining traffic
operations during project construction.
The first bridge replacement alternative involved constructing a
new bridge approximately 50 feet south of the existing bridge.
The existing bridge and approach tracks would be removed. This
alternative was rejected because it would cause the most
difficulty in maintaining traffic operations during project
construction.
The recommended bridge alternative involves constructing a
temporary detour structure approximately 50 feet south of the
existing bridge. A new permanent bridge of sufficient height
and width will be constructed on the existing railroad
alignment. The recommended bridge alternative will allow the
most efficient maintenance of traffic operations during project
construction. There is little difference in cost between the
two bridge alternatives considered (see cost summary below).
7
4. Cost Summary
The Build alternatives have the following estimated costs:
BRIDGE
ALTERNATE ALTERNATE RIGHT OF WAY *CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
1 RR DETOUR $ 509,000 $4,500,000 $5,009,000
RR NEW ALIGN $ 772,000 $4,300,000 $5,072,000
2 RR DETOUR $ 622,875 $4,450,000 $5,072,875
RR NEW ALIGN $ 885,875 $4,250,000 $5,135,875
3 **RR DETOUR $ 935,750 $4,050,000 $4,985,750
RR NEW ALIN $1,198,750 $3,800,000 $4,998,750
* Includes roadway and struct ure costs
** Recommended alternate
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
A. Length of Project
This project is approximately 1.8 miles long.
B. Design Speed Proposed
The design speed along the majority of this project will be 60 mph
minimum. The design speed in the vicinity of NC 42-55 and the Norfolk
Southern Railroad bridge will be 50 mph minimum.
C. Cross Section
A four lane median-divided cross section is recommended for this
project. The median width will be 30 feet. The recommended cross section
is shown in Figure 7.
D. Alignment
The recommended project alignment maximizes the use of existing NCDOT
right of way to the extent possible. The existing travel lanes will be
utilized as the future northbound travel lanes along the majority of the
project. Therefore, most construction will be on the west side of US 401.
In the vicinity of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad underpass, widening is
proposed on the east side of US 401; the existing travel lanes will become
the future southbound travel lanes. Figure 2 shows the proposed
alignment.
E. Right of Way
The project's right of way will be of sufficient width to contain a
majority of the project's construction limits. Based on preliminary
designs, a 180-foot right of way width is proposed. Temporary
construction easements will also be required.
8
F. Access Control
There will be no control of access along the project.
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
NC 42-55
The US 401 intersection with NC 42-55 will be revised by project
R-2026 as shown in Figure 4. With this design, the intersection will
operate at Level of Service (LOS) C with projected 1996 traffic. Traffic
operation at the intersection is expected to degrade to LOS F by 2016
because of the very high projected traffic volumes. The intersection was
also analyzed assuming double left turn lanes were provided on the
southbound approach and double right turn lanes on the eastbound approach.
Assuming this configuration, the predicted traffic operations for 2016
remained at LOS F.
A US 401 bypass of Fuquay-Varina would greatly reduce the traffic at
the NC 42-55 intersection and would allow the intersection. to operate at
an acceptable Level of Service. This bypass is on the Fuquay-Varina
Thoroughfare Plan, but is not included in the 1991-1997 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program.
SR 1404
Consideration was given to signalizing the intersection of SR 1404
and US 401. This intersection was found to not meet traffic signal
warrants; therefore, no signal is proposed as part of this project.
SR 2886
No changes to the existing intersection treatment at SR 2886 are
proposed.
SR 2753
A left-turn lane will be provided on the southbound approach to the
US 401 intersection with SR 2753 because of the high volume of left
turning traffic. Consideration was given to realigning SR 2753 at its
intersection with US 401 to eliminate the existing skewed angle.
Realigning SR 2753 to provide a 90 degree intersection angle (with US 401)
is estimated to cost $56,000. This realignment was rejected because its
limited improvement to traffic operations does not justify its cost..
H. Railroad Work Required
The Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge just north of NC 42-55 must be
replaced as part of this project because its horizontal underclearance is
insufficient for the proposed project cross section. The proposed new
structure will follow the existing railroad alignment. The vertical
clearance will be 16.5 feet, minimum, above US 401. The new bridge length
will be approximately 135 feet. To maintain rail operations during bridge
replacement, a temporary detour structure will be constructed
9
approximately 50 feet south of the existing bridge. Temporary easement
will be required for construction and operation of the detour structure.
I. Bridge Work Required
See section V.H., above.
J. Parking
• Parking will not be provided for, or permitted, along the project.
K. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are not proposed as part of this project.
L. Bicycles
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended for the project.
M. Speed Limits
No changes from the existing speed limits are proposed.
N. Cost Estimates
The proposed improvements are estimated to cost a total of
$4,985,750. Construction is estimated at $4,050,000. Right of way costs
are estimated at $935,750.
VI. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Ecological Assessment
1. Study Area
The project is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
The southern end of the project is developed commercially,
residentially, and agriculturally. The remainder of the project
contains forested or disturbed parcels. Topography in the area
varies from level to strongly sloping with up to 45 percent
gradients. The northern end of the existing roadway drops
approximately 70 feet in elevation over a length of approximately
1000 feet. At the base of this slope is Terrible Creek. The
remainder of the project is level to gently sloping.
2. Man Dominated Systems
Man dominated systems in the vicinity of the project include
agricultural and disturbed sites (residential and commercial sites).
Agricultural areas dominate the landscape in areas adjacent to the
proposed action.
10
Agricultural Sites
Large multicrop farms operate in the area. These agricultural
sites are concentrated along the central portion of the project.
During the field survey of the project, only crop remnants were
observed due to the time of year. A variety of grain crops, tobacco
and soybeans are thought to grow in the project vicinity. Pastures
are also located along the project.
Disturbed Sites
Commercial property and private residences are located in the
proposed impact area. A church, farm supply store, and convenience
stores/gas stations are present. Vegetation at these sites is
maintained in low growing condition and supports various grasses such
as fescue, rye, and other herbaceous plants.
A utility corridor parallels portions of the east and west sides
of US 401. Vegetation in this corridor is maintained in low growing
condition. Common species include various grasses, broomsedge
(Andropogon virginicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
catbrier (Smilax sp.), privet (Ligustrum sinense), and honeysuckle.
Some sites are maintained in a very low growing condition, excluding
most of the above species. Other sites are cut less often and sup-
port shrubby growth of woody species such as sweetgum and loblolly
pine.
3. Natural Systems
Uplands - Mixed Hardwood Forests
Upland forested areas are dominated by mixed deciduous
hard-woods. They generally are found in small strips bordering the
road, or as larger tracts in upland areas adjacent to streams. The
canopy in these forested areas provided high amounts of shading and
cover. A true understory was absent; shrub species were few and
scattered.
Uplands - Pine Dominated Forest
Pine dominated forests exist as buffer or border communities.
They occur as small strips with developed areas on either side.
Larger pine dominated stands occur outside the project impact area.
Species diversity in this community is not very high.
Wetlands - (see section VI.B.)
Summary of Impacts
Disturbed and agricultural areas are very common and comprise a
large portion of the impacted area. Small amounts of forested
uplands and wetland acreage will be impacted. Pine dominated uplands
occur primarily as buffer strips or border rows that are disturbed
and not extensive forests. A good example of this is the forested
11
community along the Norfolk Southern Railroad and to either side of
its crossing with US 401. An artificial berm has been placed in this
area. The amount of upland acreage is small, mainly occurring in two
sites adjacent to wetland site numbers 2 and 7 (see wetland location
map, Figure 6). These are the largest forested parcels impacted by
the project. See Table 1 below for a further summary of impacted
areas.
Table 1. Plant community Impacts by Alternative
Plant Community
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3*
Agriculture Sites 4.1 5.0 5.1
Disturbed Sites 10.8 10.8 12.6
Mixed Hardwoods 0.7 0.7 1.1
Pine Dominated Sites 3.7 4.3 5.6
Disturbed Wetlands 0.3 0.3 0.4
Hardwood Wetlands 1.0 1.0 1.1
* Indicates the recommended Alternative
4. Wildlife
Terrestrial Commti;-.ities
Terrestrial forested and nonforested communities will be
impacted by proposed construction. The majority of impacts are on
nonforested sites such as agricultural, commercial, and disturbed
areas.
Open, disturbed communities are likely to contain animal species
suited for open space with herbaceous cover and few trees. These
communities are in a stage of succession and change over time,
depending on the frequency and type of disturbance.
Avian species likely to inhabit open communities include
killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), bobwhite (Colinus virginianus),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris),
mockingbird ( Mimus polyglottos), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis),
yellowthroat warbler (Dendroica domminica), other warblers, bobolink
(Dolichonyx oryzivorus), meadowlark (Sturnella magna), American
goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), rufous-sided towhee (Pi ilo
erythropth?almus), and sparrows.
Forested communities are likely to support a variety of species
different from the open areas described above. Species likely to
inhabit these areas include opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
short-tailed shrews (Blarina brevicauda), Eastern mole, Eastern
cottontail, Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), gray squirrel
12
(Sciurus carolinensis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomas volans),
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopas), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and white-tailed deer.
Avian species likely to inhabit forested communities include the
red bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), great crested
flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor),
brown headed nuthatch (Sitta usi*lla), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), yellow throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), pine
warbler (Dendroica inus), and cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
Salamanders that might inhabit moist forested areas include the
lesser siren (Siren intermedia), greater siren (Siren lacertina),
eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), dwarf mudpuppy (Necturus
punctatus), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), northern dusky salamander (Desmognanthus fuscus),
two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), three-lined salamander
(Eurycea guttolineata), dwarf salamander (Eurycea quadridigitala),
slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), and red salamander
(Pseuedotriton ruber).
A variety of frogs and toads are likely to inhabit wooded
terrestrial and aquatic habitats. These might include the American
toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), northern
cricket frog (Acris crepitans), southern cricket frog (Acris
rg yllus), gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis and H. versicolor), spring
peepers (Hyla crucifer), squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella), green
frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel fro5 (Rana palustris), southern
leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), and eastern narrowmouth toad
(Gastrophryne carolinensis). Also likely are turtles, such as the
Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina).
Common lizards include the Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis),
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),. five-lined skink
(Eumeces fascialus), southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectalus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), ground skink
(Scincella lateralis), and slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus
attenuattus).
The common snakes in the area are the worm snake (Carphophis
amoenis), black racer (Coluber constrictor), ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern hognose
snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), mole kingsnake (Lampropeltis
calligaster), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis etulus), scarlet
kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangulum), rough green snake (Opheodrys
aestivus), brown snake (Storeria dekayi), redbelly snake (Storeria
occipitomaculata), southeastern crown snake (Tantilla coronata),
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), rough earth snake
(Virginia striatula), smooth earth snake (Virginia valeriae),
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus
horridus).
13
Aquatic Communities
Small streams are likely to be impacted from proposed
construction. These communities tend to support species such as
insects, fish, freshwater mussels and certain amphibians and
reptiles.
Some of the fish species likely to occur in Terrible Creek
include bluegill sunfish (Lepomis'macrochirus), red breasted sunfish
(Le omis auritus), bullhead catfish or snail bullhead (Ictalurus
brunneus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Other
inhabitants might include minnows and suckers.
Amphibians and reptiles occur in aquatic locations and moist
terrestrial habitats in the project area. Animal species that might
inhabit small ponds such as the one located near the southern part of
the project include the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina), Eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum),
Florida cooter (Chrysemys floridana), painted turtle (Chrysemys
p'cta) redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), and spotted
turtle (Clemmys utg tata).
Summary of Wildlife Impacts
Construction activities may pose a barrier to certain immobile
and less mobile species. The project involves widening an existing
facility. Less mobile animal species present in these habitats are
likely to be impacted from the proposed construction. Less area will
be available to animal species becaus_ of construction. Construction
of the new railroad bridge will impact existing disturbed
communities. Displacements to adjacent communities are anticipated.
This may cause competition for space.
5. Protected Species
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the red cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), false poison sumac (Rhus michauxii),
and Bachman s W ra bler (Vermivora bachmanii) are the federally
protected species listed for Wake County. A species proposed for
state-listing as threatened, the pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia masoni),
may occur in the project vicinity.
Bald Eagle Federally Endangered
The bald eagle inhabits coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually
nesting in large dead snags near where they feed. One small pond
will be impacted near the south end of the project. This pond is
very small and is becoming overgrown with vegetation. Very little
open water is present. No dead snag trees were observed. The pond is
surrounded by a dense stand of loblolly pine trees. Due to
unsuitable habitat, no impacts to the bald eagle are anticipated from
this project.
14
Red cockaded Woodpecker Federally Endangered
The red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is a small bird that nests in
live pine trees. It forages in pine-dominated stands where trees are
at least 30 years-old (usually over 60 years old). Pine stands to be
impacted by proposed construction are of adequate size for foraging.
Pine-dominated stands likely to be impacted -are very small and not
contiguous to other suitable pine stands. Hardwood dominated forests
and agricultural fields isolate these potentially suitable habitat
areas. Because of the unsuitable habitat, impacts to the red
cockaded woodpecker are not anticipated.
False Poison Sumac Federally Endangered
False poison sumac is a small shrub which inhabits sandy, open
areas perhaps in association with basic soils. Fire or other
disturbance is usually necessary to maintain the open areas.
Suitable habitat such as open field edges, highway shoulder sections,
railroad shoulder sections, and maintained utility corridors exists
in the project impact area. Areas where false poison sumac is likely
to occur were investigated in the field to determine if the plant is
present. No evidence of the plant was found. Due to the absence of
the plant, no impacts to false poison sumac are anticipated.
Bachman's Warbler Federally Endangered
Bachman's warbler is one of the smallest warblers.
low, wet areas containing variable amounts of water, sot
usually permanent. The birds prefer 1-:ense thickets of
vines that occur in openings or at the forest edge.
warbler is currently considered extirpated in North
Historical records show that it was once collected in
1891, but is no longer seen in this area; therefore, n
Bachman's warbler are anticipated.
Pigtoe Mussel
Proposed State Threatened
It inhabits
e of which is
shrubs and
Bachman's
Carolina.
Raleigh in
impacts 'to
The Natural Heritage Program reports a pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia
masoni) population that inhabits Terrible Creek. The population is
located downstream immediately north of the northern terminus of the
project. Terrible Creek will not be directly impacted by the
proposed project. A strict erosion control program will be
undertaken to ensure that siltation from construction will not
adversely impact Terrible Creek.
6. Soils
A total of 13 soil types are mapped in the vicinity of the
project. Five types of Norfolk loamy sand, two types of Wagram loamy
sand, and Herndon silt loam are mapped. In addition, Wilkes soils,
Lynchburg sandy loam, Orangeburg loamy sand, and Wehadkee and Bibb
soils are mapped in the area. Wehadkee and Bibb soils are classified
as hydric (see Table 2 below for details of soil types mapped in the
project area).
15
Table 2. Soil types mapped in the project area
Soil Type Slope % Drainage Occurrence
Norfolk 0-6 well upland flats, divides
Wagram 2-10 excessive level to sloping
Herndon 10-25 well side slopes
Wilkes 20-45 well side slopes
Lynchburg 0-2 poorly level
Orangeburg 6-10 well side slopes
Wehadkee, Bibb 0-4 poorly floodplains
7. Water Resources
Five pipe culvert crossings exist along the project length.
Wetland areas and small ditches are located in the vicinity of these
culverts. One small unclassified stream parallels US 401 on the east
side near the northern end of the project. It begins as a small
stream from pasture runoff that flows into the roadside ditch.
Downstream, two pipe culverts also lead into this ditch. The stream
becomes larger as it flows north towards Terrible Creek for
approxi-mately 1650 feet. Wetland impacts to this creek are
anticipated. These wetlands are identified as sites 3 and 7 (see
section VI.B.).
Three other water courses are crossed by the proposed project.
These are small unclassified streams that flow through pipes beneath
existing US 401. All of these streams are associated with adjacent
wetlands. All are a few feet wide and relatively small in area.
Terrible Creek is not crossed by proposed.construction, but it
crosses US 401 immediately north of the project's northern terminus.
Terrible Creek has a water quality classification of C-NSW. Class C
indicates a water segment with best use for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agricul-
ture. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) require limits on nutrient
inputs.
B. Wetland Involvement
Seven wetland sites likely to be impacted by the project were identi-
fied during field surveys. These wetlands are under the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The COE has permitting authority
of these "jurisdictional wetlands" under provisions of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 CFR 328.3).. Approximately 1.3 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands would be impacted by Alternates One and Two and 1.5 acres by
Alternative 3. These acreages are the total wetland impacts from the
seven sites. Wetland locations are shown in Figure 6. Sites 2 (west side
of US 401 only), 3, and 1 are forested wetland sites. The remaining sites
are disturbed with few or no trees. The amount of impacted wetland
acreage is shown in Table 3 below.
16
Table 3. Impacted Wetland Acreage by Site and Alternative
Site # Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3*
1 0.1- 0.1- 0.1-
2 0.2 0.2 .3
3 ** ** **
4 0.1 0.1 0.2
5 0.1 0.1 0.1

7 0.9 0.9 0.9
Totals 1.3 1.3 1.5
* Indicates recommended Alternative
** Site 3 values are included with site number 7 since the
sites are part of the same wetland system
*** Site 6 is a bank to bank wetland
Forested wetland sites are associated with streams, drainages or
slight depressions. Sizes vary from bank-to-bank wetlands to small
wetland communities. Canopy dominants include hardwoods such as sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera),
American elm (Ulmus americana), water oak ( uercus nigra), red maple, and
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Common shrub and ground cover species
include privet (Ligustrum sinense), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and
yellowroot (Zanthorhiza simplicissima). Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides) is common on side slopes adjacent to wet areas. The
presence of cane correlates well with wetland designations. Catbrier
(Smilax sp.) and honeysuckle are also present.
Disturbed wetland sites are dominated by grasses and sedges such as
rush (Juncus sp.), panic grass (Dicanthelium scoparium), and woolgrass
bulrush (Scir us cyperinus). These sites are adjacent to the roadside
shoulders and have been impacted by clearing activities. They are highly
disturbed.
Based upon the estimated magnitude of wetland impacts, it is
anticipated that Nationwide Permits # 14 and # 26 [33 CFR 330.5 (a)(14)
and (26)] will be applicable to wetland crossings of this project.
Nationwide Permit for Minor Road Crossing Fills (#14), applies to
crossings that involve the discharge of less than 200 Cubic yards fill
material below the ordinary high water mark. It is anticipated that the
Nationwide Permit for Minor Road Crossing Fills will apply to sites, 1, 5,
and 6, where anticipated impacts are very small. The Above Headwaters
Nationwide Permit (#26) applies to the discharge of fill material in
nontidal waters and wetlands that are above headwaters. Above headwaters
refers to non-tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments,
17
including adjacent wetlands above which the annual flow is less than five
cubic feet per second. It is anticipated that the Above Headwaters
Nationwide Permit will apply to .sites 2, 3, 4, and 7..
The total impacted wetland acreage for this project exceeds one acre,
but individual wetland sites are less than one acre. NCDOT does not
propose mitigation for the wetland impacts of this project because of the
small amount of impacted acreage. NCDOT will use best management prac-
tices to ensure that the least amount of wetland as practicable will be
impacted.
C. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to review pursuant to North Carolina General
Statute 121-12(a) which requires that if a state action will have an
adverse effect upon a property listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, the North Carolina Historical Commission will be given an
opportunity to comment.
A NCDOT staff archaeologist has determined there are no
archaeological resources listed in the National Register of Historic
Places which will be impacted by project construction. The North Carolina
Division of Archives and History concurs that "this project will not
involve any significant archaeological resources" (see page A-2 of the
Appendix).
The project's area of potential effect on historic architectural
properties was delineated, and the maps a^d files of the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHFO, Nere consulted. This search
revealed no properties listed in the National Register that were located
within that area of potential effect.
The State Historic Preservation Officer notified NCDOT that two
properties of architectural importance were within the vicinity of the
project. These properties were investigated by the NCDOT staff
architectural historian and found not to be listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. The SHPO is aware of no National Register
listed properties within the area potential effect (see page A-3). This
completes compliance with GS 121-12(a).
D. Social Setting and Impacts
The proposed project is located on the north side of Fuquay-Varina in
Wake county. The southernmost 600 feet of the project is within Town
limits; the remainder is outside Town limits but within the Fuquay-Varina
extraterritorial jurisdiction. The estimated population of Wake county in
1990 was 402,330 people.
The project will not disrupt community cohesion or interfere with the
accessibility of facilities or services. No displacements of community
residents or businesses are anticipated.
18
The project will be beneficial to the citizens of Fuquay-Varina and
surrounding areas through reduced congestion which will provide safer
travel, more efficient traffic operations, and improved access. Public
services, such as police, fire protection, and other emergency services
will benefit from a reduction in response time due to the reduced
congestion.
E. Relocation Impacts
No relocatees are anticipated for this project. A house (located on
the west side of US 401 approximately 1000 feet south of SR 1753) lies
near the proposed construction limits of this project. It is anticipated
the project can be designed to avoid relocating this house. Further
design is necessary to determine the project's impacts to this house.
Loss of frontage to businesses and residences will occur as a result
of this project. During the design phase of project development, the
project will be designed to minimize any damage to adjacent properties.
Landowners will be compensated for construction extending beyond existing
NCDOT right of way.
F. Land Use
Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located in the planning and zoning
jurisdictions of both the Town of Fuquay-Varina and Wake County. The Town
Land Use Plan was adopted in 1989 by the T-?!n and the Wake County
Commissioners. The Town of Fuquay-Varina opted its Thoroughfare Plan in
1978, and revised the Plan in 1988. US 401 is identified as a major
thoroughfare in the plan.
The Wake County General Development Guide was adopted by the Wake
County Board of Commissioners in 1984 and subsequently amended numerous
times, most recently in May, 1989. The Guide addresses all areas in the
County outside any municipality's jurisdiction.
Existing Land Use
The land uses in the vicinity of the intersection of US 401 and
NC 42-55 include a number of highway-oriented businesses such as gas
stations, a car wash, and fast food restaurants.
Land uses become more rural in character north of the Norfolk
Southern Railroad and include two single-family dwellings, farm fields,
woodlands, Revels Tractor Company, and a Farm Credit Service. A small
convenience store is located at the intersection of US 401 and SR 1404.
19
Existing Zoning
The land on the east side of US 401 from the railroad to the northern
project terminus is zoned for R-30 (Residential District). This
designation permits the development of single family structures on lots no
less than 30,000 square feet in size. Some R-30 zoning is located north
of the roadway as well, although most of that area is designated 0-I
(Office and Institutional District). As the name indicates, this district
is designed to accommodate professional office buildings.
A portion of the land on the west side of US 401 is outside the
Fuquay-Varina extraterritorial jurisdiction and is zoned by Wake County.
The County has designated this area near the project's eastern terminus as
a Highway Commercial District. This district accommodates most commercial
land uses.
The land in the vicinity of NC 42-55 is zoned Highway Commercial,
reflecting the existing land uses.
Future Land Use
Fuquay-Varina is currently in a state of transition from a rural farm
community to a suburban community. Large-lot residential development is
occurring in the north and northeastern portions of the Town. Development
in these areas of Fuquay-Varina is likely to continue as the Town becomes
something of a "bedroom community" for Raleigh and the Research Triangle
Park.
In addition to its extraterritorial jurisdiction, Fuquay-Varina
addresses in its Land Use Plan an area currently outside the Town's
extraterritorial jurisdiction, referred to as "perimunicipal areas."
These areas are expected to eventually become urbanized and were jointly
adopted by the Town Board of Commissioners and the Wake County Board of
Commissioners. The proposed project is within this perimunicipal area.
The land use plan map classifies the land on the west side of US 401
for future residential development of roughly 3.5 dwelling units per acre.
The east side is also designated for residential development, but with a
slightly higher density of five units per acre.
An update of the Land Use Plan is underway; it should be completed
within the next 16 months.
The land adjacent to US 401 is currently served with municipal. water
lines; sewer is not yet available. Plans are underway for construction of
a sewage treatment plant on Terrible Creek which will provide service to
the area. When this is constructed, further development is likely to
follow.
20
Project Compatibility With Local Plans
US 401 is an important route for commuters from Fuquay-Varina to
Raleigh. It 'is only one of two major thoroughfares in the Town;
therefore, it is extremely important to the community and potential
development. The proposed project is compatible with current land use
plans.
Farmland
Because urban development is either occurring or planned for the land
within the project area, the project is exempt from the farmland
protection requirements of the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
G. Construction Impacts
A number of short term environmental impacts normally associated with
the construction of highways will be experienced with the construction of
this project. Measures will be taken to mitigate these effects to the
extent possible.
Traffic service on roads intersecting the project may be subjected to
brief periods of disruption during construction of the project. Every
effort will be made to ensure the transportation needs of the public will
be met both during and after construction.
All possible measures will be taken to ensure that the public health
and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any materials to
and from construction sites along the project and that any inconveniences
will be kept to a minimum.
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the Division
of Highways "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures." The
contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the disposal of
solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land
disposal site which is in violation of state rules and regulations..
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas provided by the
contractor that lay outside of the state right of way, unless otherwise
required by the-plans or special provisions or permitted by the Engineer.
The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste areas,
both during the work and until completion of all seeding and mulching or
other specified erosion control, in a manner which will effectively
control erosion and siltation.
Debris, including vegetation from land clearing and materials from
demolition, land clearing, and construction, will be disposed of in
accordance with applicable pollution and solid waste regulations.
21
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be
removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the
Contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to ensure
burning is done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction
when controlling dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists and area residents.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Division of
Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures including
precautionary steps to minimize damage or rupture to water lines and
interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during construction of this
project. For this reason, an erosion control schedule will be devised by
the contractor before work is started. The schedule will show the time
relationship between phases of work. The phases must be coordinated to
reduce erosion and shall describe construction practices and temporary
erosion control measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the contractor will be
required to follow those provisions of the plans and specifications which
pertain to erosion and sedimentation.
The general requirements concerning erosion and sedimentation are
covered in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution." The N.C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
This program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the "Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures" and the policies of the Division of Highways regarding control
of accelerated erosion and sedimentation on work performed by State
Forces.
Borrow pits and all ditches must be drained as much as possible to
decrease mosquito breeding areas.
H. Floodplain Involvement
There is no major drainage structure involved with this project. The
terrain in the vicinity of the project is relatively rolling with natural
draw such that the proposed roadway will drain without difficulty.
The existing drainage pattern and ground water will not be
significantly affected by the project construction. Siltation of adjacent
areas due to construction will be minimized with use and maintenance of
standard erosion control measures and devices.
22
I. Highway Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect the proposed
project will have on noise levels in the immediate project area. The
analysis includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a
field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It
also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient
noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected
resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination
and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually
a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Because the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is
used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale approximates the frequency response of the human
ear by placing most emphasis on the frequency range of 1,000 to 6,000
Hertz. The A-weighted scale is used for vehicle noise measurements,
because it closely describes the response of the human ear to sound:
Sound levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA.
Throughout this report, references will be made to dBA, which means an
A-weighted decibel level. Several examples of noise pressure levels in
dBA are listed in Table N1, page A-16 of the Appendix.
Sound pressure levels in this report are referred to as Leq(h). The
Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a
given situation and time period has the same energy as does time varying
sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are compatible
with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in the
planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and procedures
are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR, Part
772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is
presented in Table N2, page A-17.
23
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases.
The field data was also used to establish ambient noise levels for
residences, businesses, and other noise sensitive receivers in the
vicinity of the project. The existing Leq noise level along US 401 as
measured at 50 feet from the roadway was 71 dBA.
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The Barrier Cost Reduction (BCR) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number
and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
The proposed project was modeled assuming no special noise abatement
measures would be incorporated. Only those existing natural or man-made
barriers which could be modeled were included. The roadway sections and
proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents "worst-case" topographic conditions. The noise
predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for
the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour and LOS C volumes were compared, and the volumes resulting
in the noisiest conditions were used with proposed posted speed limits.
Thus, during all other time periods, no noise levels are predicted to be
greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was used to enable the determination
of the number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the
design year (2016), would be exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria. Land uses predicted to
expect a substantial noise increase were also determined. The basic
approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100, 200, 400,
800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane. This was
done for both sides of the roadway. The locations of these receptors were
determined by the change in projected traffic volumes along the proposed
project. The result of this procedure was a grid of receptor points along
the project. Using this grid, noise levels were calculated for each
identified receptor.
The traffic noise impacts of this project in terms of increased noise
levels are predicted to range between +2 and +8 dBA. When real-life
noises are heard, level changes of 2-3 dBA are barely perceptible. A five
dBA change is more readily noticeable, and a 10 dBA change is judged by
most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
24
The number of receivers in each activity category that are predicted
to experience traffic noise impacts, according to Title 23 CFR, Part 772,
are shown in Table N3, page A-18. The impacts for each alternative are
also shown in Table N3. As shown, Alternative 2 would impact more
receptors than the other alternatives, with seven residences and two
businesses approaching or exceeding the Noise Abatement Criteria. No
receptors are predicted to experience substantial noise level increases
along this project.
Table N3 includes information regarding the maximum extent of the 72
and 67 dBA noise level contours. This information may assist local
authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped
lands adjacent to the roadway in local jurisdiction and in preventing
further development of incompatible activities and land uses.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either (a) approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC),
with approach meaning within 1 dBA, or (b) substantially exceed existing
noise levels, as defined in the lower portion of. Table N2. Noise
abatement measures must be considered when either of the two preceding
conditions exist.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often.
be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively defract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
Because the project will maintain no control of access, most
commercial establishments and residences will have direct driveway
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersecting roadways will
adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction, it must
have substantial height and length to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce
the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction (safety is
also a concern - barriers will reduce sight distances at intersections).
To provide sufficient noise reduction, a barrier's length would normally
be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally
require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent
of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
Businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along
a highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow
these two qualities and thus, would not be acceptable.
25
Based on past project experience, these limiting factors tend to
negate the effectiveness of any physical abatement measures; therefore,
none are recommended for this project.
No-Build Alternative
The traffic noise impact for the "No-Build" Alternative was also
analyzed. If US 401 were not widened, three residences in the immediate
project area would likely experience traffic noise impacts within the next
twenty years. Noise level increases would be on the order of two to three
dBA. This increase would be a moderate change in noise levels to
individuals living and working in the area but would not constitute a
substantial increase.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. Construction noise impacts are expected to be
minimal because the construction noise will be relatively short in
duration and generally restricted to daytime hours. The transmission loss
characteristics of surrounding man-made structures and natural features
will moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
Summary of Noise Analysis
Projected increases in noise levels and associated noise impacts are
an unavoidable consequence of roadway widening projects. Based on these
preliminary studies, no traffic noise abatement is reasonable or feasible
along this project and none is proposed. This evaluation completes
highway traffic noise analysis requirements. Unless a major project
change develops, no additional noise analysis is required for this
project.
J. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution is the result of emissions from industry and internal
combustion engines. The impact resulting from the construction of a new
,highway or the improvement of an existing highway can range from
aggravating existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air
conditions. Motor` vehicles are known to emit carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide
(S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For these reasons, most of the air analysis of this report is
concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity
of the project.
26
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near
a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (distances within 100 meters)
of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO emissions
from cars operating on streets farther from the receptor location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source
computer modeling; the background component was determined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were determined separately,
then added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for
comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone
and nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that are of
concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide. Area-wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future
due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control
devices on new cars. This will tend to lower ambient ozone and nitrogen
dioxide levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere. In the presence
of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other
photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is
the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide from cars are very low, traffic on the project
is not predicted to cause air quality standards for particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating
of the fuel. In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as
more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is
reduced; therefore, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed
project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model For Predicting Air Pollutant
Levels Near Highways And Arterial Streets" was used to predict the CO
concentration at the nearest sensitive receptors to the project.
27
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concen-
trations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and meteorological
parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily
traffic projections. The modeling analysis was performed for a "worst
case" condition using winds blowing parallel to the roadway. Carbon
monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2006 and
2016 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE4 mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 2.4 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 2.4 ppm is suitable for most
suburban areas.
The proposed project has a 45 mph speed limit south of the Railroad
bridge, and a 55 mph speed limit north of the bridge. Because air quality
conditions are dependent on vehicular speeds, this analysis studied both
speed conditions. The closest receptor affected by "worst case" air
quality conditions resulting from the proposed project in the 45 mph
section is R2 (business). For the 55 mph section, the receptor most
likely to experience "worst case" air quality conditions from the proposed
project is R6 (business). Two cross-sections are being considered: 1)
five lane curb and gutter, and 2) four lane divided with 30-foot median.
The second cross-section was used in this analysis because it is has a
greater mixing zone width, thereby representing a "worst case" scenario.
For the "No-Build" alternative, with the speed limit remaining a
constant 55 mph over the entire length of the project, R6 will likely
experience "worst case" air quality conditions. The predicted 2006 and
2016 one-hour average CO concentrations expected to result in the'
immediate project area, for the Build and "No Build" alternatives, are as
follows:
Project
Description
Closest One Hour
"Worst Case" CO Conc.(ppm)
Receptor 2006 2016
R2 (Bus) 3.3 3.3
R6 (Bus) 3.4 3.4
R6 (Bus) 2.6 2.6
Widen to 4- and 5-lane
Facility (45 mph)
Widen to 4- and 5-lane
Facility (55 mph)
"No Build"
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
1-hour - 35 ppm; 8-hour average - 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these
standards. Because the results of the "worst case" 1-hour CO analysis is
less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard (see Tables Al through A6, pages A-19 through A-21, for input
data).
28
The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Wake County is currently
being reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
pertaining to its status as an attainment area for CO. The area under
study is primarily the central business district of Raleigh. Because the
proposed project is located outside this area of study and the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures for the project, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not
apply to this project.
K. Hazardous Materials Involvement
A hazardous materials evaluation for this project was conducted.
This evaluation included a review of the State Inventory of Inactive
Hazardous Waste Sites and a reconnaissance survey of the proposed project
corridor.
The reconnaissance survey identified three sites with underground
storage tanks (USTs) within the study area. One of these sites, located
approximately 200 feet north of the SR 1404 intersection with US 401,
could potentially be involved with project construction. At this
location, there are three USTs approximately 76 feet from the existing
centerline of US 401. These USTs were empty and not in use at the time of
the survey.
After a review of all available information, no hazardous waste
involvement is expected.
L. Special Permits Required of the Division of Highways
No special permits will be required of the Division of Highways.: It
is anticipated wetland crossings will be permitted by Nationwide Permits
(see section VI.B).
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC.INVOLVEMENT
On October 19, 1990 a letter was mailed to the following federal,
state, and local agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental
input concerning the proposed project (Note: an asterisk indicates those
agencies who responded to this letter):
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Geological Survey
*U. S. Soil Conservation Service
Triangle Council of Governments
Wake County Commission
*N. C. State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*Town of Fuquay-Varina
29
On March 7, 1991, a public meeting was held in Fuquay-Varina to
discuss the proposed US 401 widening project. Approximately 20 people
attended the meeting. Most in attendance were property owners interested
in how the project would affect their property. None in attandance
opposed the project.
VIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon the assessment of environmental impacts included in this
document, it has been determined that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment. This Finding of No
Significant Impact completes the environmental review. An Environmental
Impact Statement will not be prepared for this project.
RPH/plr
FIGURES

\Olt'FH ('Ali0i,I,NA I)EI'ARTJIE.N-T OF
TRANSPORTATION
., e DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P1.A\\ING AND VNVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 401
FROM NC 42-55 TO SR 2753
FUOUAY-VARINA, WAKE COUNTY
R-2416
FIG 1
i
.: n. _s
ESTIMATED 1996/2016 ADT IN HUNDREDS
US 401
FROM NC 42-55 TO SR 2753
FUQUAY-VARINA, WAKE COUNTY
R-2416
US 401
22s I
410
217
387

220
392
17 22
31 39
DWIGHT ROWLAND RD. TTST = 1%
5 SR 2753 DUAL = 3%
DHV = 10%
2 7
4 13
MEADOW DR. TTST = 0-1%
5 SR 2886 DUAL = 2%
9 DHV = 10%
TTST = 3%
DUAL = 4%
DHV = 10%
27 7
48 13
TTST = 1% JOHNSON POND RD.
DUAL = 20% SR 1404 20
DHV = 10% 35
233
414
15
2_
COMMERCIAL -
ENTRANCES
4 73
7 130
7 58
13 104
221
394
135
240 It
NC 42-55 TTST = 3%
DUAL = 4%
DHV = 10%
FIGURE 3
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
US 401
FROM NC 42-55 TO SR 2753
FUQUAY-VARINA,WAKE COUNTY
R-2416
DWIGHT ROWLAND ROAD
SR 2753
\?t

MEADOW DRIVE
SR 2886
JOHNSON POND ROAD
SR 1404
COMMERCIAL
ENTRANCES
r

-? 1f7
FIGURE 4
NC 42-55

?l

11

i
i
i
0
c
C
v

-0 M
O0 N ; D
-i
N z
Z - 0. S
m v z m v
0
v = O r
m
z
O
a c:
I 2 1 T
m
to
-0 W
d m Q
p c
c DO
?o 0

_ 0
ja

C

3

m
Non m3
' a
m 9
CD
1 v?
c
06
rn m
N m o N n
m
S N ?
m ? p
A
y ?
A O
<
C
a

> > m 0
c ,c 4

ox C4
see
•4• ?^ ??.'? :.+•? (fem. ? w % _ /.'
two
r.r
J j.. -\. ?( Gtr-t `_??? ? ?-' ??\ V-1 ??,/?1 ? W .? •? ••
^? -% .:-.,mac ???• /? .?? ?: ? '•
Tif
.• 'i! ?/ j ?J ? '/ /• .. y ice; ( i '-' - - '' -/??? ? ?
10
ul NJ
!? .' , / ' ? ?? % ?\?•??. -? '?, '?3 _ k , • tit
A, 7
N
i
i
N ?
' O
i
H i N
W
N w^ m
v ,
? 2 3
o< O n
N ? J
z O
O p
U) CL
O =
X CL r ^
? W CL V
LLJ
Q
'J
N
U)
N •y
3
O
O
• v ? N ¢
O
O N
• O
0-
0
cr
v a
co v °
m <
1
O
H-i
LLJ
(10
O
LLJ
O
1--1
O
W
Q
-
i.
v`LL H
i
z i
< }z p
< P
W
<z3
zoc? U)
Z Nv
y s < Q N
< =0 ; Q Q
U O Z Z_ + V
FZZ:Zz Q
U
O ?
Z ? }
F-
L.L1
O
LLJ
L
O
LLJ
v
APPENDIX
A QAlr
? 4c
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
December 6, 1990
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Environmental impact of widening US 401 from
NC 42-55 to SR 2753, Fuquay-Varina, Wake County
R-2416, CH 91-E-4220-0284
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
There are no recorded archaeological.sites within the proposed project
corridor. Much of the area adjacent to the existing road is disturbed
and unlikely to contain significant archaeological sites. Prior to our
final evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed project,
however, information concerning the proposed roadway width and the
amount of new right-of-way to be acquired would be helpful. If recent
aerial photographs of the project area are available we would appreciate
being able to borrow them for our review.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the
following structures of historical or architectural importance within
the general area of the project:
Yancey Family Farm. Northwest side of Hwy. 401 North 0.5 mile
northeast of the junction with Hwy. 55 South.
House. Northwest side of US 401, 0.2 mile southwest of SR 2753 in
the Willow Springs vicinity.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosures A_?
109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church

r ST?F v?
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James G. Martin, Govemor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
March 21, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
4o ss3b S
o-
s 166 ?? ??W
eso cess +^y
Division o J istory
William S. Price, Jr., Director
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State ?
"N
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widening US 401, R-2416, Wake County J
CH 91-E-4220-0284, GS 91-0027, GS 91-0075
We have received the archaeological report for the above project from
Kenneth Robinson of your staff.
During the course of the survey four prehistoric and one historic
archaeological sites were located within the project area. Due to the
disturbed nature of the sites, Mr. Robinson has recommended that no
further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project. We concur with this recommendation since this project
will not involve significant archaeological resources.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: K. Robinson
109 East ones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-2
? ST/Vio4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
• March 26, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: V. Charles Bruton, Head
Environmental Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State /'??!?,tf l.?J
Historic Preservation Officer z/
SUBJECT: US 401 from NC 42/55 to SR 2753, Fuquay-Varina
Wake County, R12416-"""GS 91-0080
Thank you for your letter of February 18, 1991, concerning the.above
project.
We have reviewed the project and are aware of no National Register-
listed structures in the area of potential effect. Therefore, compliance
with G.S. 121-12(a) is complete.
Please-note, however, that the statement in your letter, "The area of
potential effect was also reviewed in the field and no significant
properties were identified," is misleading. As stated in our letter of
December 6, 1990, two structures of historical or architectural importance--
the Yancey Family Farm and a house--were located in the area of potential
effect.
• These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-3
COPY NCOOT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Poole,
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF EN?F
Po. BOX trio N rwood
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-18,1111 _
IN REPLY REFER M November 26, 1990 Tewell_
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Distribute to:
-- Vl?-k-- O'Ouinn_
I&- PreUtt .` brwwl _
C =' ` 'huller _
Ellktt Nedwidek
Webb Sprinoc;r.
_ Elmore_
Grimes
b
? bb •
O
- Q
m
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your letter of October 19, 1990, requesting information
for "Environmental Impact of Widening US 401, From NC 42-55 to SR 2753,
Fuquay-Varina, Wake County, R-2416" and offer the following comments.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge
of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project, including
disposal of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to
wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider
compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within waters of
the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the
opportunity to review these plans for a project-specific determination of
Department of the Army permit requirements. Should you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be
of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
A-4
Ev72
Now-s mik ?"tH CARO{HA
TOWN OF FUQUAY-VARINA
1300 East Academy Street
Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina 27526
[phone]
?S
OC T 2 9 1990
2 DIV1S.10y pr_
22 H,uH?VtiYS ?P?
?? RFSEARG?'0
October 25, 1990

Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
N. C. Dept. of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-5201
Subject: Environmental Impact of Widening US 401, From NC 42-55 to SR 2753
Fuquay-Varina, Wake County, R-2416
Dear Mr. Ward:
In reference to your project R-2416, I have checked with the appropriate town
staff and we are not aware of any potential environmental impacts that would
occur as a result of this highway widening project.
Also be advised that there are no local permits or approvals that are required
before you proceed.
If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Al ed M. John o
or
AMJ:rbt
• a
A-5
United States sod 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Department of Conservation Raleigh, NC 2 7 6 0 9
Agriculture Service
Telephone: [phone]
November 7, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Environmental Impact of Widening US 401, From NC 42-55 to
SR 2753, Fuquay-Varina, Wake County, R-2416
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your request for Important Farmland
Information for R-2406 project area. By utilizing the Wake County
Soil Survey data, we have color coded the approximate location of
the important farmland soils on the attached soil maps. The color
codes are defined as follows:
1) Color code yellow--All soil areas meet the soil criteria for
Prime Farmland.
2) Color code orange--All soil areas meet the soil criteria for
State Important Farmland.
The unmarked areas do not qualify for important farmlands because
of soil properties or urbanization. Soil areas committed to
urbanization are not covered by the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
Since we lack this kind of information in our office, we color
coded the areas that did not appear to be urbanized. Therefore, in
your use of this information, please note that some of the color
coded areas may be in error because of urbanization.
If there are questions, please contact Phil Tant at [phone].
Sincerely,
r 4V . ?,.c?c?? 6??w• r
Bobby J. Jones v
State Conservationist
Enclosures
The Sol Conservation Service A'U
is an agency of the
v Departmenl of Agriculture
?e, ,. _ ? Po'" ~.- !` , t ,% ? s - - 1?= rye,, ??w ++ ? . 3 . ry ? v 3 o q m 3- _
2mm
\c\?? :'m:? SSS ,?,'?•m• ?.'••? .,, ?y A
??4 t •!f? as 3
,??• s•
N o ?\\j a? ,Nma• 'V{r ?a 4 ?; t r`?+ ?C+• t i 't t `'i4 \ o V ? • w ?
? ? \ \ ? ?' ii , •: ? .? • 1 1 ? /0ry ` , r • .. ?+?\ ' X11 . F 4l. m N )0? t
t? ? . <. q' ?: ` • ter' !? ' ?• ?` •, a :•. !` ? O ?' ,/•r •< Via.
m fi • z m^t r m i 3' T c a e.
< 0 3> r
sr• ? \;? < J' , ,?r ;y?,.??s a 'S• U ?• ,tiZ "•. `t
Y i ?C\ ?..• z ;
03
m '? _ __ w -- ?+ • q A
U v? ? H?1. ma`r`. .? < ?" O
..f p • t ? m 0
?`•` ?G U• ' ? i ",0: F, •tt . Z ?? Zlr em :>',•?Y`i. ,?V??j? r O jy'm? a ?qk
o noy,l I S ?', "
< 3 .? a 1i O z 9o t m 3 Vy<
• ~ \ ;m
co m o?A
o < ?t 1. r: f. „•. 3• 3? .?T:?•: ;
10
/Co
CO to
' a z etc, eN
'oY ?.?.. 2?b, Z.. a b ' t tr c. ' W Y.v• ` 2J0 WaC ; ?'? 6 qr - iy \ ^, . Z •
10 u
<pm ??y?' •? Q oaf A >r" ?, y ?,Q.
.N U !tt 'w•?'! 'f!?• j aO('1. a m (d. ,{ _
9s •'? . P 1. ? • , _ •'t- ?? c ?, t `.'?, Z. :irk-7. ,?D 3 • ? • ,, , \ 1
14!z 16 A t it
'oA
2 v a ?- i.. o f © 41 .,
?' V '.'• ? a, v m ,t1'f?/' '• wi ^:. '; :Z • ',,C••ri` 1 ??.?.'' N° > +(1 [.k i i
?y? / x 3 s•!•' r; ?' 4 ; s n t
t.}Kt,?Z/„/ t o ('P ^ r•?F 1 t?t 4r S ~ 45
Y 3 • 3 ap • ° ,.r ?
A-
o z
0
p '' •Z ,r m to
FM206
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
4 fi 116 WEST JONES STREET
f:AL EIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611

•
i t1 ??
?
,-ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

MAILED TO FROM
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JEANETTE TOMCZAK
ROB HANSON CLEARINGHOUSE STAFF
HIGHWAY BUILDING
RALEIGH-INTEROFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING IMPACT OF WIDENING US 401 rROM NC 42-55 TO SP. 2753
F UQUAY-VARI NA R-2416
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 91E42200284. PLEASE- USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CCRRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 1.1/27/90.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].
A-8
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
November 16, 1990
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
THROUGH: Carol Tingleyz__A'??
FROM: Stephen Hall, Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Widen US 401, Wake County
REFERENCE: 91-0284
NOV 199
RECEIVED
S£CRETARYS OFFICE J
9 DOA
I/
I?

Although the Natural Heritage Program database does not contain
records for any listed species from the immediate vicinity'of the
section of US 401 proposed for widening, this project has some
potential for adversely affecting a population of the Atlantic
pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia masoni), proposed for state-listing as
threatened. A population of-this species occurs in Terrible
Creek, dor:nstream from the northern terminus of the project at the
junction of 401 and SR 2753.
This species, as is true for most freshwater mussels, is highly
susceptible to the effects of siltation, and given the amount of
soil that will be disturbed by the project, great care must be
taken to minimize runoff into all tributaries of Terrible Creek,
or directly into the creek itself. One area where this would be
especially important is along the steep bluffs directly above the
creek at the northern end of the project. Techniques that can
minimize this impact include the use of siltation barriers and
settlement basins; preservation of a buffer-strip of natural
vegetation along the watercourse; and reseeding cleared areas
following construction.
A-9
.. SIAI( ?\
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr,, Secretary
PMMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has completed its review. Our regional office within the
geographic area of the proposed project has identified permits
that may be required prior.to project construction. For more
information, the project applicant should notify the respective
regional office marked on the back of the attached permit form.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: bb
Attachment

St,te of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
A-10

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James G. Martin, Governor
James S: Lofton, Secretary
November 27, 1990
Mr. L.J. Ward rht
N.C. Department of Transportation r-M Planning and Environmental Branch
Highway Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward: RE: SCH File #91-E-4220-0284• Scoping for Impact ?'?`t
ening of
US 401 from NC 42-55 to SR 2753 in Fuquay-Varina
(TIP #R-2416)
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed
through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies, after
reviewing this document, which identify issues to be addressed
in the environmental review document. For compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, the appropriate
document should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for
environmental review. Should you have any questions, please
call 733-0499.
Sincerely,
cc: Region J
Attachment
CB/jt
0441W &VVzt
Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
116 West Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 - Telephone [phone] A-11
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
-)tatc of North Carolina
• Department of ^latural Resources and Community Development
AWEIS REVIET - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
NRCD
?Ptreo?ject Number:
?i
Oue
t 1"-
After review of this project it has been determined that the Nl1CD permit(s) *iodicated must be obtained in order for this F
with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Off
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction cor
facilities, sever system extensions, & sewer systems On-site inspection. Post-application technica4 conference usual
?I not discharging into state surface waters.
NPOES - permit to discharge into surface wateri and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Pre-applicr
permit to operate and construct veastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treau
D discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or
of NPDES permit-vhichever is later.
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessa;-
Well'Constrvction Permit I N/A.

I Application copy must be served on each riparian property ovocar. On-site
Dredge arid Fill Permit -inspection: Pre-bpplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
D Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill
I Permit: `
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement'
N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources
C Any open burning associated with subject proposal must
;
be in compliance with 15 NCAC 20.0520.

I Demolition of structures containing asbestos ma:erial must
1 be in compliance with 15 NCAC 20.0525 vhrch prohibits N/A
D l burning of such materials.
I
I
El i Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCP.C 20.04300.
I
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Ac: o'. 19-73 must be properly addressee for any land disturbing activity. An erosion e, sedirr_ntation
0
I be required if one or more acres to be disturbed.
I darts before begin
Plan filec veith proper Regional O fice (Land Quality Sec:.) atleast3
j;The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act o' 1973 nus: be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
D
I On-site inspec:ion usual. Surety bond filed r.dth 1: R C 0 at -,-n:
AFFECTED LAND AREA
!J? _':T G= 2?ft0
Less than 5 acres S 21 S0o
kining Permit S but less dhan 10 acres ,OOJ
10 but less than 2S acres :2,500

1 25 or more acres c,JDO
GlNorth Carolina Burning Permit iOn-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds S dad
'Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit
i
ll
)
Division Forest Resoure:s required
i
tion b
ins
N
I On-
C
count
es
( Dare, Hyde, Washington, Ty(e .
.
s
te
pec
y
.

CiOiI Refining Facilities I
I N/A
I If permit required, application 60 days before begin construe:;-jn. Applicant m
I (hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect cc nstr::lion, certify
:Dam Safety Permit construction is according to NRCD approved plans. May also :.quire Oeparamc

I lof Human Resources permit under mosquito control program
_ ?FiIc surety bond of 55.000 with NRCO running to State of N.C. conditional ttia
DIPermit to drill exploratory oil or gas well j any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged
Icccording to NRCD rules and regulations.
I
C--ophysical Ercnloration Pc:r,--.
_?
ftppl,catron :.led with NRCD at least 10 days prior to issue e: mermi: A
plication form
li
-
No standard a
I
b
l
I
.
oo
cauon
y
ette
.
p
Continued n:. -cvc:sc
rroees
statut,
PERMITS ' SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDORPS or F '?
Application fee based on structure size is charted. Mist include descriptions & 15.20
D State Lakes Construction Permit drawings of structure & proof of ownership oft iparian property (N.
60 c
401 Water Quality Certification N/A YI30 dz
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development SI0.00 fee must accompany application (180 d
22 c
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 510.00 fee must accompany application (60 da
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
? N.C. Geodetic Survey, Bor. 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
? A full E I S trust be required under the provisions of N E PA and SE PA
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite corrment authority):
AYJ-0 QvAuM : 1j Eip --"Tyn, wp4. AvO F,?SteAJ CoJf
1
,
""JA-,t4_41 A-W1*55,0 vrv 0164t- Tx E/ T ?-
?f?°?fr?
PAJt;n WL" ATr*,A-T7°*4 '-W Sr 61:-n7 Gr'Jt'rA
CF S>fitfll?><t.1Jr 14T-1.4t- tft•.•"SV R-ES SJ f-f (-1ENT
?Ct--?`f.?lT 5 ott? L•oS3 A?' S-nR-w- ?JCi.?t+r! S `t STt?
TkAT S

, .` lba ,
reviewer signature a ency cast
RECION-AL OFFICES
Asheville Regional Office Fayetteville Regional Office
159 Aoodfin Street Suite 714 A'achovis Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fajctteville, NC 28301
[phone] (919) 4.36.1541
Mooresvillc Regional Office Raleigh Regional Office
1119'North Main Strect Box 2768
Mooresville, NC 20115 Raleigh, NC 2'611
(704) 663 -1699 [phone]
9 ashington Regional Office. 9 ilmington Regional Office
1502 North NSarkct Street 7223 Crigbtsville Avenue
Tachington, NC 27889 A ilmington, NC 284,03
(919) 946-66401 (919) 256-4 161
AVinston-Snlent Rceionnl Office
8003 Silar- Creek Parkway Extension
q in?tun-Salcm, NC 27106
(919)'61-2351
A-13
e"pp
1 Y
r• -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Charles H. Gardner
Director
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 5, 1990
To: Melba McGee
From: Gary Thompson
Subject: 91-0284, Wake County, Fuquay-Varina, N.C.
Widening of US 401, from NC 42-55 to SR 2753
TIP No. R-2416
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 5 gc.Ddetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone]
construction. Intentional destruction of a prior to
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT
I
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
N0? 1990 '',
A-14
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES G? J- O Z g
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
X12 42- -SS
Project Name t 4ol 7-753 T e of Project
SCZ yp
The following are our comments on the above referenced subject.
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements must be
approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of
construction (as required by 10 NCAC 100 .0900 at. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water
. / Supply Section, (919) 733-2+60.
V/
Several 'water lines possibly are located in the path of an adjacent to the proposed project. Due to a
possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact the appropriate water system
officials to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project will be constructed near water resources which are used for drinking. Precautions
should be taken to prevent contamination of the watershed and stream by oil or other harmful
substances. Additional Information Is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at (919)
733-2321.
Back flow preventors should be installed on all incoming potable water lines. Additional infor:,arion
is available by contacting the Public Water $upply Section at [phone].
This project will be classified as a community public water supply and must comply with state and
federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant should contact the
Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent waters
to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant
should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements for
septic tank installations (as required under 10 NCAC IDA .1900 et. seq. and/a sanitary facilities
requirements for this project if applicable. For information concerning septic tank and other on-site
waste disposal methods, contact the On-site Sewage Branch at [phone].
V The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures, an
extensive rodent control project may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the rodents to
adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health department or the
/ Public Health Pest Managenent Section [phone].
y The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem. For
)nformalton concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact the Public
Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
6AU-J. E?:i,v'ir ?,. V a 1 ?.
Reviewer BrancJ/Unit 0 to
A-15
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lain mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph SO ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C
I Average factory, vacuum cleaner
Passenger car SO mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
E - Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

SO
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
whisper S feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
whisper JUST AUDIBLE
0
1
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, 'Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation' by J. B. Olishifski and E.-R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
A-16
TABLE N2
BOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level • decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(b) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an ilportant public
(Exterior) need' and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, totels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D •• Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, sotels, hotels, public seeting roots, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriuas.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CRY) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Adainistration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
c 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: ILoLft Carolina Qe partient Qf Transportation Noise Abatesent Guidelines
A-17

i
TABLE N3
YNWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Widening of US 401, fro' NC 42-55 to SR 2753, Puquay-Varina,
Wake County, 1-2416, State Project 6. 401064.
Maxisua Predicted Contour Approximate Nusber of Ispacted
Leg Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
(dBA) (Maxisus) Title 23 CYR Part 112
Alternate 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

Alternate 1 73-15 69-71 64.65 66.90 137-172 0 6 2 0 0
Alternate 2 73-75 69-71 64-65 66-87 137-164 0 7 2 0 0
Alternate 3 73-75 69-71 63-65 63-87 134-164 0 4 1 0 0
otes :
1. SO', 1001, and 200' distances are seasured frog center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are seasured frca center of proposed roadway.
A-18
TABLE Al
CALIN13: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - SEPTEMEER, 1979 VERSION
JOB: US 64 WAKE COUNTY R-2416 RUN: 2006 BUILD 1 45 MPH
' I. SITE VARIABLES
U = 1 M/S CLAS : 5 IEI VS = 0 CK/S ATIK = 60 MINUTES KITH = 400 K
Of
BIG = 5 DEGREES 10 : 10 CH VD : 0 CM/S -AMB = 2.4 PPM TEMP = 29.1
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTIOq t 'LINK COORDINATES (M) * LINK LENGTH LINK BRG TYPE VPH IF H
(M)
MI W
(M)
* Y1 Y1 12 Y2 ' (M) (DEG) )
(G/
................................ t.............
t 2000 ..........
360 .............
AG 4140 ..............
7.051 0 .....
29.8
A. 4-LANE HIGHWAY t 0 -1000 0 1000
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND MODEL RESULTS
RECEPTOR t COORDINATES (M) t CO
t I Y Z t (PPM)
......................... :.............................. t.......
1. R2 BUS 115' LEFT t -35.1 0 1.8 t 3.3
TABLE A2
CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - SEPTEMBER, 1919 VERSION
JOB: US 64 WAKE COUNTY R-2416 RUN: 2016 BUILD 1 45 MPH
I. SITE VARIABLES
U = 1 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0 CK/S ATIK = 60 MINUTES HIIH : 400 K
BRG = 5 DEGREES ZO = 10 CM VD = 0 CM/S AMB a 2.4 ?PH TEMP = 29.1 °F
II. LINK VARIABLES '
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (K) t LINK LENGTH LINK BRG TYPE VPH EF H W
t I1 Y1 12 Y2 t (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M)
......................... *-------------------------------- *................................. -.....................
A. 4-LA.'S HIGHWAY t 0 -1000 0 1000 t 2000 360 AG 4140 6.998 0 29.8
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND MODEL RESULTS
RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) t CO
t I Y Z t (PPM)
......................... :..........•----------...------t.......
1. R: BUS 115' LEFT t -35.1 0 1.8 t 3.3
A-19
TABLE A3
CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - SEPTEMBER, 1919 VERSION
JOB: US 64 WAKE COUNTY R-2416 RUN: 2006 BUILD 1 55 MPH
i I. SITE VARIABLES
U = 1 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) VS
BP.G = 5 DEGREES ZO = 10 CM VD
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION t ',LINK COORDINATES (M)
t IT Y1 12 12
......................... t...............................
A. 4-LANE HIGHWAY t 0 -1000 0 1000
0 CM/S ATIM
0 CM/S AMB
t LINK LENGTH LINK BRG
t (M1 (DEG)
-t ......................
t 2000 360
60 MINUTES MIIH : 400 M
2.4 PPM TEMP : 29.1 *1
TYPE VPH IF H W
(G/MI) (M) (M)
..............................
AG 4140 537 0 29.8
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND MODEL RESULTS
RECEPTOR t COORDINATES (M) * CO
t Y Y Z t (PPM)
......................... t.............................. t.......
1. R6 BUS 85' LEFT t -25.9 0 1.8 t 3.4
TABLE A4
CALIN13: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - SEPTEMBER, 1919 VERSION
JOB: US 64 WAKE COUNTY R-2416 RUN: 2016 BUILD E 55 MPH
I. SITE VARIABLES
+ U = 1 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) VS = 0 CM/S ATIM : 60 MINUTES MIIH = 400 M
BP.G = 5 DEGREES ZO = 10 CH VD = 0 CM/S AMB = 2.4 PPM TEMP : 29.1 °F
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) t LINK LENGTH LINK BRG TYPE VPH IF H W
* I1 Y1 12 Y2 t (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M)
-------------------------t................................ 1.......................................................
A. 4-LANE HIGHWAY t 0 -1000 0 1000 t 2000 360 AG 4140 5.827 0 29.8
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND MODEL RESULTS
RECEPTOR t COORDINATES (M) * CO
t I Y Z =( PPM) A-20
......................... *------------------------------t.......
1. R6 BUS 85' LEFT t -25.9 0 1.8 t 3.4
TABLE AS
CALIM13: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - SEPTEMBER, 1919 VERSION
JOB: US 64 WAKE COUNTY R-2416 RUN: 2006 NO BUILD 1 55 MPH
I. SITE VARIABLES
U : 1 HJS CLAS a S (E) VS : 0 CMS ATIM = 60 MINUTES MIIH = 400 M
e BIG = 5 DEGREES ZO o 10 CM VD = 0 CMS AMB : 2.4 PPM TEMP = 29.1 °Y
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION t i,LINK C I OORDINATI?S (M) Y2 LINK ( LENGTH LINK RG TYPE VPH (G./MI) (MI (M)
............t.......................................................
A. 2-LANE ROADWAY t 0 -1000 0 1000 t 2000 360 AG 1186 5.87 0 13.3
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND MODEL RESULTS
P.ECEPTCR t COORDINATES (M) t CO
t I I Z t (PPM)
......................... t.............................. t.......
1. I6 BUS 85' LEFT t -ZS.9 0 1.8 t 2.6
TABLE A6
CALIN13: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION
JOB: US 64 WAKE COUNTY R.Z416 RUN: 2016 NO BUILD 1 55 MPH
I. SITE VARIABLES
- U _ 1 NIS CLAS n 5 (E) VS = 0 CHI$ ATIM = 60 HINUTES MIIH = 400 M
BP.G = 5 DEGREES ZO = 10 CH VD : 0 CM/S AMB = 2.4 ?PH TEMP = 29.1 of

II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION t LINK COORDINATES (M) t LINK LENGTH LINK BRG TYPE VPH BF H W
t Y1 I1 12 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M)
-----------------•-------t.. .............................. :............. .......... ..................... ...........
A. 2-LANE ROADWAY t 0 -1000 0 1000 t 2000 360 AG 1186 5.827 0 13.3
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND MODEL RESULTS
RECEPTOR t COORDINATES (M) t CO
t I I Z t (PPM) A-21
......................... t.............................. t.......
1. R6 BSS 85' LEFT t -25.9 0 1.8 t 2.6