19950633 Ver 1_Complete File_19950614

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Barney O'Quinn
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
FILE CO,'
You have our approval to place fill material in 1.11 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose
of constructing a road at Hammond Road extension, as you described in your application dated
13 June 1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local pen-nits before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
P son How d, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
ED F= F1
July 14, 1995
Wake County
DEM Project # 95633
TIP # U-515AA
Project # 8.2432801
COE # 19950863
95633.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
bl,
??sjas

2>
eor" T. - o `T
i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT J R.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 13, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
14
SUBJECT: Wake County, Hammond Road ( SR 2026) from SR 2683 (Rush Street) to
US 70. State Project No. 8.2432801, T.I.P. No. U-515AA, COE Action
ID No. 199500863.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
and extend Hammond Road (SR 2026) from Rush Street to 0.3 mile south of US 70, a
length of 2 miles. The proposed project will complete a link between the six-lane section
of Hammond Road to the north and the four-lane section of Timber Drive to the south.
From Rush Street to Tryon Road, the existing two-lane portion of Hammond Road will be
widened to a four-lane divided shoulder section, mostly asymmetrically to the east. From
Tryon Road to US 70, a six-lane divided curb and gutter section will be constructed on
new location.
Additional travel lanes are proposed along US 70 to provide six lanes in the
vicinity of Hammond Road. An at grade intersection is proposed at US 70 with the
subject project, however, the ultimate Hammond Road design includes an interchange at
US 70. Mechanical Boulevard will be relocated approximately 1000 feet north of the
existing location so the intersection will not interfere with the future US 70 interchange.
The potential environmental effects of this project were initially evaluated in an
Environmental Assessment in 1980 and a Finding of No Significant Impact completed in
1981. A Reevaluation document was completed in 1992 for improvements between
Tryon Road and Grovemont Road. The NCDOT has completed a Reevaluation for the
segment between Rush Street and Tryon Road, which was signed by the Federal Highway
Administration on March 10, 1995. This document evaluated three design alternatives for
wetland avoidance and minimization.

R. SAMUEL HUNT 111
SECRETARY

(9-
2
The NCDOT proposed in the 1981 FONSI to widen Hammond Road by
constructing two new lanes on the east side of the existing roadway separated by a 30-foot
median. This alternative was anticipated to impact 1.4 acres of high quality wetlands. The
NCDOT examined a west side widening alternative to avoid this wetland impact. This
alternative avoided the wetlands impacted by the first alternative, but impacted 0.22 acres
of lesser quality wetlands. This alternative also had the highest cost due to additional right
of way and construction costs.
As a compromise, the NCDOT is proposing to widen Hammond Road on the east
side with a reduced median. Two new lanes would be constructed east of the existing
roadway separated by a 16-foot median and with a maximum 2:1 side slopes. This
alternative minimizes wetland impacts while maximizing the use of the existing alignment
and right of way. This alternative retains all of the existing two-lane portion of Hammond
Road and is contained within the existing right of way and easements. The proposed
median was reduced to a minimum desirable width of 16 feet through the wetlands area.
This median was designed to contain a 12-foot left turn lane and a 4-foot raised island at
intersections on each side of the wetlands.
The NCDOT has eliminated improvements to existing Hammond Road north of
Rush Street. This widening was proposed to tie into the original design, and impacted
0.23 acres of wetlands. Eliminating this widening reduces both project wetland impacts
and cost.
The proposed alternative impacts 1.1 acres of wetlands. The site affected consists
of a relatively undisturbed high quality beaver pond/swamp approximately 6 acres in size.
The site is located on the east side of Hammond Road between Rush Street and
Chapanoke Road. Common species of flora include: soft rush (Juncus effusus), spike rush
(Eleocharis spy.), black willow (Salix nigra), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), touch-me-
not (Impatiens capensis), smooth alder (Alnus serrulata), redroot cyperus (C py, erus
er hrorhizos), river birch (Betula ni ra and several common sedge species (Carex W.).
In October, 1986, the Corps of Engineers issued a Section 404 permit to place fill
material in wetlands along Wildcat Branch for the construction of Hammond Road
between Rush Street and Tryon Road . The permit authorized NCDOT to initially
construct Hammond Road as a two-lane roadway and later widen the roadway to a four-
lane facility. The project was originally anticipated to impact a total of 4.5 acres of
wetlands including 1.6 acres from the two-lane construction and 2.9 acres from the future
widening improvements. The two lane roadway was completed in January, 1988, and the
permit expired in December 1989. The proposed design for the widening improvements is
contained within the previously permitted construction limits and impacts a smaller
acreage of wetlands than originally anticipated.
In the previous Section 404 permit, mitigation was included for anticipated
wetland losses resulting from the future widening of Hammond Road. Because the project
improvements are contained within the previously permitted four-lane construction limits,
this mitigation remains valid, and no additional mitigation is proposed.
This project has been extensively coordinated with the regulatory review agencies,
including the Corps of Engineers. The COE has indicated that a Nationwide Permit, 33
CFR 330.5(a)(26) will likely apply to the project since the impacted wetlands are above
headwaters. The NCDOT hereby requests that your agency review this project for
authorization under Section 404. By copy of this correspondence, the NCDOT also
requests that the N.C. Division of Environmental Management review this project for
authorization by a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If you have any questions or
need any additional information, please call Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEM, Raleigh
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, PE, Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Don Morton, PE, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. N. L. Graf, FHWA, attn: Mr. Roy Shelton
DEM ID:
ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Boy 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. jOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
I. Owners Name: N C Dapartment of Transpnrtatinn, Plannin0 and FnvirnnmPntal
2. Owners Address: P 0 Box 25201 Attn• Mr. H Franklin Vick. PE
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
5. Location of work (MUST A T T A C H MAP). County: W a k e
Nearest Town or City: Raleigh
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Hammond Road (SR 2026) from Rush Street
to US 70.
6. Name of ClosestStream/River: Wildcat Branch and unnamed tributaries to Wildcat Bran
7. River Basin: N e u s e
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [ ] NO [X]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES k J NO [ ]
If yes, explain. S P P rover 1 attar -
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site: g i t e
impacted is approximately 6 acres in size.
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 1.092 wetland acres, 0.016 acres surface waters
Drained: _
Flooded: _
Excavated:
Total Impa
es
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): Wed . n_; n Q n f Hamm no ri
Road (SR 2026) from SR 2683 (Rush Street) to US 70.
13. Purpose of proposed work
public roadway
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. Np_practicable a l t e r n a t i v e
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES T X] NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [X J NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property?
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal?
Owner's Signature Date
r

7, 2-
SCALE _ VICINITY MAP
0 '/z ?
FROM U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE
MILES
SITE I
fir,%: x- •:>v
=ten •r"'
OEM
C.
d.
F-
u
. n.f
,g
"BEGIN PROJEC
SCALE VICINITY MAP
0 z FROM NCDOT COUNTY MAP
MILES OF WAKE COUNTY
N.C. DEPT, OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
PROJECT U-515AA
PROPOSED
HAMMOND ROAD EXTENSION
SHEET 1 OF 15

IV
¢0
r J
7JO
aim Y
C P.
m
p N N
N ,
7
LZ•Ll 3S
6 N
Gam{
V ? Y
.CN
W¢RW
? oI
? N I04N
6
O I

? r
I o i

O ?
° '
.
W
II

p x
W W W?
¢
?I r
=
4 o
w
I

Qa r I
,T,

l7l]•!]L I I

o?
cl
,
LL•5 SI _
I
;
Q z

bl I
O
oN ,
All., O
b
m
O s
N
w
JIII?
\ W 1 J NL? ;:: 1
dl 30d NJ?
Il _-=-'I O 30d O
I nom' ?
I ? ~?1+1s l .7 0 _
, i I J, ? / `4 L 1
1
.,yld,1??.1.?.I?Q I, ?I•Q, q ? / u
I ? M .•9q•Sl.SB N
I I I ? u 1
I I ^m?
l i 1 9n I? ? I
I II
Ix IaN N of r" II
r I
II c '00•S ? v' (>
I
I oQ ? I -? ? y I
T gal £;1
J
1 II ?'
y`I W
• v I N, I
K.IG I W
I? W
.IW
o i of? Q
001 d
e
W
p W'?
I f=W?
O r14
lit -
d ?X
V;
W ? Q h
r p, ,(?•
¢
N.
N
L
v
? C
r
WS'n
s O N
v? W r
-Nl?tl
'IS Hsna
too
f? 1
_ 3.$1 ?1„ Syr
u I elR, ,fi?? ?n
dl
VIA
(? 1u Q s ^I' Z U
1 11 J?r i a.
I o` ? 7a l
Z
O_ Z
~
? >- O

fr Q V)
z

0 3:: >•-
a = F

LO
?
LLJ

zd=::) x
oW
O
U
LL 04
.
f- LL
O
?
Q 4-p
O

(n
?
Z LLB

.-
CL

0
a O
LL.
O
0 Q
U = N
Z F-
W
W
2
V)
0
H
o p
in N
0
p W
LL
h O
H 0c
O L
h
W
I-
Cn
\W
z
W
??Q
W
U
J ?
?- cr
W Z)
3: N
Z Z
J J
J J
Li L+.
Ln N
W W
r- r-
Z Z
W W
0 0
. i

!
i

q\ !

? !
o !
! o

N N
I
Q N
CCN
V)

I >JN•-

I aw?Y

z

0
i
! U
! U
! z
00'06.OL OAd 1 N

X
N ? w

Coll
Gl
1 w
OO'SL•6 IAd

I
U
I o
I w

I a 0
i
c
?Qa<
I O -?
ow
II '
w
C
i
I wU?0 C
?
"
O I -
>=47t Q7
vn I SZ•8 aV=w
iw D
w
O
N? I h-
W
C?-

HN I
I _
V) J V)
y

V) torn
! \=?
w V)U-~O
wN: I w a -r
dW JY M I w pq

n
co <
Q? <a
r,
n I UI N
00'SL-L OAd II
>9'SL•9 b'1S -il- q--
-8Z-L6•£L t/1S-L.l- I i
'1S Hsn8 '1SIX3 3
ii
1 ?
1 U
-
i U
96.9
l ?
Z
O
< Z
O
N _
0Q

Off} w
Z?oz

¢_? Ln

ow
w
tY O
U
F- O D
O
LLJ
LL F-
C-) a O O
0:
-
O0Q Li X
CL0
F-- N Z O Z
C
0-
Li -' CL c
0o g

U Q
2
!`•
Z F-
LL
T
V:
0
0
O
O
N
O
O
a
a
0
0
0
c,
O
O
co
0
0
f-I
O
O
W
.J
O O O O
h h N N
W
(n
W
W
J
Lam.
O'
rr,
O

O O

I

~ J
z A
O
0 VVV
h H
GL W
O

W
J
O J O t%
w
v-, O n a
N a
n
?

1
3?5 'Nil HO I"
-3'HS /
8?
1 .7
au,.? o0 0
i ?, pj?. ?? a. /^ z
Lr
co
to U-)
L'i
I •X/
Wa:W ,y
G
j I

00.OZ
I j
? a
oo
I
n
?
I \
I
s I ,
I
? I g
I?I?
i

L> 0.0L 15 =
s
pI ¢_ 9 co
a I
I - 1 In
?
,
ti's 1 •• ?
.
o0 o O '?
• ? ..: In
n i =1 I ?oN
?I ?
CO W
W ?x o?i;Iti t
6 w1 ,3?n?

10-
?2 O a
? -• O ?

= 1` z° J a 1
? I?1?m uC , 52

LO ? h ?? w W
?•
r
^ W I
a
?HC O
' O I/ " ' I I /
p .
•
1
` q?
I
a C
I

NJ
C
HuaO
C •"
,

y F
r
u I
? I I JVI
? I T
t ? l ?? ?5 ?
a?
r
^

0 ?
Q
Y
uz
.-

'ZO.BI SO
a? .9L W
"1 O oW
°n a °
I
Lv 1 4, l '
I n<uuo
pl
I I V W a¢< N
'
2 x ,.
o ° is 1 ?
1 `? o W? lo_
amti c y u '`
Y
, ?? Ir IQ
a
,nJ- 2 r
°uW YJmN ?JJ yl
R.1 ?
1
i 4
?I
a ? Ir
'
f
?
'1 I
_ (?
I
+
d N' ?
,
?
y
ff

•-cO C??
? ?
? U
aI Iy 0

l ?
•
,
1 ? I
99 a
v`??i 'T? d
O'er ?
1 (? I Io I9 0
_
p f y ??,? bZ Ot O

u ?p e3 ? IpI? x
ry • ? ?,
?•3w 11? f ?

Q / .
) O 1

10
?
pI
z I
F
O
I I C O Y
CQ ,?

1? ?4v
'?S3
N1)HJ
?r
z
o Z
Q cn °
f-
>< V)
oar
(A w
Z Lo
I
W
Lj
C O
LL_ U
F- =
t- O.C)
a'
O

LL_
°

jJ
O
0
C-e x
a
.)
N p
x Z
CL
ui
4. O
O
C Q
U = `r
Z t-
w
LLJ
N
O J
N
o O
in L4
W_
O
uj
J
IO
r a
C6
Lr)
W
V
W
l>
z
Q
w
W
0 W
w
> In
z z
J J
_J _J
to N
w w
0
z z
w w
? o
1
I
?e

- I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
00'LC•Ob OAd 1
I
o
o I
o I
I U
0018.61 lAd I
I U
I ?
1
I ?
1 x

.
i
II U
1
I N

I
I I

c, !
?aN I I

,?J-J^
W-JNC
! {Q
I
I /
I `5
r
A
/I
r
/I
1
r
/

/

00113-il OAd /
r
/
OTOL-CL lAd /
° 0 0 0 0
co n N v
N N N N N
z
o

a? z
o

o z
?
En
- W
?_z Ljw
O
?
? U
S
0

o
LLJ
?-
0 0
= I
0
0 Yd 0 a
°
?
,

N
j Q.

CL z
cc U,
U S U")'
z F-
W
W:
S ;
y) :
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
O
0
0
0
W
0
a ?
0
0
m
0
a
N
O
O
W
1
W
0
?
6 L_.
n
0 0
J
C lll......JJJ
'n N i
w I
J
LLJ
J UL
u O
N 0 to °4
H oC CL-
O. N
o t
o\ -
V
\ F
C
ti I
Y
OI ioo n:n OTC ? ??\?,.
? 2.?ya•a W ? Vf
a W.o ? W ?I
.-u N nx V
WQAW
00•Sl
I
N
<?Q wV
J O 1" I
O Q
U Q I
o?
W W
r ? V
N U ?
oo`
O ` 1
O
r
a
W \ ;
o ?
Z R?
ll'60•ZZ OS z?:
011
al
?I I? O
V W
;? dl ? ua•
?-77 C o
!1 14 ? n9
O
V/
/

z i
o
<N z
z
o ?- }
F-
`n ?

N 0 z
dz=0
to
' x
o w
cr O
?-
U = p
B
O
LL
LLI ?- CL
O
.
0o o a p

F- N
0 Ln
z
a_
w>
a 0
o
00
U 2 ?
Z F-
W
I--
V
W
l?
z
?I
J
O
J
Q
H
z
O Q
N_
K
0

W
J
Ll-
%n 0
N ce

O
h
fr
W
r
Q

? W
?
Q
J lL
r
W
-3:: V)
z z
J J
_1 J
U-
V) N
W W
r r
0 0
z z
w W
0 0
r
c
0
00'99.9Z :)Ad \
\
\ o
0019•9Z lAd \ U
\ m
\ U
\ z
\ N
94*ZS•4Z '11S-11- W
-0£,l-_-'t
0
0
(V fl
Q N
N>CNn
W m N
J
4 W J Y
\
\\i
\ \d
\
1
1
1 I
,
1 '
WQ 1
U ?
O , I
W
O
4 \
O \
4 \I
1
II
1
II
1
11
It
1
i
I<
C
C
p rn 0 O O
N N N N
N
O
O
m
N
0
0
N
Y
]
t
V
I
J
I
i
Z
° Z
O
¢ W
0
Off}
CL
N G Z LO F-
w
S S LO
' ?
° D (n
Q
°
V
i.LL.
°W
l
U aQ
°C:
y
o z CL
° o Ln
W > a li
O
p0
U S
Z ?
W
W
S
V)

W
W
W
W
O
I^?
I
IL
O ?

O
O
n
N ?-
oe
O w

, t,
u
J U-
_ 0
W) O
r g. to oG
a-
O
h

C) 0 0

N O
N r
N

' N w
o
y9
96•ll ?11S 0f1.- o o
Ob CNOYIYMH 3 o
FZ'F8Z 'A313 ? `
\
ow •
ZS'04•ll -/IS lAd \ vt
3(3Yb0 ON3 0 a°
0
C) \ 0
1 a
0
\ o
_
1 0
l -f 1 OA d 0%

\ o
O
M
00.09.01 'V1S LAd 1
1 ? U
I
OS'SLZ 'A313 °o z
00'00.O1 `V1S 0Ad "? N o
0
NClion ISNOO N1039 x o
3QVb0 N1039
O
N \ JW

O O r7 1
r7 ^ I? p
p? n 1
r,
d N co
? :?

~
(n > C) p
N>0 1
1 0
0
q
> J ^
> J
p
a W J Y a W J Y
O O O
m t`
N N N
z
O
Q N z
O
r >-
aQ cn
z

CL W
(A
zd=Z
Lo
°W
o

~o
o?
a
o
li W
pz w x
x
a
How ° Z
>
0 4- li.
c
0
U = a)
z r-
W
w
r

W
V J
W
W
O
n
O O
J

h O
Z W
O
W

W
J
_
U O
0
-
vl O N G.

il.
?
l
of
0
N
0
0
0
O
Q
H
N
ci
of
rl-
N
I
r
r
1
/
1
r
r
r
/
i
(I LO C\j
1)
Z
O
O
J
Q
1 ?
\ F-
\ Q
\ Z
\
\
\
\
Nd?13M 30 3003
MO O C) O
I I
r l
v
I
N N N N
I
I
I
I
1
I
0
N
_ C
O
O
f-
r~
- o
N
C-L
J
O
N
F-
J
O
f-'
J
(.0
J
Q
03
J
O
O
J
O
OI r
cI
NI
Z
O Z
O
it Q Q Z

a=F. Q
r w

cn O Z
zd=5
Lo x
Uj LiJ
cn
X
0
LL
0
.
w 000
LL
p Z :d
O
?
ao

?.
,
5: p
4. Z
O
LL.
w
O O O
U 2 ?
Z ?-+
W
V J
z.
O
U
w
V)
Ln Ln V)
w w w
ccc
C 4 <
Q
W

2

z W
Q r

<<

J L,_
~ J
LaJ
J
W _
r ?'
Lf
Z Z

U/ J J ~
J _J 0
Li U- h-
c
w
Q

0 W
z
d
J
F- li.
?v
Lit D
l Ln
Z
J J
J J

Ln
Li Lal

O O
Z Z
LJ w
0 0
N/l
0
r . 0
J J
H
H
z z
0 0 0
N N
O
i O

-

W
J_ _
V z
LLI ,.
J ?V
l
Q
r u-

I`.
O
G 4
G

o OI c
DI I
N N

O
F-
N co
W
0
_ Q
F-
O
N
- (-4J
J
N
F-
J
Q
F-
J
O
O
F-
J
-_ Q
O) ?
N
Z
O Z
O

~ V)
Z
a=?_
Moz
Z== Lo °w
U)
0
LL
0
.
o
LAi ?
L) o
°-
0
o zo d o a
a cn
a o LL.
w ?
En O

0
U = r'
Z F-
W
V
?
m
W
i
?z
O
U
(W
V /
(1) 01 N
w w w
Q Q C
W C, o,
z
Q
ZoZ w
Q G
J lv
~ J
y to ?
W w?J
J J h
J J ?
li L? h
W
F-
Q
Ul
0Z W
Q Q
J ?
W D
N
Z 2
J J
J J
U- (..
N (A
W w
O O
w w
0
0 0
N
J J
z z
o O O
N N
O O
W J J
O O
Cd N a
O.. d 0.
O y?
p cI O ?
N 1 N NI NI
co
O1
N
O
n
N
OI
N
O? O O
I
Go ?? O
N N N
Ln
N
01
1
I
1
1
I
i
i
I
O
N
Nl-
N
01
F-
C
O
co
F-
C
O
F-
C
O
F-
C
O
N

F-
J
O
N
F-
O
F-
J
O
Co
OI
Z
O Z
Q V O
F-
Of<
< 0
Z
O >
- z ?-
n Q F-LLJ
Moz
7
= = Lo
n W
4
C O
W
= pp
UQ

F
-
OW F-
LL.
O Z
-?
CL o
- ? C)
Z
W >
CL O
It-.
pp C

Z N'

LL
T'
U?
N N N
W W W
c c c
<<<
C, co:

c
z W
r

° W
U
J Q
r C J
W
J
_
Lf
W ? Z Z J
J J r

4. ? r
( n C
V / W
h?
Q
V

U W
<
J
W ?
C
r V)
Z Z
,? J
J J
J

O
I/7
L V)
V)
W W
F-
0
O
Z Z

U W W
°
W

C1?

0
n 0
J J
O O O
N N
O O
f
w
J w
J
O
n:
L
N O
K
a
OI O
00 t- LO
N of N N
0I N co
of
N
r
_ c
0
ca
F-
c
O
r
c
O
N
- ci
r
J
O
N
J
- O
-It
r
J
O
cD
r
J
- O
00
OI
In
N
2
O Z
QU O
F- >- to
cQ g z
O F-
r
d = F- ? X
N O Z Lo Lo
= O
I- 0 U O Q
IL 0
?OLLJ w 0C
O Z -? a 0 Lt
O_. O Z
CL c O L
> d
00 ? c
U =
Z ?
L
L
L
Ln (n V)
w w w
,^
C / ccL,
< <
<
LLI
erica
Oi Oi
7

z LJ
r
Q <

--- Z? w
Q <
?
L
-
~ ? J

W W J
' (n L
W ?-- Z Z J

1 ' J J

r C/
) 0
J J_ ?

?J ! c
ui
F-

Q z?
< W
<
J ?
D
I w
? N
z z
J J
O V)
Ln
Ln
W L-
O O
z z

U Li
o LAJ
0
W

0
n 0
J J
Fa"

O ?
N Q
N
= O
W W
J
u.
0 J
u.
0

p p O O

Q1
1
00
I
1\I )
cD
N N N N
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
OI OI OI O
rn 00 1` cD
N N N N
O
Lf)
N
r
0
r
O
O
N
0i
r
J
O
N
r
J
O
pI c
Ln
N
1. 1
z
o z
Q N
(n
r r
?Q ¢¢ z
O?>-
d = ?- Q
LO H

w
En ciz
_ LO °
?
C)
r- LA- U D
F o?
a
O
O
w
LL-
OZ U

?-> O

a

?
¢

~N
O 0 :

w > O ?.
c
D ?
M
U _
Z ?
LL
1L
T
v
W
V
W
z
O
U
W
c J
N N N
W W W
C:f C a:
cry < < <
W : co"
f
1>
C
z W
s
W
?<
J {i
~ C J
W D J_
W 'v)?
I Z Z J
J J ~
J _J 0
La. L? N
W
H
0 W
J ?y
W D
rn
z z
J J
_J J
N U)
W W
F- f-
0 0
W w
D 0
Fui
K>i
0 0
n
J J
l F4 -
z z
o 0
a a
0 0
x x
W W
J J
LL
0 ? C
a r u
a a
i
o.?
J LLJ
w
CD
w o
> Q
O w
m =
Q
F-
0
L
O
d Q
L
Lil
F-
Q
v
LLJ
Q
Z
O J W
Q J Q
LLJ
V)
Q
D U
U) Q
Z (n
J
J Z
Q
F-
W
Lli
a
w
a_
Z
O_
F-
Q
F-
V)
WI
F-

W

> Z

O

Z
O
~ O
?4
Off} Z
Li
C-
En F-
OZ tr)

Lo

X
w
Z
Q=O
O
= (n
o
Ln u_7 ~ O
to OW U 0
O
t?
oZ
an
Y,
0
CL j d <
D D ?
U
w
Z Z F•
L
O L
Z
4
CD CD
O O
O O
N N
0) O
O
- O
1
O-
Of-
F-- -? F-
? J ?
' "o
° Ln c) n
i O to
N d O
N
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAME AND ADDRESS
PROJECT REF. NO. U-515AA
SR 2026 (HAMMOND ROAD) IN RALEIGH FROM
SR 2683 (RUSH STREET) TO SOUTH OF US 70
WAKE COUNTY
PARCEL NO. OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS
(F-B & ASSOCIATES)
Oj MONTLAWN MEMORIAL 3201 S. WILMINGTON ST.
PARK, INC. RALEIGH, N.C. 27603-3537
2 STATE OF N.C. 116 W. JONES ST.
DEPT. OF CRIME AND PUBLIC SAFTY
C/O/ DEPT. OF ADMINISTRATION RALEIGH, N.C. 27603-1300
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
PROJECT U-515AA
PROPOSED
HAMMOND ROAD EXTENSION
gPP';'T 1r, nc ir,
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Q o
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ?I
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ? ??? 0 J
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 8, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne*V
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Reevaluation of the FONSI for SR 2026 (Hammond Road)
Wake County
State Project DOT No. 8.2432801, TIP # U-515AA
EHNR # 95-0735, DEM # 10929
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 impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 1.33 acres of waters including wetland. DEM offers
these comments based on the reevaluation FONSI document:
A) DEM appreciates the early coordination with DOT on this project. The level of
discussion of wetland avoidance and minimization alternatives (pages 7-9)
documents efforts undertaken by DOT and should be incorporated into each
document. The discussion of wetlands on pages 19-22 is a model of the
information needed by DEM. DOT should be congratulated (especially Mark
Reep and Lane Sauls) for the thoroughness of the wetland analysis.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Raleigh COE
Frank Vick
Charles Bruton
hammond.rev
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1096 post-consumor paper
A
z

December 19, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart;'Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0336; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Reevaluation of Proposed Improvements to SR 2026,
Raleigh, TIP No. U-515AA
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
RECE1 /Ef)
DEC 2 u
Melba McGee
"'???'a??%??r+rai
December 19, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10791.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
FF,'iitt 1" 1 19P4 1 it: 1
r
,4'-
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
I,/ / `
TO: REF NO. R ROOM, BLDG.

FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
r
??
Z G
7s
l
NC 12 -•
1 ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND GEE ME AUOUT THIS ';OR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

y
STATE
?t
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
November 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Mark L. Reep, P. E. Project Planning Planning En?neer
RECEIV4D
y to 71994
fl'lVIRCh,:I?+T? ?IENC
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Hammond Road from SR 2683 (Rush Street) to US 70, Raleigh,
Wake County, State Project No. 8.2432801, Federal Aid Project
No. M-5797(1), TIP No. U-515 AA
On 10/27/94, a field review was conducted for the subject project. The
following people attended the field meeting:
Eric Galamb Division of Environmental Management
Amy Ohlberg US Army Corps of Engineers
Davidian Byrd Design Services
John Johnson Design Services
Abdul Rahmani Hydraulics
Gordon Cashin Planning and Environmental
Lane Sauls Planning and Environmental
Mark Reep Planning and Environmental
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss potential impacts to wetlands
associated with Wildcat Branch.
The meeting began with a brief project description. The project
consists of constructing a multilane divided facility between SR 2683 (Rush
Street) and US 70. Existing Hammond Road will be widened between Rush
Street and SR 2684 (Tryon Road), and the roadway will be constructed on new
location between Tryon Road and US 70. The project will provide an ultimate
cross section width that will accommodate a six-lane divided curb and gutter
section.
A reevaluation of the 1981 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is
underway. The proposed alignment between Rush Street and Tryon Road
consists of widening Hammond Road along the east side. Right of way and
easements exist for this alignment. An Army Corps of Engineers permit was
issued in 1987 for constructing the two-lane portion of Hammond Road. The
Company Swamp mitigation bank was debited to include the impacts from the
future widening as well as the existing two lane construction. However, Amy
Ohlberg, from the Corps of Engineers, indicated that the permit expired in
1989 and that the Company Swamp mitigation is no longer applicable. She
commented that NCDOT would be required to apply for a new permit for wetland
and surface water impacts.
Naw

Memorandum
Page 2
y
The wetland area is a 6-acre site located entirely along the east side
of Hammond Road. This site is rated a high quality wetland based on
properties such as water storage, sediment filtration, and wildlife habitat.
The proposed alignment impacts approximately 1.4 acres of the wetlands and
likely requires some stream rechannelization.
The meeting participants walked along the proposed alignment to review
the potential wetland impacts. Because of the size, type, and quality of
the wetland site, the review agency representatives indicated that a Section
404 permit and a 401 Water Quality Certification would be difficult to
obtain for the proposed alignment. In addition, suitable on-site mitigation
will likely be costly and very limited.
If the roadway is widened along the west side of existing Hammond Road,
impacts to this wetland site will be limited to 0.1 acre. Some wetland
areas exist along the west side, but these wetlands are small and of lower
quality than the site on the east side. The review agency representatives
favored an alignment that widens Hammond Road along the west side. Based on
the preliminary field review, it is likely that a Nationwide permit would be
applicable for west side widening.
Planning and Environmental will delineate the wetland areas along the
west side of Hammond Road and incorporate this information in a comparison
of alternatives. that avoid or minimize impacts to the wetlands. This
information will be presented in an upcoming monthly meeting with the Army
Corps of Engineers and other review agencies to obtain the agency comments
and concurrence.
MLR/
cc: Meeting Participants
H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
Richard B. Davis, P. E.
Charles H. Casey, P. E.
William R. Butler, Jr., P. E.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4
Division of Environmental Management ?t
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
J r=
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Lf-'L2
A. Preston Howard, Jr„ P.E„ Director
November 7, 1994
M(-.mnrnndum
To: Mark Reep
NC DOT
From: Eric Galame6;
Subject: Preliminary Wetland Investigation
for Hammond Road Widening
TIP # U-515AA
A site visit was made on October 27, 1994 to determine the %vetland quality and
quantity associated with the subject project. The wetland is classified as a bottomland
hardwood/beaver pond. This wetland is performing significant functions including pollutant
removal, water storage, aquatic life, and bank stabilization. Alternatives to avoid the wetland
should be examined. DEM requests that DOT compare the wetland impacts to the west and
the east of existing Hammond Road. This comparison should be submitted to DEM for
review prior to a permit application. DOT should also discuss minimization efforts including
side slopes and median widths.
DOT is commended for including the resource agencies in an early coordination
meeting.
u515aa.mcm
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA"
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - 4aw v?_z N?
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.G 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 26, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Lynwood Stone" , Unit. Head
Project Planning
FROM: Lane Sauls, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Preliminary wetland investigation and
Dwarf-wedge mussel investigation for
Wildcat Branch; Hammond Road widening in
Wake County; TIP No. U-515AA; State
Project No. 8.2432801; Federal Project
No. M-5797(1).
ATTENTION:
Mark Reep,
Project Manager
The subject project calls for the construction of a
four-lane divided facility from SR 2683 (Rush Street) to US
70 in Wake County. The first section incorporates the
existing two-lane portion of Hammond Road which will be
widened between Rush Street and SR 2684 (Tryon Road). The
second section in on new location between Trvon Road and US
70.
This investigation addresses potential impacts related
to the wetland along section 1 that will be widened between
Rush Street and Tryon Road.
1. Wetlands. A field investigation was conducted on July
18, 1994. A single wetland site was identified in the study
area. This wetland, associated with Wildcat Branch, is
described as a beaver pond/swamp area. Wildcat Branch
originates north of Garner and flows northward into Raleigh
and into Walnut Creek- The stream is characterized by slow
moving water, silty bottom and high amounts of wetland
vegetation along the banks.
Common species of flora include: soft rush (Juncus
effusus) ; spike rush (Eleocharis spp.); black willow (Sal ix
nigra); arrow arum (Peltandra viroinica); touch-me-not
(Impatiens capensis); smooth alder (Alnus serrulata); redroot
V*V

cyperus (Cyperus erythrorhizos); river birch (Betula nigra);
and a several common sedges (Carer spp.).
This wetland appears to be healthy, relatively
undisturbed and rich in both vegetation and wildlife. Wood
ducks (Aix sponsa), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), green
heron (Butorides virescens), belted kingfisher (Me-aceryle
alcyon) and other bird species were seen throughout the area.
A beaver (Castor canadensis) was also seen making its way
along Wildcat Branch. This wetland is important because it
provides habitat for diverse assemblage of species within an
urban landscape.
Wetland Quality: A wetland evaluation was conducted in
accordance with methodologies recommended by the Department
of Environmental Management (DEM). Parameters such as water
storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal,
wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, recreational/
educational and economic values were evaluated. These
parameters are weighted differently from each other to
reflect the importance of water quality, aquatic life value,
water storage, bank/shoreline.--stai Iization, etc. This
wetland received a score of 88 0 of a possible score of
100, which indicates it ism-cr?high quality jurisdictional
wetland.
POTENTIAL WETLAND I14PACTS:
The approximate area of the wetland is 2.4 ha (6.0 ac).
The proposed right-of-way takes the east bound lane of
Hammond Road through the middle of the wetland. The area of
wetland that will be impacted for the right-of-way is 1.2 ha
(3.0 ac). Rechannel ization and fill is planned for Wildcat
Branch and will adversely affect the quality of this
functioning wetland. In addition to decreasing the total
area, it also constitutes a potential impact to fish and
wildlife resources in the vicinity.
Potential impacts resulting from the widening of Hammond
Road include: (1) excessive sedimentation from fill material
and surrounding bare soils during construction; (2) ossible
chemical and toxic infiltration of elements fromconstructtion
activity and increased traffic leads; (3) channel relocation;
(4) changes in hydrolic regimes; and (5) losses of
biodiversity.
Widening to the west would reduce impacts to the
associated wetland. Area of impact is estimated as <0.1 ha
(0.11 ac). Only minor impacts would result with the
extension of the culvert presently under Hammond Road,
containing a small tributary to Wildcat Branch.
2. Protected Species (the dwarf-wedge mussel). The dwarf-
wedge mussel is a-federally Endangered. species. Endangered
. 4, 1
3
refers to any species or higher taxon of plant or animal
whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's is determined to be in jeopardy. Searches for the
dwarf-wedge were performed by sight and feel along the creek
channel.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax,
Johnston, Nash, Vance,'Wake, Warren, Wilson.
The dwarf wedge russel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right
half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer
shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North
Carolina are found in Middle Creek and the Little River of
the Meuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar,
Crooked, and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system. This
mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial
pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with
well oxygenated water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Wildcat Branch is a tributary to Walnut Creek which
eventually flows into the Neuse River. Wildcat Branch was
investigated and found to support no evidence of the
existence of any mussel species including the dwarf-wedge
musse 1 .
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: U-515AA
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
aJ 07 5 ?,. C. ??15 J lc( 5 -71
Tl is project i5 beirg reviewed as indicated below: )"Tn 7 ?1 ?? Qtr U
i
i
8, zlVED
FNIOR 201995
CNM?NTq`uSCIFNCFS
. i
SR 2026 (Hammond Road)
From SR 2683 (Rush Street) to US 70
Raleigh
Wake County
Federal Aid Project No. MAM-M-5797(1)
State Project No. 8.2432801
U-515AA

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
REEVALUATION OF
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)

1?// o/ G
Date rt?Nic s L.-Graf, P. E.
Cv?Division Administrator, FHWA
IIA-3-
A. Franklin Vick, P.E., anager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
SR 2026 (Hammond Road)
From SR 2683 (Rush Street) to US 70
Raleigh
Wake County
Federal Aid Project No. MAM-M-5797(1)
State Project No. 8.2432801
U-515AA
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
REEVALUATION OF
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Gil('
Mar L. Reep, P. E.
Project Planning Engi eer
Environmental
1A CA `,*
ESS no(
E • ?;?
IN
Linwood Stone
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
This document calls for the following special project commitments:
A. From north of Rush Street to the proposed Mechanical Boulevard
Relocation, the proposed roadway will provide wider outside
lanes for shared bicycle accommodations. The proposed 36-foot
travelways will contain two 11-foot inside travel lanes and a
14-foot outside travel lane in each direction (refer to
discussion in Section I.B.3.).
B. If requested by the City of Raleigh and Town of Garner,
sidewalks may be incorporated into the project as a shared cost
item between NCDOT and the municipalities. As outlined in the
Pedestrian Policy Guidelines, NCDOT will participate in 50
percent of the sidewalk cost within Raleigh's jurisdiction, and
70 percent of the sidewalk cost within Garner's jurisdiction
(refer to discussion in Section I.B.4.).
C. Additional design studies on the future interchange at US 70
will be required to meet capacity guidelines of LOS D or better
(refer to discussion in Section II.C).
D. Approximately 60 graves in an abandoned cemetery, located on the
north side of existing Mechanical Boulevard, will be documented
and moved prior to construction (refer to Section IV.A.1 for
discussion).
E. The project relocates the Chason Diesel Service business along
Mechanical Boulevard. Prior to right of way acquisition, a more
thorough investigation will be conducted to determine if
hazardous materials are located at this site.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
>? PAGE
SUMMARY 1
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1
A. Project Description and Status 1
B. Revisions to the Project 1
1. Design Speed 2
2. Cross Sections 2
3. Bicycle Accommodations 2
4. Sidewalks 3
5. Right of Way 3
6. Mechanical Boulevard Relocation 4
7. Cost Estimate 4
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4
A. Route Function and Thoroughfare Plan 4
B. Traffic Volumes 4
C. Capacity Analysis 5
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 6
A. Highway Construction Alternatives 6
1. Cross Section Alternatives 6
a. Four-lane Divided Shoulder Section 6
b. Six-lane Divided Curb and Gutter Section 6
(Recommended)
2. Wetland Avoidance and Minimization Alternatives 7
a. Alternatives Between Rush Street and Chapanoke 7
Road
1) Alternative 1 7
2) Alternative 2 7
3) Alternative 3 (Recommended) 8
b. 0.3-Mile Extension North of Rush Street 8
(Recommended)
B. Transportation Management Alternatives 10
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 12
A. Social Environment 12
1. Right of Way and Relocation Impacts 12
2. Cultural Resources 13
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
a. Architectural Resources 13
b. Archaeological Resources 13
B. Natural Environment 14
1. Federally Protected Species 14
2. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species 16
3. Water Resources 17
4. Wetlands 19
5. Permits 22
6. Mitigation 22
7. Air Quality 23
8. Traffic Noise 26
9. Hazardous Materials 30
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
VI. CONCLUSIONS
TABLES
31
32
Table 1 - Projected Traffic Volume Summary at Major Intersections
Table 2 - Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections
Table 3 - Comparison of Wetland Avoidance and Minimization
Alternatives
Table 4 - Federally Protected Species Listed for Wake County
Table 5 - Federal Candidate and State Protected Species Listed for
Wake County
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Recommended Alignment
Figures 3A-3C - Roadway Typical Sections
Figure 4 - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 - Proposed Intersection Treatments
Figure 6 - Wetland Locations
APPENDIX
Appendix A - Relocation Assistance Report and Relocation Programs
Appendix B - Agency Comments
Appendix C - Air Quality and Traffic Noise Data
SR 2026 (Hammond Road)
From SR 2683 (Rush Street) to US 70
Raleigh
Wake County
Federal Aid Project No. MAM-M-5797(1)
State Project No. 8.2432801
U-515AA
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to reevaluate the Finding of No
Significant Impact prepared for improvements to Hammond Road, Project
U-515.
1. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen and extend SR 2026 (Hammond Road) from 0.3 mile north of SR 2683
(Rush Street) to 0.3 mile south of US 70, a length of 2.3 miles (refer to
Figure 1 for project location). A six-lane divided curb and gutter
facility is proposed for the project to complete a link between the
six-lane section of Hammond Road to the north and the four-lane section of
Timber Drive to the south. From Rush Street to Tryon Road, the existing
two-lane portion of Hammond Road will be widened mostly asymmetrically to
the east. From Tryon Road to US 70, the project will be constructed on new
location.
Additional travel lanes are proposed along US 70 to provide six lanes
in the vicinity of Hammond Road. An at grade intersection is proposed at
US 70 with the subject project; however, the ultimate Hammond Road design
includes an interchange at US 70. Mechanical Boulevard will be relocated
approximately 1000 feet north of existing location so the intersection
will not interfere with the future US 70 interchange.
The project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal year 1996. The
estimated project cost in the TIP is $8,000,000, which includes $3,175,000
for right of way acquisition and $4,825,000 for construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will provide an overall positive benefit for the
Greater Raleigh Urban Area. The project will connect Hammond Road to the
north with Timber Drive to the south to complete a direct route from NC 50
west of Garner to I-40 and Downtown Raleigh. The proposed multilane
facility will help reduce travel times, provide more efficient vehicle
operation, and relieve excessive traffic demand on Wilmington Street and
Old Garner Road.
Some negative environmental impacts result from the project. Two
businesses and an abandoned family cemetery will be relocated.
Approximately 1.33 acre of wetland impacts will result from the proposed
improvements Noise impacts will occur at three businesses and eleven
residences, but no physical abatement measures are feasible and none are
recommended for the project.
Although some of these impacts are substantial, the project will not
have a significant adverse impact on the human and natural environment.
The relocation impacts will have no effect on the area's socio-economic
development. No significant impacts to historic architectural or
archaeological resources in the project area will occur. No impacts to
federally protected species will occur. No adverse air quality impacts
are anticipated from the estimated traffic volumes along the facility.
3. Alternatives to the Proposed Construction
A. Highway Construction Alternatives
1. Cross Section Alternatives
a. Four-lane Divided Shoulder Section
b. Six-lane Divided Curb and Gutter Section (Recommended)
2. Wetland Avoidance and Minimization Alternatives
a. Alternatives Between Rush Street and Chapanoke Road
1) Alternative 1 - East side widening between Rush
Street and Chapanoke Road with a six-lane divided curb
and gutter section and a 30-foot raised grass median.
2) Alternative 2 - West side widening between Rush
Street an C apanoke Road with a six-lane divided curb
and gutter section and a 30-foot raised grass median.
3) Alternative 3 (Recommended) - East side widening
between Rush Street and Chapanoke Road with a six-
lane divided curb and gutter section and a 16-foot
raised grass median.
b. 0.3-Mile Extension North of Rush Street (Recommended)
B. Transportation Management Alternatives
4. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted
during the preparation of this Reevaluation:
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
ii
Department of Cultural Resources
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
State Clearinghouse
Triangle J Council of Governments
Wake County Commissioners
Town of Garner
City of Raleigh
Section V of this document further discusses the comments and coordination
for this project.
5. Permits Required
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit, 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26), will likely
apply to the project since the jurisdictional wetlands are located above
headwaters (refer to Section IV.B.5 for further permit discussion). Final
determination of permit applicability lies with the COE.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is also required prior to
issuance of the 404 permit.
6. Mitigation
In 1986, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a Section 404
permit to construct the two-lane portion of Hammond Road between Rush
Street and Tryon Road. This permit authorized the construction of both
the two-lane and the future four-lane widening improvements. Mitigation
was included for anticipated wetland losses resulting from the future
widening of Hammond Road. Because the current six-lane improvements are
contained within the previously permitted four-lane construction limits,
this mitigation remains valid, and no additional mitigation is proposed
(refer to Section IV.B.6 for further discussion of mitigation).
7. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and reevaluation can
be obtained by contacting the following individuals:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
iii
SR 2026 (Hammond Road)
From SR 2683 (Rush Street) to US 70
Raleigh
Wake County
Federal Aid Project No. MAM-M-5797(1)
State Project No. 8.2432801
U-515AA
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Description and Status
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen and extend SR 2026 (Hammond Road) from 0.3 mile north of SR 2683
(Rush Street) to 0.3 mile south of US 70, a length of 2.3 miles (refer to
Figure 1 for project location). A six-lane divided curb and gutter
facility is proposed for the project to complete a link between the
six-lane section of Hammond Road to the north and the four-lane section of
Timber Drive to the south. From Rush Street to Tryon Road, the existing
two-lane portion of Hammond Road will be widened mostly asymmetrically to
the east. From Tryon Road to US 70, the project will be constructed on new
location (refer the proposed design in Figure 2).
Additional travel lanes are proposed along US 70 to provide six lanes
in the vicinity of Hammond Road. An at grade intersection is proposed at
US 70 with the subject project; however, the ultimate Hammond Road design
includes an interchange at US 70. Mechanical Boulevard will be relocated
approximately 1000 feet north of existing location so the intersection
will not interfere with the future US 70 interchange.
The project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal year 1996. The
estimated project cost in the TIP is $8,000,000, which includes $3,175,000
for right of way acquisition and $4,825,000 for construction.
Project U-515 was previously evaluated in an Environmental Assessment
(EA) (completed in June, 1980) and a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) (completed in April, 1981). A Reevaluation was completed in
March, 1992 for improvements between SR 2684 (Tryon Road) and SR 2720
(Grovemont Road). The current study proposes to reevaluate the segment
between Rush Street and Tryon Road, which was not reevaluated in 1992, in
addition to the segment between Tryon Road and US 70.
B. Revisions to the Project
This section describes changes which have occurred in the project
since the Finding of No Significant Impact and the Reevaluation were
approved.
2
1. Design Speed
The EA recommended a design speed of 60 miles per hour (mph),
but existing Hammond Road between Rush Street and Tryon Road was
designed for 50 mph and posted at 45 mph. Since the project widens
existing Hammond Road, the proposed design speed has been revised to
50 mph.
2. Cross Sections
The EA recommended a four-lane divided section with 24-foot
travelways, a 30-foot median, and ten-foot usable shoulders with
four-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. This cross section was
to be designed to accommodate a future six-lane divided curb and
gutter section in the same overall cross section width. Both the
four-lane and six-lane cross sections have been evaluated in the
subject study.
The shoulders for the four-lane section have been revised to
include two-foot paved inside shoulders, 22-foot usable outside
shoulders, and ten-foot paved outside shoulders. The six-lane
divided curb and gutter section provides 36-foot travelways, six-foot
berms, and a variable width raised grass median (refer to Figures 3A,
3B, 3C, and to Section III.B for a discussion of cross section
alternatives). From the northern project limit to the proposed
Mechanical Boulevard Relocation, the travelways will provide two
11-foot inside lanes and a 14-foot outside lane in each direction for
shared bicycle accommodations (refer to Section I.B.3 for a
discussion of bicycle provisions). From the Mechanical Boulevard
Relocation to the southern project limit, the travelways will consist
of three 12-foot lanes in each direction. A 16-foot wide median is
proposed from north of Rush Street to Chapanoke Road to minimize
impacts to wetlands. A 30-foot wide median is proposed from
Chapanoke Road to north of US 70. A variable width median is
proposed from US 70 to the southern project limit to tie into the
existing 22-foot Timber Drive median.
3. Bicycle Accommodations
No bicycle provisions were originally recommended for the
project. However, in 1991, the City of Raleigh identified the
subject portion of Hammond Road from north of Rush Street to
Mechanical Boulevard as a primary bicycle transportation corridor in
its Bicycle Master Plan. This corridor was also incorporated in the
adopted 1994 Capital Area Metropolitan Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
The City of Raleigh Transportation Department has requested wide
outside lanes to allow bicyclists to more safely share the roadway.
The AASHTO standard outside lane width for roadways with shared
bicycle accommodations, high design speeds, and high projected
traffic volumes is 14 feet. To minimize additional right of way and
easement costs, bicycle provisions will be contained within the
proposed 36-foot travelways. From north of Rush Street to the
proposed Mechanical Boulevard Relocation, the proposed cross section
will provide two 11-foot inside travel lanes and a 14-foot outside
travel lane in each direction as shown on Figure 3B.
3
4. Sidewalks
Sidewalks were not included in the original project
recommendations. However, according to NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy,
adopted in 1993, sidewalks are justified along the project, and
transportation representatives from the City of Raleigh and the Town
of Garner have expressed interest in sidewalks. If requested by
these local officials, sidewalks may be incorporated into the project
as a shared cost item between NCDOT and the municipalities.- As
outlined in the Pedestrian Policy Guidelines, NCDOT will participate
in 50 percent of the sidewalk cost within Raleigh's jurisdiction, and
70 percent of the sidewalk cost within Garner's jurisdiction.
Because sidewalks were not originally anticipated, the proposed
design was developed with a minimum desirable berm width of six feet
to reduce right of way and construction costs. A 6.5-foot berm can
contain a standard five-foot sidewalk within the proposed project
right of way; however, an eight-foot berm is desirable to accommodate
sidewalks. A substantial right of way and construction cost increase
will likely result from upgrading the proposed design to include an
eight-foot berm. If this wider berm is requested, the municipalities
will share in these additional right of way and construction costs.
5. Right of Way
The EA recommended a 120-foot wide right of way with easements
to contain the proposed cross section. From north of Rush Street to
Tryon Road, the current design will be contained mostly within the
existing 120-foot right of way and easements (refer to Figure 2 for
existing and proposed right of way). From existing Mechanical
Boulevard to south of US 70, the cross section will be contained
within the existing, variable width right of way. However, a wider
right of way width is needed along the remainder of the project to
contain the current improvements.
Some additional right of way is needed in the northwest
quadrants of the Rush Street and Tryon Road intersections to
construct the southbound exclusive right turn lanes along Hammond
Road. From Tryon Road to existing Mechanical Boulevard, the proposed
right of way varies from 158 feet to 185 feet. Some additional right
of way is needed along the east side of Hammond Road between existing
Mechanical Boulevard and the US 70 intersection to construct the
westbound free-flowing right turn lane. A 100-foot right of way
width is proposed along the proposed Mechanical Boulevard Relocation.
Much of the right of way and access control for the future US 70
interchange was previously acquired. Access control for the existing
and future interchange right of way will be protected from
development through the NCDOT Division Office.
4
6. Mechanical Boulevard Relocation
Part of the alignment for the proposed Mechanical Boulevard
Relocation has been shifted to accommodate adjacent development
plans. A portion of this alignment east of Hammond Road has shifted
a maximum of 200 feet east of the original alignment location.
7. Cost Estimate
Currently, the recommended improvements are estimated to cost
$10,675,550, including $7,500,000 for construction and $3,175,550 for
right of way acquisition.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Route Function and Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed improvements will complete a link between the six-lane
section of Hammond Road to the north and the four-lane section of Timber
Drive to the south and will create a direct access route from NC 50 west
of Garner to the Raleigh Central Business District (CBD). The Greater
Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan calls for Hammond Road to serve as a
major arterial which would relieve the excessive traffic demands on
Wilmington Street and Old Garner Road. The project is needed to alleviate
the congestion at the major intersections along Wilmington Street as well
as at its confluence with US 401.
B. Traffic Volumes
Estimated traffic volumes along Hammond Road for the year 1998 range
from 22,900 vpd north of US 70 to 35,100 vpd north of Rush Street.
Projected design year traffic volumes for the year 2018 range from 39,200
vpd to 57,100 vpd at the respective locations. Projected traffic volumes
at the major intersections are listed in Table 1 along with the design
hour data and truck percentages. Figure 4 shows the traffic volumes and
turning movements in the project area.
Table 1
Projected Traffic Volume Summary
At Majo? r Intersections
1998 2018 Percentage of Trucks
Location ADT ADT TTST Du-aT_
Rush Street 17,600 26,300 2 4
Tryon Road 13,100 19,900 3 5
Mechanical Boulevard 7,200 11,100 2 8
US 70 38,100 65,100 3 5
Design Hourly Volume Percentage = 10
Directional Percentage = 60 %
C. Capacity Analysis
A capacity analysis was performed at the existing and proposed
signalized intersections using construction year (1998) and design year
(2018) peak hour traffic volumes. Signalized intersections exist at Rush
Street, Tryon Road, and US 70. A traffic signal is recommended at the
relocated Mechanical Boulevard intersection. Table 2 summarizes the
results of the analysis.
Table 2
Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections
1998 2018 Year Year
Traffic Traffic Reaching Reaching
Intersection LOS LOS LOS E LOS F
1. Rush Street F F -- --
2. Tryon Road D F 2015 2018
3. Mechanical Boulevard C D -- --
4. US 70 D F 2005 2009
Rush Street will operate at LOS F in the year 1998 with the proposed
improvements. Dual left turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane are
needed along Rush Street to provide LOS E in the year 1998. To achieve an
acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) through the design year, the
intersection design requires eight through lanes along Hammond Road and
four through lanes along Rush Street. These improvements would exceed the
funding scope of the current project and are not recommended. The
recommended improvements provide an exclusive left turn lane at each
approach, an exclusive southbound right turn lane along Hammond Road, and
a shared through and right turn lane on the remaining approaches (refer to
Figure 5 for proposed intersection treatments).
The Tryon Road intersection will operate at LOS F in the design year.
This intersection will reach LOS E in the year 2015 and LOS F in the year
2018. To achieve an acceptable level of service at this intersection,
dual exclusive left turn lanes are needed along eastbound Tryon Road and
exclusive right turn lanes are needed along the eastbound and westbound
approaches of Tryon Road. Because of the additional costs required to
purchase right of way and extend the construction limits along Tryon Road,
these lanes are not recommended for the project. The recommended
improvements provide an exclusive left turn lane at each approach, a
shared left turn and through lane along eastbound Tryon Road, an exclusive
right turn lane along southbound Hammond Road, and shared through and
right turn lanes at the remaining approaches.
The Mechanical Boulevard intersection will operate at a sufficient
level of service through the design year (2018) with the proposed lane
improvements. Mechanical Boulevard will operate at LOS D in the design
6
year with an exclusive left turn lane at each approach, an exclusive
westbound right turn lane, and a shared through and right turn lane at the
remaining approaches.
US 70 will operate at LOS F by the design year with the proposed
improvements. This intersection reaches LOS E in the year 2005 and LOS F
in the year 2009. To achieve an acceptable level of service through the
design year, an interchange is needed at this location. Constructing an
interchange at US 70 is beyond the funding scope of the current project
and is not recommended; however, the previously acquired interchange right
of way will be protected to contain a future interchange. The recommended
improvements provide an exclusive westbound left turn lane, dual exclusive
left turn lanes at the remaining approaches, a free-flowing eastbound and
westbound right turn lane, and an exclusive northbound and southbound
right turn lane.
Additional design and capacity studies will be performed during the
design of the future interchange at US 70 to provide a satisfactory level
of service in the design year. The interchange should operate at LOS D or
better to be eligible for federal funds.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Highway Construction Alternatives
1. Cross Section Alternatives
a. Four-lane divided shoulder section
The four-lane divided section provides 24-foot travelways,
a 30-foot median, and ten-foot usable shoulders with two-foot
paved inside shoulders and ten-foot paved outside shoulders.
This typical section is estimated to cost $4,400,000 for
construction and costs less than the six-lane divided section.
However, when the traffic demand increases to warrant six lanes,
an additional cost will be required to widen the travel lanes
and install curb and gutter. The four-lane shoulder section
will reach LOS F before the design year. For these reasons,
this typical section was not recommended for the project.
b. Six-lane divided curb and gutter section (Recommended)
The six-lane divided curb and gutter section generally
provides 36-foot travelways, six-foot berms, and a 30-foot
raised grass median. The proposed median varies from this width
in two locations: (1) from the northern project limit to
Chapanoke Road and (2) from US 70 to the southern project limit.
A 16-foot median is proposed from 0.3 mile north of Rush Street
to Chapanoke Road (refer to Section III.A.2 for a discussion of
wetland avoidance and minimization alternatives between Rush
Street and Chapanoke Road). A variable width median is proposed
from US 70 to the southern project limit to tie into the
existing 22-foot median along Timber Drive.
The estimated construction cost for the six-lane section is
$7,500,000. Although this typical section costs more than the
four-lane section, it will operate more efficiently in the
design year. For this reason, the six-lane divided cross
section is recommended for the project.
2. Wetland Avoidance and Minimization Alternatives
Five wetland sites are located in the vicinity of Wildcat Branch
near the northern project limit (refer to Figure 6 for locations).
Alternatives were evaluated to avoid these wetlands where possible
and to minimize unavoidable wetland impacts (refer to Section IV.B.4
for the wetland evaluation). A four-lane divided shoulder section
and a six-lane divided curb and gutter section were considered for
each alternative. The four-lane alternatives were studied from Rush
Street to Chapanoke Road. The six-lane alternatives were studied
from 0.3 mile north of Rush Street to Chapanoke Road. These
alternatives are described below and compared in Table 3.
a. Alternatives Between Rush Street and Chia ano?ke Road
(Four-lane dive a shouTFer s tice on and six-lane divided
curb and gutter section)
1) Alternative 1 (East side widening: original alignment
studied in FONSI)
Alternative 1 consists of widening Hammond Road along
the east side. The typical section provides a 30-foot wide
median. This alternative retains all of the existing
two-lane portion of Hammond Road and is contained within
the existing right of way and easements. Alternative 1
impacts 1.40 acre of high quality wetlands from Site #5
along the east side of the roadway and results in the
largest wetland takings. For this reason, Alternative 1
was not recommended for the project.
2) Alternative 2 (West side widening: avoidance
alternative)
Alternative 2 consists of widening Hammond Road along
the west side. The typical section provides a 30-foot wide
median. This alternative was evaluated to avoid the high
quality wetlands along the east side of the roadway.
Alternative 2 acquires additional right of way along the
west side of the roadway and reconstructs approximately
1000 feet of existing Hammond Road. Alternative 2 does not
impact the high quality wetlands from Site #5, but it does
impact 0.22 acre of lower quality wetlands from Site #4 on
the west side of the roadway. Although Alternative 2 has
the least impact to wetlands, it requires additional right
of way and pavement reconstruction resulting in the highest
project cost. Alternative 2 was not recommended for the
project.
a
3) Alternative 3 (Recommended) (East side widening:
minimization alternative, reduced median width)
Alternative 3 consists of widening Hammond Road along
the east side. The typical section provides a 16-foot wide
median and maximum 2:1 slopes. This alternative was
considered to minimize wetland impacts while maximizing the
use of the existing alignment and right of way. This
alternative retains all of the existing two-lane portion of
Hammond Road and is contained within the existing right of
way and easements. The proposed median was reduced to a
minimum desirable width of 16 feet through the wetland
areas. This median was designed to contain a 12-foot left
turn lane and a four-foot raised island at intersections on
each side of the wetlands. This alternative impacts 1:06
acre of high quality wetlands from Site #5. Although these
wetland impacts are substantial, all of the existing
Hammond Road alignment and right of way can be retained
resulting in a lower project cost. Alternative 3 is
recommended since it minimizes impacts to the wetlands
within the existing right of way.
b. 0.3 Mile Extension North of Rush Street (Recommended)
Six-lane cu- rb and gutter section')
(Symmetric widening, minimization of impacts, reduced
median width)
The 0.3 mile extension north of Rush Street consists of
widening the existing four-lane portion of Hammond Road
symmetrically and providing a 16-foot wide median. This
alternative was evaluated to tie the proposed improvements into
the existing six-lane Hammond Road typical section. This
extension retains all of the existing four-lane portion of
Hammond Road and requires additional easements. The extension
impacts a total of 0.26 acre of wetlands from three sites
located on both sides of the roadway. On the west side of
Hammond Road, the proposed extension impacts 0.04 acre of
wetlands from Site #1 and 0.22 acre of wetlands from Site #2.
On the east side of Hammond Road, the proposed extension impacts
less than 0.01 acre of wetlands from Site U. This northward
extension is recommended to tie the project into the existing
six-lane Hammond Road typical section.
9
Table 3
Comparison of Wetland Avoidance and
Min mizatio' n Alternat-i ve
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Four-Lane Divided Shoulder Section
(From RusFi Street to C if apano a Roa )
Preliminary Cost Estimate:
Right of Way $ 81,000 $ 454,000 $ 81,000
Construction $1,150,000 $1,350,000 $1,100,000
Total 1,231,000 1,804,000 1,181,000
Wetland Impacts:
(acres)
Site #1 --- --- ---
Site #2 --- ---
Site #3 --- --- ---
Site #4 --- 0.22 ---
Site #5 1.40 --- 1.06
Total 1.40 0.22 1.06
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Six-lane divided curb and utter section
(From 0.3 Mile North-7o Rus Street to C apano a Road)
Preliminary Cost Estimate:
Right of Way $ 100,900 $ 473,900 $ 100,900
Construction
l $2,625,000
725
00 $2,825,000
298
900
3 $2,525,000
2
900
625
Tota 2,
,9 ,
, ,
,
Wetland Impacts:
(acres)
Site #1 0.04 0.04 0.04
Site #2 0.22 0.22 0.22
. Site #3 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
Site #4 --- 0.22 ---
Site #5 1.40 --- 1.06
Total 1.67 0.49 1.33
10
B. Transportation Management Alternatives
In Transportation Management Areas (TMA) designated as non-attainment
for air quality, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) places restrictions on federally funded projects that increase
capacity for single occupancy vehicles (SOV). Section 1024(a) of ISTEA
states that projects which increase SOV capacity in TMA's classified as
non-attainment areas must be part of an approved Congestion Management
System.
North Carolina is currently developing its Congestion Management
System (CMS). A working plan for North Carolina's CMS is expected to be
in place by October 1, 1995. Prior to implementation of the CMS, projects
that improve SOV capacity in non-attainment areas will be analyzed to
determine if travel demand reduction and operational management strategies
can be used to reduce SOV demand.
Raleigh is classified as a moderate non-attainment area for carbon
monoxide and as a maintenance area for ozone. Widening and extending
Hammond Road will increase the capacity for SOV use. The following is an
analysis of travel demand reduction strategies, operational management
strategies, and alternative transportation modes that have been considered
as part of the proposed project.
Travel Demand Reduction Strategies
The following travel demand reduction strategies were considered for
this project:
1. Staggering work hours at local businesses
2. Growth Management
3. Road Use Pricing
Staggered work hours, flex-time, or modified work weeks can be
implemented on a corridor level if large employers along the corridor
cause congestion at their entrances or exits. These applications would
reduce spot congestion at entrances and exits to large employers (those
employers attracting enough trips to cause congestion). There are no such
employers along this project, but many workers from these types of
employers in Downtown Raleigh travel along the project corridor.
Growth management involves public policies to regulate development so
that trip generation follows a desired pattern. Road pricing involves
charging motorists a "price" associated with their use of a particular
facility. Growth management and road use pricing are not considered
feasible options because they involve area-wide policies rather than
policies applicable to discrete corridors.
Because SOV reduction strategies are not considered appropriate for
this corridor, additional SOV capacity is warranted and will be provided
by the Hammond Road project.
11
Consideration of Alternative Transportation Modes
The City of Raleigh and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation have adopted a thoroughfare plan designed to provide
Raleigh with an efficient transportation network. The thoroughfare plan
includes both highway improvements and transit service. Proposed Hammond
Road improvements are a part of Raleigh's thoroughfare plan and will be a
step towards its implementation.
The City of Raleigh, in cooperation with the Triangle Transit
Authority, has alternative modes of transportation available to commuters
which are designed to reduce vehicular trips in the city. An ultimate
goal of 4% reduction in internal auto trips has been targeted by the City
of Raleigh. These programs are outlined below.
Bus Service
In 1989, it was estimated 10,000 riders per day used Raleigh's public
transit service. This represented 1.2% of Raleigh's internal trips.
Raleigh is seeking to increase ridership on its transit service with a
target goal of 43,000 riders per day. Increased advertisement and
connector vans are being used to increase ridership. Connector service
involves the use of smaller transit vehicles to board passengers at their
residences. Bus service has been improved by the City of Raleigh's
computerized traffic signal system, which reduces stopped delay for both
buses and automobiles at signalized intersections.
CAT (Capital Area Transit Bus Service) does not serve the Hammond
Road corridor directly, but Route #7 (South Saunders Street/ Carolina
Pines/ Rush Street CAT Connector) crosses the corridor at Rush Street.
The CAT Connector route serves Rush Street between South Saunders Street
to the west and Old Garner Road to the east. TTA (Triangle Transit
Authority) currently does not provide bus service in the vicinity of the
project. However, in its proposal for regional public transit for the
area, TTA plans to expand transit service to Garner. An express bus
route, anticipated to begin by 1997, is proposed near the project area
from Garner to Downtown Raleigh. At this time, provision of bus turnouts
is not considered useful for transit operations along this corridor;
therefore, no bus turnouts are proposed.
Carpool/Vanpool Programs
The Triangle Transit Authority also operates a computer-aided carpool
and vanpool service for the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill area. TTA
currently has over 6000 names in its car/van pool matching data base and
leases 29 vans in its vanpool program. Four of the vanpools originate
south and east of Raleigh and travel near or cross the Hammond Road
corridor. In addition, two Park and ride lots, used by carpool and
vanpool participants, are located within a mile of the project. Hammond
Road provides a desirable route for carpool and vanpool traffic into
Downtown Raleigh.
12
Bicycle Use
Bicycle accommodations are proposed along much of the project. As
discussed in Sections I.B.3, the proposed cross section will provide wider
outside lanes to more safely accommodate bicyclists. In addition, a
designated bicycle route, Route #6, crosses Hammond Road at Rush Street.
Route #6 follows Rush Street and other low traffic residential streets to
access Carolina Pines Park to the west and Sanderford Park to the east.
Congestion Management Strategies
Progressive signal timing will likely be considered after the project
is constructed. Four signalized intersections will exist after the
proposed improvements are completed. Progressive signal timing can be
used to aid traffic flow along Hammond Road.
Ramp metering and High Occupancy Vehicle lanes are not appropriate as
congestion management strategies since partial control of access exists
along the project.
Consistency with ISTEA
ISTEA requirements, as amended in 23 USC 134, for the Raleigh TMA
have been reviewed as previously described. Project U-515AA is a part of
Raleigh's approved thoroughfare plan. Travel demand reduction strategies,
operational management strategies, and alternative transportation modes
have been analyzed along the Hammond Road corridor to determine if these
strategies could eliminate the need for additional SOV capacity.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Environment
1. Right of Way and Relocation Impacts
Much of the proposed alignment is contained within existing
right of way. Right of way will be acquired along the northwest
quadrants of the Rush Street and Tryon Road intersections, from Tryon
Road to existing Mechanical Boulevard, along the alignment of the
proposed Mechanical Boulevard Relocation, and in the northeast
quadrant of US 70 (refer to Section I.B.S for further discussion).
Two businesses and an abandoned family cemetery will be relocated by
the project. These relocatees are shown on Figure 2 and described in
the Relocation Report prepared for the 1992 Reevaluation study (refer
to Appendix A). The remaining relocatees shown in the Relocation
Report will result from constructing the northern portion of the
future US 70 interchange.
Braswell Manufactured Homes, a tenant business located on the
north side of US 70, is a mobile home dealership that employs three
to five people. Chason Diesel Service, located on Mechanical
13
Boulevard, is also a tenant business that employs four people. The
Chason property was previously acquired by advance acquisition and is
eligible for relocation. These businesses can be adequately
relocated due to available commercial and undeveloped land in the
vicinity of the project. The displacements will not adversely impact
the future operations of the businesses.
The relocations will be conducted in accordance with the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the North Carolina Relocation
Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). NCDOT offers a relocation
program to assist families and businesses that are relocated by a
highway project. This program provides replacement housing payments,
rent and/or down payment supplements, and increased interest payments
to prevent hardship for the displacees. Additional information
regarding the Division of Highways Relocation Program is included in
Appendix A.
The abandoned family cemetery is located on the north side of
existing Mechanical Boulevard. The Relocation Report indicates that
as many as 30 graves will be relocated; however, according to
archaeological studies, the cemetery actually contains 60 graves that
will be relocated by the project. This cemetery will be documented
and moved prior to construction in accordance with North Carolina
General Statutes, Chapter 65.
2. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
On September 26, 1994, an NCDOT staff architectural
historian conducted a field survey to reevaluate historic
architectural resources for the subject project. Based on the
results of this survey, no changes in historic architectural
resources have occurred since the previous Reevaluation study
was completed in March, 1992. No eligible National Register
properties are located within the area of potential effect of
the project, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
concurs with these conclusions.
b. Archaeological Resources
An NCDOT staff archaeologist reviewed the project files on
the various archaeological surveys conducted for the Hammond
Road project and discussed the survey investigations with the
Office of State Archaeology. No significant historic properties
were found in those studies, and the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) concurred with those results and agreed that the
project complied with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Based on these survey results, the SHPO
believes that the proposed project will have no effect upon
significant archaeological resources and recommends no
additional archaeological investigations (refer to Appendix B
for SHPO correspondence).
14
B. Natural Environment
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed
Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
November 17, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists
four federally-protected species for Wake County (refer to Table 4).
A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat
follows.
Table 4
Federally Protected Species Listed For Wake County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Ha iaeetus leucoce talus bald eagle E
Picot es orea is red-cockaded woodpecker E
R us michaux- it Michaux's sumac E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Dwarf-Wedge Mussel
The dwarf-wedge mussel is a federally Endangered species.
Endangered refers to any species or higher taxon of plant or animal
whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's is
determined to be in jeopardy.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right half
and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive
green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to
silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina
are found in Middle Creek and the Little River of the Neuse River
Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar, Crooked, and Stony Creeks
of the Tar River system. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural,
domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free
streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
Wildcat Branch is a tributary to Walnut Creek which eventually
flows into the Neuse River. On July 18, 1994, a site visit was
conducted along Wildcat Branch to determine if the Dwarf-wedge mussel
exists within the project area. Searches for the mussel were
15
performed by sight and feel along the creek channel. No evidence of
the existence of any mussel species, including the dwarf-wedge
mussel, was found during the investigation. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the project will not impact the Dwarf-wedge mussel.
Bald Eagle
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head
and short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to
chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be identified by
their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half
mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living
tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding land.
Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December
or January. Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other
sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live
or carrion.
The bald eagle does not occur within the vicinity of the project
because of human disturbance, lack of available nesting/perching
trees and lack of forage habitat (large open water body). Therefore,
it can be concluded that the project will not impact the Bald eagle.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of
the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with
horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are
white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine,
lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in
trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200
hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m
(12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50 ft) high.
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June;
the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
16
The red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist within the project
area due to the absence of suitable foraging/nesting habitat.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the project will not impact the
red-cockaded woodpecker.
Michaux's Sumac
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The
bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly
serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in
color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female
plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac
is dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of
its habitat. It usually grows in association with basic soils and
occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open
habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not
compete well with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with
which it is often associated.
On July 18, 1994, a plant by plant survey for Michaux's sumac
was conducted along the roadsides and disturbed areas of the project
site. No Michaux's sumac plants were found. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the project will not impact Michaux's sumac.
2. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are 10 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Wake
County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal protection
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2 species are defined as
organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient
data currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists federal candidate species, the species' state
status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable
habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is
provided for information purposes as the status of these species may
be upgraded in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site
visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of the
database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare Species and Unique
Habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
17
3. Water Resources
The project is located within the Walnut Creek sub-basin, a
tributary within the Neuse River Basin. Wildcat Branch is the only
stream located within the project corridor. This stream originates
north of Garner and flows northward into Raleigh and into Walnut
Creek. The stream is characterized by slow moving water, silty
bottom and high amounts of wetland vegetation along the banks. The
channel was braided through a beaver pond swamp. Depths vary from
0.5 m to 1.5 m (1.6 to 5.0 ft). The substrate is composed mainly of
silt and water clarity was moderate (0.5 m to 1.0 m).
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Best usage classifi-
cations for Wildcat Branch (from source to Walnut Creek) are rated as
C NSW. By definition from the DEM Class C refers to aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture and NSW refers to Nutrient Sensitive Waters which
require limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1
mile) of the study area for the project.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a
permit. The NPDES does not list any dischargers for Wildcat Branch.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential water resources impacts resulting from the proposed
improvements include: (1) excessive sedimentation from fill material
and surrounding bare soils during construction; (2) possible chemical
and toxic infiltration of elements from construction activity and
increased traffic leads; (3) changes in hydrologic regimes; and (4)
losses of biodiversity.
Sedimentation is the major anticipated impact to water quality.
Scouring of the stream bed, soil compaction, loss of shading due to
vegetation removal and alterations of water levels are other noted
impacts. Increased sedimentation from lateral flow along with erosion
is expected. Material must be brought in to divert the natural flow
of the stream. No stream rechannel ization will occur with the
project.
18
Table 5
Federal Candidate And State Protected Species
Listed For Wake County
Scientific Name
MMotiiss austrori arius
Aimo hi a aestiva is*
El id?o'uitae
E11iptio anceo ata
Fusconala mason i
LasmLasm g suEvviridis
Speyeria diana
Monotropsis odorata
Nestronia um e u a
Tri?Fium use
var. pusillum
Common Name
Southeastern bat
Bachman's sparrow
Neuse slabshell
Yellow lance
Atlantic pigtoe
Green floater
Diana fritillary
butterfly
Sweet pinesap
Nestronia
Carolina trillium
Status Habitat
Fed. NC
C2 SC N
C2 SC N
C2 E N
C2 T N
C2 T N
C2 E N
C2 - N
C2 C N
C2 - N
C2 E N
NOTES:
Population not documented in Wake County in the past twenty
years.
E - Endangered. Any native or once-native species of wild
animal whose continued existence as a viable component of
the State's fauna is determined by the Wildlife Resources
Commission to be in jeopardy or any species of wild animal
determined to be an 'endangered species' pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act.
T - Threatened. Any native or once-native species of wild
animal which is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, or one that is designated
as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act.
SC - Special Concern. Any species of wild animal native or
once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the
Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but
which may be taken under regulations adopted under the
provisions of this Article (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of
the General Statues).
19
Jurisdictional Issues for Waters of the U.S.
a Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code
of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4. Wetlands
This investigation addresses potential impacts to the wetlands
located from north of Rush Street to Chapanoke Road. Preliminary
designs were developed to avoid wetlands, where possible, and to
minimize impacts to unavoidable wetlands (refer to alternatives
discussed in Section III.A.2).
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" and classified using the Fish
and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classification
scheme. Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology.
A wetland evaluation was conducted in accordance with
methodologies recommended by the Department of Environmental
Management (DEM). Parameters such as water storage, bank/shoreline
stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life
value, recreational/ educational and economic values were evaluated.
These parameters are weighted differently from each other to reflect
the importance of water quality, aquatic life value, water storage,
bank/shoreline stabilization, etc.
Field investigations were conducted on July 18 and November 18,
1994. Five wetland sites associated with Wildcat Branch were
identified in the study area (refer to Figure 6 for locations).
Wetland areas, potential impacts, and wetland ratings for each site
are described below. The abbreviations used for the wetland
classifications, soils, and hydrological evidence are explained at
the end of this section.
Wetland Sites #1, #2, and #3, are disturbed beaver ponds located
adjacent to the existing four-lane portion of Hammond Road north of
Rush Street. These sites are unavoidable, but the proposed six-lane
divided cross section will provide a 16-foot median and maximum 2:1
slopes to minimize the wetland impacts.
Wetland Sites #4 and #5 are located between Rush Street and
Chapanoke Road along the existing two-lane portion of Hammond Road.
Site #4 is a small disturbed floodplain associated with a tributary
20
of Wildcat Branch on the west side of the existing roadway. Site #5
is a relatively large, undisturbed beaver pond/ swamp located on the
east side of Hammond Road. The recommended improvements will not
impact Site #4 but will impact Site #5. These wetland impacts have
been minimized to the extent possible.
Site #1
Site #1 is a disturbed small beaver pond located approximately
700 feet northwest of the Rush Street intersection. Vegetation is
mainly emergent with vines scattered along the edges. Dominant
species include black willow (Salix ni ra), kudzu (Pueraria lobata)
and Japanese honeysuckle. This wetland site has -thfollowing
characteristics:
Class: PEM1aA
Soils: 10 YR 4/2
Hydrological Evidence: Sat.
Wetland Score: 74
The proposed widening along Hammond Road will impact 0.04 acre
of wetlands at this site.
Site #2
Site #2 is a system associated with tributary of Wildcat Branch
and is located along the northwest quadrant of the intersection with
Rush Street. This area is permanently flooded throughout the year and
its wetland boundary is located along the toe of the existing slope
of Hammond Road. Vegetation includes black willow, red maple,
greenbrier, blackberry (Rubus spp.), bulrush (Scir us spp.),
spikerush (Juncus spp.) an?Tudwigia (Ludwigia spp.).Site #2 has
the following c aracteristics:
Class: PUBHh
Soils: 10 YR 4/2
Hydrological Evidence: Sat.
Wetland Score: 78
The proposed widening along Hammond Road will impact approximately
0.22 acre of wetlands from this site.
Site #3
Site #3 is a system associated with Wildcat Branch that is
located along the northeast quadrant of the Rush Street intersection.
This area supports beaver activity and as a result, the channel is
obscured. Vegetation includes sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red
maple, black willow, tag alder (Alnus serrulata), blackberry and
greenbrier. This wetland has the f-oT1-ow1ng characteristics:
21
Class: PFO1bA
Soils: 10 YR 4/2
Hydrological Evidence: Sat.
Wetland Score: 48
The proposed widening along Hammond Road will impact less than 0.01
acre of wetlands from this site.
Site #4
Site #4 is a disturbed small floodplain associated with a
tributary of Wildcat Branch draining from the lake at Montlawn
Memorial Park. This site is located approximately 1300 feet south
of Rush Street along the west side of Hammond Road. Canopy
vegetation includes tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and
sweetgum (Liquidambar st raciflua). The understory is composed
primarily of American elm U mus americana), ironwood (Car inus
carolinana), red maple (Acerr rubrum an swamp dogwood Cornus
amomum . Shrub/vine/herbs incluTe-privet (Li ui g strum sinense ,
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison-ivy (Toxico3endron
radicans), greenbrier (Smite rotundifolia) and knotwee Po?lygonum
spp.). Site #4 is an 0.3-acre wetland with the following
characteristics:
Class: PFO1bA
Soils: 10 YR 4/2
Hydrological Evidence: Sat., ORs, Mot.
Wetland Score: 69
The proposed widening along Hammond Road will not impact any wetlands
from this site.
Site #5
This wetland is a large relatively undisturbed, high quality
beaver pond/swamp rich in vegetation. This site is located along the
east side of Hammond Road between Rush Street and Chapanoke Road.
Common species of flora include: soft rush Juncus effusus • spike
rush (Eleocharis spp.); black willow Salix ni ra • arrow arum
(Pelta?ndra vier inica); touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis); smooth
alder Alnus serrulata • redroot cyperus C erus erythrorhizos
river birch Betu a ni ra • and a several common sedges Carex spp.).
Site #5 is a 6.0-acre site with the following characteristics:
Class: PEM1aA
Soils: 10 YR 4/2
Hydrological Evidence: Sat.
Wetland Score: 88
The recommended improvements impact approximately 1.06 acre of
wetlands from this site.
22
Terminology Used:
STA: Station Number
Class: Fish and Wildlife Service NWI Classification
P- Palustrine, FO= Forested, EMI- Emergent
UB- Unconsolidated Bottom, la= Persistent,
lb- Broad-leaved Deciduous, A- Temporarily Flooded, Hs
Permanently Flooded, h= Diked/Impounded
Soils: Munsell Soil Chart Classification
Wetland Score: DEM Wetland Rating
Hydrological Evidence: Sat= Saturation, ORs= Oxidized Rhizospheres,
Mot= Mottled Soils
5. Permits
In October, 1986, the Corps of Engineers issued a Section 404
permit to place fill material in wetlands along Wildcat Branch for
the construction of Hammond Road between Rush Street and Tryon Road.
The permit authorized NCDOT to initially construct Hammond Road as a
two-lane roadway and later widen the roadway to a four-lane facility.
The project was anticipated to impact a total of 4.5 acres of
wetlands including 1.6 acres from the two-lane construction and 2.9
acres from the future widening improvements. The two-lane roadway
was completed in January, 1988, and the permit expired in December,
1989.
The current improvements will impact a total of 1.32 acres of
wetlands including 1.06 acres south of Rush Street and an additional
0.26 acre north of Rush Street. Although the permit expired, the
recommended six-lane improvements south of Rush Street are contained
within the previously permitted four-lane construction limits and
impact a smaller acreage of wetlands.
In a meeting held on 2/16/95 with permit review agencies, Corps
of Engineers representatives indicated a Nationwide Permit, 33 CFR
330.5(a)(26), will likely apply to the project since the
jurisdictional wetlands are located above headwaters (refer to
discussion of permit coordination in Section V). During the permit
application process, NCDOT will coordinate with the Corps of
Engineers to obtain the necessary permits. The final determination
of permit applicability will be made by the Corps.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is also required by
the DEHNR Division of Environmental Management prior to issuance of
the 404 permit.
6. Mitigation
When the Section 404 permit was authorized in 1986, wetland
impacts were mitigated using the Company Swamp mitigation bank. The
mitigation bank was debited 4.5 acres to compensate for wetland
losses that would result from constructing both the two-lane and the
multilane Hammond Road facility. This mitigation remains valid for
the subject project, and no additional mitigation is proposed.
23
7. Air Quality
A preliminary analysis was conducted to reevaluate the project's
effect on the air quality of the area. Traffic is the center of
concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the
improvement of an existing highway facility. Motor vehicles emit
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC),
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead (Pb) (listed in
order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be
the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of
the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
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 concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
100 meters) of the receptor location. The background concentration
is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point
that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is,
the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the
NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality staff using line source computer
modeling and the background component was obtained from the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were resolved, they
were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
area in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are 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 because of the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the
ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should
continue to decrease as a result of the improvements to automobile
emissions.
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, and 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.
24
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions
and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic
on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular
gasoline . The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of
regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead which is added by
refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded
gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was
2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are expected to
decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of
leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these
reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will
cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration for each of the sensitive receptors to
the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based
on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the completion year
(1998), five years after completion (2003) and the Design Year of
2018 using the EPA publication "Mobile'Source Emission Factors", the
MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer model for idle emissions
and for free flow conditions.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM),
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is
suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
25
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located
at the US 70 intersection. The predicted 1-hour average CO
concentrations for the build years of 1998, 2003 and 2018 for the
a worst-case air quality scenario are as follows:
Four-lane divided shoulder section:
1-Hour CO Concentration
(ppm)
Receptor 1998 2003 2018
REC 12B(NW CORNER) 6.6 6.6 7.4
REC 20 (SW CORNER) 6.4 6.4 7.1
REC 14 (NE CORNER) 7.3 7.7 9.5
Six-lane divided curb and gutter section:
1-Hour CO Concentration
(ppm)
Receptor 1 1998 1 2003 1 2018 1
REC 13 (NW CORNER) 8.0 7.3 7.6
REC 12A(SW CORNER) ( 5.3 5.1 6.0
REC 20 (SE CORNER) I 6.2 5.8 6.5
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
See Tables Al through A3 in Appendix C for input data and output.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality
of the Raleigh Regional Office of the N. C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments designated Wake County as a moderate nonattainment area
for carbon monoxide (CO) and Ozone (0 ). However, due to improved
monitoring data, this county was rede53ignated as a maintenance area
for 0 on June 17, 1994 and remains as a moderate nonattainment area
for Cd. The current State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain
any transportation control measures (TCM) for Wake County. The
Raleigh Area Thoroughfare Plan (TP) and the 1995 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) have been determined to be in conformity to
26
the intent of the SIP. The approval date of the TP and the TIP by
the MPO was on October 25, 1994. The approval date of the TIP and
the TIP by the USDOT was on February 24, 1995. There have been no
significant changes in the project's design concept and scope, as
used in the conformity analyses.
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 done 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 insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions
are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be
performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction,
measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort
of motorists or area residents. This Evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are
necessary.
8. Traffic Noise
Probable traffic noise impacts were reevaluated for the project
using updated traffic volumes. This investigation 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 Abatement Criteria
in order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are
not compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC)
and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways.
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 of Appendix C. 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.
27
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken along Hammond Road and in
the immediate vicinity of the new extension 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 existing
Leq noise levels along Hammond Road as measured at 25 feet from the
roadway for Sites #1 and #3 was 68.8 dBA for both sites, and the
noise levels as measured at 50 feet from the roadway for Sites #2 and
#4 ranged from 65.7 to 70.0 dBA.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the
most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate
existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within 0.1 to
2.4 dBA of the measured noise levels where noise measurements were
obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching"
of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus
the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
The ambient noise measurement sites and the corresponding existing
Leq noise levels are presented in Figure N1 and Table N3,
respectively.
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 BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction)
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.
Two typical sections were evaluated in this analysis: (1) a
four-lane divided shoulder section and (2) a six-lane divided curb
and gutter section. was available for use in this noise analysis.
Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in
setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed
intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The
noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being
analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other
time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
28
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted
during the peak hour of the design year 2018. A land use is
considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to
sustain a substantial noise increase. 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 (adaptable to both
sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors were
determined by the changes in projected traffic volumes and/or the
posted speed limits 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 Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N4. Information included in these tables consist of
listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their
ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level
increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in
Table N5. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to
experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Highway
traffic noise from the four-lane divided alternative will impact
three businesses and three residential receptors. Traffic noise from
the six-lane divided alternative will impact five businesses and
eleven residential receptors. These impacts, however, are due to
-Y-line sources. Other information included in Table N5 is the
maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use
control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway
within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information
on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels
of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted
noise level increases for the four-lane divided typical section range
from +1 to +12 dBA. Noise level increases for the six-lane divided
typical section range from +1 to +15 dBA. When real-life noises are
heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3
dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is
judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of
the sound.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
29
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower
portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise abatement measures must
be given to all receptors which fall in either category.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts
and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise
abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of
siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive
areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative
for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed,
volume and time of operations are often effective noise abatement
measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not
considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
f
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
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial
abatement walls. The project will maintain only limited control of
access, meaning most commercial establishments and residences will
have direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all
intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the 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 at access openings (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length
would normally be 8 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 (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section
3.2, page 5-27).
30
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally require
accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures
for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these 2 qualities,
and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in their case.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures are
feasible and none are recommended for this project.
"Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the traffic currently using the
network of roads in the project area should double within the next
twenty years, future traffic noise levels would increase
approximately 2-3 dBA. This small increase to the present noise level
would be barely noticeable to the people working and living in the
area. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more
readily noticed.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by
and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth
moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the
relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation
of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to
be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title
23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no
additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
9. Hazardous Materials
A hazardous materials investigation was conducted during the
preparation of the 1992 Reevaluation. Three properties were
evaluated for potential impacts to underground storage tanks (UST's):
(1) the former Greenbriar Exxon site, (2) the John Deere/Massengill
and Sons Construction Company, and (3) the Chason Diesel Service
property. The structures and pump islands were removed from the
Greenbriar Exxon site, and UST closure was obtained on July 25, 1990.
UST's for the remaining two sites were determined to be located
outside of the proposed right of way.
31
The Chason Diesel Ser
acquisition, and this busin
project. Although no UST'
project corridor, a thorough
right of way acquisition to
this site.
vice property was acquired by advance
ess will be relocated with the current
s were previously located within the
investigation will be conducted prior to
determine if hazardous materials exist at
No other hazardous materials involvement is anticipated with the
project.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Comments on the proposed project were requested from the following
federal, state, and local agencies. An asterisk indicates that a written
response was received (refer to Appendix B for agency comments).
Environmental Protection Agency
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* Department of Cultural Resources
* Department of Environment, Health,
* Department of Public Instruction
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* State Clearinghouse
Triangle J Council of Governments
Wake County Commissioners
Town of Garner
City of Raleigh
and Natural Resources
These comments and issues have been addressed in this study.
Coordination with Permit Review Agencies
On January 19, 1994, the project was presented at a monthly Permit
Review Meeting to obtain comments from the permit review agencies and to
begin early coordination in the permit process. Approximately 35 people
attended the meeting including representatives from the Army Corps of
Engineers, Division of Environmental Management, Wildlife Resources
Commission, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and NCDOT. A brief description
of the project and a comparison of the alignments that avoid or minimize
wetland impacts were presented during the meeting (refer to discussion of
alternatives in Section III.A.2).
Comments from the review agencies focused on the previous Section 404
permit that was issued along Hammond Road. Because a permit had been
issued in 1986 to construct the two-lane portion of Hammond Road in the
wetlands of Wildcat Branch, some of the conditions authorized by the
previous permit may remain applicable for the current project.
Representatives from the Corps of Engineers and the Division of
Environmental Management requested copies of the current preliminary
designs to compare with the previously permitted design. After the
meeting, NCDOT sent the design information to these agencies for their
review in determining the applicability of the previous permit with the
current project.
32
During the February 16, 1995 Permit Review Meeting, Permit
applicability for the project was discussed. At this meeting, Corps of
Engineers representatives indicated that a Nationwide Permit, 33 CFR
33.5(a)(26), will apply to the project since the total wetland impacts
resulting from the two-lane and six-lane widening are less than three
acres. A final determination of permit applicability will be reached
during the permit application process.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The findings presented in the 1981 FONSI remain valid. It is
anticipated that the proposed Hammond Road project will not have
significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environment. Proposed
right of way and relocation impacts will have no effect on the area's
socio-economic development. No significant impacts to architectural or
archaeological resources in the project area will occur. No impacts to
federally protected species will occur. Approximately 1.33 acre of
wetland impacts will result from the project, but these impacts were
previously mitigated with the construction of the two-lane Hammond Road in
1988. No stream rechannel ization will occur. No adverse air quality
impacts are anticipated from projected traffic volumes along the proposed
facility. Noise impacts will occur at three businesses and eleven
residences, but no physical abatement measures are feasible and none are
recommended for this project.
MLR/plr
FIGURES
a
lam' ? ? ? .
O O ' uu
n, j r r
Raleigh
IOU
PROJECT
LIMITS ++
r h
et i ? d '
' trc )
Sk 2. 683 ? -----------fir
1 01- '1-4
rJA•,? 1
Chapanoke -^
®0 Road - ----SUL ( Tryoj1 Road)
SR 2684 ,.. _?1?---- --- ""
S ?
1
1 2111
? 1 1
PROJECT
LIMIT'S q
;CGrovemont Road
0116 L
6== SR 2720
,
?[lsl

i

1 1

LUI

•••
+ U"
V
arr 1 , L11 Inr `, • ' fill t
( ' '
t
• •
? ` \
l V" Iw. N.. r `
•" M' , tl11 J•1
• r• r.. t
t
1
0A GARNER
.. .,
tttl ,.. , f. +W.W ...w...r
,
t0 / ^r?y r
arner
CJ •f ?j ,
tali i r Cow '
r ttll `?? ?, • 1i
z
.. 1

J
uu
e.r. --
Hammond Road
from North of SR 2683 (Rush Street)
to South of US 70
Raleigh, Wake County
U-515 AA
Vicinity Map
Approx Scale: linch =2500 feet Figure 1

z
d

r
It I
? w
?a
O
1•
a ? •I
1
Coe)
1
E
lot
M ?( ajCrb= foam
r r r r r r
I
/- z I;e
i

CD
COl
' •,rI w p,, ,
I
SR
268 •••'"'••••...
5tre••'•.
"...'„• 3 (Rush
???•""'•••••• .............• eta
_jf

C

N
^ H
A

cd H O J On

?
p a N o .
w
o a3? 8
? `n o
? a
a o ?
o II
x ?
o ?

w

t
?
z

i
r
to 6
pLPO a
U
1
? y 1
L ?
I I•?'
aa?S ?a1?N1 ¦0 i i
£ laagS q:)I el t
4-4
0
? N
a?
6
Match Sheet 2 t
b

b ?

a

^? ° Ct7
,

Illy. w..• ..,.,,
000 tt? i Z
00 1*0
I T! i
f i
-SR 2684 (Tryon R
• . add
t
i ?i ..
i
it V
i
s: 1 6 .
!
i
i !
i # !
!
p
f I
IV? ?
A. .
r ,s
it
i t
i I
i!
i!
i
to
! j
L 11
11 ? It >:
i
i `Th !s ti
r ;
i
\ s
i ! ! i !41 •
4
e !
s, t ? s tit
i?
?. 3
? yyyy?r • ^ NN,ti ! j !
J, N f ji
3
C ••
\ Ca f?
' 4 / f 1?Q'
i
i ?
jjj? ?~« 1
r1f : .•« ` r ,..
.. J•ti..`••«•••. y
1 ! ' !
4 l.y. ".I •? i i \
1 i I f fl y!
r ! i I t J
r=
Match Sheet 4
4
n
w
o' bd
p ?
a
'4*?x

i
•'? yy 1
¦
rtli
S r
?• 1 ti •?
Y 4-4
• O
t0, ~ `?? • • rr+N j
'O
t /
C N O •? ? b w • • ! !?
o?-+a?3?•v°
q N Q •
N
to
O.CW? t?
44 Ccd ?O O ?O F7 II ;•• / , !f •t ?,/
a ;f ^• /
• / r c //`
04 40,
t. ;
• Y ? ! 111 \ l
r
Ai f • y?y •••~1
?f ••? •Vf?• \ ??•i Y ?yt ? y\
I ? ?1• \ ? ? / ? s t' ? ? 1 s \ r?
16, a 44
IOU,
• f ?? r i z J •. \
• '? yi.?• f ?? • yi iti y•.• yyh.• ? 2/ ' / • O , •+
- Y x • i ,
r•
0 OF
'j I • ? I \ }?+ «~ " •y •? I 1• ! ivy ??y ••? f Jl ?'? /1 i••r•••Mr•N ?', • ?/ \ ? ?/ ???
all
loaqs hr
Q
M
w
oC
D
C3
U-
a
0
c N
T
y_0
T
U
N _
/0 /1 _ N
C - N
t io co
c
•` A N N
A' N
J
LL I I T
a
0
C ?
O O
U "a
A A O
E
_U U p
U
U
F?'CQ
co _N
W ? U
t
C:
a)
c
cu cu
_X CD
m ?
co
N
m
4
O
t
m
CD
O

? F
T
I

r
E ?o
I?
N O
CD I r
b m

i

N
m
ch
W
cr
LL
N
A
C
O
A-,0
V/
co
•Q
PC
m
N
•5 U
C
RS
VJ
m
N j
N
i
i - N
i - r
-_ T I
N r t
m
O O
? M
O T
3 0 "'
_ r m
o I C7
r
N
i
1 --
N
i - r
I I
io
1 I
U
M
(DD
V_
LL.
ESTIMATED 1998/2018 ADT'S IN HUNDREDS FOR
s HAMMOND ROAD-TIMBER, DRIVE
FROM RUSH STREET TO US-70
HAMMOND RD.
TTST = 3% 351
DUAL = 5% 57t
DHV = 10%
DIR = 60%
RUSH ST.
176
263
TRYON RD.
131 _
199
MECHANICAL BLVD.
(GARNER LOOP RD.)
43
71
49
73j"j' 5
?8
39?
_ 3
58 5
339
553
99
145 16
?
29
23? -
r 5
34 9
252
422
2
4? 28
?39
US-70
381
651
HAMMOND BECOMES 183
TIMBER DRIVE 312
TTST = 2%
DUAL = 4%
DHV = 10%
DIR = 60%
96
145
TTST = 3%
DUAL = 5%
DHV = 10%
DIR = 60%
30
58
TTST = 2%
DUAL =8%
DH V = 10%
DIR = 60%
72
111
TTST = 3%
DUAL = 5%
DHV = 10%
DIR = 60%
373
639
FIGURE 4
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
TREATMENTS
Rush Street
I I I I ?,
I I I I
i I I I
rljl?l?l`
I a!
I?°I
1,o I
I of
I EI
ICI
as
I I 11 t It I?
I I I I I
I ! I ! I
I I I I I
I I I I I
t
SR 2683 (Rush Street)
Intersection
I I I l ICI
I I I {? I.fll
I I ! ? I of
I I I I EI
EEI
Mechanical Boulevard
l
I I' I I I
I I
I ?? I I I
I I I i- I I I
flop.
SR 2538 (Mechanical Boulevard)
Intersection
I I I I ? I,QI
I I I I lol
?!jljljl` IEI
Tryon Road
l -411116
r
ii
I !
I I
I I
I !
I !
SR 2684 (yon Road)
Intersection
I i I I ?
I I I I
?Itlti?l`
US 70

Iol ?
lal
! cl
I el
I EI
Frl p?., t
f?
I ?11?I t It lr',
i l l I I I I I
1 1 I` I! I I
I I I '? I I I
I I ! I ?/
US 70
Intersection
FIGURE 5
_ iV vV/4 UMRwr. t? t? .nu n....•?• ?-?--
/ 1 10 o r n
712 RALEIGH rSrArE CAPITOL) 2.3 MI. ?' r4U1 - 2 110000 FEET I 78 7 3?0
i • 1 •- ?, ,. / -?? . -•' n :? ,.y _ . ?b .. :?.; _ iii .. •.?••? ?: 7
Par?k; eo
- -
x _4
"Lake, ??? '? ..?•;. Site #1 Al , ;'?•;
• t .
L"tat
e
• ? ,,, ?•.?1 ,;? .,••. •• is • ?' ?=,:... ? '•? I
•
r ' %5 Site #2
?' ?' ' I , • :. . ,, ?.,..:`1 .. , .y1 i `? +, - 3958
est Ferri -? Site #3 z
00-
It Nt 1 • I J . ?? 1 ' ?, 26g3
014- ? Stje "`•\`1`, ?\`' ,?II
et)
•? Into !t'? "" Site #4 r ' ?LNI, Acres . _--;-?-, 2530
v .1A1
???'1 j' pmgfial ark Site #5 ''
+? • •? -y"ei
"? `' I' i, , `? \\1 O lS'1'7r'!'E• SCHOOL .FOR. BM
A59 ;r. chapanOke Road/ I'\'.l?\IiL?177S AND D1LAF 3 - 13957
,><364 ?`! ? ? J/ •`?/ ,._- /?? I I ?L? r.' ? _? w` 1 1? \` I? ? ` W?_??_?\ '?
ew.age
-734
268. ` \\
SIR
?. , `; -?,>;,?. •'
?' ` •:?: r' ; .? Road)
? V.
\ rr
720
FEE
:j= -iubb
\j 7
rive-i
'Th'eater'?
0 V,
....Water Tankj •.^ ••.. °?'`J? ?? [`'?
?' _ /?-.- - ??'\?;?:? .•• Hammond Road
Greenbrier,' from North of SR 2683 (Rush Street)
1-- ' • ' • • ; i,' ;..; to South of US 70
` Estate's I _: • - Raleigh, Wake County Jaw
\! if .`? ?\ '\\? ?••1• •?.'/•,??,•h •+•'???,' U-515 AA
`' • ':• ( Wetland Locations
/• 1, ri I" Approx Scale: linch =1250 feet Figure 6
APPENDIX
Appendix A
Relocation Assistance Report and Relocation Programs
REL-O CA T I ON REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
._X.. E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.2432801 COUNTY: Wake - Alternate
I_ of _I_. Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-515AA F.A. PROJECT: M-5797(1) R E V I S E D
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Hammond Rd. from Tryon Rd_ to northern interchange ramp on 15 70,
L ES TIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL _
Type of Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals
Families 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 - -
Businesses 1 2 3 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms - - - - Owners Tenants For Sale For Ren t
Non-Profit - - - - 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTI ONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M see 150-250
YYES
- NO EXPLAIN ALL 'YES' ANSWERS
• 40-7011 0 250-400 0 40-70M #6 250-400
M X 1. Will special relocation
services be necessary- 70-1
00 1 400-600 1
1 70-100
1 below 400-600

X
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
0
600 UP
0
100 UP _
600 UP
affected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL 1 1
- be available after project
_
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
X type, estimated number of 3. Raleigh has a plethora of businesses, so there
employees, minorities, etc. 3 will have no impact. All will relocate else-
X 5. Will relocation cause a where.
housing shortage
X 6. Source for available hoes- 4. (A) Chason Diesel Service. Inc. - 3000 sq. ft.
ing (list) building, 4 employees. Parcel acquired via
X 7. Will additional housing advance acquisition. Tenant business eligible for
programs be needed relocation.
X B. Should Last Resort Housing
- be considered (9)_ Garner Animal HoGni.al - 3000 sq. ft.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, building, 2-4 employees. Owner occupied.
elderly, etc. families

ANSWER THESE AI Sn FOR DESIGN ( C ) Braswell Manufactured Homes - Mobile home
10. Will public housing be dealer has 15 mobile homes on lot. Tenant
needed for project business with 3-5 employees.
11. Is public, housing avail-
- - able 6. MLS service lists 1000's of homes for sale, so no
12. Is it felt there will be ad- breakdown is given in the grid above.
equate DDS housing available
- during relocation period B. Last resort is a possibility.
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means NOTE: There is a family cemetery with 10-30 graves
14. Are suitable business sites directly across Mechanical Blvd. from the
available (list source) Chason business noted above.
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
Relocation Ag6n? t Date Approved Date '
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 rzemSit Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either

private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
MEMORANDUM THRU: Ken Jolly
FROM: Amy Ohlberg !A"41
FOR: Mark L. Reep, Planning and Environmental
- North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199500863; Hammond Road Widening and
Extension, TIP No. U-515 AA
Thank you for forwarding a copy of your memorandum dated
November 14, 1994 to my office. In reviewing the issues
discussed at the on site meeting, there are a few points I would
like to clarify further.
I indicated that the previous mitigation debit of 4.5 acres
to the Company Swamp was no longer applicable, due in part to the
1:1 ratio utilized in 1989 for preservation of wetlands whereas
current guidelines employ a 10:1,ratio. According to the expired
permit and supporting documentation, 1.6 acres of wetland impacts
were carried out, leaving a balance of 2.9 acres of mitigation
credit. This credit is still valid; however, the current ratio
guidelines would apply. This results in 0.29 acre of mitigation
credit still remaining for the project.
Your recent memo reports that 1.4 acres of wetlands would be
impacted by widening Hammond Road on the eastern side. However,
the memorandum from Lane Sauls dated July 26, 1994 which you
provided me at our meeting indicates that 1.2 hectares (3.0
acres) would be impacted by this alignment. It was my
understanding that this earlier calculation was more accurate.
Please note that relocation of Wildcat Branch may result in
additional wetland impacts due to altering the drainage in the
area. In any case, I want to re-emphasize that a final
determination of jurisdictional impacts must be confirmed by my
office when specific plans are provided.
Lastly, I would like to clarify the applicability of a
Nationwide Permit for this project. Regardless of which
alignment is chosen for Hammond Road, it is potentially eligible
for authorization by Nationwide Permit No. 26 (NWP 26) because
the jurisdictional areas are located above the headwaters of
Wildcat Branch. Since 1.6 acres of waters and wetlands have
already been impacted by the construction of Hammond Road,
December 6, 1994
Page 2
additional impacts should be minimized, as stated by the permit
guidelines. The alternative alignment on the west side of
Hammond Road satisfies this requirement and NWP 26 could be
applied without mitigation beyond the existing credit of 0.29
acre. The proposed eastern alignment would maximize-impacts and
additional mitigation would be required to compensate for these
wetland losses.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the planning
of this project. Please don't hesitate to contact me at (919)
876-8441, ext. 26.
Copy furnished:
Mr. Eric Galamb
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Mgmt.
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO January 3, 1995
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

€ AN 0 5 1995
2
DI.
CCP H!
This is in response to your letter of November 18, 1994, to our
Raleigh Field Office, Regulatory Branch, requesting our comments on
the "Reevaluation of SR 2026 (Hammond Road) from north of SR 2683
(Rush Street) to south of US 70, Raleigh, Wake County, State Project
No. 8.2432801, Federal Aid Project No. M-5797(1), TIP No. U-515AA"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199500863).
Our comments involve impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
projects, flood plains, and other jurisdictional resources,
primarily waters and wetlands. The proposed roadway does not cross
any Corps-constructed flood control or navigation project. Enclosed
are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we
can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
1.N
January 3, 1995
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Reevaluation of SR 2026 (Hammond Road) from north of SR 2683 (Rush Street)
to south of US 70, Raleigh, Wake County, State Project No. 8.2432801, Federal
Aid Project No. M-5797(1), TIP No. U-515AA" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D.
No. 199500863)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobbv L. Willis, Plan Formulation and Flood Plain
Services Branch, at [phone]
This proposed project is located in the jurisdiction of the city of
Raleigiil and the town of Garner, both of which participate in the National
Flood Insurance Program. From a review of the March 1992 Wake County, North
Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Study Rate Map, it appears
the roadway would not cross any identified flood hazard area within the Garner
jurisdictional limits. Within the Raleigh limits, the proposed roadway
improvements would both cross and parallel Wildcat Branch, a detail study
stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. A
certification will be required indicating that new structures will not cause
any rise in the 100-year natural water surface elevations. If changes in the
floodway are required, these changes should be coordinated with the city for
modification to the flood insurance map and report. We also suggest
coordination with the city for compliance with their flood plain ordinance.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Amy Ohlberg Raleigh Field Office Regulatory
Branch, at [phone], Extension 26
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work will involve the
discharge of excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands located
above the headwaters of tributaries within the Wildcat Branch and Swift Creek
drainage basins. In particular, the proposed widening of Hammond Road on the
east side of the existing facility between Rush Street and Tryon Road would
adversely impact significant acreage of high quality wetlands adjacent to
Wildcat Rra.nch..by fill ing and channel relocation. A smaller jurisdictional
crossing of an unnamed tributary to Swift Creek is indicated. where Hammond
Road would intersect US 70.
The applicability of Nationwide Permit Nos. 14 or 26 for the project will
be reviewed when detailed plans are submitted. Please note, however, that
construction of the existing Hammond Road has already resulted in impacts to
1.6 acres of waters and wetlands adjacent to Wildcat Branch, according to the
expired Section 404 permit and supporting documentation. For this reason, a
Nationwide Permit No. 14 would not apply for this crossing and in order to
utilize a Nationwide Permit No. 26, additional impacts need to be minimized.

January 3, 1995
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Reevaluation of SR 2026 (Hammond Road) from north of SR 2683 (Rush Street) to
south of US 70, Raleigh, Wake County, State Project No. 8.2432801, Federal Aid
Project No. M-5797(1), TIP No. U-515AA" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No.
199500863)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (continued)
The alternative alignment on the west side of Hammond Road satisfies this
requirement and the wetland impacts would likely be mitigated by the
mitigation credit of 0.29 acre which is currently available for this project.
This credit exists due to the previous permit conditions as explained in a
memo dated December 6, 1994, to Mr. Mark Reep of the North Carolina Department
of Transportation's Planning and Environmental Branch. The proposed eastern
alignment would maximize impacts and additional mitigation would be required
to compensate for these wetland losses.
Please contact Ms. Ohlberg if you have any questions related to Department
of the Army permits.

(Aadg, K44)
S?
1? 4
J
1
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
C E 1?
December 5, 1994 DEC 0 6 1994
Z
r,'L DIVISICN OF Q
Mr. H. Franklin Vick CP HIGHWAYS
p?
Planning and Environmental Branch ["/RONN?E?
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Reevaluation of SR 2026 (Hammond Road) from north of SR 2683 (Rush
Street) to south of US 70, Raleigh, Wake County, State Project No.
8.2432801, Federal Aid Project No. M-5797(1), TIP No. U-515AA
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of November 18, 1994 requesting information from
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) calls for improvements to SR 2026 (Hammond Road) from 0.3 mile north
of SR 2683 (Rush Street) to 0.2 mile south of US 70. The project is included
in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right-of-way in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal year
1996. The project completes a link between the six-lane section of Hammond
Road to the north and the four-lane section of Timber Drive to the south. A
multilane divided facility is proposed from Rush Street to US 70 and the
existing two-lane portion of Hammond Road from Rush Street to Tryon Road will
be widened. The NCDOT is also considering additional travel lanes along US 70
to provide six lanes in the vicinity of the Hammond Road intersection. An
intersection is proposed at US 70 with the subject project, however, the
ultimate Hammond Road design includes an interchange at US 70.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland types
should follow the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each wetland type
to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage'of each type which would
a be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce,
or compensate for upland and wetlands habitat impacts associated with
the project. These measures should include plans for replacing
unavoidable wetland losses.
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction
as a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to
similar environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in
the area (cumulative impacts).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Wake County. The section of the
environmental document regarding protected species must contain the following
information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species
or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects;
and,
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refer to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to its
provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a
candidate species. This change would place the species under the full
protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its
status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for
the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely yours,
Tom Augs rger
Acting Supervisor
REVISED NOVEMBER 30, 1994

Wake County
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocenhalus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Michaux's sumac ( hus michauxii) - E
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Bachman's sparrow (Aimovhila aestivalis) - C2*
Southeastern bat ( t s austrorivarius) - C2
Diana fritillary butterfly (Speveria diana) - C2
Green floater (Lasmiaona subviridis) - C2
Yellow lance (mussel) (Ellivtio lanceolata) - C2
Neuse slabshell (Ellivtio judithae) - C2
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia a on ) - C2
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Carolina trillium (Trillium pusillum var. vusillum) - C2
Sweet pinesap (MonotroASis odorata) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARTLLGii"LLF
FM206 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTR !G I?/
116 WEST JONES STREET ?Q
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLIN 2 603-8003
?Lg 4-4
11-71 DEC 051
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DIVISION OF
v? HIGHWAYS
MAILED TO: FROM:
N-C- DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MS- JEANETTE FURNEY
FRANK VICK ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
PLANN- E ENV. BRANCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED REEVALUATION OF SR 2026 (HAMMOND RD-) FROM
NORTH OF SR 2683 (RUSH ST-) TO SOUTH OF US 70 IN RALEIGH
TIP #U-515AA
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N-C- STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW- THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 95E42200336- PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 01/05/95-
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone]-
-m wv-, 4zktv
M208
01-05-95
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTR
116 WEST JONES STREE3oO
RALEIGH NORTH CARO G 27E 601 3Y
-14?
FJA% 0 6.1995',
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMM S 2
MAILED T0: FROM: pNISIC'd OF 2g
HIGHWAYS ?0
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS
FRANK VICK DIRECTOR
PLANN- E ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED REEVALUATION OF SR 2026 (HAMMOND RD-) FROM
NORTH OF SR 2683 (RUSH ST-) TO SOUTH OF US 70 IN RALEIGH
TIP #U-515AA
SAX NO 95E42200336 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS- AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS9 PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C-C- REGION J
State of North. Carolina
Department of Environment, -AV I
Health and Natural Resources 4 • o
Legislative Affairs
41 James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ID E H N F =I
Henry Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
T0: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0336 - Scoping Hammond Road, Wake County
DATE: January 4, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
encouraged to notify our commenting divisie
assistance is needed.
attachments
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
The applicant is
ns if additional
JAN - 4 I ? ,. ;,i
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
December 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM
A*A
BEHNR

TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester
SUBJECT: DOT Re-Evaluation/Scoping of SR2026 (Hammond Road) from North of Rush
Street to South of US 70 in Raleigh, Wake County
PROJECT: #95-0336 and TIP #U-515AA
DUE DATE: 12-27-94
We have reviewed the above subject DOT scoping notice and have the following comments:
1. Even though this project is in an urban setting, woodland will be impacted.
2. We have no problems with the project as it appears to be needed.
3. The EA should address the following:
a. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production as
a result of new right-of-way purchases and all construction activities.
b. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series, that would be
involved within the proposed project.
C. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Memo to Melba McGee
PROJECT: #95-0336
Page 2
d. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber that is to
be removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning
during construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should comply with all
laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning.
e. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent
erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-
way and construction limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be
protected from construction activities to avoid:
1. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
2. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
3. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that impairs
root aeration.
4. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over
the root systems of trees.
We would hope that a route could be chosen that would have the least impact to forest and related
resources in that area.
PC: Warren Boyette - CO
Albert Coley - Wake Co
File
State of North Caroiins Reviewing tI' e
YEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS project Number: Due
After review of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, Information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the "m Time
Regional Office. Normal Process
(statutory time
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Or REQUIREMENTS limit)
PERMITS
A lication 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
Permit to construct 6 operate wastewater treatment PP
? facilities, sewer system extensions, d sewer construction contracts On•site inspection. Post•application (90 days)
technical conference usual
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
to activit On-site inspection. 90.120 days
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application 180 days before beg' y•
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pro-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to (NIA)
? discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facilily•granted after NPDES Reply
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary (NIA)
s
Complete application mutt be received and permit issued s)
Well Conatruetion Permit prior to the installation o a well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property s
Fs)
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On•site inspection. Pre•application conference usual. Filling may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
60 days
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement NIA (90 days)
? facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.060
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
asbestos material must be In compliance with 15A NIA
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group (90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
dimenlaUo
The Se<Jimo:,fation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d ae
Plan Illed with proper Regional Oflice ILand Quality Sect.) at least 30
d I
20 d 0 d
y
.
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbe
f = for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or ail muss accom an the Ian
l
a
s
3
s)
0 d
ee o
da s before be mein activity . A
tion ?ollulion Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
t
• ay
(3
a
i The Sedimen
r
mount
fI
d
a
tI._
On-site Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. 9on 30 days
it varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area
The appropriate bond
t be permited
P
(60 days)
.
erm
Mining
mined greater than one acre mus
must be received before the permit can be issued.
On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit ,Fda)
North Carolina Burning permit
exceeris i days
• - ?
On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required ••if more 1 day "
N ay
l
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22
than 'Ive'acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
'
C. with organic soils
requested di leas' ten days before actual burn is planned.
? counties in coastal N
ld b
.
e
shou
90120 days
tNIA)
LJ Oil Refining Facilities NIA
If permit required, applk.a?lon 60 days before "gin construction.
30 days
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to'. prepare plans.
s ac;:o,ding to EHNR approv
? Dam Safety Petmit Inspect cu. struclion, certify construction i
May also require permit under mosquito rontrol program. And
lans (60 days) _
.
eo p
silee is
n Engineers
a permit from
s
r
ac
must
minimum fee of
io
_3ry ry to ve,{fy Hazard
Cias si cal
the appllCaliof.. An additional processing fee based on a
n
y
compa
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon Completion
Continued on reverse
,Pb rtw .
No rrna. Process
I • Time
(statulory linie
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limd)
PERMITS _-
r File surety bond of 55,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drf::.t,:i?•.?•? 1 Oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. (NIA)
{!-t Geophysical tl?ploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
Application by letter. No standard application form. 10 days
(NIA)
lJ
l
d
i s
1520 da
State Lakes Construction Permit u
e
nc
Application lee based on structure size is charged. Must
tructure 6 proof of ownership
f
i y
(NIA)
? ngs o
s
descriptions 8 draw
of riparian property.
60 days.
401 Water Ouallty Certification
NIA
(1]0 days;
55 days
? CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
?
$50.00 lee must accompany application
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or deslroyed. please nobly
?' N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687. Raleigh, N.C. 27611
? Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapler 2C.0100
? Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation
45 days
day
O Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. IN A)
° • Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority).
l? >7 1 1'?
i g?
-
?
i
u T
1
?L/? N
,?c Sf?Dtr ,f t.?-j Pt N ? t D S f o?J.r?C-0 N
""fit-O I'c1 Lc???4r>+ . ?4YlJrlc?? R'T7T°J.J
'(
5 / k? •
oT
?+0 jn1s?/ri vrt .F
?(G

n
Q(r= ?1V,fa.( -I- i7?
t ST
IE .5 A-71- 'the ?' ?" '?? oN f ku ors 7z/L0
5 04 0-44-r - 1 "'J ; DE 41
C
Ail_k J L S (-I, ter.-i?i7?It ty;,t vg,,7^0 `.E t
O tJ-r? 7' S fyR?.w A-1, A t=r14- 44E>9 -
i
REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
t-1
.-ClA
heville Regional Office
=
? Fayetteville Regional Office
s
.•
odfin Place
59 W Suite 714 Wachovia Building
o
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(919) 4851541
[phone]
f'
.-D.Miooresville Regional Office `oc is
? Raleigh Regional Office
Suite 101
3800 Barretk•Drive
`i.9t9 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 .
Raleigh,. NC 27609
-9Mtloresville. NC 28115 [phone]
)(nAy 663.1699

? Washington Regional Office i oio;,al
? Wiimincaon+Regionaf Office
'
1424 Carolina Avenue ha1iDrive Exlens)on
127 Catdi
Wilmington, NO 28405
Washington. NC 27889 (9191 3953900
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office , •;r,•;, ••.
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston Salem, NC 27106
(919) 8967007

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor PROJECT REVIEw COMMENTS
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: % S - G 3 3 ? County:
V C
09 1994 1
Charles H. Gardner
Director
Project Name: L 3 E
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be'contacted prior'to construction at P.O. Box' 27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
L" //1zz 1'71 w-„
Reviewer

Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
i
Date
This proje9t will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land =disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
f? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
A". ? G-? 12101,154
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]

An Equal Opportunlty A18rrnadve Acdon Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, AN
Health and Natural Resources W
4
Division of Environmental Management
?w
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C) Admodsoodw
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
E H N F?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 7, 1994
Memorandum
To: Mark Reep
NC DOT
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Preliminary Wetland Investigation
for Hammond Road Widening
TIP # U-515AA
A site visit was made on October 27, 1994 to determine the wetland quality and
quantity associated with the subject project. The wetland is classified as a bottomland
hardwood/beaver pond. This wetland is performing significant functions including pollutant
removal, water storage, aquatic life, and bank stabilization. Alternatives to avoid the wetland
should be examined. DEM requests that DOT compare the wetland impacts to the west and
the east of existing Hammond Road. This comparison should be submitted to DEM for
review prior to a permit application. DOT should also discuss minimization efforts including
side slopes and median widths.
DOT is commended for including the resource agencies in an early coordination
meeting.
u515aa.mem
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
10 1
IDEHNR
December 19, 1994
T0: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swiharf,'Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0336; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Reevaluation of Proposed Improvements to SR 2026,
Raleigh, TIP No. U-515AA
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
December 19, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10791.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE
TEL:[phone] Dec 27'94 11:41 No.002 P.03
Noah Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-7333391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Cdr inato
Habitat Conservation Prograttr
••' fir.
DATE: December 27, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for the reevaluation of SR 2026
(Hammond Road) from SR 2683 (Rush Street) to south
of US 70 in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina,
TTP No. U-515AA, SCH Project No. 95-0336.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
we are concerned about the wetlands associated with
Wildcat Branch and any stream channel relocation that may
result from this project. We request that NCDOT thoroughly
investigate alternatives which avoid the wetlands and scream
channel modifications. We are unlikely to concur the
project document if impacts to natural resources are not
clearly minimized.
In addition to any specific recommendations or concerns
regarding the subject project, our general informational
needo are outlined below:
C,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 27'94 11:42 No.002 P.04
Memo
Page 2
December 27, 1994
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzee the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
C,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Dec 27'94 11:42 No.002 P.05
. - Memo Page 3 December 27, 1994
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
CCs Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
%
(' jl.i ifs; ?.)i• I?.;tIVI.L?.t.?!'•t???ll?.l`.! I'!`,!. L I!.•:r\' •t???i
(rater-A,cricy' P:•Oject Review 1\CSp011SC
?S'-O 33
1"11ii l'11:Y? ,
1-0j%:C:: Nan- ° SGz 2C?tS C Ypc of 1'rojcet
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 conscruccioli (as requ:-ed by 15A NCAC 18(7 .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public. Wacer Supply Se:tion, [phone].
?-, This project will be classified as -a non-conimunity public water supply and must comply with
?---J state and federal drinking water monitoring requireme::cs. For more Information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Seccion, (91``! 733-2321.
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recd nmend closure of feet. of adjacerit
Waters to the haniesi of shellfish. For inform' aeon regarding the•shellfisi -sanitation progra.
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitac!'Dn Branch ac [phone].
r? The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project produce a mosquito breeding problerr_.
?-? For information concerning appropriate mosquito :ontrol measures, the applicant -should:
contact the Public Health Pest Management. Section it (919) 726-897C. '
The applicant. should be advised that prior co zh t removal or demolition of dilapidated.
structures, an extensive rodent control program ma-•- be necessary in order co - prevent. the
f
mi-ration of the roderics cc adjacent area. The :-formation. concerning rodent control,
t) 1 contact the local health departir,.ent or the Public H-alt?l Pest I\Zanasemen. Sectior at (919)
733-6407.
-? T1ie applicant should be advised co ceatact the local hfalth department regarding their
? ' IIC. ?C 1'?. .1900 et. sec
reouirem:.nts for tanit inscallat.o r.s (as :ec, ,l.lird_ ; under .
?........ .. 51. ..
For info rrnation corcernlllg s?pu?. tarn: Ind ntne'_ or-sire waste disposal methods', contact the
On-43111.t Vt/aste?.c^r ?eCrio:1 at X919; 717.2995.
I--? The applicant should br- advised tO Con.noln tile. lcca?! rlealth department: regarding the sanit:ir;
L._ ...? Facilities rc.dl.:ircc] icr this projc_1Cc
I- -I tf exi.su.ng Water Ili! ;will be 1'ClOt:atCi durlnr lh:: C011St("UCE1011. 111'A'M Ur tilt water
i
---? relocation muse be subrnu:tcd CC) the ]?C.T0011 Ot F.n lromnem i 17±ca?tl?, P',:b1i1_ ?X?ater SM,:-ot
lcct':011, Plan PcV1C;J U1'wCh, 1'). )0 St. 1?(?rv S ?C:CCt !\llClnll NL?IImo.; lrlll112., ?i l??) 73.E
i?.StiK CCWC1,
L X11 V?• MM.,.•I?r•:'
n,) •{.fit... `i
,e7t SS
Se cion/Branc'h
02
Date
4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 29, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation ?j
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
SUBJECT: Reevaluation of SR 2026 (Hammond Road) from north
of SR 2683 (Rush Street) to south of US 70, Raleigh,
Wake County, U-515AA, Federal-Aid Project M-
5797(1), State Project 8.2432801, ER 95-7932, CH
95-E-4220-0336
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Kelly Lally conducted a comprehensive survey of Wake County in 1991. We have
conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
Given the results of earlier archaeological investigations in the area, it is our
opinion that the proposed project will have no effect upon significant
archaeological resources and do not recommend any archaeological investigations
for this project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Mate Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 9?
rn? ? ekp
r
NORTH CAROLINA
•?• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
January 3, 1995
A O_c; 1? 1
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles /
Assistan Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
BOB ETHERIDGE
State Superintendent
?C E?
JAN 1 l 1993
z
2 DIVISIC?V OF ?
CCP I GHwAYS % Q'
?RONME?
RE: Reevaluation of SR 2026 (Hammond Road) from north of SR 26583
(Ruth Street) to south of US 70, Raleigh, Wake County, State Project
No. 8.2432801, Federal Aid Project No. M-5797(1), TIP No.
U-515AA
Please find attached communication from Mr. B. Clinton Jobe, Real Properties
Specialist for Wake County Public School System, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
An Equal Opportunity / Affirm2tive Action Employer
A
WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
FACILITY PLANNING
AND CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
December 21, 1994
Dr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent - Auxiliary Services
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 N. Wilmington Street
Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
JM - 3 05
RE: Re-evaluation of SR 2026 "Hammond Road" from N. SR 26583 "Ruth Street"
State Project No. 8.2432801
Dear Dr. Weaver:
I have reviewed the material forwarded with your letter of November 21, 1994,
and can find no serious negative impact with this project related to the Wake County
Public School System. It also would appear that we have no information that would
indicate any negative environmental impacts for the project.
Sincerely,
X-1 I ???
B. Clinton Jobe
Real Properties Specialist
1551 ROCK QUARRY ROAD 9 FACILITIES BUILDING • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610 • TELEPHONE [phone]
Appendix C
Air Quality and Traffic Noise Data
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 2026/US 70 BUILD 1998
DATE: 09/06/1994 TIME: 08:16:18.84
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S VD . .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CIJS - 5 (E) ATIM . 60. MINUTES MUM - 400. M AM - 1.9 PPM
7.TNx VARTART.RA
LINK DESCRIPTION
X1 LINK COORDINATES (M)
Y1 X2
Y2
1. Hammond Rd. NB APP 8.2 -304.8 8.2 .0
2. Hammond Rd.NB QUE 8.2 -13.7 6.2 -51.8
3. Hammond Rd. NBLT 2.7 -13.7 2.7 -93.3
4. Hammond Rd. NB DEP 8.2 .0 8.2 304.8
5. Hammond Rd. SB APP -8.2 304.6 -8.2 .0
6. Hammond Rd. BB QUE -8.2 13.7 -8.2 43.6
7. Hammond Rd. SBLT -2.7 13.7 -2.7 98.2
8. Hammond Rd. SB DEP -8.2 .0 -8.2 -304.8
9. US 70 EB APP -304.8 -8.2 .0 -6.2
10. US 70 EB QUE -13.7 -8.2 -77.6 -8.2
11. US 70 EBLT -13.7 -2.7 -181.1 -2.7
12. US 70 EB DEP .0 -8.2 304.8 -8.2
13. US 70 WB APPR 304.8 8.2 .0 8.2
14. US 70 WB QUE 13.7 8.2 103.5 8.2
15. US 70 WBLT 13.7 2.7 159.4 2.7
16. US 70 WB DEP .0 6.2 -304.8 8.2
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
305. 360. AG 915. 13.8 .0 13.4
38. 180. AG 1768. 100.0 .0 7.3 .88 6.3
80. 180. AG 769. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.00 13.3
305. 360. AG 1145. 13.8 .0 13.4
305. 180. AG 1145. 13.8 .0 13.4
30. 360. AG 1679. 100.0 .0 7.3 .67 5.0
84. 360. AG 707. 100.0 .0 3.7 .98 14.1
305. 180. AG 915. 13.8 .0 13.4
305. 90. AG 1905. 14.4 .0 13.4
64. 270. AG 1149. 100.0 .0 7.3 .84 10.6
167. 270. AG 937. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.27 27.9
305. 90. AG 1870. 14.4 .0 13.4
305. 270. AG 1870. 14.4 .0 13.4
90. 90. AG 1273. 100.0 .0 7.3 .97 15.0
146. 90. AG 1016. 100.0 .0 3.7 3.67 24.3
305. 270. AG 1905. 14.4 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 12B(NW CORNER) -76.2 54.9 1.8
2. REC 20 (SW CORNER) -76.2 -51.8 1.8
3. REC 14 (NE CORNER) 39.6 47.2 1.8
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./ US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 2026/US 70 BUILD 1998
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1 REC2 REC3
6.6 6.4 7.3
111 42 199
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 2026/US 70 BUILD 1998
DATES 12/08/1994 TIME: 09:16s03.88
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 106. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
T.TNx VARTAW RR
LINK DESCRIPTION
X1 LINK COORDINATES (M)
Yl X2
Y2
1. Hammond Rd. NB APP 10.1 -304.8 10.1 .0
2. Hammond Rd.NB QUE 10.1 -13.7 10.1 -392.5
3. Hammond Rd. NBLT 2.7 -13.7 2.7 -277.7
4. Hammond Rd. NB DEP 10.1 .0 10.1 304.8
5. Hammond Rd. SB APP -10.1 304.8 -10.1 .0
6. Hammond Rd. SB QUE -10.1 13.7 -10.1 114.3
7. Hammond Rd. BBLT -2.7 13.7 -2.7 303.1
8. Hammond Rd. SB DEP -10.1 .0 -10.1 -304.8
9. US 70 EB APP -304.8 -8.2 .0 -8.2
10. US 70 EB QUE -17.4 -8.2 -59.9 -8.2
11. US 70 EBLT -17.4 -2.7 -231.1 -2.7
12. US 70 EB DEP .0 -8.2 304.8 -8.2
13. US 70 WB APPR 304.8 8.2 .0 8.2
14. US 70 WB QUE 17.4 8.2 70.8 8.2
15. US 70 WBLT 17.4 2.7 163.0 2.7
16. US 70 WB DEP .0 8.2 -304.8 8.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
305. 360. AG 915. 13.8 .0 17.1
379. 180. AG 1927. 100.0 .0 11.0 2.02 63.1
264. 180. AG 804. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.16 44.0
305. 360. AG 1145. 13.8 .0 17.1
305. 180. AG 1145. 13.8 .0 17.1
101. 360. AG 1821. 100.0 .0 11.0 1.09 16.8
289. 360. AG 751. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.14 48.2
305. 180. AG 915. 13.8 .0 17.1
305. 90. AG 1905. 14.4 .0 13.4
43. 270. AG 901. 100.0 .0 7.3 .66 7.1
214. 270. AG 946. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.41 35.6
305. 90. AG 1870. 14.4 .0 13.4
305. 270. AG 1870. 14.4 .0 13.4
53. 90. AG 1043. 100.0 .0 7.3 .75 8.9
146. 90. AG 1016. 100.0 .0 3.7 3.67 24.3
305. 270. AG 1905. 14.4 .0 13.4
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 13 (NW CORNER) -44.2 77.7 1.8
2. REC 12A(SW CORNER) -115.8 -82.3 1.8
3. REC 20 (SE CORNER) 76.2 -86.9 1.8
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 2026/US 70
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1 REC2 REC3
8.0 5.3 6.2
126 37 296
BUILD 1998
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 2026/US 70
DATE: 09/06/1994 TIME: 08:25:45.51
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
BUILD 2003
VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M) I LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Hammond Rd. NB APP 6.2 -304.8 8.2 .0
2. Hammond Rd.NB QUE 8.2 -13.7 8.2 -99.0
3. Hammond Rd. NBLT 2.7 -13.7 2.7 -332.0
4. Hammond Rd. NB DEP 8.2 .0 8.2 304.8
5. Hammond Rd. SB APP -8.2 304.8 -8.2 .0
6. Hammond Rd. BB QUE -8.2 13.7 -8.2 51.5
7. Hammond Rd. SBLT -2.7 13.7 -2.7 373.1
8. Hammond Rd. SB DEP -8.2 .0 -8.2 -304.8
9. US 70 EB APP -304.8 -8.2 .0 -8.2
10. US 70 EB QUE -13.7 -8.2 -113.2 -8.2
11. US 70 EBLT -13.7 -2.7 -294.9 -2.7
12. US 70 EB DEP .0 -8.2 304.8 -8.2
13. US 70 WB APPR 304.8 8.2 .0 8.2
14. US 70 WB QUE 13.7 8.2 412.3 8.3
15. US 70 WBLT 13.7 2.7 194.0 2.7
16. US 70 WB DEP .0 8.2 -304.8 8.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
305. 360. AG 1075. 10.7 .0 13.4
85. 180. AG 1473. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.04 14.2
318. 180. AG 641. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.17 53.0
305. 360. AG 1350. 10.7 .0 13.4
305. 180. AG 1350. 10.7 .0 13.4
38. 360. AG 1399. 100.0 .0 7.3 .79 6.3
359. 360. AG 589. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.16 59.9
305. 180. AG 1075. 10.7 .0 13.4
305. 90. AG 2245. 11.5 .0 13.4
99. 270. AG 957. 100.0 .0 7.3 .99 16.6
261. 270. AG 780. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.50 46.9
305. 90. AO 2200. 11.5 .0 13.4
305. 270. AG 2200. 11.5 .0 13.4
399. 90. AG 1060. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.14 66.4
180. 90. AG 847. 100.0 .0 3.7 4.33 30.1
305. 270. AG 2245. 11.5 .0 13.4
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 12B(NW CORNER) -76.2 54.9 1.8
2. REC 20 (SW CORNER) -76.2 -51.8 1.8
3. REC 14 (NE CORNER) 39.6 47.2 1.8
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 2026/US 70
MODEI. RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1 REC2 REC3
6.6 6.4 7.7
104 70 196
BUILD 2003
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: OR 2026/US 70 BUILD 2003
DATE: 12/08/1994 TIME: 09:22:12.71
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION VD - .0 CM/S ZO a 108. CM
CLAS e 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES

LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2 Y2
MIXH -

LENGTH
(M)
400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM

BRG TYPE VPH EF
(DEG) (G/MI)

H

(M)

W

(M)

/C

UEUE
(VEH)
1. Hammond Rd. NB APP 10.1 -304.8 10.1 .0 305. 360. AG 1075. 10.7 .0 17.1
2. Hammond Rd.NB QUE 10.1 -13.7 10.1 -516.8 503. 180. AG 1605. 100.0 .0 11.0 2.38 83.9
3. Hammond Rd. NBLT 2.7 -13.7 2.7 -517.2 503. 180. AG 670. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.36 83.9
4. Hammond Rd. NB DEP 10.1 .0 10.1 304.8 305. 360. AG 1350. 10.7 .0 17.1
5. Hammond Rd. SB APP -10.1 304.8 -10.1 .0 305. 180. AG 1350. 10.7 .0 17.1
6. Hammond Rd. SB QUE -10.1 13.7 -10.1 237.1 223. 360. AG 1517. 100.0 .0 11.0 1.28 37.2
7. Hammond Rd. SBLT -2.7 13.7 -2.7 605.1 591. 360. AG 626. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.34 98.6
8. Hammond Rd. SB DEP -10.1 .0 -10.1 -304.8 305. 180. AG 1075. 10.7 .0 17.1
9. US 70 EB APP -304.8 -8.2 .0 -8.2 305. 90. AG 2245. 11.5 .0 13.4
10. US 70 EB QUE -17.4 -8.2 -71.6 -8.2 54. 270. AG 751. 100.0 .0 7.3 .77 9.0
11. US 70 EBLT -17.4 -2.7 -345.0 -2.7 328. 270. AG 788. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.67 54.6
12. US 70 EB DEP .0 -8.2 304.8 -8.2 305. 90. AG 2200. 11.5 .0 13.4
13. US 70 WB APPR 304.8 8.2 .0 8.2 305. 270. AG 2200. 11.5 .0 13.4
14. US 70 WB QUE 17.4 8.2 89.3 8.2 72. 90. AG 869. 100.0 .0 7.3 .88 12.0
15. US 70 WBLT 17.4 2.7 197.7 2.7 180. 90. AG 847. 100.0 .0 3.7 4.33 30.1
16. US 70 WB DEP .0 6.2 -304.8 8.2 305. 270. AG 2245. 11.5 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 13 (NW CORNER) -44.2 77.7 1.8
2. REC 12A(SW CORNER) -115.6 -82.3 1.8
3. REC 20 (SE CORNER) 76.2 -86.9 1.8
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 2026/US 70 BUILD 2003
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1 REC2 REC3
7.3 5.1 5.8
167 29 335
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 2026/US 70 BUILD 2018
DATE: 09/06/1994 TIME: 08:21:50.70
S
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = .0 CM/S VD s .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MM a 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
• LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 - - Y2 - (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Hammond Rd. NB APP 8.2 -304.8 8.2 .0
2. Hammond Rd.NB QUE 8.2 -13.7 8.2 -546.2
3. Hammond Rd. NBLT 6.2 -13.7 -87.7 -1106.7
4. Hammond Rd. NB DEP 8.2 .0 8.2 304.8
5. Hammond Rd. SB APP -8.2 304.8 -8.2 .0
6. Hammond Rd. SB QUE -8.2 13.7 -8.2 182.6
7. Hammond Rd. SBLT -2.7 13.7 -2.7 1275.7
8. Hammond Rd. SB DEP -8.2 .0 -8.2 -304.8
9. US 70 EB APP -304.8 -8.2 .0 -8.2
10. US 70 EB QUE -13.7 -8.2 -1106.7 -8.4
11. US 70 EBLT -13.7 -2.7 -619.8 -2.7
12. US 70 EB DEP .0 -8.2 304.8 -8.2
13. US 70 WB APPR 304.8 8.2 .0 8.2
14. US 70 WB QUE 13.7 6.2 1483.5 8.4
15. US 70 WBLT 13.7 2.7 244.6 2.7
16. US 70 WB DEP .0 8.2 -304.8 8.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
305. 360. AG 1555. 9.3 .0 13.4
533. 180. AG 1357. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.71 88.8
1097. 185. AG 585. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.76 182.9
305. 360. AG 1960. 9.3 .0 13.4
305. 180. AG 1960. 9.3 .0 13.4
169. 360. AG 1251. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.10 28.1
1262. 360. AG 532. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.69 210.3
305. 180. AG 1555. 9.3 .0 13.4
305. 90. AG 3255. 14.1 .0 13.4
1093. 270. AG 851. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.40 182.2
606. 270. AG 705. 100.0 .0 3.7 2.17 101.0
305. 90. AG 3195. 14.1 .0 13.4
305. 270. AG 3195. 14.1 .0 13.4
1470. 90. AG 958. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.66 245.0
231. 90. AG 758. 100.0 .0 3.7 3.17 38.5
305. 270. AG 3255. 14.1 .0 13.4
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 12B(NW CORNER) -76.2 54.9 1.8
2. REC 20 (SW CORNER) -76.2 -51.8 1.8
3. REC 14 (NE CORNER) 39.6 47.2 1.8
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 2026/US 70
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1 REC2 REC3
7.4 7.1 9.5
104 75 189
BUILD 2018
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 20260S 70 BUILD 2018
DATE: 12/08/1994 TIME: 09:24:01.07
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
T.TNx VARTART.F.4
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB . 1.9 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Hammond Rd. NB APP 10.1 -304.8 10.1 .0
2. Hammond Rd.NB QUE 10.1 -13.7 10.1 -876.8
3. Hammond Rd. NBLT 2.7 -13.7 2.7 -1251.6
4. Hammond Rd. NB DEP 10.1 .0 10.1 304.8
5. Hammond Rd. SB APP -10.1 304.8 -10.1 .0
6. Hammond Rd. SB QUE -10.1 13.7 -10.1 599.3
7. Hammond Rd. SBLT -2.7 13.7 -2.7 1510.8
8. Hammond Rd. SB DEP -10.1 .0 -10.1 -304.8
9. US 70 EB APP -304.8 -8.2 .0 -8.2
10. US 70 EB QUE -17.4 -8.2 -499.7 -8.2
11. US 70 EBLT -17.4 -2.7 -670.6 -2.7
12. US 70 EB DEP .0 -8.2 304.8 -8.2
13. US 70 WB APPR 304.8 8.2 .0 8.2
14. US 70 WB QUE 17.4 8.2 875.3 8.2
15. US 70 WBLT 17.4 2.7 301.7 2.7
16. US 70 WB DEP .0 8.2 -304.8 8.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
305. 360. AG 1555. 9.3 .0 17.1
863. 180. AG 1450. 100.0 .0 11.0 3.43 143.8
1238. 180. AG 605. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.97 206.3
305. 360. AG 1960. 9.3 .0 17.1
305. 180. AG 1960. 9.3 .0 17.1
586. 360. AG 1370. 100.0 .0 11.0 1.86 97.6
1497. 360. AG 565. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.96 249.5
305. 180. AG 1555. 9.3 .0 17.1
305. 90. AG 3255. 14.1 .0 13.4
482. 270. AG 679. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.12 80.4
653. 270. AG 712. 100.0 .0 3.7 2.41 108.9
305. 90. AG 3195. 14.1 .0 13.4
305. 270. AG 3195. 14.1 .0 13.4
858. 90. AG 785. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.28 143.0
284. 90. AG 765. 100.0 .0 3.7 6.33 47.4
305. 270. AG 3255. 14.1 .0 13.4
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 13 (NW CORNER) -44.2 77.7 1.8
2. REC 12A(SW CORNER) -115.8 -82.3 1.8
3. REC 20 (SE CORNER) 76.2 -86.9 1.8
JOB: U-515AA, Hammond Rd./US 70 Wake Co. RUN: SR 2026/US 70
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1 REC2 REC3
7.6 6.0 6.5
165 20 292
BUILD 2018
TABLE N1

HEARING: BOUNDS 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 lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

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

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 I 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.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important 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, motels,
(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, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
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
<50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
SR 2026 - Hammond Rd
From SR 2683 - Rush St to US 70
Wake County
TIP # U-515AA State Project # 8.2432801
1
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
NOISE
LEVEL
(dBA)
1. SR 2026 (Hammond Rd); Grassy 69
300' S. of Chapanoke Rd
2. SR 2684 (Tryon Rd); .12 Grassy 65
mi W. of SR 2026 (Hammond
Rd)
3. SR 2538 (Mechanical Blvd); Gravel 69
across from Dynamic Dr
4. US 70; 200' E of Jessup Grassy 70
Rd
NOTE: The ambient noise level sites for Sites #1 and #3 were
measured at 25 feet from the center of the nearest lane
of traffic and the ambient noise level sites for Sites
#2 and #4 were measured at 50 feet from the center of
the nearest lane of traffic.
TABLE N4 1/1
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 2026 - Hammond Road
From SR 2683 (Rush St) to US 70
Wake County
TIPN U-515AA State Project# 8.2432801
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 2683 (Rush St) to SR 2 684 (Tryon Rd)
1 Business C SR 2026 165 R 58 SR 2026 185 R - - 67 + 9
SR 2684 (Tryon Rd) to SR 2538 (Mechanical Blvd)
2 Business C SR 2684 370 R 50 SR 2026 290 R 62.4 50.0 62 + 12
3 Business C " 130 R 61 " 530 R 55.2 65.9 66 + 5
4 Business C " 310 R 52 " 505 R 55.8 57.3 59 + 7
4A Residence B SR 2538 120 L 60 SR 2026 1000 L 47.3 63.5 63 + 3
4B Residence B " 110 L 61 " 900 L 48.4 64.3 64 + 3
5 Business C " 180 L 57 " 770 L 50.2 60.1 60 + 3
5A Residence B " 80 L 63 " 580 L 54.0 66.6 * 66 + 3
6 Business C " 100 L 62 " 520 L 55.4 65.2 65 + 3
6A Business C " 80 R 63 " 700 L 51.5 66.9 67 + 4
6B Residence B " 85 R 63 " 450 L 57.4 66.6 * 67 + 4
6C Residence B " 200 R 56 " 350 L 60.3 59.2 62 + 6
7 Business C " 80 R 63 " 25 L ---------- ----------R/W------ ----- ---
9 Business C " 100 R 62 " 500 R 55.9 63.2 63 + 1
10 Business C " 110 R 61 " 820 R 49.4 62.3 62 + 1
SR 2538 (Mechanica l Blvd) to US 70
11 Business C US 70 170 L 63 SR 2026 920 R 48.0 69.0 69 + 6
12 Church E " 185 L 62/<40 " 585 R 53.6 68.2 68/43 + 6/+3
12A Residence B " 300 L 57 " 405 R 58.4 63.1 64 + 7
12B Residence B " 190 L 62 " 165 R 68.1 67.9 * 71 + 9
13 Business C " 130 L 66 " 0 L --------------------R/W------ --------
14 Business C " 160 L 63 " 150 L 69.0 69.7 * 72 + 9
15 Business C " 150 L 64 " 290 L 62.2 70.3 70 + 6
16 Business C " 130 L 66 " 470 L 56.6 71.8 * 71 + 5
16A Business C " 250 L 59 " 650 L 52.2 65.2 65 + 6
17 Church E " 180 R 62/<40 " 1350 R 44.1 68.5 68/43 + 6/+3
18 Business C " 100 R 68 " 800 R 49.5 74.0 * 74 + 6
18A Business C " 185 R 62 to 710 R 51.1 68.2 68 + 6
19 Business C " 175 R 63 " 635 R 52.6 68.8 68 + 5
20 Business C " 150 R 64 " 290 R 62.2 70.3 70 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N5

FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
SR 2026 - Hammond Rd
From Rush St (SR 2683) to US 70
Wake County

' TIPN U-515AA State Project N 8.2432801
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impac ted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
1. Hammond Rd. from Rush St. to Tryon Rd. 75 71 65 122' 205' 0 0 0 0 0
2. Hammond Rd. from Tryon Rd. to Mechanical 74 70 65 112' 190' 0 2 0 0 0
Blvd.
3. Hammond Rd. from Mechanical Blvd. to US 70 74 70 64 108' 184' 0 1 3 0 0
TOTALS
0 3 3 0 0
NOTES: 1. 501, 100', and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SR 2026 - Hammond Rd
From Rush St SR (2683) to US 70
Wake County
TIPN U-515AA State Project# 8.2432801
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <•0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >• 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
1
1. Rush St. to Tryon Rd.
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2. Tryon Rd. to Mechanical Blvd. 0 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
3. Mechanical Blvd. to US 70 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 9 17 1 0 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See Bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
TABLE N4 1/2
Leg TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 2026 - Hammond Road, Six Lane Alternative
From SR 2683 (Rush St) to US 70
Wake County
TIP# U-515AA State Project# 6.2432801
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID Y LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
I-40 to SR 2683 (Rush St)
IA Residence B SR 2026 260 R 54 SR 2026 260 R - - 65 * + 11
1B Residence B " 260 R 54 " 260 R - - 65 * + 11
1C Residence B " 290 R 53 " 290 R - - 63 * + 10
1D Residence B " 290 R 53 " 290 R - - 63 * + 10
1E Residence B " 300 R 52 " 300 R - - 63 * + it
1F Residence B to 300 R 52 to 300 R - - 63 * + 11
1G Residence B " 310 R 52 " 310 R - - 63 * + 11
1H Residence B " 330 R 51 " 330 R - - 62 " + 11
lI Residence B " 360 R 50 " 360 R - - 61 + 11
1J Residence B " 380 R 50 " 380 R - - 60 + 10
1K Residence B " 400 R 49 " 400 R - - 60 + 11
IL Residence B " 420 R 49 " 420 R - - 59 + 10
LM Residence B " 460 R 47 " 460 R - - 58 + 11
SR 2683 (Rush St) to SR 2684 (Tryon Rd)
1 Business C SR 2026 165 R 58 SR 2026 185 R - - 68 • + 10
SR 2684 (Tryon Rd) to SR 2538 (Mechanical Blvd)
2 Business C SR 2684 370 R 50 SR 2026 290 R 62.9 50.0 63 + 13
3 Business C " 130 R 61 " 530 R 55.5 65.9 66 + 5
4 Business C " 310 R 52 " 505 R 56.1 57.3 59 + 7
4A Residence B SR 2538 120 L 60 " 1000 L 47.5 63.5 63 + 3
4B Residence B It 110 L 61 " 900 L 48.5 64.3 64 + 3
5 Business C to 180 L 57 " 770 L 50.4 60.1 60 + 3
5A Residence B " 80 L 63 " 580 L 54.2 66.6 * 66 + 3
6 Business C " 100 L 62 520 L 55.7 65.2 65 + 3
6A Business C " 80 R 63 " 700 L 51.7 66.9 67 + 4
6B Residence B " 85 R 63 " 450 L 57.7 66.6 * 67 + 4
6C Residence B " 200 R 56 " 350 L 60.7 59.2 63 + 7
7 Business C " 80 R 63 25 L --------------------R/W------- ---- ---
9 Business C " 100 R 62 " 500 R 56.3 63.2 64 + 2
10 Business C " 110 R 61 " 820 R 49.6 62.3 62 + 1
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * a> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).

TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 2026 - Hammond Road, Six Lane Alternative
From SR 2683 (Rush St) to US 70
Wake County
TIPN U-515AA State Project# 8.2432801
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
SR 2538 (Mechanical Blvd) to US 70
11 Business C US 70 170 L 63 SR 2026 920 R 48.1
12 Church E " 185 L 62 " 530 R 55.3
12A Residence B " 285 L 58 " 275 R 63.4
12B Residence B " 175 L 63 " 0 R --------
13 Business C " 130 L 66 " 255 L 64.3
14 Business C " 160 L 63 " 360 L 60.1
15 Business C " 150 L 64 " 495 L 56.2
16 Business C to 130 L 66 650 L 52.5
16A Business C " 250 L 59 to 815 L 49.5
18 Business C " 185 R 62 " 615 R 53.2
18A Business C to 195 R 62 " 530 R 55.3
19 Business C " 175 R 63 " 450 R 57.5
20 Business C " 350 R 55 " 290 R 62.7
r
2/2
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
69.0 69 + 6
68.2 68 + 6
63.1 " 66 + 8
---------- R/W--------------
71.8 * 72 + 6
69.7 70 + 7
70.3 70 + 6
71.8 * 71 + 5
65.2 65 + 6
74.0 to 74 to + 12
68.2 68 + 6
68.8 69 + 6
70.3 70 " + 15
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). to -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
SR 2026 - Hammond Rd, Six Lane Alternative
} From Rush St (SR 2683) to US 70
Wake County
TIP# U-515AA State Project M 8.2432801
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dHA
1. I-40 to Rush St. 75 71 65
2. Hammond Rd. from Rush St. to Tryon Rd. 75 71 65
3. Hammond Rd. from Tryon Rd. to Mechanical 74 70 65
Blvd.
4. Hammond Rd. from Mechanical Blvd. to US 70 74 70 64
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
122' 205' 0 8 0 0 0
122' 205' 0 0 1 0 0
112' 190' 0 2 0 0 0
108' 184' 0 1 4 0 0

TOTALS
0 11 5 0 0
NOTES: 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SR 2026 - Hammond Rd, Six Lane Alternative
From Rush St SR (2683) to US 70
Wake County
TIP# U-515AA State Project# 8.2432801
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <-0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
1. 1-40 to Rush St. 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 8 0
2. Rush St. to Tryon Rd. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
3. Tryon Rd. to Mechanical Blvd. 0 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
4. Mechanical Blvd. to US 70 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 2 1
TOTALS 0 9 13 17 0 0 0 11 1

(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See Bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.