19960715 All Versions_Complete File_19960729

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A14 • 0
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
p E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 18, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn SW
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galambf
Subject: FONSI for US 401
Wake County
State Project DOT No. 8.1402103, TIP # R-2425
EHNR # 96-0088, DEM # 11017
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 will impact 0.33 acres of waters and wetlands.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the
401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences
Branch at 733-1786.
us401.fon
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Oppcrtuni1y Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, "Av
Health and Natural Resources ??.
Division of Environmental Management -?I
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 18, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galamb?
Subject: FONSI for US 401
Wake County
State Project DOT No. 8.1402103, TIP # R-2425
EHNR # 96-0088, DEM # 11017
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 will impact 0.33 acres of waters and wetlands.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the
401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences
Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Monica Swihart
John Dorney
us401.fon
P.O. Box 29,535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% past-consumer paper
NCWRC, HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL :[phone] Aug 10'95 1440 No.005 P.04
_ EJ North Carohna WAMfe Rmurces Commission 0
512 N. Sal6bury Street, Rslaiah, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-33!)l
Charles R. Mwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO; Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project for
Habitat Conservation Program I ,.,_
DATE: August 10, 1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for US 401 improvements, from U9 l to
SR 2044 (Ligon loll Road) in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina.
TIP No. R-2425, SCH Project No. 96.0088.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC;) have
reviewed the subject FONSI and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The
purpose of this review was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resouroes. Our
comments arc provided in accordance with certain provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (49 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The prp sed project involves widening existing US 401 to a six-lane, median
divided, curb and gutter facility from US 1 to Mitchell ill Road. Replaeement of the
Neuse River bridge is included in this project. Wetland impacts will likely be authorized
under nationwide "404" permits.
Comments on the environmental assessment (EA) for this project have been
adequately addressed in the FONSI. In light of the environmental commitments included
in the document, we will concur with the FONSI for this project. However, we request
that NCDOT continue efforts to minimize wetland impacts. Also, Best Management
Practices and environmental commitments should be strictly enforced to protect off-site
resources. Any stream channels requiring modification should be coordinated with the
appropriate resource agencies.
Thank you for the op?oRun ty to comment on this FONSI. If we can be of firrther
assistance please call me at [phone],
cc: Howard lialt, v.S. lush and Wildlife Service, Ralcigh
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
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for US 401 from
Wake County
November 9, 1994
A4;
9ft
C) EHNR
US 1 to Mitchell Mill Rd/Ligon Mill Rd
State Project DOT No. 8.1402103, TIP #R-2425
EHNR # 95-0247, DEM WQ # 10759
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 of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project as proposed would impact 0.6 acres of wetlands.
Stream relocations should be in accordance with DOT's Stream Relocation/
Channelization guidelines.
Are wetlands present along both sides of Beaverdam Creek? What efforts has DOT
undertaken to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. The discussion on wetlands is
very limited.
Abandoned service stations should be reported to DEM's Groundwater Section now to
get the abandoned UST sites cleaned up and closed before construction begins. This
should save DOT considerable time and money.
Please be advised that this review of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences
Branch at 733-1786.
us401 wa.ea
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
US 401
From US 1 to Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224)/
Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044)
Raleigh, Wake County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-401(1)
State Project No. 8.1402103
R-2425

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
4
Date ?H. za)x Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?
4 1&;Z1 ? J'L& ?
eDa
/q Ni o
''Division
L. Graf, P. E.
Administrator,

FHWA
US 401
From US 1 to Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224)/
Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044)
Raleigh, Wake County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-401(1)
State Project No. 8.1402103
R-2425
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
March, 1994
Documentation PreRared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
04tu&§q. A'r??
Angela . Smit
Project Planning Engineer
Linwoo Stone
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
,,?,??un??ree +
o•????\A CARp
L4 I. ?• 2 9
? SEAL
c
Richard B. Davis, P. E., Assistant Manager 6944 c
Planning and Environmental Branch :Y fNCIN???: •???;
J ,y?. •..•..,. J ?.
Summary of Environmental Commitments
This document calls for the following environmental commitments:
A. Surveys for the Dwarf-Wedge Mussel will be conducted in the spring of
1994 and these findings will be included in the FONSI.
B. The abandoned cemetery, located in the US 1-401 interchange will be
documented and moved prior to construction (Refer to Section
IV.A.3.b. for discussion).
C. A Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be
completed before the FONSI and will specify mitigation measures for
the following historic properties: the Sion Rogers House, the Saint
Matthews Rosenwald School, the Rufus Ivey House, and the Alpheus
Jones House.
D. The data recovery plan for the archaeological site at the Neuse River
crossing (13WA1137) will be detailed in the FONSI.
E. The potential eligibility of the O'Hara Stell Farm under Criteria D
for archaeological significance will be evaluated and the results
included in the FONSI.
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transporta-
tion NCDOT), Division of Highways, proposes improvements to a 5.4
mile section of US 401 from US 1 to north of Mitchell Mill Road
(SR 2224)/Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044) in Raleigh, Wake County (see
Figures 1A, 1B, and 2 for project location). The recommended
improvements include widening the existing two-lane, 24-foot wide
section to a six-lane, median divided section and replacing the
flyover bridge at US 1 (see Figures 3 and 3A for a sketch of the
proposed typical cross section). This section will consist of three
travel lanes in each direction separated by a grass median. The
cross-section from US 1 to New Hope Road will be an 8-lane section.
A 26-foot median is proposed from US 1 to the Northern Wake
Expressway (with 11-foot travel lanes), and a 30-foot median is
proposed for the section from the Northern Wake Expressway to the
northern project terminus (with 12-foot travel lanes). Median
crossovers will be located at all major roadway intersections and
other selected locations. Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224) is proposed
to be realigned with Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044) as a part of this
project.
This project is included in the 1994-2000 TIP with the total
cost estimated at $11,877,000. This estimate includes $3,502,000 for
right of way, $7,900,000 for construction, and $475,000 for prior
funding. The current estimated cost for the recommended improvement
is $25,416,000 which includes $16,800,000 for construction and
$8,616,000 for right of way acquisition. The project is scheduled in
the TIP for right of way acquisition in federal fiscal year 1995 (FFY
1995) and construction in FFY 1996.
2. Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a positive
overall impact on travel along US 401 by reducing the potential for
rear-end collisions, angle or sideswipe accidents, and accidents
involving left-turn movements. The proposed improvements are in
conformance with the Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and
will be a step towards its implementation.
Several historic properties are located along the project length as
well as one significant archaeological site (at the Neuse River) that
must be evaluated before construction can begin. A copy of the
Historic Architecture Surve Report and the Archaeological Survey and
Assessment are avai ab a or review in the project file locate in
t eni Punning and Environmental Branch. A Memorandum of Agreement
between the FHWA and the SHPO detailing mitigation measures for four
historic properties discussed in Section IV, A.3.a., is currently
being prepared and will be included in the FONSI.
The proposed project will have some negative impacts. These
impacts include the displacement of three (3) businesses and one (1)
residence. The Division of Highways offers relocation assistance to
help minimize the effects of these displacements. Construction of
the project will also result in a total of seventy one (71) receptors
experiencing noise levels above the standard criteria abatement. The
predicted noise increase is expected to range form 3 dBA to 29 dBA.
No traffic noise abatement measures are proposed (see Section 1V.D.4.
for findings of the noise study). Construction will result in some
delay and inconvenience to motorists, but this will be short-term in
nature. The potential increase in urbanization resulting from
construction of the proposed project can be managed through the
implementation of land use controls and zoning regulations.
3. Alternatives - Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an
existing segment of roadway, no alternative corridors were studied.
The recommended variable symmetric/asymmetric widening best uses the
existing right of way, and minimizes impacts to the project area. A
5-lane curb and gutter section was studied but determined inadequate
to accommodate the projected traffic volumes at an acceptable level
of service.
The "do nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. The
proposed cross section will provide a safer travelway to accommodate
the current and projected traffic volumes.
4. Coordination - Federal, State, regional, and local agencies were
consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment.
In addition to agency responses, local residents offered verbal and
written comments at a citizens informational workshop, and provided
additional written comments after the workshop.
5. Actions Required by Other Agencies - Based on information currently
available, it will be necessary to apply to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for the following permits for the discharge of fill
material into "Waters of the United States":
- A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26) will likely be required
at the Beaverdam Creek culvert crossing;
- A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(14) will likely be required
for all other culverted crossings;
- A General Permit (CESAW-C082-N-000-0031) will probably be
required at the Neuse River crossing.
Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any
activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal
permit is required and must be obtained through the Department of
Environment Management (DEM) Water Quality Section.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................ 1
A. General Description ................................... 1
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements ...................... 2
1. Project Length ................................... 2
2. Cross Section.. ............................... 2
3. Right of Way Width ............................... 2
4. Access Control ................................... 2
5. Bridges ... ... ..... ........................... 2
6. Design Speed and Speed Zones ....... ...... 3
7. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control....... 3
8. Parking .......................................... 3
9. Sidewalks ........................................ 3
10. Utilities.. ................................. 4
11. Bicycle Provisions ............................... 4
12. Greenways ........................................ 4
13. Cost Estimate .................................... 4
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................. 5
A. Existing Roadway Inventory ............................ 5
1. Cross Section .................................... 5
2. Right of Way.. .. .......................... 5
3. Type of Roadside Development ..................... 5
4. Access Control ................................... 5
5. Structures ....................................... 5
6. Speed Zones..... .... ....... ..... ......... 6
7. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control.......... 6
8. Sidewalks ........................................ 6
9. Utilities ........................................ 6
10. Greenways........................................ 6
11. Geodetic Markers ................................. 6
12. School Buses ..................................... 7
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan....... 7
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity .......................... 7
1. Signalized Intersections ......................... 8
2. Unsignalized Intersections ....................... 8
D. Accident History ...................................... 8
III. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT .................................................... 8
A. Recommended Improvements.... ........................ 8
B. Other Alternatives Considered ......................... 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................... 11
A. Social Environment .................................... 11
1. Neighborhood Characteristics ..................... 11
2. Public and Private Facilities .................... 12
3. Cultural Resources ............................... 12
a. Architectural Resources ..................... 12
b. Archaeological Resources .................... 14
4. Relocation Impacts ............................... 15
B. Economic Environment .................................. 16
C. Land Use .............................................. 17
1. Scope and Status of Planning ..................... 17
2. Existing Zoning .................................. 17
3. Existing Land Use ................................ 18
4. Future Land Use .................................. 18
5. Farmland.......... .............................. 18
6. Project Compatibility with Local Plans........... 19
D. Natural Environment ................................... 19
1. Ecological Resources ............................. 19
a. Plant Communities ........................... 20
b. Wildlife Communities ........................ 22
2. Protected Species ................................ 23
a. Federally Protected Species ................. 23
b. State Protected Species ..................... 27
3. Physical Resources ............................... 28
a. Geology and Topography ...................... 28
b. Soils .. ............ ...................... 28
C. Contaminated Properties ..................... 29
d. Water Resources ............................. 31
e. Floodplain Involvement ...................... 32
f. Wetlands .................................... 33
4. Air Quality and Traffic Noise .................... 33
a. Air Quality ................................ 33
b. Traffic Noise .............................. 37
E. Construction Impacts .................................. 44
F. Permits ............................................... 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................. 46
A. Government Response ................................... 46
B. Public Response ....................................... 47
FIGURES
APPENDIX
US 401
From US 1 to Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224)/
Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044)
Raleigh, Wake County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-401(1)
State Project No. 8.1402103
R-2425
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes improvements to a 5.4 mile section of US 401 from US 1
to north of Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224)/Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044) in
Raleigh, Wake County (see Figures 1A, 1B, and 2 for project location).
The recommended improvements include widening the existing two-lane,
24-foot section to a six-lane, grass median divided section and replacing
the flyover bridge at US 1 (see Figure 3 for a sketch of the proposed
typical cross section). A 26-foot median is proposed from US 1 to the
Northern Wake Expressway and a 30-foot median is proposed from the
Northern Wake Expressway to the project terminus. Median crossovers will
be located at all major roadway intersections and at other selected
locations. Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224) is proposed to be realigned with
Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044) as a part,of this project.
US 401 is classified as an urban minor arterial in the statewide
classification system, and is a part of the Federal-Aid System
[STP-401(1)].
The City of Raleigh recently extended New Hope Road east of US 401.
This new section implements a critical link in the Raleigh Thoroughfare
Plan (see Figure 4).
The proposed widening will be accomplished symmetrically about the
centerline where practicable and asymmetrically at other locations to
minimize right of way damages. Proposed right of way is 142 feet from
US 1 to New Hope Road (SR 2108) and 130 feet throughout the remainder of
the project. The proposed cross-section at New Hope Road will accommodate
the proposed 8-lane section. Temporary construction easements may be
necessary at some locations in addition to the proposed right of way.
The subject project is included in the 1994-2000 TIP with the total
cost estimated at $11,877,000. This estimate includes $3,502,000 for
right of way, $7,900,000 for construction, and $475,000 for prior funding.
The current estimated cost for the recommended improvement is $ 25,416,000
which includes $ 16,800,000 for construction and $ 8,616,000 for right of
way acquisition. The project is scheduled in the TIP for right of way
acquisition in federal fiscal year 1995 (FFY 1995) and construction in
FFY 1996.
2
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements
1. Project Length
The project's proposed improvements total 5.4 miles.
2. Cross Section
The existing section from US 1 to New Hope Road is a 3-lane,
36-foot section and from New Hope Road to Mitchell Mill Road
(SR 2224)/Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044) is a 2-lane, 24-foot section. It
is recommended to widen US 401 from US 1 to New Hope Road to an
8-lane, 26-foot grass median section (see Figure 3) and from New Hope
Road to Mitchell Mill Road to a 6-lane, variable width grass median
section (see Figure 3A). The median width is 26 feet from New Hope
Road to the Northern Wake Expressway and 30 feet from the expressway
to Mitchell Mill Road.
All travel lanes are 12 feet wide except for the section from
US 1 to the Northern Wake Expressway which will have eleven foot
lanes. The more narrow lane width will allow for a future additional
lane when traffic volumes warrant it. The wider median width will
also allow for future lanes when needed. Sufficient right of way
width for future widening will be purchased as a part of this project
due to the existing and proposed development along US 401.
Median crossovers will be located at all major roadway
intersections and at other selected locations to be determined in the
design stage.
3. Right of Way Width
A 130-foot right of way width is needed
cross section. In addition to this right
construction easements may be needed at some
the New Hope Road intersection, an additional
will be obtained on the east side of US 401
cross section for a total right of way width
4. Access Control
to contain the proposed
of way, temporary
locations. From US 1 to
12 feet of right of way
to contain the wider
of 142 feet.
No control of access is present on the proposed project and none
is recommended. The median divided section will, however, provide
some degree of access control, since median crossovers will be
located only at intersections and other selected areas.
5. Brid es
Bridge # 131 over the Neuse River is proposed to be replaced by
two new structures in a phased construction to accommodate the
proposed cross section. The new southbound structure will be 40 feet
wide by 350 feet long and the new northbound structure will be 52
feet wide by 350 feet long (an additional lane will be carried across
the northbound bridge to accommodate right turns onto Mitchell Mill
Road). The existing structure will act as a detour while the
replacement structure to the east is under construction. When that
bridge is complete, all traffic will be rerouted to the new structure
while the existing bridge is replaced. Widening and rehabilitating
the structure was investigated, but was not found to be a feasible
alternative due to the need to maintain traffic and the age of the
structure. The bridge at US 1 will be replaced as a part of this
project. The replacement structure will be 56 feet wide by 340-feet
long. The existing structure will act as a detour until the new
bridge is built and will then be demolished.
6. Design Speed and Speed Zones
The proposed project will have a design speed of 50 miles per
hour (mph) and a posted speed of 45 mph.
7. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All roadway intersections will be at-grade with the exception of
the US 1/401 flyover interchange at the south end of the project. A
sketch of the proposed and future proposed intersection treatments
are shown in Figures 7A through 7E. The proposed Northern Wake
Expressway (project R-2000) will interchange at US 401 with US 401
passing over the proposed Northern Wake Expressway. This interchange
will be located near the midpoint of the project. R-2000 is scheduled
for construction in fiscal year 1999.
Traffic signals are proposed to be upgraded at New Hope Road
(SR 2108), Perry Creek Road (SR 2006), and Mitchell Mill Road
(SR 2224). Signals are anticipated to be needed at Spring Forest
Road (SR 2041), and at Fox Road (SR 2042). The signal at St. James
Church Road (SR 2036) will be removed.
8. Parkin
Parking is presently not permitted and will not be provided for
or permitted along the project.
9. Sidewalks
Any existing sidewalks that are disturbed by the proposed
construction will be replaced. Sidewalks currently exist on the west
side of US 401 for approximately 200 feet north and south of Fox Road
(SR 4400) and for approximately 700 feet between US 1 and Calvary
Drive (this sidewalk is overgrown with vegetation and is apparently
not being used). The City of Raleigh originally requested that
sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the roadway throughout the
project to accommodate existing and future pedestrian needs. Later,
the city requested sidewalks on the west side of US 401 between US 1
and Sinclair Drive. Sidewalks are currently planned for the
requested location between US 1 and Sinclair Drive and an 8-foot berm
will be provided behind the proposed curb throughout the remainder of
the project length to allow for future sidewalk construction. NCDOT
and the City of Raleigh will share in the cost of these sidewalks,
based on the guidelines contained in the NCDOT Sidewalk Policy.
4
10. Utilities
A high tension electrical line crosses the project just north of
Dansey Drive (SR 4600) and several aerial and underground utilities
will need to be moved to accommodate the proposed project.
The City of Raleigh is planning to install a 16" water line
throughout the corridor in 1995 and would like to coordinate the
installation with the proposed project construction.
11. Bicycle Provisions
No special accommodations for bicycles are recommended. US 401
is not a part of the Bicycling Highway System and is not planned as
such according to the Bicycle Unit.
12. Greenways
The proposed improvements to US 401 will increase the difficulty
for at-grade pedestrians crossing the proposed greenway corridors
along the project. The city requests that NCDOT include in the
project's design a box culvert at least eight (8) feet high and ten
(10) feet wide to allow for pedestrian passage under the roadway at
the proposed Buffalo Creek Greenway (at Beaverdam Creek). Similar
box culverts have been installed for greenways at other locations in
Raleigh, particularly under the Beltline (see letter in appendix.
dated October 6, 1992 from the City of Raleigh to Leza Mundt). At
this location, a pedestrian culvert would require raising the grade
along US 401 and result in an increase of $125,000 in the total
project cost. NCDOT will consider funding the pedestrian culvert if
the city can justify the need for the proposed greenway crossing and
commit to build the greenway corridor.
At the Neuse River crossing, it is recommended that the bridge
span be of adequate length to permit pedestrian movement under the
bridges on both sides of the river. The standard paved section for
this proposed greenway trail is ten (10) feet. This recommendation
will be incorporated into the project. A canoe access point is
planned on the south side of Louisburg Road, east of the Neuse River
and will be accessed via the proposed greenway.
13. Cost Estimate
The proposed project is expected to cost as follows:
Construction
Right of Way
$ 16,800,000
$ 8,616,000
Total Cost
$ 25,416,000
The construction cost estimate includes 15% for engineering and
contingencies. The right of way cost estimate includes the costs of
acquisition, utilities, and relocations. The cost of constructing
sidewalks throughout the project length will cost an additional
$700,000 (not included in the above estimate). Additional
construction and right of way costs involved in building the wider
5
cross section from US 1 to New Hope Road is not included with this
estimate, but will be available in the Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) document.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadway Inventory
1. Cross Section
The existing roadway consists of a two-lane, 24-foot shoulder
section throughout most of the project except from US 1 to Saint
James Church Road (SR 2036), which is a 3-lane, 40-foot section.
2. Right of Way
Existing right of way width is 100 feet from US 1 to New Hope
Road. The remainder of the project has a 60-foot right of way width
that is symmetric about the center-line of the roadway.
3. Type of Roadside Development
Roadside development is mainly residential with some light
commercial development scattered along the project.
4. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
5. Structures
One structure, Bridge #131 over the Neuse River, was built in
1938. It has a length of 349 feet and a width of 25.8 feet. The
sufficiency rating is 43.5 of a possible 100. This rating indicates
that the bridge meets federal bridge replacement standards.
Bridge No. 297 at the US 1/401 interchange, was built in 1960.
It has a length of 180 feet and a roadway width of 28 feet. The
horizontal clearance under the bridge is 28 feet. The sufficiency
rating is 62.7.
Two culverts are located within the project area. The culvert
located just south of Fox Road (SR 2042) over Beaverdam Creek is a
5-foot by 4-foot reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) that is in
good condition. Approximately 0.5 mile to the north of this culvert
and crossing a tributary to Beaverdam Creek is a 4-foot by 3-foot
RCBC which is also in good condition. It is anticipated that these
culverts can be retained and extended, however, they will be
inspected for hydraulic adequacy and structural integrity as a part
of this project.
6
6. Speed Zones
The posted limit is 45 mph from US 1 to Dansey Drive (SR 4600),
and from the Seth Jones House to Perry Creek Road (SR 2006), and
55 mph throughout the remainder of the project length.
7. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control
All streets intersect US 401 at-grade with the exception of the
US 1 interchange. Signals are presently located at St. James Church
Road (SR 2036), New Hope Road (SR 2108), Perry Creek Road (SR 2006),
and at Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224). The remainder of the
intersections are stop sign controlled.
No control of access presently exists along the project except
for the US 1 interchange.
8. Sidewalks
Sidewalks currently parallel US 401 on the west side for
approximately 200 feet north and south of Fox Road (SR 4400) and for
approximately 700 feet between US 1 and Calvary Drive.
9. Utilities
Aerial telephone and electric lines, exist along the proposed
project length. Water lines run throughout most of the project
length. Gas and sanitary sewer run underground along the project
from US 1 to Fox Road (SR 2042).
A high tension electrical line crosses the project north of
Dansey Drive (SR 4600).
10. Greenways
The project crosses two City of Raleigh proposed greenway
corridors, as designated in the Capital Area Greenway Plan; the
Buffalo Creek greenway (at Beaverdam Creek) and the Neuse River
greenway. Acquisition of easements or fee simple ownership of the
greenway systems is on-going. Most of the Buffalo Creek greenway
already in city ownership is located north of US 401. The section
proposed for the greenway at Buffalo Creek in the project area has
not yet been acquired by the city.
The City requested some provisions for the proposed Neuse River
greenway. These are detailed in Section I.B.12.
11. Geodetic Markers
This project will impact 14 geodetic survey markers. The N. C.
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
12. School Buses
Six school buses make two trips per day for a total of 12 bus
trips per day along the studied section. The city will coordinate
bus stop locations with the appropriate agencies and parents of the
children who will be affected by the project.
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan
US 401 is classified as an urban arterial in the Statewide
Classification System, and is a part of the Federal-Aid System
(STP-401(1)). Figure 4 shows the current adopted thoroughfare plan. The
route is designated a major thoroughfare on the mutually adopted Greater
Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. US 401 is one of the more heavily
travelled arterial routes in the city. The proposed improvements are in
conformance with the thoroughfare plan and will be a step towards its
implementation (see Figure 4).
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The estimated traffic volumes for 1997 along the subject portion of
US 401 range from 28,300 vehicles per day (vpd) north of Mitchell Mill
Road to 39,800 vpd between SR 2108 and SR 2036. These estimates of the
average daily traffic include 2% truck-tractor semi-trailers and 4% dual
tired vehicles. Estimated 1997/2017 average daily traffic volumes are
shown in Figure 5A through Figure 5D (Figures 5C and 5D show traffic with
the newly connected New Hope Road Extension).
The traffic carrying ability of a roadway is described by levels of
service (LOS) which range from A through F. Level of service A, the
highest level of service, is characterized by very low delay in which most
vehicles do not stop at all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and
turns are freely made. In level of service B, traffic operation is stable
but more vehicles are stopping and causing higher levels of delay. Level
of service C is characterized by stable operation with drivers
occasionally having to wait through more than one red indication. Most
drivers feel somewhat restricted in these circumstances. At level of
service D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay to
approaching vehicles may be substantial during short periods of the peak
hour. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable
delay and represents the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of
service F represents over saturated or jammed conditions which are
considered unacceptable to most drivers.
All signalized intersections (both existing and proposed) were
analyzed by the Traffic Engineering Branch using Transyt 7-F, a traffic
signal operations modeling tool. Figure 6 shows the anticipated level of
service with the design year traffic for each signalized intersection with
the proposed geometrics. The proposed intersection geometrics recommended
as a part of this project and the future proposed geometrics recommended
to be implemented at a later date (as the Mines are improved) are shown
in Figures 7A through 7E. The results for the "worst case" intersections
are summarized below.
8
1. Siqnalized Intersections
The New Hope Road intersection is identified as having the
heaviest turning and through volumes. If US 401 is to operate at a
level of service D in the design year in this area, at least four
through lanes in each direction will be required to accommodate the
expected traffic volumes. These improvements include double left
turns onto New Hope Road from US 401. See Figure 7A for the proposed
intersection geometrics.
2. Unsignalized Intersections
Several unsignalized intersections exist along the studied
portion of US 401. An analysis was performed to determine the effect
of the proposed widening on unsignalized intersections. The
intersection at Spring Forest Road (SR 2041) and the intersection at
Fox Road (SR 2042) warrant signalization as a part of this project.
The resulting level of service is shown in Figure 6. Additional
analysis of the remaining unsignalized intersections will be needed
nearer the design year to determine the warrants for signalization.
D. Accident History
A total of 316 accidents were reported (including one fatality) along
the studied portion of US 401 between US 1 and Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044)
during the period from January 1, 1990 to May 31, 1993. The primary types
of accidents were rear-end collisions (41.89-.), accidents involving angle
or sideswipe collisions (12.7%), and accidents involving left turn same
road (10.8%) . These three types of accidents account for 65.351. of all
accidents. Accidents occurred most frequently at the intersections.
The total accident rate for the studied section of US 401 is 422.97
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100 mvm) compared to the
state average for similar routes of 260.6 acc/100 mvm. The accident rate
for the subject project is significantly higher than the statewide average
for similar routes. This rate will likely continue to increase unless
provisions are made to accommodate the projected traffic volumes. The
proposed widening improvements will reduce the potential for the types of
accidents occurring along the project. The proposed project will improve
the overall safety and convenience of motorists.
III. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Recommended Improvements
The recommended alternative consists of widening the existing
facility to a 6-lane, median divided, curb and gutter section (see Figure
3 for a sketch of the recommended cross section) except for the section
from US 1 to New Hope Road which will be widened to an 8-lane section.
The six-lane section will consist of three travel lanes in each direction
separated by a 26-foot grass median from US 1 to the Northern Wake
Expressway and a 30-foot grass median from the Northern Wake Expressway to
the northern end of the project.
9
B. Other Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment
of roadway, no alternative corridors were considered. The recommended
variable symmetric/asymmetric widening best uses the existing right of
way, and minimizes impacts to the project area.
A 5-lane curb and gutter section was studied for the proposed project
initially, but is not considered practical since it does not adequately
accommodate present traffic.
The "do nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. The
proposed cross section will provide a safer environment to accommodate the
current and projected traffic volumes.
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. The widening of
US 401 with Project R-2425 is a part of Raleigh's thoroughfare plan.
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 in Raleigh is also improved by the city's computerized
traffic signal system which reduces stopped delay for both buses and autos
in the city.
Full bus service does not extend to the limits of project R-2425;
however, connector service is available. Raleigh expects to study the
feasibility of providing bus service along this section of US 401 in the
near future. Provision of bus turnouts as part of project R-2425 has been
coordinated with Raleigh's Transit Administrator. Bus turnouts were not
considered useful for transit operations along the subject section of
US 401. For this reason, no bus turnouts are proposed.
Carpool/Vanpool Programs
The Triangle Transit Authority operates a computer-aided carpool and
vanpool service for Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill. Currently, there are
29 vanpools serving the triangle area.
10
To enhance carpool ridership, Raleigh has established a "park-n-ride"
lot near the state fairgrounds. Many other opportunities for
"park-n-ride" commuting are available in Raleigh at private parking lots.
The City of Raleigh has agreements with owners of several private parking
lots to allow commuter parking on these private lots.
Unfortunately, use of the public "park-n-ride" lot near the state
fairgrounds has been minimal. Very few commuters are using this facility.
No new public "park-n-ride" facilities are being promoted by the City of
Raleigh. Appropriate "park-n-ride" service is provided by private lots
which have agreed to serve Raleigh commuters. Therefore, a "park-n-ride"
lot will not be provided as part of Project R-2425.
Bicycle Use
Bike lanes are not being incorporated into this project because the
high traffic volumes and travel speeds would be dangerous to bicyclists.
The Bicycle Unit did not request special provisions be made for bicycles
along this project.
Congestion Management Strategies
To reduce potential congestion along project R-2425, progressive
signal timing has been evaluated as a congestion management strategy.
Progressive signal timing is not applicable to this project because the
distance between signals and the frequency of access points to US 401
would not allow for a smooth flow of traffic.
Ramp metering and High Occupancy Vehicle lanes are not appropriate as
congestion management strategies because this project is not a controlled
access facility.
Consistency with ISTEA
The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
requirements, as amended in 23 USC 134, for the Raleigh Transportation
Management Area (TMA) have been reviewed as previously described. Project
R-2425 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 US 401 corridor to
determine if these strategies could eliminate the need for additional
single occupancy vehicle (SOV) capacity.
Because SOV reduction strategies as described above are not
considered appropriate for this corridor, additional SOV capacity is
warranted and will be provided by the widening of US 401 as described in
this document.
In TMA's designated as non-attainment for air quality, ISTEA places
restrictions on federally funded projects that increase capacity for
single occupancy vehicles.
North Carolina is currently developing a working plan for its
Congestion Management System (CMS). The plan will be in place by
October 1, 1994. Prior to implementation of the CMS, projects that
11
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 ozone. The widening of US 401 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
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. ;_
Staggered work hours,
implemented on a corridor
cause congestion at their
reduce spot congestion at
employers attracting enougt
no such employers along thi
flex-time, or modified work weeks can be
level if large employers along the corridor
entrances or exits. These applications would
entrances and exits to large employers (those
trips to cause congestion); however, there are
s project.
Because SOV reduction strategies
this corridor, additional SOV capacity
by the widening of US 401.
A. Social Environment
are not considered appropriate for
is warranted and will be provided
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Wake County is in the east central section of the state and is
bounded by Johnston, Harnett, Chatham, Durham, Granville, and
Franklin Counties. Based on the 1990 census, Wake County has a
population of 423,380. Raleigh is the largest urbanized area in Wake
County and has a total population of 207,951.
Existing US 401 from US 1 to Mitchell Mill Road is a heavily
travelled two-lane facility. Existing roadside development is mainly
residential with light commercial property interspersed throughout.
In addition, residential subdivisions are currently under
construction within the corridor and on the northern end at Mitchell
12
Mill Road. Future residential growth will result in more motorists
and more congestion on the already overcrowded highway facility. The
proposed widening will result in a safer travel route. The proposed
facility will also improve access for emergency vehicles such as fire
trucks, ambulances, and public safety vehicles.
The proposed action will not disrupt neighborhood cohesion nor
will it interfere with area facilities and services.
2. Public and Private Facilities
Public facilities in the area consist of several churches: New
Hope Baptist Church, Saint Matthews Missionary Baptist Church, and
Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall. None of these public facilities will
be adversely impacted by the proposed action (see Figure 1B and
Figure 2 for locations).
The proposed Wake Technical College Northern Campus consists of
a 125 acre site located on US 401 just north of the proposed Northern
Wake Expressway on the east side of US 401. Plans for the campus
include three buildings to house classrooms, laboratories, and a
library. The courses offered will vary from freshman English to
nuclear engineering, to adult continuing education classes.
Several private businesses will be affected by the subject
highway project. Smith and Johnson Flooring, L & L-Food Mart; and
Bud's Bite 'N Brew will loose some parking spaces along US 401 but it
is not anticipated that the businesses will need to be relocated (see
Relocation Report located in the appendix for exact locations).
3. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with 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.
Letters of correspondence between the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) are included in the Appendix, and all
properties other than the four listed below, were found to be
either ineligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places or outside of the Area of Potential Effect (APE)
for this project.
The NCDOT identified one property listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, the Alpheus Jones House, and three
State Study List properties, the Rufus J. Ivey House, the Sion
H. Rogers, Sr. House, and the St. Matthews Rosenwald School.
Descriptions of the individual properties are included in the
13
Historic Architecture Survey Report and in the Addendum I.
T ese reports are available in the project file in the Plan"
and Environmental Branch.
The FHWA concurred with NCDOT that there are three
properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
located within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The Rufus J.
Ivey House, the Sion H. Rogers, Sr. House and the St. Matthews
Rosenwald School, and one property within the APE listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, the Alpheus Jones House.
A phase II survey is not being required due to the survey of
Wake County's architectural resources and limited scope of this
project.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the FHWA and the
SHPO detailing the proposed mitigation measures for R-2425 is
currently being prepared for all four properties. The MOA will
reiterate the stipulations set forth in the R-2000 MOA for the
Alpehus Jones House and the Rufus J. Ivey House and will also
include a new set of stipulations to cover the St. Matthews
Rosenwald School and the Sion H. Rogers House. This MOA will be
included in the FONSI.
The resultant determination of effect on each property is
as follows:
The Sion Rogers house is located on the east side of US 401
between US 1 and St. James Church Road (SR 2036). The project
was determined to have a conditional no adverse effect. This
will require consultation with the property owner to determine
some mitigation measure such as a vegetative screen in front of
the structure and/or median plantings to further conceal the
property from the project. The proposed 26-foot raised, grassed
median will adequately accommodate the vegetative screen if
needed. The proposed roadway will be an 8-lane, divided
section.
The St. Matthews Rosenwald School is located east of US 401
opposite the Fox Road (SR 4400) subdivision. This structure
will be adversely affected by the proposed project since the
road will be approximately 60 feet closer to the structure. The
hardwoods that will be removed during construction, were
determined to be a part of the setting. Mitigation for this
structure will be addressed and stipulated in the proposed MOA.
The property owners will be contacted for input and offered the
opportunity to concur with the mitigation plan. The median is
26 feet wide and will accommodate plantings if deemed necessary.
The proposed roadway will be a 6-lane, divided section. The
school is currently being stabilized by members of the
St. Matthews Church, to be converted into a community center at
a later date.
14
The Rufus Ivey House is located to the west of US 401 and
immediately south of Sinclair Drive. The Alpheus Jones House is
located approximately 580 meters (1900 feet) north of the Ivey
house on the opposite side of US 401. Both the Rufus Ivey House
and the Alpheus Jones House were determined to be adversely
affected by the R-2000 project. Due to that previous
determination, the adverse effect for both properties will
remain. All roadway widening has been accomplished to the
opposite side of US 401 from both properties so that no
additional property will be taken from these properties. Some
vegetative screening is required by the R-2000 MOA for these
properties concurrent with construction of R-2425. The median
is 26 feet wide and will accommodate the required plantings.
The proposed MOA for this project will reiterate the
stipulations set forth in the R-2000 MOA for these two
properties and additional stipulations will be included (median
plantings on US 401, median breaks, and control of access). The
control of access will need to be extended to reach the Alpheus
Jones House (it adequately covers the Rufus Ivey House) and
median breaks will not be permitted in front of either property.
A MOA for the Northern Wake Expressway (R-2000) concerning
the Alpheus Jones House and the Rufus J. Ivey House was
completed on August 14, 1990. The NCDOT will coordinate with
the SHPO to ensure that the requirements of the MOA are met.
- 1 .
b. Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) recommended
that intensive surveys be undertaken for the section from Fox
Road (SR 4400) to the northern end of the project to locate
and evaluate any archaeological sites that may be affected by
the proposed project (See letter dated June 18, 1992 located in
Appendix).
NCDOT archaeologists identified four archaeological sites
in the project area. Sites 31WA1136, 31WA1138, 31WA1144 and
31WA1145 are not considered to be significant and no further
work is recommended. Site 13WA1137 is a buried Late Archaic
-Early Woodland site that appears to be significant and
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Avoidance of the site is not feasible under the current
project plans. The archaeological remains are not important as
exhibits for public interpretation or preservation in place, and
data recovery excavation is the appropriate form of treatment
for this site. Recovery of the significant archaeological data
should be grounds for a "conditional no adverse effect"
determination in compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act and the guidelines issued by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. A copy of the
archaeology report is available in the project file in the
Planning and Environmental Branch.
15
NCDOT will coordinate with SHPO on the data recovery plan
which will be detailed in the FONSI.
In the February 22, 1994 letter to the FHWA (included in
the Appendix), SHPO questioned whether the O'Hara Stell Farm
could be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places under the Criteria D for archaeological
significance. This issue is under investigation and the
findings will be included in the FONSI.
A cemetery is located in the interchange of US 1/401. This
cemetery was not determined to be historic. It will be
documented and moved prior to construction in accordance with
Chapter 5 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
This project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties.
4. Relocation Impacts
Based on preliminary designs, the recommended improvements may
require the displacement of three businesses and one residence (a
copy of the relocation report is located in the Appendix). The
Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help
minimize the effects of displacement.
The RelocationiProgram will be conducted in accordance with the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act GS-133-17. The program is
designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in occupying a
new place to live or in which to do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
The relocation officer will, at the time right of way is
authorized, determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
business concerns, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services, moving cost, replacement
housing payments, mortgage differential and incidental cost without
regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
officer will contact the displacee, within ample time prior to
displacement, to allow negotiations for, and possession of
replacement housing which meets decent, safe and sanitary standards
and is adequate to accommodate the relocatee. Relocation of displaced
persons will be made in areas not generally less desirable in regard
to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices
of replacement housing offered will be within the financial means of
the families and individuals displaced. Replacement properties will
be made available to displaced families and individuals in the same
general area from which they are being displaced and reasonably
accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer
will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations in locating and moving to
replacement property.
All tenant and owner occupant displacees will receive an
explanation regarding options available to them, such as (1) purchase
of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
16
private or public, or (3) relocating existing owner-occupant housing.
The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other
State or Federal Programs offering assistance to displaced persons.
Provision will be made for other advisory services as needed in order
to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location. Last resort housing will be provided, if necessary, in
accordance with North Carolina law.
The Moving and Replacement Housing Payments Program is designed
to (a) compensate the relocatee for the costs of moving from homes,
businesses, and farm operations acquired for a highway project, (b)
provide incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorneys' fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs, and
(c) make payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement
dwellings. Reimbursement for replacement housing payments, increased
interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed
$22,500 combined total, unless last resort housing becomes necessary.
Tenants may receive a rental assistance payment not to exceed $5,250
unless last resort housing becomes necessary.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable
within the displacee's financial 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.
B. Economic Environment
According to the North Carolina Employment Security Commission (June,
1993) Wake County has a labor force of 277,290 persons. Of that total
figure, 265,530 people are employed resulting in an unemployment total of
11,760 or 4.2 percent of the total work force.
Wake County enjoys a low unemployment rate (4.2 percent) due to the
fact that Raleigh is the seat of state government and is a major partner
in the Research Triangle Park. There are several major educational
institutions in the area that boost the area's overall economy. Tourist
trade also plays an important part in Wake County's employment, especially
during the school year as students from throughout the state travel to
Raleigh to see their government at work and visit other places of
interest.
The proposed project will improve access to and from the downtown
area and suburban areas of northeast Raleigh.
The proposed facility will improve the efficiency for transporting
goods and services to and from markets. Traffic congestion will be
reduced, and workers will be able to reach their destinations sooner and
require less fuel to do so.
17
There are some negative economic impacts to the proposed action but
measures will be taken to minimize these impacts if they occur. There is
a possibility that L & L Food Mart, Smith & Johnson Flooring, and Bud's
Bite 'N Brew Restaurant may lose some parking. If the parking loss
results in severe impacts to these businesses, they will be given the
opportunity to relocate to a comparable site (see Relocation Impacts in
section 1V. A.4.).
C. Land Use
1. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed improvements occur within the planning and zoning
jurisdiction of the City of Raleigh, except the area northeast of the
Neuse River, which is in Wake County's jurisdiction. The City's
comprehensive plan, Vision 20001 was adopted in 1989. Vision 2000
contains a series of small area plans, including the Northeast
District Plan, which addresses the US 401 area. The City has also
adopted its Capital Area Greenway Plan and the Raleigh Urbanized Area
Thoroughfare Plan.
Wake County's General Development Plan was last amended in 1989.
The County also enforces a zoning ordinance and subdivision
regulations.
2. Existing Zoning
Generally, the intensity of permitted uses decreases as one
approaches the Neuse River. The most intensive zoning districts,
including Shopping Center (SC), Office and Institutional (0&I-1), and
Light Industrial (I-1) are located near the intersection of US 1 and
US 401. Throughout the project length, numerous commercial-oriented
zoning districts front the existing roadway. Theses include the
Thoroughfare District, Shopping Center District, and Neighborhood
Business District; located in the vicinity of SR 2041 and the
proposed Northern Wake Expressway, respectively. More isolated
commercial districts, including a Neighborhood Business and Shopping
Center district are located at the US 401 intersection with SR 2006
and SR 2042.
The remaining land, particularly land which does not directly
front US 401, is zoned with residential districts of varying
densities. The lowest density residential districts, all R-4, are
located in the Neuse River area, or accessed from SR 2042, SR 4400,
and SR 2006. Other residential districts are scattered throughout
the project length, particularly on the south side of the roadway.
The land Northeast of the Neuse River is within Wake County's
planning and zoning jurisdiction. This area is currently zoned R-30,
Residential, a relatively low density zoning district.
18
3. Existing Land Use
The project is one in transition from rural, agricultural uses
near the Neuse River, to suburban development near US 1. Commercial
and multi-family development occupy the land near US 1. Development
becomes less intensive toward the Neuse River, with several single
family residential subdivisions accessed from US 401. A shopping
center and several small commercial uses are scattered among
residential and agricultural uses in the northern half of the
project.
4. Future Land Use
Raleigh's comprehensive plan, Vision 2000 indicates that
non-residential uses will occupy most of the land along Raleigh's
major transportation corridors, including US 401. However, the land
in the vicinity of the Neuse River will be developed with residential
uses. Extensions of both water and sewer lines are planned for the
area north of the proposed alignment of the Northern Wake Expressway.
These extensions are expected to increase development pressure in the
project area.
The plan designates the US 401 corridor as a "gateway corridor"
into Raleigh. Although a variety of intense land uses are permitted
along "gateway corridors," attempts will be made to control strip
development through increased emphasis on access control and
appearance.
The area surrounding the future interchange of the Northern Wake
Expressway and US 401 has been identified as a "Community Focus
Area." These areas will contain shopping centers and other retail
uses, but will not generally serve as major employment centers.
According to Wake County's General Development Plan the project
area north of the Neuse River is designated as a 'Per-I ipal
Planning Area." This is described as an area beyond a municipality's
ETJ, but is suitable for development within the next ten years.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition
and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils, as
designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Land that is
developed or planned for urban development by the local governmental
authority is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The area of
the proposed improvement has been designated for residential and
commercial development by the City of Raleigh. Therefore, further
consideration of farmland impacts is not required.
19
6. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
The widening of the roadway is supported in the Thoroughfare
Plan, Vision 2000, and the US 401 corridor plan. The US 401 corridor
plan further states that, "Medians are recommended to ensure smooth
traffic flow and to improve the aesthetics of the corridor." This is
consistent with the designation in Vision 2000 of US 401 as a
"gateway corridor." Therefore, the alternative including medians is
most compatible with local plans.
D. Natural Environment
1. Ecological Resources
The study area is defined by right of way limits of 130 feet.
An ecological survey was conducted December 4, 1992 to identify
vegetative communities and wildlife species contained in the project
area. Vegetative communities and wildlife were inventoried and
mapped during on-site surveys. Wetlands were identified, using
methods in the "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual"
(1987) In-house preparatory work was done prior to the field visit.
The Wake County soil survey, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps,
the hydric soils list for Wake County and USGS Wake Forest quadrangle
map were studied to identify potential wetland sites. "Classifi-
cations and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the
Neuse River Basin" (N.C. Dept. of Environment,. Health and Natural
Resources) was consulted to determine best usage classifications for
water resources. N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) files were consulted to determine if any
protected flora or fauna occurs in the project area. The Environ-
mental Sensitivity Base Map of Wake County (produced by the NC Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis) was utilized to identify
sensitive natural resources that may be present in the project area.
Biotic Resource Impacts
Impacts on natural communities are reflective of the relative
abundance of each system present in the study corridor. Table 1
summarizes potential losses from widening of the existing road.
Calculations are based on right of way limits of 130 feet. Values
are expressed in acres.
Table 1. ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
UNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
Acres
Man-Dominated 40.0
Hardwood Forest 0.6
Mixed-Pine Hardwood 19.3
Piedmont Levee Forest 1.1
Mesic Forest 0.6
61.6
20
The majority of impacts will occur in man dominated communities.
Many mobile animals such as deer, opossums, rodents, and passerine
birds are cosmopolitan in nature, easily adapting to urbanization.
Resident species will be displaced or eliminated by construction
activities and habitat range will be reduced.
Aquatic species will be particularly affected. Dredging,
filling, pile-driving operations, slope stabilization and land
clearing are construction activities, resulting in the direct loss of
benthic organisms and an increase in silt load in aquatic and wetland
environments. Mobile benthic macroinvertebrates are better able to
avoid impacts, and will have a faster recovery rate from siltation,
than those species that are filter feeders and relatively immobile.
The removal of benthic organisms reduces the potential food supply
for vertebrate and other aquatic organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on aquatic organisms;
decreases the depth of light penetration, inhibiting plant and algal
growth; clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and
the gills of fish; buries benthic organisms on the bottom, cutting
them off from a food source; adversely modifies preferred benthic
substrate and fish habitat; and spoils downstream spawning beds for
fish. Strict adherence to Best Management Practices will ensure
minimization of impacts to these species.
a. Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities
throughout the project area reflect the topographic positioning,
hydrologic influences, and past and present land use practices.
The following five profile descriptions have been adopted and
modified from the NCNHP classification scheme (Schafale and
Weakley 1990).
Hardwood Forest
The realignment of Mitchell Mill Road will traverse through
hardwood forest comprised of a mature canopy of southern red oak
( uueerc?us rubra), white oak (L alba), willow oak (Q. p hellos),
and water oak (Q. ni ra). Sourwood (Ox dendron arboreum),
dogwood (Cornus T on a and Hickory (Carya sp. comprise the
understory. The herbaceous layer is sparse, but elephant's-foot
(Ele ha?ntopus tomentosa), and ebony spleenwort (As lenium
p a1 t neu?ron) are common. Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia) and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) make up the
vine component of this community.
Piedmont Levee Forest
This community type is found on natural levee and point bar
deposits on large floodplains associated with the Neuse River.
Soils are coarse textured and alluvial in nature, and are mapped
as Congaree (Typic udifluvent). This is a palustrine,
seasonally to intermittently flooded system, with a mature,
21
relatively undisturbed canopy dominated by river birch (Betula
ni ra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus
caro iniana), and itternut hickory (Carya cordiformis).
Understory species are few, but are comprised o American holly
(Ilex oeaca), bladdernut (Staphylea trifolia and saplings of
red maple (Acer rubrum . Woody vines such as poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radTicans , cross vine (Bignonia capreolata), and
wild grape (Vitis spp.) are prominent. Due to the open nature
of the canopy, the herb layer is dense. Lining the banks of the
Neuse River are thick stands of (Chasmanthium latifolia), with a
carpet of naturalized creeping C arlie Glecoma a eracea)
inhabiting the levee deposits adjacent to the banks. Other
herbs noted are (Geranium maculatum), and violets (Viola spp).
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest is a successional community
which is representative of those areas that have a canopy of 30
percent or more pine. Southern red oak (L falcata), post oak
(Q.. stellata), and mockernut hickory (Carta tomentosa) form a
canopy with loblolly pine (Pinus tae ad ). Scrub pine (P.
vir iniana) and red cedar (Juniperus virinia?na) often occur as
su canopy components with sourwood (Oxy ea ndron arboreum),
dogwood (Cornus florida), privet (LiRust?rum sinense), beauty
berry (Ca llicar a americana) and sapling growth of canopy
species. A slight shi twin species composition is noted on
lower ridges. Sweet-gum (Li uidambar st raciflua), red maple
(Acer rubrum), tulip tree Lirio endron to ipi era) become major
canopy components. The herbaceous layer is sparse or totally
lacking, but groundcovers such as Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus uin uefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
ra icans , an muscadine Vitis rotundifolia) are typical.
Mesic Forest PF01A (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved,
Deciduous, Temporarily flooded)
Mesic woodlands are prevalent along creek channels, narrow
floodplain fringes, and lower slopes throughout the landscape.
This system is subjected to infrequent flooding and prevailing
mesic conditions due to topographic positioning. The
canopy/subcanopy is dominated by sweet-gum, red maple, sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis) willow oak (uercus hellos), slippery
elm (Ulmus rubra), and ironwood (Carp inus caro iniana).
LoblolTy-pine dominates the canopy in some areas. Shrub
development consists of blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), strawberry
bush (Euonymus americanus) and privet Li ustrumm sinense).
Ground cover densities may vary, but typical components are
Christmas ferns (Pol stichum acrostichoides) on slopes, and a
"weedy" introduce grass, Microste ium vimineum) occupying
level bottoms. Dense stands of cnotweed Po onum sp.) occur
within power line rights of way that cut across this community.
22
Man-Dominated Areas
Man-dominated communities in the project area are comprised
of fallow and cultivated fields, pasture land, shrub-scrub, and
scattered residential and commercial development. Fallow fields
consist of successional species such as broomsedge (Andro 0 on
s ), goldenrods (Solidago sp.), aster (Aster i osus),
blackberry (Rubus sp.), and sicklepod Cassia obtusifo ia).
Cultivated fields contain unharvested crops of soybeans (Glycene
max), with a thick growth of sicklepod interspersed. Pasture
ands are comprised principally of fescue (Festuca sp.).
The northwestern end of the project area supports a
shrub-scrub community. Once cleared, a dense, low stand of
sweetgum, red maple, water oak ( uercus nigra), and blackberry
has now formed.
Barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), goldenrods
(Solidago spp.) and aster (Aster sp.) are common.
Residential and commercial development are man-dominated
lands where man's structures or activities preclude natural
plant succession. Maintained grounds and lawns support turf of
fescue (Festuca sp.) as the dominant vegetative component,
complemente with landscape ornamentals. Pecan (Carya
illinoensis), red cedar, loblolly pine 'and various oak trees
( uercus spp.) are typical.
b. Wildlife Communities
The semi-rural nature of the project area, combined with a
mix of plant community patterns, provide a variety of
opportunities for various forms of wildlife. Forested tracts
have all the necessary components (food, water, protective
coverage) to support a number of small mammals and birds. Mesic
woodlands bordering small tributaries also function as travel
corridors for transient species. Common mammals likely to
inhabit the project area include the grey squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), opossum (Didel his v?irginiana), cottontaiF
Svi a ups floridanus), raccoon Procyon lotor), eastern mole
Scalo us aquaticus , and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
ieucopus
Larger mammals, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
vir inianus), seek refuge in forested woodlands, an browse
a ong ecotonal fringes between forests and fields. A number of
scat samples were noted during this field investigation.
Avifaunal abundance is typical in the Piedmont region of
North Carolina where a patchwork of habitat types is available.
Common passerine species which were sighted or expected to occur
include American robin (Turdus mi ratorius), Northern cardinal
Cardinalis cardinalis), blue jay Cyanocitta cristata),
23
Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Carolina chickadee
(Parus carolinensis), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).
Birds- o prey inc ude red-tailed hawk (Buteo damaicensis), and
sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus).
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), southeastern
five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), worm snake (Carho his
amoenus), black racer (Coluber constrictor), and eastern box
turtle (Te?rraPene carolina are but a few of the reptiles that
may be found in the project area.
Aquatic Life
The Neuse River and it's tributaries are host to a myriad
of fish species. Common non-game inhabitants are the golden
shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), redfin pickeral (Esox
americanus), margined madtom (Noturus rinus), creek cFiub
(Semo bus atromaculatus), swallowtail shiner (Notropis rp ocne),
and bluehead chub (Nocomis micro 0 on). Yellow bullhead
(Ictalurus natalis), pumpkinseed Le omis gibbosus), bluegill
(Le- om macro rus) and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus)
provide sport fishing opportunities.
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water-dependent for
completion of larval stages in their life cycle. Some species
are totally aquatic. One of interest, but not common, is the
Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi), a salamander that is
endemic to North Carol gin a anT inhabits the main streams and
larger tributaries of the Neuse and Tar rivers. It prefers leaf
beds in quiet water in winter and is seen only infrequently in
summer. In 1981, a toxic spill of Sodium hydroxide from an
upstream waste water treatment plant was responsible for an
aquatic ecosystem kill in the river, in the vicinity of the US
401 crossing. Approximately eighty dead Neuse River waterdogs
were collected. No recent surveys have been conducted, but the
population may be recovered (Pers. comm. Dr. Alvin Braswell,
NC Museum of Natural History). Other salamanders likely to
occur in the project area are the marbled salamander (Ambystoma
o acum), slimy salamander (Plethodon lutinosus) and the
three-lined salamander (Eurycea gutto ineata .
2. Protected Species
a. 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.
The FWS reports several federally protected species for
Wake county as of May 13, 1993.
24
Table 2. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Wake County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Picoides borealis
Haliaeetus leucoce halus
Alasmi onta etero on
R us michauxii --
Vermivora ac manii
COMMON NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded Woodpecker E
Bald Eagle E
Dwarf-wedge mussel E
Michaux' Poison Sumac (W) E
Bachman's warbler E
A brief description and habitat requirements for the above
listed species are summarized below.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (E)
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was once a common bird in
the mature pine forests of the Southeast. It lived from east
Texas to Florida and north to Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland.
Today, its range and population have been reduced through loss
of habitat. Forty-one North Carolina counties are known to
currentljy, support active RCW colonies. These are largely
restricted to the upper, middle and lower coastal plains.
The red-cockaded woodpecker has specific nesting and
foraging habitat requirements. Nesting habitat consists of pine
or pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands over 60 years
of age. Available foraging habitat is defined as pine and
pine-hardwood stands (50 percent or more pine) over 30 years of
age contiguous to and within 0.5 miles of the colony centroid.
The 0.5 mile radius from the colony centroid represents the
foraging range of clans and may encompass areas outside of the
project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No
the red-cockaded woodpecker. No
result from project construction
Bald Eagle (E)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
suitable habitat is present for
impacts to this species will
The bald eagle is associated with coasts, rivers and lakes,
usually nesting near bodies of water where they feed. The
largest, living trees in an area are preferred. Open expanses
of water in combination with perching trees or snags exist in
the project area.
25
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Suitable habitat is present in the
project area, in Piedmont levee forests adjacent to the Neuse
River. A nest survey of the areas was conducted. No evidence
of nests or the bird was seen. The proposed action will have no
impact upon this species.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel (E)
Alasmidonta heterodon
In North Carolina, the dwarf wedge mussel is known from
both the Tar and Neuse River systems. It prefers areas of deep
runs with coarse sands. It may also be found on bottoms of
gravel or mud, among submersed aquatic plants and near stream
banks underneath overhanging limbs.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Within the project area, Beaverdam
Creek, unnamed tributary and the Neuse River provide potential
habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel. It is recommended that
sound, scientific surveys be conducted to confirm or refute the
presence of this organism (Personal comm. John Alderman, NCWRC).
Due to seasonal restrictions, surveys can only be conducted from
Spring through Fall. Surveys will be conducted by NCDOT to
determine the existence of this species in the project area
prior to completion of the FONSI. If the endangered mussel is
found in the project area, NCDOT will coordinate with the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service in compliance with Section 7.
Michaux's Sumac (E)
Rhus michauxii
This species is endemic to the inner coastal plain and
lower piedmont of North Carolina. It occurs in sandy or rocky
open woods. It is an erect, rhizomatous shrub, growing to a
height of 0.2 to 0.4 meters. The entire plant is densely
pubescent. Leaflets are oblong-lanceolate and their edges are
simply to doubly serrate. White to greenish-yellow flowers
appear in June and are followed by red fruits.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Suitable habitat exists in the study
area. A plant by plant search was conducted along the length of
the alignment, in field and pasture margins and along open
roadside shoulders. No specimens were seen within the impact
zone. The proposed action will not impact this species.
Bachman's warbler (E)
Vermivora bachmanii
Bachman's warbler ranges throughout the southeastern United
States during the breeding season and winters in western Cuba
and the Isle of Pines. The only confirmed nesting records
occurred between 1897 and 1937. Of the 30 observed nests 26
were in Von Swamp, Charleston County, South Carolina. Other
nests were in Kentucky, Missouri, and Alabama.
26
This small warbler has a total length of 12 cm. The male
has a yellow forehead, chin, and shoulders. Its crown and bib
are black. Immature males have less black on their crown and
less yellow on their shoulders, but more white on the lower
belly. Females are generally drabber with the throat and breast
being gray or yellow and the crown gray. Males and females are
both characterized by having a thin bill that is slightly
downcurved and white undertail coverts.
Bachman's warblers nest in low, wet forested areas with
standing permanent water. There is a preference for hardwood
forest containing sweet gum, oak, and black gum, with openings
in the forest canopy filled with dense thickets of cane,
blackberry, and other vines and shrubs. Nests are found near
the ground in undergrowth. Nesting begins in late March or
early June and clutch size is usually 3-4 eggs. Their winter
migration begins in July.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect. Mesic forests and
Piedmont levee forests do not provide suitable nesting habitat
for the Bachman's warbler.
Candidate Species
Candidate species are species which are not legally
protected under-the Endangered Species Act and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. These
species are mentioned here for the purpose of information, as
they may be listed under a protected status at a later date.
The habitat column indicates the availability of suitable
habitat in the project area.
Table 3. FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
WAKE COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat
M otis austrori arius
Aimmo il?a aestivalis*
E 11E l i t i o' utiaetF e
E 11 iptio lanceolata
Fusconaia masonai -
Lasmi ona su?idis
SDe eer a di ana
Trillium usillum
var. pusillum
Monotropsis odorata
Southeastern bat C2 yes
Bachman's sparrow C2 yes
Neuse slabshell C2 yes
Yellow lance C2 yes
Atlantic pigtoe C2 yes
Green floater C2 yes
Diana fritillary C2 yes
Carolina trillium C2 yes
Sweet pinesap C2
27
b. State-Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and
enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and
the NC Department of Agriculture.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was
reviewed to determine if any state protected species occurrences
have been reported for the project area. None are presently
recorded. However, personal communication with Dr. Alvin
Braswell (NC Museum of Natural History) reports that the Neuse
River waterdog Necturus lewisi, a state Special Concern (SC)
amphibian was present in the Neuse River, prior to a 1981
chemical spill. This population may be recovered, but no recent
surveys have been conducted. In the event the animal is
present, stringent "best management" practices will be
implemented for this project.
In addition, the FWS provided information on several
Candidate (C) species that occur in Wake County that may occur
in the project corridor. No surveys were conducted for species
or suitable habitat. The following state designations for these
species are provided in-Table 4.
Table 4.
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
WAKE COUNTY
Scientific Name
M otis austrori arius
AAlm_op i a aestivalis*
E?11 ipti . dith?ae
Elliptio and ceolata
Fusconaia masona l
Lasm- a su viridis
Tri ium usiTu-m
var. puss um
Common Name Status/Rank
Southeastern bat
Bachman's sparrow
Neuse slabshell
Yellow lance
Atlantic pigtoe
Green floater
SC/S2
SC/S3B/S2N
E/S1
T/S2
T/S1
E/S1
Carolina trillium E/S1
NC Rank Designations: S1 = Critically imperiled in NC
because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences), or because
of some factor making it especially vulnerable to extirpation
from NC; S2= Imperiled in NC because of rarity (6 to 20
occurrences or few remaining individuals; S3= Rare or uncommon
in NC (21 to 100 occurrences).
28
3. Physical Resources
a. Geology and Topography
The study area is situated along the eastern part of the
Piedmont Plateau region. The topography of the Piedmont Plateau
is characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills and long
low ridges with a few hundred feet of elevation difference
between the hills and valleys. Elevations along the proposed
project corridor generally range from 200 to 310 feet above sea
level. This project is located in an urban area with numerous
businesses and residences located along existing US 401 to
SR 2041. Only sparse residences and businesses are located east
of US 401 where the additional lane widening will occur. Land
use in this area consists of cropland, pastureland, and
woodland.
The project lies in and immediately north of the City of
Raleigh, located in Wake County in the Piedmont physiographic
province in north-central North Carolina. The relief of the
project area is gently sloping to sloping. The northern portion
of the project is located in rural to lightly populated
residential areas, while the southern end of the project lies in
the City of Raleigh.
b. Soils
The Geologic map of North Carolina (1985) depicts this
portion of the Piedmont Plateau as consisting of gneiss, shcist,
and amphibolite of the Raleigh Belt. The proposed project is
underlain by granitic rocks of the Rolesville Pluton. This
granitic rock typically weathers to surficial plastic clay which
is underlain by silty sands and weathered rock. Cap clays are
typically highly plastic and could result in undercut excavation
and unsuitable unclassified excavation. Hard rock was observed
between Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224) and Ligon Mill Road
(SR 2044) at the end of the proposed project. The existing cut
slope east of US 401 appears to be composed of weathered rock
and hard rock. This granite appears massive and will require
explosives for excavation. These soils are composed of AASHTO
Soils Classifications A-2, A-4, A-6, and A-7 with minor traces
of A-1.
The subject project lies within the Piedmont Soil Region,
specifically within the Felsic Crystalline System. The
topography in this system is extremely variable. Broad gently
sloping uplands are common, as are moderately to steeply sloping
areas. The bedrock is granite, granite gneiss, mica gneiss and
mica schist.
The major soils of the area are the Appling soils, with
sandy loam textured surfaces, clay textured B horizons,
kaolinitic clay mineralogy, and firm, slightly plastic B
horizons. Appling soils occupy large areas of the local
landscape where the parent material is uniform.
29
Fine-loamy, well to very poorly drained soils occupy most
of the flood plains, forming natural levees, particularly along
the Neuse River. Typical soils are of the Congaree, Wehadkee,
Bibb and Worsham series. These soils are hydric or have hydric
inclusions because of saturation for a significant period during
the growing season.
Table 5.
SOIL SERIES
US 401 STUDY AREA
SOIL SERIES
CLASSIFICATION
HYDRIC INCLUSION
Appling Series
Wedowee Series
Louisburg Series
Wehadkee and Bibb
Worsham Series
Wehadkee
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Series Hydric
Hydric Congaree Series
Non-hydric
C. Contaminated Properties
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified
10 sites which contain or have the potential for underground
storage tanks (UST's), however, preliminary designs indicate
that none of these sites will be impacted by the proposed
project. In a subsequent records search of the DEM/Groundwater
Section, the following information was obtained:
1) Texaco Station - approximately 150 feet south of the New
Hope Road (SR 2108) intersection along US 401. Gas tanks
are located approximately 180 feet east of existing US 401.
No information was available from the DEM/Groundwater
section regarding this site.
2) Circle K Minute Mart #8621 - approximately 100 feet north
of New Hope Road (SR 2108) (west) along US 401. According
to the records of the DEM/Groundwater section, this
facility (ID# 0-026253) has three 10,000 gallon UST's on
the premises which were installed on 8/1/88. Gas tanks are
located approximately 90 feet east of existing US 401.
3) Silver and Lace Bakery (Old Service Station) -
approximately 100 feet north of Fox Road (SR 2042) along
US 401. Abandoned gas tanks are suspected approximately
150 feet west of US 401. No information was available from
the DEM/Groundwater section regarding this site.
30
4) BP Station - approximately 245 feet south of Perry Creek
Road (SR 2006) along US 401. Gas tanks are located
approximately 90 feet west of US 401. No information was
available from the DEM/Groundwater section regarding this
site.
5) Phillips 66 Station - approximately 180 feet north of Perry
Creek Road (SR 2006) along US 401. Gas tanks are located
approximately 80 feet west of US 401. No information was
available from the DEM/Groundwater section regarding this
site.
6) Tates Garage (Abandoned Service Station) - approximately
512 feet north of Perry Creek Road (SR 2006) along US 401.
Abandoned tanks are located approximately 70 feet west of
US 401. No information was available from the
DEM/Groundwater section regarding this site.
7) Buds Bite and Brew (Abandoned Service Station) -
approximately 100 feet south of Kyle Road (SR 2213) along
US 401. According to the records of the DEM/Groundwater
section, this facility (ID# 0-006382) has two 6,000 gallon
UST's on the premises which were installed on 5/9/70.
Abandoned gas tanks are located approximately 60 feet east
of US 401.
8) L & L Food Mart - approximately 60 feet south of St. James
Church Road (SR 2036) along US 401. Tanks were removed
approximately 4 years ago from approximately 55 feet east
of US 401. No information was available from the
DEM/Groundwater section regarding this site.
9) Texaco Service Station - approximately 70 feet south of
Denna Road along US 1/401. Gas tanks are located
approximately 150 feet west of the centerline median of
US 1/401. No information was available from the
DEM/Groundwater section regarding this site.
10) Freightline Truck Company (Truck Garage) - approximately
200 feet north of Denna Road along US1/401. Diesel tanks
are located approximately 100 feet west of US 1/401. No
information was available from the DEM/Groundwater section
regarding this site.
A files search of the Division of Solid Waste Management
was also conducted to determine whether any known unregulated
dumps or other potentially contaminated sites were within the
corridor. After reviewing these files and the DEM/Groundwater
incident list, none of the known sites within the Wake County
area were identified within the project corridor.
31
d. Water Resources
The subject project crosses five drainages within the Neuse
River drainage system, including the Neuse River, which is the
largest waterbody crossed via bridge. It is the second largest
drainage basin lying entirely within North Carolina and is
formed by the confluence of the Eno and Flat Rivers northeast of
Durham. The river flows in a generally southeast direction from
its origin, to below New Bern. The upper one third of the river
lies within the Piedmont Region of North Carolina and the
Piedmont tributaries are usually swift and turbid, flowing
through narrow flood plains. Spanning approximately 125 feet,
the Neuse River is characterized by a muck bottom and at the
time of the natural resource investigation, had a water depth of
approximately 3 feet. Piedmont levee forests occur on natural
levees adjacent to the river.
Four culvert sites are located within the project area,
carrying waters of Beaverdam Creek, two unnamed tributaries to
Beaverdam Creek and a direct tributary to the Neuse River.
These tributaries of the Neuse River are characterized by
muck/sand bottoms and adjacent vegetation is comprised of
bottomland hardwood species. Stream width varies from 3 to 5
feet, with the exception of Beaverdam Creek, which has a stream
width of approximately 10 to 15 feet. Water depth was less than
a foot and a half at all sites. Jurisdictional wetlands are
associated with Beaverdam Creek, while the unnamed tributaries
are comprised of surface waters only.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of
North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). A summary of "best usage" water classifications for
water resource components likely to receive impacts are listed
in Table 6 below. A summary of the "best usage" for each stream
component likely to receive impacts is summarized below. Any
stream which is not named in the schedule of stream
classifications carries the same classification as that assigned
to the stream segment to which it is tributary.
Table 6. "Best Usage" Classifications of Water Resources
WATER RESOURCE
Neuse River
Beaverdam Creek
CLASSIFICATION
C
C
Class C designates waters suitable for secondary
recreation, aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife and agriculture. The supplemental classification of
32
NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) indicates waters needing
additional nutrient management (particularly fertilizer run-off)
due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring
sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates.
Good water quality is associated with both high taxa richness
values and the presence of many intolerant forms. Water quality
degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and
leads to a community structure quite different from that in an
unstressed stream. The Neuse River crossing at Wake Crossroads
on NC 401 received a bioclassification of Good-Fair in August
1989.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters, Outstanding
Resource Waters, nor Water Supplies (WS-I, or WS-II) will be
impacted by the proposed project, nor do they occur within one
mile of the project area. No National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits have been issued within the
project area.
Water Resource Impacts
Impacts to water resources can have far reaching effects,
both spatially (distance from the initial disturbance) and
temporally (up the food chain). Impacts to water resources
include the following:
- Culverts and/or pipes will be extended, reducing the linear
feet of natural stream channel.
- Increased sedimentation from construction and/or erosion.
- Changes in light incidence due to shading and vegetation
removal.
- Alterations of water level due to interruptions or
additions to surficial and/or groundwater flow.
- Scouring of stream beds due to the channelization of
streams.
e. F1oodDlain Involvement
The City of Raleigh and Wake County are both participants
in the National Flood Insurance Program. Figure 8A and 8B are
copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Map showing the limits of the
100-year floodplain and floodway in the vicinity of the Neuse
River crossing and the Beaverdam Creek crossing. The
floodplains for the Neuse River and Beaverdam Creek in the
project vicinity are rural and wooded. The proposed roadway
improvements will have no significant impact on these
33
floodplains as defined by 23 CFR 650.105(q). The proposed
bridge for the northbound lanes (over the Neuse River) will
require roadway fill in the floodplain on the downstream (east)
side of the existing roadway; however, the degree of
encroachment will be no worse than that of the approach roadway
fill for the existing bridge. Since this would not create a
backwater in excess of the regulatory floodway elevation, it is
anticipated that a floodway modification will not be required.
Figures 8A and 8B show the 100-year floodplain for the Neuse
River and Beaverdam Creek crossings, respectively.
f. Wetlands
Surface waters and their associated wetlands fall under the
broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33
CFR 328.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes
jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill material into
these waters as authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Of the five waterbodies crossed, Beaverdam Creek has 0.6
acres of associated wetlands, located to the east and west of
the existing alignment (Figure 2). Jurisdictional wetlands are
characterized as Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous,
Temporarily flooded (PF01A) as defined by Cowardin et al (1979).
This wetland community was identified in the project corridor on
the basis of low soil chroma values, hydrophytic vegetation and
the presence of hydrology or hydrological indicators, such as
stained, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees,
buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
The Neuse River crossing involves no wetlands since the
soil is a well drained, non-hydric soil.
4. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
a. Air Quality
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions
from industrial and internal combustion engines are the most
prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway
construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air quality. The 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 ra?e). 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.
34
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.
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.
35
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 (1997), five years after
completion year (2002) and the design Year of 2017 using the EPA
publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", the MOBILE4.1
mobile source emissions computer model for idle emissions, and
the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer model for free
flow conditions.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with
the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management,
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.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be
located at the intersection of US 401 and SR 2108 (New Hope
Road).
The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the
evaluation build years of 1997, 2002 and 2017 for the worst-case
air quality scenario are as follows:
36
1-Hour CO Concentration
(PPm)
Receptor 1997 2002 2017
REC 4 (NW CORNER) 4.0 3.9 5.1
REC 6 (SW CORNER) 5.6 5.5 7.0
REC 7 (SE CORNER) 6.2 6.0 6.8
REC 9 (NE CORNER) 5.3 5.0 6.3
The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the
evaluation No-build years of 1997, 2002 and 2017 for the worst-case
air quality scenario are as follows:
1-Hour CO Concentration
(PPm)
Re ceptor 1997 2002 2017
REC 4 (NW CORNER) 4.9 6.4 8.6
REC 6 (SW CORNER) 6.4 6.4 6.9
REC 7 (SE CORNER) 5.8 5.3 6.9
REC 9 (NE CORNER) 5.7 5.5 7.0
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.
Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9
ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the
standard.
The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. Wake county has recently been designated as a
moderate nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (0 ).
The attainment date is 12/31/95 for CO and 11/15/96 for 0 TR
current State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contaiV any
transportation control measures (TCM) for Wake county. The Raleigh
2010 Thoroughfare Plan (TP) and Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) have been determined to be in conformity to the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments and the Interim Conformity Guidance dated June 7, 1991
on the dates of November 15, 1991 and September 30, 1992,
respectively. There has been no significant change in the project's
design concept and scope, as used in the TIP conformity analysis.
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
37
the Contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at
the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when
atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only 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.
b. Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
improvements to US 401 in Wake County on noise levels in the
immediate project area. 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 is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is
emitted from many sources including airplanes, factories,
railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of
noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some
common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound
pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels
and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A,
B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places most emphasis on the
frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-
6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using A-weighting are often
expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, references will be
made to dBA, which means an A-weighted decibel level. Most
individuals in urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise
levels from many sources as they go about their daily
activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted
38
sound depends essentially on three things: 1) the amount and
nature of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship between the
background noise and the intruding noise, and 3) the type of
activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is
important to note that individuals have different hearing
sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some more than others
and some individuals become aroused to anger if an unwanted
noise persists. The time patterns of noise also enter into an
individual's judgement of whether or not a noise is
objectionable. For example, noises occurring during sleeping
hours are usually considered to be much more objectionable than
the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge
the annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship
to noise from other sources (background noise). The blowing of
a car horn at night when background noise levels are
approximately 45 dBA would generally be much more objectionable
than the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when background
noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise
with activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible while sleep might be difficult.
Work activities requiring high levels of concentration may be
interrupted by loud noises while activities requiring manual
effort may not be interrupted to the same degree.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the
noises which intrude into their lives, particularly if the
noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts
have been made to regulate many of these types of noises
including airplane noises, factory noise, railroad noise, and
highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise,
methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly over the
past few years.
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are
not compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and
procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways.
These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the
aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). 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.
39
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of
the project to determine the existing background noise levels.
The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the
existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for
assessing the impact of noise level increases. The field data
was also used to establish ambient noise levels for residences
and businesses in the vicinity of the project. The measured
existing Leq noise levels along US 401 are presented in the
following table:
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
NOISE
SITE LO CATION DESCRIPTION LEVEL
(dBA)
1 US 401, 0.1 mile E of US 1 Grassy Area 64
2 US 401, 0.26 mile E of SR 2108 Grassy Area 66
3 US 401, 0.37 mile SW of SR 2041 Grassy Area 67
4 US 401, 0.49 mile NE of SR 2041 Grassy Area 66
5 US 401, 0.28 mile NE of SR 2006 Grassy Area 66
Note: dBA levels at measurement sites were measured at 50 feet
from the center of the nearest lane of traffic.
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 1.9 to
4.8 dBA of the measured noise levels for all of the locations for
which 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 prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated
procedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continual changing highway configuration
and surrounding terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made.
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
40
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.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. Only those
existing natural or man-made barriers were included. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and
at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents "worst-case" topographic
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are
highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during
the year being analyzed.
Peak hour 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. Thus, during all other
time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to enable the
determination of the number of land uses (by type) which, during the
peak hour in the design year 2017, would be exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those
land uses. predicted to expect 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 maximum number of receptors in each activity category that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in
Table N5. Table N2 (in the Appendix) gives a description of the
activity categories. 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.
Fifty-eight residences and six businesses are noted as impacted
by both criteria. 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
in local jurisdiction and to prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses.
41
TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Maximum Predicted Contour Approx. No. of Impact
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptor s Ac cording to
Desc. dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
1. 75 71 65 120' 199' 0 2 3 0 1
2. 74 70 65 112' 188' 0 26 3 0 0
75 71 65 116' 193' 0 14 1 0 0
4. 77 73 67 156' 253' 0 13 0 0 0
5. 77 73 67 157' 253' 0 17 4 0 0
TOTAL 0 72 11 0 1
Descriptions:
1. US 1 to New Hope Church Road
2. New Hope Church Road to Raleigh city limits
3. Raleigh city limits to Northern Wake Expressway
4. Northern Wake Expressway to SR 2042
5. SR 2042 to SR 2224
42
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Substantial
Noise Level
Sect. <=0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 >17
1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6
2. 0 0 0 0 0 24 5 0 0 0 29
3. 0 0 0 2 11 9 1 0 0 0 3
4. 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 13
5. 0 0 0 0 1 5 14 0 2 0 20
TOTAL 0 0 0 2 12 38 40 0 2 0 71
Traffic noiseimpacts 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
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower
portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise abatement measures must
be given to receptors which fall in either category.
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 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.
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.
43
The project will maintain no control of access, meaning most
commercial establishments and residences will have direct driveway
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 eight (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).
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 two
qualities and thus, would ndt 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.
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not
occur, 33 residences would experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors are
anticipated to experience an increase in exterior noise levels in the
range of +1 to +8 dBA. As previous noted, it is possible to barely
detect level changes of 2-3 dBA. and a 5 dBA change in noise levels
is more readily noticeable, when real-life noises are heard. A 10
dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the
loudness of the sound.
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby
and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth
moving equipment during grading operations. 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.
44
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not feasible or reasonable 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 reports are required for this project.
E. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with the
construction of highways. These are generally of short term duration and
measures will be taken to minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be
removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the
contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with the applicable
laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (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 practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be
made under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-3 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures ,
which is entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". The
N.C. Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program which has been approved by the N.C. Sedimentation Control
Commission. This program consists of the rigorous requirements to
minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard
Specifications together with the policies of the Division of Highways
regarding the control of accelerated erosion on work performed by State
Forces.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of
way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans
or special provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is
permitted by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by
the Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of
the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding
areas for mosquitos. In addition, care will be taken not to block
existing drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Prior to
construction, a determination will be made regarding the need to relocate
or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A determination of
45
whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible this will be
made at that time. In all cases, the contractor is required to notify the
owner of the utility in advance as to when this work will occur. In
addition, the contractor is responsible for any damages to water lines
incurred during the construction process. This procedure will insure that
water lines, as well as other utilities, are relocated with a minimum of
disruption of service to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief
disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be made
to insure the transportation needs of the public are met both during and
after construction.
General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near
the project can be expected, particularly from paving operations and from
earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering
the relatively short term nature of construction noise, these impacts are
not expected to be significant. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby structures will moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
F. Permits
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
A symmetrical widening of the alignment in the vicinity of Beaverdam
Creek will likely require a Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26), due
to wetland impacts exceeding 0.3 acre. This permit authorizes discharges
of dredged or fill material into headwaters provided: 1) The discharge
does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters of the US. 2) The
permittee notifies the district engineer if the discharge would cause the
loss of more than 1 acre of waters of the US, in accordance with the
"Notification" general condition. For dischargers into wetlands, the
notification must include a delineation. 3) The discharge, including all
attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project.
It is anticipated that other culverted stream crossings will be
authorized by Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14)]. Nationwide #14
allows for road crossing fills of non-tidal "Waters of the United States",
provided that the fill does not exceed 200 linear feet below the plane of
ordinary high water mark of the adjacent waterbodies and that the fill
placed in waters of the U.S. is limited to a filled area of no more than
one third acre.
A General Permit (CESAW-C082-N-000-0031) is likely to apply to the
bridge replacement over the Neuse River. This permit authorizes the
placement of fill material associated with the construction , repair or
replacement of bridges spanning navigable waters and waters the United
States. However, final judgement concerning specific permit jurisdiction
is reserved by the COE.
46
A section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any
activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is
required. State permits are administered through the DEHNR.
It seems likely that stream channel modification and or relocation
will be required for the west side of Beaverdam Creek. Approximately 50
to 100 linear feet of stream will be affected. In accordance with the
1976 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (72 Stat. 563, as amended; 16 USC
661 et seq.), NCDOT will coordinate such activities with the US Fish and
Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Due to the minimal nature of impacts to the project area, it is
anticipated that an individual environmental permit will not be required.
Existing drainage patterns and groundwater will not be affected by the
proposed project. Standard erosion and sedimentation control measures
will be specified in the final design plans for implementation during
construction.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide permits or
General permits are authorized, according to the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Government Response
Comments on the proposed improvements to US 401 were requested from
the following federal, state, and local agencies. An asterisk indicates
that a written response was received. Responses are included in the
Appendix.
*City of Raleigh
Mayor of Raleigh
Wake County Commissioners
*Wake County Schools
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Region J Planning Agency
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*U.S. Department of Transportation - FHWA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
47
In addition to the above comments, the subject project was further
coordinated with local government and NCDOT officials. The City of Raleigh
expressed an interest in construction of sidewalks along the project where
they do not currently exist specifically on the west side of US 401 from
US 1 to Sinclair Drive. Sidewalks will be provided for this section in
addition to an 8-foot berm behind the curb throughout the project to allow
for the future construction of sidewalks. See Section I.B.9. for details
concerning the sidewalk policy.
Median openings are recommended to be located at all major road
crossings. Additional median access points will be evaluated in the
design stage of the project. In a letter dated July 7, 1992 (located in
the Appendix) the City of Raleigh requested specific median access at New
Hope Road, Spring Forest Road, the proposed Northern Wake Expressway, Fox
Road, and Perry Creek Road. A partial median opening (allow only left
turns from US 401) was requested for Calvary Drive due to insufficient
storage space and current traffic congestion.
The city was also concerned with the absence of direct traffic
movements between US 1 and US 401, and requested clarification of how
these movements will be provided for. This is currently being studied by
DOT and the results will be included in the FONSI.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was concerned with the
hydraulic opening for the new structure over the Neuse River since the
Falls Lake Dam was constructed after the existing bridge over the Neuse
River was built (thus reducing the bridge length). The Hydraulics Unit
stated this would be determined in the final design.
B. Public Response
In addition to the written requests for input from appropriate
agencies and governmental bodies, a citizens informational workshop was
held on July 28, 1992 at the Green Road Community Center to discuss the
subject road improvement. The meeting was advertised by the major local
media prior to its being held. Approximately 20 persons attended the
informal gathering including representatives of the NCDOT and the FHWA.
The residents were generally interested in how their individual properties
would be affected by the proposed improvements. One concern that property
owners shared was their limited access to US 401 if the median divided
section is recommended. They expressed strong support for a 5-lane curb
and gutter section throughout the project length. Some residents felt the
widening should continue beyond the Neuse River to Rolesville. All
comments received thus far in the planning process have acknowledged the
need for a wider roadway to improve safety and accommodate current and
projected traffic volumes.
A highway project, R-2814, is scheduled for planning studies to begin
in 1995. This project calls for extending the widening of US 401 to NC 39
in Louisburg.
AHS/plr
FIGURES
r \ '101 Roger, Elore ?0
1911
190 Cr.
f^ I.:':?'I ? ' ,h 1909, 191
•'`i t. PP'{ t / ? e 191 /J 'J -
??\j' j 1 ? Cr V, lad] /\\
h 3 711(
94
1909 .1,'N.
\ \ t1 B p • 1972
1{A?\ I J
Purnell `.L974
WAKE COUNTY.
e
?\ ayleaf ?j, 1917
?y C{
z.I
STATE Fps
(PARK
Falh ?
ATE. t' \ WAKE FORESL". 9
/ARK POP 4.780:,
7. la7_ l?" I? \.y ?0 d
y rJ \ 1003 / . ?`J?7
\ \ -- l r 1 Sf {
CAMP
?{thy
.•.. 1 1000 J ; _ \ 73
30 "
loo! 0{' A4116rooi "' / AKE rAP Neese `
GRESHA M17 Cr-U d, T0'h ri
e t? ? 7
\ P 1` \ 7
A
/ ' '4 I OS LI OR \ \ 401
2000 ;tAU . !
? Crw, r
A
\ 1007
r
',G// : RALEIGH ;.W H Po `,
IUNRV
1009 POP. IM,25 _ 'G f INSET
AU R7 7G / J
t' SEE FIGURE 1B ,rH
Fowlsn
FE 13A7 fAV Widw, Cs,vw r? / f` C(wuoad,
R 't 7.e ?G 1007
9 so
r'? :VEL'SEOCA
.yr7 i t?? LAKE 4 Q.
•.,. ? Milblwr,ie
w1? .p ? •, S \o
70 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 010 3517 3542 loo yi'KNIOHT°Al TRANSPORTATION
GARNER POP. 985 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
I31ZANCH
RIJEK i471 7'° US 401, FROM US 1
'7 TO MITCHELL MILL ROAD (SR 2224)
RALEIGH, WAKE COUNTY
z 7 1311 of R - 2425
>
L .117
Ruby„ ? 2342 ry
J 01 ??
LA FIGURE IA
1 KE
.? I w 7L loo .NYRA
170 ? 1}77
• aO;C ?Ywn
`µ.r .NS
1,11
a h
yi/ 3 . f _r 1'Y
?6 C
ho
l / j: ?o?F couasE ?a? r " d ?°SS
?yq
j arc i A O? l'
r4 G t cy ,y? Qj?
-'?--. I ? ? ?•? " meek
/Vet/s
%R r
?Va\ \?\re s
?? dy
B-ugOS Bite N gre
I .w
'erw_??

V-o
ar
h ? V
? wM
fhb • zr ? ? ?$ R??e?N'
hell, h,
s ? ??js Po/nou^d - is
c
e•JV ?Qf y" H I e C
Qj? sc oogArjsf C
s .s j, b
C16
a
^r ?
R? r
op e
ra r O ??. ? Ha`e s d Y?
1^^9
a .?
A
O? , c
?I ???-` 1 s?pOyL
pc'
5
O > dAp a^? l
M`tc'oeOaMd
Alpheus Jones House
FIGURE 1R
vni

z
O?
I- Q
UO
w aC
U)
OOz
ac=Q
U3: 0
C) zW
w
oo?
Q- N
O '-
cr
CL D
r- 2
O
qt a:
C/) Ll-
D
4--
N d'
d r

rl
r?
r
?L
r
N
r!

0
U
m
FIGURE 3
Z
O w Q

w O cn
CO ?
W
Cl) o o?
O O x z
v CC w Q
0
o 0 ? w o
r
w 0 a ?

O =

CL
Z C\j

? z w
CL
F-
o
.,t oC O
VJ Z

_i
co
Z N
O N
N
W ?

_ o Q z

U
c

C)
w O
Cl) N
?
N
O CL o
°' w

O
_ ?
_
T
o ?

^ Cr
:D u-

0
U
m
N

NI
I
N
N
0
N
i

N
co (3
U
tp
tV
FIGURE 3A
.
I ID
00 :
LU
w w L

% l L
a a z
s a o m° I I I ?() ui

z 0 a. o ,
..,
a
,
a
z a a a y o ?D
cc 0
; .;
9
'
a 7 I m .
.
. y
?
w - :; a
a IN, LL

LL

...00.00 ¦
? ? I? / •00.0000 ¦•¦?•• . ? # m P ?? r '? ,.
• "'w„x ? i t •i ? ?
' srl I. v _ ,S ' i 1•? ?N 'rr ' i ?!-i' 1• .? •?p¦.¦.¦ 0000)0! o a
( ?V
,
•••
j?7 I ? ? •
11"hh ' r 4 ?•
g . ? ? ? _ ?? z I jpOH r ? • ? .??? x
ar 1 ? ii • ? ?1 ? _ 5 ,. ?, - ,«o ? ? ? ?? ,r ?,'? ? Horror s _
r
'B
1 V l VV
-% ab ? ? \ ? o (l'y' ? '?. - TO`i ???1 ?' - 111 k. ? r. 1`, ? I ? •
• ? I I_
V _ I7 _ ? s r 4 fk _7 ,fir r - ?]? I .? r,. (4'` v¦
.? • ., i r \? r _ I ?' r ,_ 1. 1 1_ // -!% ¦
• W t.n 4 f y ?? ?. ??w J y
- • ? 1 ? ?? c,> k .!1 ! i `'r yil i 'rv i ? tn',' `0 I .
J.. • i` i ? 1- - --_., (J .l ?? R V+ 7 ? ? ? Cl ? <? ?c ? ? ?-,P on r n gx ? ,S' Y ?•• ? -
?) i 1? G-I ,{` t arrr U.sY Z t xx n - -
14 jj
t
0'i JM -? '[$ ',???f' I '/ ' , _ ' P ?_ i? \ ? ax tllrol n IMr, i I i ?, ` 1 ' r
J r, •
x?a ¦ ? ? ? ` J? ?,' - - ? ? '? _ 11 a oox??? s ??i ?I ' ' • 1
v° ,=_ r •'t'?? ?.` 17? L,l ,?'. -o., yI` st1uJ?7y s i, ?_ ?`
1 °? p , -r -o ? nxire nix / ?_ r- __(
' e k ?? ?? ; y ; E ) f v ?1 r
/ / - ?? f ' '' • r
r • unKCx p0 ` ? L - 1
e f
i
A
? l :, IrJ i -- ? ur, xslxxv yy xar, xr nr f. ? ?" ? .
p eera `fir ?TAb'?? .rYxl ? •° of n ? ?' W /k -.' O ?-
7r? • r?? /?xrnre
r "7 .??_?: • x'xx sxe. rsr ss Y ; 66, .___ _ ``? l -?, ? i
?9v' iN ? ? 6811 ', trr?' ?t \ \ rt; 5 i .
I r ,J
• '
tF-
? ?_ r srox 1? -- - x
..? T / ?' ? __'._ ? f1 `' - ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ ¦l¦¦¦ 001010 S°U???•¦ 7
'/ I ' rer ?xmnr =?? 11 as x `J
i-V _f->!} YLIr?T r4 IIck
k, Y
III

38VJHJno8oHl :40 N01180d

its

I an

1 m, 1

,T2 n • r \ wn
v ? ,
?
.Yr _.J
^" alt t

ct
tut I
I
1
I m w.
/
J .
.
1 ? I •

N ?
1

? t wN , rA /
Own
?
? -
It
till VJ

-- , -?

I r
// ? ' fAft - -

V5 32tl1Si3
yob -sn g Z661 'd39W31d3S
Y ?
6?1, •9
S
r
s T
a
f,0c',
b ?! bb
?r ?\ * i7 nr,
9! 6 Z t -i,T
.e -7
F 6s ?T CZ
9t l
g rt-9 77
f'!c'? 6eJ o 2 ?S CL TZS
LCI
6! OOS 90 LZ-bg
9Z l 9 l B O l
d' l B R
'L 6 d b? ? "? IZS
s` t Z?
b/ o? T ?r • ?c 9?6
99
!T6' ?s J0()P c,
OS -, S( -LS7tf0--4
?, £L 9bl cJNltidS
s ?` ?Z ?boz-bs
0s
s?o
c>,b ?Z C I l S C b
r
'r g C ` 8 0l
L 0 L 061 0 z OT 8 b_? 0
Z 91 -Fu
ZO% ?e Iolo? L 9C 910
LT
-Fz L*
•? ss e l l
lC7 Soo
?T Z? 6
b Z Z Z- b S 9*9 ?b0c'. Z I)
?C
d0
0T9 oplc?,b 07 6,
'?1/)O Nd?'1Sd?
S
LOt?-Sn Css
gg? OCIP
b?6
Sa3HGNnH
NI S3wn-ion lad - s n
-Oo Ej>iv1M LLOZ L66L 031MUS3
E19 aaflOI3
SS 6 Z T 9 £ ELZZ-2IS
SS 6 Z T T9T T8 9EOZ-Hs
SS 6 Z T OZ OT ZTZZ-8S
SS 6 Z T L6 LV ETZZ-HS
SS 6 Z T TL 9£ ZVOZ-?IS
SS 6 Z T TZT 19 900Z-Hs
SS 6 Z T 9VT UL 9t+TZ--ds
SS 6 Z T TZS Z9Z 80TZ-HS
SS 6 Z T SEP BIZ TVOZ-HS
SS 6 Z T 89 U£ 6EOZ-21S
S S 6 Z
T ` * (IU LSaHOa '
9 4 Z S T T aXY14 Q'Io

SS
6
S
OT
L06
9ST, dOOZ
Halflo NMHZSva
SS 6 6 Z E95 E8Z T0IP-SII
SS 6 v z 968 OSp T-S!1
SS 6 b Z 6ETT S99 T0v 'T-sn
S, OOT NI LaV
IHIQ IAHQ trivna 2ZSS
b
, H,LnoH
LTOZ L66T
aino i aS saauaNnH NI iav LTOZ/L661 "ZSH
SZbZ-H
'00 Hxvm Z661 'HREM31dHS
?5 3?n?13
r
r -
:.s 01
11_ T C
cp o
0

?-
O N co

ch Cb (D

W
o
Lin
CM
Rio
°? -- ' se 6L Z O L to
C-i
t T s Z5 cn
?m

1W^ F OD
L / ??
N
rm
W
co
<<?
Oc.
(70
o?
co
CAN •
r
r-
TT 6 -1- c-1 m- L L 1 r' M
0? chi
ao ?n
CO)
to

-- -T-,
Qg1 32It1Ji3
Cf9 6 I -- V iJ L L 69 UO T StlogX! I
PH ad 0R M?'t1
=4 T 9T L ?9 TOii sn

91j 6 Z T T T L T3 T 8 O T 7, T3
spa zpunq LIT
ICIIQ AHQ `TvAc IT, S I„L U-TV ,LS', ;a,L00?3

O
,O
/V
°'
O
°' LTOZ J_ ,66T
UOTI72.ZT.?1 pul; ' AIIQ ' q, TVn(I ' J,S,L L
uOT suaIXR PP-O?,I arTOH MaM
A-?unc,:D -,)sIeM
366T ' Jz ?gO'TO O
19 azin5I3 I
sztpz - a
AlNn03 3HdM `HJi3'1` 8
(bZZZ 8S) OV08 'I-1IW 1l3HOlIW Ol
l sn WOu:j`l06 sn
HON` UH JP'
'Id,LN3WNOHIAN3 QNV ONINNYW
SAVMHOIH,40 NOISIAM
N0I.LVIH0dSNVB,L
i0 .LNHWI1TVdS(1 VNI'10SY0 HIHON W1
aoTAaaS ;0 janaT e anaTtjoe Ol lot Sn 3o sTIOT13aaTV tljoq
ur iu?j auo go iTOra TPPp atp palplrssaoau seuinjoA la-gals aprS
-----------------------------+
1 Q 130S 8'83 1 Wd I Ppo2l TTrW uo5rq\TTau04rW 4P-lot-Sni
+------+-----------------------------------
G 1 oas g' fi£ I Wv 1 PP08 TTTW uonrZ\Tratl347W lob SO;
.{..- - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T
1 0 i oas C-91 I Wd I PPOd :IaaaO Aaaad le 10V SO 1
+-------------------------------------$.-
1 0 1305 £'LT I WV I P?oh' ?IGGaO AJIad 4e TOV S'ni
------------------------------------------------------------ +
i g ioas g'ZI 1 Wd I p?od 3 4-. lot SOI
-+------------------------------------+
i S 10as 0'gT I wv 1 nnoa xog 4P lot SnI
+----- . ------------------------------------------------------
-----+------+------------------------------------+
--- no3 4- a,zo a nura S 4p TOV SO l
0 ioas p'9Z i ca I p s
i W,
+------T-------------------------`---------+
i D, ioas 8"£Z i WV ? pPod 4saJog nurads 11? lot S.l
-------------------------------------------------------------
0 i ?as Z ' Z£ I Wd i sauPT 8 t11TM npod adoH Mats VP TO'b SO!
------------------------------------------------------------
I Q 1 oaS 9-6C I WV I saur T 8 tI TLM PPOh adOH Mall +1E! IOiV SO'
t -----+------+------------------------------------+
T- - - - 3 I0as p•£r, Wd 9 u4rn1 I11-0?1 aQ0H M2N :I;- lot Sfl ! *
I. aupT _
------------------+
j 3 1108F, ZL i WV I sau>,T 9 ti47M PT?08 adoH Mafj DI-- lot Sn' *
+ - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T
-----+--------- ,
------------------------------------------------------------
S Ions L'vT wd .c)x,oh • J,DjntT3 satrcxrr '),S :?P lot, Sill
i I
--------------------------------------------------------------
1 g i oas 5 ' I T- i WET I pr-oh ttoantlo SaulPr -Is :?1' T0v Sn 1
--------------------- -------+
1 S01 I wri3Q I Nvad I ----- NOIZN00rl1
+-----+---------+------+------------------------------------+
LLOZ
soplawoa!D uoijoasaajul pasodWd ql!m
a0?naas1o 19A9-1
VL 3unou

i
r r.AL AL .
0
U)
D
9ZbZ-b NI a3amONI
SOli3wO3J
NOl1n3SH31N1 a3ZIIVNJIS
a3SOdOHd 3unln.j
(go ?z Hs) aboa
DcIOH MAN 1`d l.Ot Sfl
GL 3anou
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
t l I I ?__-_ i t
I I I I ?.___ I I
)I I! I I! ; I I
?i
O
V'
U)
(9Zt z-d }O wed
a se papnioui IOU)
SOU3W030
N01103SH31N1 43ZI-IdNJIS
i? a3S0d0Hd 3anin3 -
t_.._? I I ! ill !
f=--? I I I ?
F=`1 i I I
f.=

'l
? I
T I ?
O I
I I

S0113NO30
NOU03SH31N1
a3ZI?VNJIS (13SOdOl?d
4tOZ as) adoa ls31?0-1
OrvR?Ias se wt sn
i j
oL 3bnoi3
? I I I ! I
VIII ?Ii
i I I! r=1 I I i
I? +!4114 r-l
? I
E-
(9ZbZ-8 jo lied
8 sB popnloui lou)
S0113W03J
N01103Sa31Nl a3ZI-lbNJIS
a3SOdOdd 3anln-?
SO113W03J
NOIlO3SH31N1
4=Z VNOIS a3SOdOdd
(ztoz Hs) oboe
xo-? id ?ot sn
r
f
aL 38nou
0
I I I ? I
I I I ? ?
II!III' -? I I
I?I?I?I -d I I ?
~--, I I
0
IQ-
co

(SZbZ-d 10 Ixed
e se papnloui jou)
S0113WO30
N01103SH31N1 a3ZI-IVNJIS
a3SOdOUd 3unlnd
S0113W03J
N011036831Nl
a3ZIIVNJIS a3SOdOEId
(9003 us) adoa
>133a? AaaDd IV ?ot sn
3L 3unJld

?I I I I
?I I I i
I I I I? I ? I
V V . V. 4
iI
I
5
I I
I I
I I
I I ?
I I
?-
!
?...??;
-? I I i I I

D

(SZt,Z-H Jo tied
n ss papnioui IOU)
S0113WO30
N01103Sa31Nl a3ZI-IVNJIS
43SOd0Ud 3Hnin=j
S0113W030
N01103SH31N1
a3ZI-IdNJIS a3S0d0Ud
(ttOz as) aeon ?-11w N091-1
(aZZZ as) adoa -1-11w ??"qH0liw lb. Lot sn
l

r ?
imits of 100-year floodIplain=
IAI
\ / is
City of Raleigh
370243 -
1

V i
236
;O
22UJ
&'uverdanl Creek ,
(Basin 15. Stream 21)
Limits of 100-year floodplain

NMENTAI,
PLANNING AND ENViRO
BRANCH
US 401, FROM US 1
TO MITCHELL MILL ROAD (SR 2224)
RALEIGH, WAKE COUNTY
R - 2425
FIGURE 8B
rJl ???
I '(
I'
i
L.
N
ti
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPENDIX

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.
(`,'r (. tI Of 6 Ra. c e l cry 7. ?•
_`%Y'orl.lz `,arolina
Ms. Pat White June 17, 1992
Triangle J Council of Governments
P. O. Box 12276
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Dear Ms. White:
The following are comments requested in your referral 92- F-4220-0915
concerning the impacts of the proposed U.S. 401 widening project from U.
S. 1 to SR 2224 (Project R-2425). These comments are taken from the U.
S. 401 Corridor Plan (enclosed), part of the Raleigh Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding the cross-section alternatives for the four sections, the U. S.
401 Corridor Plan says: "The future cross-section of U.S. 401 should
include a median prefertt bly not less that 20 feet wide. It is anticipated
that 130 feet of right-of-way will be needed between Capital Boulevard
and New Hope Road (six-lane divided with 16 foot raised landscaped
median), 150 feet of right-of-way will be needed in the section between
New Hope Road and Perry Creek Road (six-lane divided with 30 foot swale
landscaped median), and 220 feet in the section north of Perry Creek Road
(towards Rolesville, (four-lane divided with 46 foot ditch- type median)."
Note that this calls for a six-lane section between Fox Road and Perry
Creek Road (not one of the suggested alternatives). This larger section
may be needed due to the continuation of Perry Creek Road on the east side
of U. S. 401 as a major thoroughfare as proposed in the plan and the higher
intensity uses called for west of the Neuse River.
The 401 Plan further iterates the need for a median when it says:
"Medians are recommended to ensure smooth traffic flow and to improve
the aesthetics of the corridor."
This project will have significant impacts on the historic houses on the
corridor. According to the U. S. 401 Plan, "A large number of historic sites
remain along U. S. 401 North which add to its rural character. These sites
include: the Sion Rogers House, the Ivey-Hedrick House, the Alpheus (Seth)
Jones House, a mil! site on the O'hara-Stell Farm, the Rogers-Whitaker-
Haywood House and the Matthew Perry House." The right-of-way plan
which was originally proposed for this project avoided coming too close
to these historic landmarks and should be adhered to. The historic
heritage along this roadway should be protected as called for in the
corridor plan.
A concentration of housing and employment uses west of the Neuse River
is called for in the U.S. 401 Corridor Plan. This is to be partially
supported by transit tying this area to nearby U. S. 1. Providing this area
for high intensity development allows the plan to provide for low
intensity development east of the River. This land use configuration will
encourage the use of the proposed transit and discourage exclusive
reliance on U. S. 401 by auto traffic.
Other standards for the improvement of U. S. 401 called for in, the U. S.
401 Plan include: "The full movement median cross-overs should occur
only at the intersection with other thoroughfares and at the interchange
with the Northern Wake Expressway. These cross-overs are to be the
signalized intersections. A minimum one-quarter mile full-movement
median cross-over spacing and a minimum one-half mile signal spacing is
needed to ensure proper traffic signal progression and to optimize the
landscaping contained within the median. Median openings with limited
movements should be considered on a case by case basis. Perpendicular
access should be limited where possible to 800 foot intervals.
Developments using common driveways should be encouraged."
If additional information or assistance is needed, please let us know.
Sincerely,
George B. Gfiapman AICP
Planning Director
Enclosure: U. S. 401 Corridor Plan
cc: City Manager
Carl Dawson,, Acting Transportation Director
ln?
:i
. qtr
a1'<irlrz Carolina
July 7, 1092
'i

Ms. Pat White
Triangle J Counc-i 1 )- C,ov( rnments
P .O. Box 12276
Research 'T'riangle Park, North CarOli.na 2770
RE: Referra]. i9?- -!2?0-0`rl5
Dear Ms. White:
This is supplemental i nf:cr. n :ti.on to my letter dated June 17,
1992 regarding th?t_'S '01 ;74-.nproject. e previ.ous
commented on OL'r com; renS1Ve an nog! '_ci('S COnCP_,rili_ng
median i.n US 401.
Intersections an(:
High turning ,lovemC,n . > at intersections with major
thoroughfares (hIew borne 1;nad, Spring Forest Road, proposed
Horthern Wake Freeway, i.'o;: Ro perry Creek ?oad) are
expected. Additional rne('iaji c;th to facilitate initial or
future ..onstruction of dual left-turn lanes v/ould be
desirable. Similar tre?:tmE,nts s'nould be considered ?n the side
street approaches to thes- i nter:;ect ions .
The Greater Ralei gh i I I h;,n ar ea `Thoroughfare Plan includes
proposed extensions of S;pv i ng Forest Road ( SP 2041) , Fox Road
( SR 2042 ) and Perry Cr c-,ek R()ad ( SF 2006 .
Partial median openings ( c1, ?-;1..1.ow 1_I-ft tar; s ,ffcoin US 901 to
Calvary Drive and Old N]o?; ilnne I',oad should !)e considered. Fti]1
movement openings are o rr,C(-)m111e C'eU :11aF tO i_nSuf f ] C I_eilt.
storage and increased ne--! (o; tra;-fic signals.

f pErdr -ian FaciIiti
? vkz?
ac_c,ommodate oex J boing and e f ut=?re pedestr`an- t omm n:±? ::
signals should incorporate pedestrian cros;i ?
Greenways
___
'1'wo proposed greenway corridors cross thir_; ;>, r t.. The Dam Creek Corridor is planned to ovi
serving northeast Raleigh
Due to t ,1e } ! ci, r<.; f!: c, vc?li?mes
expected on Louisburg Road, it would b( de
culvert underpass for this eenwa 1)1 V i d
9-r Y • The Neu _ „i
is one of the most important green,?,ay r.c,1;
Sufficient width at the Neuse River br .i(1 r 1611eig}
?,ccoi;?mc,dat?greenway paths along both sides of the woulc' c;,>
desirable. A canoe access point is proposci ;1c,1
Of Louisburg Road east of the river. >u }, s
UtiIiti(-, ?;
` he i'ity has recently installed
LO11':,bulj-g Road west of the Neuse
e-,ces - O1: 14 feet under ground at
cror?c t;1 t. depth of approximately
.-tv of Beaver Dam Creek.
a major 1:; ne u
that t?oi nl
6-8 >,'m" water lines are installed in
f-c>rt ion:, of the corridor- (16" from US 1
%041 t_.o Sinclair
Drive, 6" near SR
appro'r=saLed funds to' install a 16"
cnrri _ic r in 1995. It would be desirable
rq'; part of the roadway project.
oorcinaLi.ng our project with yours when
`hank you for including
ear:li r letter.
sincc?r'??Y? ? --
61
G, eorge P,. Chafeman, I(CP
ty N,anager
CM/PIann.ing
Carl r_)a?q scn,
Cf1, C/mE-, -

t o s':%
6 r c,1,1 ?i.-

water ? ? ,_ r,ugi'c>uf: '
to } 1
i:?e
.
d
app, f ' .
these comments „i _;I _;s,., ()t our-
& Development
Acting Transportation Dire1---w-

City Of Raleigh
,Worth earolina
October 6, 1992
Ms. Liza Mundt
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: U.S. 401 Widening Project, R-2425 Raleigh
Environmental Assessment/Greenway Accommodation
Dear Ms. Mundt:
Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation and your request for information, the following is
provided. Attached, please find prior correspondence regarding the above issue. Again, two greenway
corridors would be impacted by the 401 Project - the Beaver Dam Creek Greenway Corridor and the
Neuse River Greenway Corridor.
A separate, elevated box (tunnel) is desirable at the Beaver Dam Creek Greenway crossing for
pedestrian and bicycle use. This box culvert should be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide and eight (8) feet
high and lighting should be provided due to the potential width of the road facility.
Sufficient width at the Neuse River bridge to accommodate greenway paths along both sides of the
river would be desirable. The standard paved section for a greenway trail is ten (10) feet. In addition,
a canoe access point is planned on the south side of Louisburg Road, east of the river.
1
I look forward to providing additional input regarding these desired facilities when design work is
initiated on this project. If I can be of further assistance at this time, please do not hesitate to call me at
890-3285. Thank you.
Sincerely,
I
Wayne
. Schindler, ASLA
Park and Greenway Planner
Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department
cc: Jack C. Duncan, Parks and Recreation Director
Dick Bailey, Design Development Administrator
Ed Johnson, Raleigh DOT

;NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
llh West b,detunn Street, l:(hwwion Builditig
Raleigh. A'('27003- 171?
July 24, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of'Planning and Research
NC Division of Highways
Charles H. Weav
Assistant State rintendent
Auxiliary Ser'i'ces
B013 F rl IER1DGE -
State Supe/ iuteudew
C' V
JUL '29 1992
R-2425, Raleigh, US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224, Wake County,
F.A. Pro-jcct M-5934(3)RS-4074(1), State Project 9.8052008
Please Lind attached communication from Bob Wentz, Superintendent for Wake
County Schools, relative to subject project.
m rl
Attachment(s)
'M ,;ni:d rmtn??liiium n//uwamr mvnn rillplrrnv

WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCH dTR
Robert E. Wentz, Superintendent Juul I(jL 2 3 1992
AUXILIARY SERVICES
July 21, 1992
Mr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
116 West Edenton Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27603-1712
RE: R-2425, Raleigh, US 401 from US 1 TO SR 2224, Wake County,
F.A. Project M- 5934(3) RS-4074(1), State Project 9.8052008
Dear Charles:
We have reviewed the information that you supplied us last month
regarding a proposal to widen US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224 in Wake
County. From an environmental impact vie«Tpoint, we are not aware of
any adverse environmental effects that the proposed project will have on
the community. No permits or approvals are required by our agency
prior to construction of the project.
From an operational perspective, the proposed widening of this section of
US 401 will certainly enhance school bus travel as we continue to
experience rapid growth in northern Wake County. However, there are
presently several house stops on US 401 North: we will need to work
closely with the department of transportation and with families with
school age children as the project planning continues. As design
progresses, we will be happy to coordinate bus stop locations with the
appropriate agencies and communicate with the parents whose children
are likely to be directly affected by this project to insure that safe school
bus transportation service will be provided.
3600 Wake Forest Road ¦ P.O. Box 28041 ¦ Ralcigh, North Carolina 27611 . [phone]
Mr. Charles H. Weaver
Page 2
July 21, 1992
----------------
Please let us know when more specific information becomes available in
the future. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input.
Sincer ly,
?-S?O
Bob Wentz
Superintendent
/.j c
c: Ray Massey, Jr.
Wyatt Harper
Pat Herron

4/
.?"•a'•iLt6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?n
' FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
E REGION FOUR ?J
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
"d December 29, 1992
`In Reo?y Aefer.To:. t
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Subject: US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224, Wake County, Federal-aid
Project No. M-5934, State Project No. 9.8052008, TIP No.
R-2425
Enclosed for your review are two copies of the Archaeological
Survey and Assessment Report with addendum and a copy of Mr.
O'Quinn's November 23, 1992 transmittal letter.
As a result of the archaeological survey on the subject project,
four sites were identified. 31WA1136, 31WA1138 and 31WA1144 are
not considered to be significant and no further work is
recommended. Site 31WA1137 is considered to be potentially
eligible for the National Register. Avoidance of this site is
recommended by placing the new right-of-way west of the existing US
401 bridge over the Neuse River. If this alignment is not
possible, additional testing of 31WA1137 is needed to determine its
National Register status.
Your concurrence in these findings is requested. Should you have
any questions, please contact Mr. Greg Punske at 856-4350.
Sincerely yours,
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., NCDOH

North Carolina Department or Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govenror ?fli+ inn rcliives and Hislory
Belly Ray McCain, secretary ¢? Willi` ice, Jr., Director
January 27, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrdtor
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation V
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
RE: US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224, Wake County,
Federal-aid Project No. M-5934, State Project No.
9.8052008, TIP No. R-2425, ER 93-7966
Dear Mr. Graf:
FEB 0 1 1993
Thank you for your letter of December 29, 1992, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Thomas C. Maher concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following sites are not eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion D:
31 WA1 136, 31 WA1 138, 31 WA 1 144, and 31 WA1 145
These sites are not considered eligible due to their disturbed condition and/or their
recent age.
Site 31 WA1 137, a deeply buried Late Archaic/Early Woodland site is potentially
eligible for the National Register. Test excavations, such as those outlined by Mr.
Maher in his report, are necessary to determine the site's eligibility. Until this
question is addressed, alteration of project plans and site avoidance is premature
and unnecessary. We recommend that 31 WA1 137 be tested at a level sufficient
to determine the site's eligibility for the National Register as soon as possible.
Potential effects of the project and appropriate mitigative measures can only be
addressed after a determination of eligibility is made.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
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.
109 G,isl Jones Slrccl iZ;ilri ll, Norlh C.irohi n 27001-2907
Nicholas L. Graf
January 27, 1993, Page 2
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.
Sincerely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: vL. J. Ward
T. Padgett

?.%iidr'`?,U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
i3 4 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION FOUR
A
310 New Bem Avenue, Suite 410 Q Q
'?,nIu?+? Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Z
September 3, 1993 DIVISICN OF
In Re er NGHWAYS
HO- FN?IRcac,.i
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic
Department of Cultural
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Preservation Officer
Resources
Subject: Archaeological Testing Study, US-401 Widening Project
from US-1 to SR 2224, Raleigh, Wake County, Federal-aid
Project No. STP-401(1), State Project No. 9.8052008,
TIP No. R-2425
Enclosed is a copy of the Phase II Archaeological Testing Report
prepared by the North Carolina Department of. Transportation
(NCDOT).
In response to your January 27, 1993 letter, NCDOT has completed an
archaeological evaluation of site 31Wa1137; a buried Late Archaic -
Early Woodland site. Based on our review of the report, 31Wa1137
appears to be significant and qualifies for the National Register
of Historic Places.
It is our opinion that the archaeological remains are not important
as exhibit for public interpretation or preservation in place and
data recover excavation is the appropriate form of treatment at
this site. We have determined that with an approved data recovery
plan, the project will have no adverse effect on site 31Wa1137.
Your concurrence in this determination is requested. Should you
have any questions, please contact Mr. Greg Punske of my staff at
856-4350, or Mr. Tom Padgett of the NCDOT Archaeology Section.
Sincerely yours,
I&?(C 40w-??
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc:
a--j.Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., NCDOH

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 15, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological testing report, US 401 widening
project from US 1 to SR 2224, Raleigh, Wake
County, STP-401(1), 9.8052008, R-2425, ER 94-
7406
Dear Mr. Graf:
will
Fa
and
owisiCti
??.. H?CH?yq of
??RONME ,
Thank you for your letter of September 3, 1993, transmitting the archaeological
testing report by Gerold Glover for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion D:
31 WA 1137
This buried Late Archaic/Early Woodland archaeological site is significant for its
potential to yield important information regarding lithic production and reduction
sequences, as well as settlement and subsistence patterns.
We believe that the site is eligible for the information it contains and is not suitable
as an exhibit for public interpretation or preservation in place. Please submit a
detailed data recovery plan with a research design and outlined of proposed
analyses, along with a draft Memorandum of Agreement for our review as soon as
possible. Please note, the data recovery plan should be submitted to the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation along with the Federal Highway Administration's
determination of No Adverse Effect.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior. Specific concerns and/or corrections which need to be addressed in
the preparation of a final report are attached for the author's use.
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.
109 East Jones Stmt - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
October 15, 1993, Page 2
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.
S10cer.ely, ,
`David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachment
cc: H. F. Vick
A. Smith
T. Padgett
Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation
`pec.it is Comments, nrch•ae!ological IeEttng Report.
,:,iM1131. US 401 Widening. Wake County, I lP Hu. P-
t . Site LIWAII57 is Located on the Wake i orusE IJ r_ S Qu adr:ancrr e map.
not the R.aiaigh to t. Quadrangle Map. The caption for Figure 1
ghnuld bH uorrected.
?. l i u r e should also show the locations of t:.ha shave l LW pits
excavated at the site.
We recommend the use of centimeters, rather than mil l ime:tr,r_: to
avoid large numbers. Whichever unit of mea._;uromnnt is used
however, it should be used consistently throughout the report,
which currently includes meters, centimeters, millimetars and
feat..
4. t':sq n lists last Unit #'< as 1GWest IOSou th and as 1 VWes G J OHor th .
Which its correct-
1'he report is in need of extensive editing and spoll`.nu
5.
corrections.
c,. The first sentence of the Conclusions section an pane is
incorrect. The testing of site 31WA1117 has nothing Lu dc,
with highway igp4c,ts, The results of the testing U di-cote the,
&ligibi.li ty of &iWA1137.
7. fwo copies of archaeolog&al reports should be submitted for our
review in the future.

/CEf V\
? O
JUN 23 1992
T
DIVISION OF
Z HIGHWAYS ©Q?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Parric Dorsey, Secretary
June 18, 1992
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archi - ?8+1is
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways-_
Department of Transpo ation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State istoric Preservation Of icer
SUBJECT: Widen US 401 from US 1 to SR 2223, Wake
County, R-2425, 9.8052008, M-5934(3),
RS-4074(1), CH 92-E-4220-0915
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
With regard to archaeological resources, we recommend that intensive
surveys be undertaken for Section B from SR 2041 to its northern end,
Section C, and Section D to locate and evaluate any archaeological sites,that
may be affected by the proposed project. Your staff may want to coordinate
some aspects of their survey with investigations undertaken in compliance
with the stipulations outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for
the Northern Wake Expressway, as some of these areas overlap with this
project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the
following structures of historical or architectural importance within the
general area of the project:
Alpheus (Seth) Jones House. East side of US 401, 0.35 mile south of
SR 2042, Raleigh vicinity. The house was placed on the National
Register on July 7, 1975, and is also designated as a local historic
landmark.
Rufus Ivey House. 6115 Louisburg Road, Raleigh vicinity. The house
was included in our state study list on July 11, 1991.
Sion Rogers, Sr. House. 4262 Louisburg Road, Raleigh vicinity. The
house was placed on our state study list on July 7, 1991, and is also
designated as a local historic landmark.
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
I.. J. Ward
June 18, 1992, Page 2
The following properties located within the area of potential effect have
not been evaluated for National Register-eligibility:
Rufus Jordan Buffaloe House No. 2. East side of SR 2036, 0.2 mile
north of SR 2215, Raleigh vicinity.
Rufus Jordan Buffaloe House No. 2. Northeast corner of SR 2215 and
SR 2036 junction, Raleigh vicinity.
House. West side of US 1, 3500 block of Capital Boulevard, Raleigh.
St. Matthews Rosenwald School. Southeast side of US 401, 0.5 mile
northeast of SR 2213, Raleigh vicinity.
New Hope Baptist Church. West side of US 401, at junction with New
Hope Road, Raleigh vicinity.
O'Hara-Steil Farm (with mill site). Northwest side of US 401, 0.5 mile
northeast of SR 2006, Wake Crossroads vicinity.
Bridge over Neuse River. US 401 over Neuse River, Wake Crossroads
vicinity.
Please note that while the MOA for the Northern Wake Expressway (R-2000)
includes mitigation for the Alpheus Jones House and the Rufus Ivey House,
it does not completely outline mitigation which may be necessary for this
project. We feel close coordination between our agencies concerning the
MOA and this project would be beneficial.
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 3,6
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: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
Federal Highway Administration
Raleigh Historic Properties Commission
F. Vick
E v
J,r•01 1114,U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION r?y
IGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL H
REGION FOUR 310 New Bem Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 August 17, 1993 A2
aepb °I I 'v QF 4
'-' VVAYS
C4ip
VA,
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Subject: Historic Architecture Survey Report for the Widening of
US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224 in Wake County; Federal-aid
Project No. M-5834(3), State Project No. 9.8052008, TIP
No. R-2425
Based on our review of the subject report, we have determined that
within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), there are three
properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places:
the Rufus J. Ivey House, the Sion H. Rogers, Sr. House and the St.
Matthews Rosenwald School. There is also one property within the
APE listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Alphus
Jones House. Furthermore, we have determined that the New Hope
Baptist Church and Cemetery are not eligible for the National
Register.
Due to the recent comprehensive survey of Wake County's
architectural resources and limited scope of this project, a phase
II survey is not required.
Your concurrence in our findings is requested. Should you have any
questions concerning these findings, please contact Mr. Greg Punske
of my staff at 856-4350, or Ms. Barbara Church, in the NCDOT
Historic Architectural Resources Section at 733-9770.
Sincerely yours,
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc:
-- - Mr. L. J.
Ward, P.E., NCDOH
^1I
;__S T
f
<kk
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James L'. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 14, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Phase I, Historic Architecture Survey Report for
widening of US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224, Wake
County, R-2425, 9.8052008, M-5834(3), ER 94-
7275
Dear Mr. Graf:

.? - T-
,'2-Division or Archives and History
Willitun S. Price, Jr., Dirccwr
Thank you for your letter of August 17, 1993, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Katherine Houston and Helen Ross for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation concerning-the above project.
The following property is included in the National Register of Historic Places:
Alpheus Jones House. The property was placed on the National Register on
July 7, 1975, for significance in agriculture.
The following properties are included in the state study list:
Rufus Ivey House. The property was placed on the study list on July 1 1 ,
1991. It was also determined eligible for the National Register on May 1 ,
1989, during Section 106 compliance for the Northern Wake Expressway
(TIP No. R-2000). The property is eligible under Criterion A for agriculture
and C for architecture.
Sion Rogers, Sr. House. The property was placed on the study list on July
11, 1991.
St. Matthews Rosenwald School. The property was placed on the study list
on October 8, 1992.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
Sion Rogers, Sr. House. Criterion C--The large Greek Revival style house is
a splendid example of a mid-nineteenth century Wake County dwelling.
17_?
r
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
Nicholas L. Graf
September 14, 1993, Page 2
St. Matthews Rosenwald School. Criterion A--The structure is a rare Wake
County example of a facility built specifically for the education of southern
black children. Criterion C--The building is a rare and intact example of a
Rosenwald School built in the early twentieth century.
The following property was determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places for the reasons cited:
New Hope Baptist Church and Cemetery. The church has undergone
numerous character-altering changes.
Please note, five other historic structures appear to be located in the area of
potential effect. These structures were recorded during the recent Wake County
survey and noted in our June 18, 1992, letter to the Federal Highway
Administration. A determination of eligibility for these structures should also be
made as part of the report.
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.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
• * Church
Kelly Lally, Wake County HPC
Q
T' .
S
0
+4ru d
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION FOUR
310 New Bern Avenue, Sufte 410
Raleigh, Nodh Carolina 27601
January 26, 1994

In Re* Refw To:
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic
Department of Cultural
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Preservation Officer
Resources
HO-E 1 ?7 \
'JAN 2 8 1994
Z
2 DIVISICN OF
C? HIGHWAYS EG
Subject: Addendum I to the Historic Architecture Survey Report,
Phase I for the Widening of US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224
in Wake County; Federal-aid Project No. STP-401(1), State
Project No. 9.8052008, TIP No. R-2425
Enclosed for your review are two copies of the subject report. In
response to your September 14, 1993 letter, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) prepared the subject report to
address your inquiry into the eligibility of the Rufus Jordan House
No. 1, Rufus Jordan House No. 2, House on the west side of US 1 in
the 3500 block of Capitol Boulevard, O'Hara Stell Farm and Bridge
No. 131 over the Neuse River.
Based on our review of the addendum, we have made the following
determinations:
a) The following properties are located outside the area of
potential effect (APE): the Rufus Jordan House No. 1, the
Rufus Jordan House No. 2 and the house on the west side of US 1
in the 3500 block of Capitol Boulevard.
b) O'Hara Stell Farm is not eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
c) Bridge No. 131 over the Neuse River is not eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places.
Your concurrence in our findings is requested. Should you have any
questions concerning these findings, please contact Mr. Greg Punske
of my staff at 856-4350, or Ms. Barbara Church, in the NCDOT
Historic Architectural Resources Section at 733-9770.
Sincerely yours,
A CJ C
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc:
--? Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E., NCDOH

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. secretary
February 22, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widening US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224, Wake
County, R-2425, 9.8052008, STP-401(1),
ER 94-8233
Dear Mr. Graf:
C, l -
FEB 2 4 IM
)urce2
2 DIVISION OF
Division ?bLivoawtml&?Y\ i
William JF....TAw-]?
Thank you for your letter of January 26, 1994, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the addendum to the Phase I historic architectural resources
survey report prepared by Clay Griffith, architectural historian for the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. Based upon the information provided in
the report, we concur with the Federal Highway Administration's determinations
regarding the five additional properties addressed in the addendum.
Specifically, we concur that the Rufus Jordan Buffaloe House No. 1 and 2 and the
house in the 3500 block of Capitol Boulevard are located outside the area of
potential effect for the project. We also concur that Bridge No. 131 is not eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places since it has little historical or
architectural significance. The O'Hara Stell Farm (with mill site) does not appear
eligible.for the National Register under Criteria A, B, or C; however, archaeological
investigations of the farm and mill site may prove that the property is eligible
under Criterion D.
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.
r
109 Fast Jones Street • Raieigb, North Carohna 27601-2807
may;; Nicholas L. Graf
February 21, 1994, Page 2
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.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Kelly Lally, Wake County Joint HPC
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM206 DEPARTMENT OF AUMINISTRATIGN
116 NEST JONES STREET E 1
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 2 It,,
y
JUN 4 1992
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT rOF v
Hi:aH,IV YS
MAILEC TO FROM
'`'tSEAFI'?N
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JLANETTE TCMCZA
LJ WARE CLEARINGHOUSE STAFF
PLANNING C ENV BRANCH
HIGHWAY BLDG/INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT 0ESC.R IPT ION
SCOPING - PRLPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 401 FROM US 1 TO SR 2224
IN WAKE COUNTY (TIP R-2425)
T YPc - SCOP IN G
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PRGJECT FCR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. `THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 92E42200915. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE ;JITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW CF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFCRE 07/20/92-
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY (QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].
NORTri CAkOLI NA STATE CLEARI NGHOUS E
?M208 DEPARTMENT GE ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
E j V?
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 41?
07-21-92
Q ? JUL 241992

INTERGDVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
v
(:DIVISION OF
MAILED TO F P.OM

NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGG
LJ 4ARD DIPECTOR
PLANNING E ENV BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG/ INTER-DFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPRDVEMENTS TO US 401 FROM US 1 TO SR 2224
IN HAKE COUNTY (TIP R-2425)
SAI NO 92E42200915 PROGRAM TITLE - STOPING
T FIF ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
I NT ERGOV ERNM ENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT Of- THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBF"ITTED { ) NO COMMENTS HERE RECEIVED
( X ) CDMMEN TS` ATTACHED
HOJLD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION J
Project Number: #92-0915
Wake County
If the existing water lines will be relocated during the
construction. Plans for the water line relocation must be
submitted to the Division of Environmental Health Plan Review
Branch through the City of Raleigh.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
Wllllam W. Cobey, Jr., Secret
Project Number:
- County: Fri ` us y
P r o j e c C Name: 0/
Charles H. C irdner
Director

Geodetic Survev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Sox 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 survev mar.kerl-;.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survev office at.
F:e,; i.ew r Date
T_rc)_;iun-_:nd Sedimentation Control
No comment
(9})'?33-3F? G.
,l;' ,
This project will require approval of an erosion and sediment-ttion
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing acti-vity 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.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this p roje J
ct
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)
Fo_ more information contact the Land Quality Section at (919) 733-4`;74
A,41, 6-15-92
ewer Date
f'.(i Box 27697 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An T7 _,.,I rl.........._,._, n.___?. _ .,....__ ,___, _
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Re:,ourc(s
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJEC-1 COMMENTS
j Reviewing C)ilIce
__
Project Number. Due Date.
A.(ter review of this project it has i determined :hit Inr• ! HNf' pc I"-) indicated may need !o be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina l av.
Questions regarding these permits should be adjdressi'd to t'u' Henim-' Office indicaled on the reverse of the form.
Ali applications, information and guidelines relalivc? I(, Ihet,^ plan:; [tnr: ;?ermils are ava?!able from the same
Regional Office Normal Proce
--- - ----- -------- -- --- Time
PERMITS ?,PF_GIAL Ai"` ICA-I l0rv PHOGFDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory lim
limit)
? Permit to construct E operate wastewater Irealment ADpiicalion `Xi (lays before beum conslruclion or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, 8 sewer conslruction coniracts On siir m spcc!:on Post application
systems not discharging into stale surface waters ;ecti n;cal con1, c: r,• usual
(90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water an(/or ^•.p;;l, a11011 18i •. a;:. !)-lo- heOm ei?hvily On site inspection 90120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewaler farililio,, ore alipiicaww Addilwnally. obtain permit to
discharging into stale surface waters onrt:uc wt,n; :v:• •: Ir;9alnien: I,ic ! ly.giamed alter NPDES Reply (N/A)
lnnr:.:;0 pavs .. receipt .-, ;ins c" issue of NPDES

? Water Use Permit
re applic2ti;,i? niw,cil lerernce usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
? Well Construction Permit 1
?.or npapl)LCaIIMJ t rC Iec ew et, a n d permit issued 7 days
pnr•, •, Iii- ,.
•weh
(15 days)

El
Dredge and Fill Permit App!; -!;w; c , I be ser:•ec on each adjacent riparian properly
n:vne O, '
1!(,
;i;),, Pre-a!;
,hcau
r
f 55 days
_
,
;
n con
o
erence usual Filling
r1 r;.:uc r-,e-i. 1, f-ill from N C. Department of (90 (jays)
.. D ediw ,.•,, Fiji Permit.

Permit to construct 8 operate Air Pollu!icm Abalernen!

L
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21-tOf 60 days
' (90 days)

I K 7• 'y open burning associated with subject proposal
rnusl be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520

olition or renovations of structures conla,ninr j
estos material must be in compliance with 15A
J
C 2D.0525 which requires notificalion and removl 60 days
r to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Grou;)
7330820. i
r,
C * r (90 days)
lJ omplex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D 0800
v,
Th
S
di

? e
e
mentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must he prc
control
la
ill b
i p(rrl) actor,-sled In; an, fluid dislurbinq activity. An erosion=8 edimenlatio
p
n w
e requ
red it one or more acres to be aistu
d
f r! "d F'ler, filed v:llt• ;xi:p(•r Hegional Office (Lana Oualily Sect ) at least 30 20 days
ays be
ore beginning activity A fee of S30 for the lirsl acre and S20 0 lo, eac'• ic!Jilional acre ur ;,art must accompany the plan (30 days)
? The Sedimenlation Pollution Control Act of 1973 mull be addressed with respec; 1o the referrencec Local Ordinance
(30 days)

Mining Permit On ,rle inspection usual Surely bond tiled with EHNR Bond amount
aries v:ilh lype r ;.,:if, and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined prealer than one acre rnust be permiled. The appropriate bond (60 days)
mull be received be!oie the permit car. be issued
-
? North Carolina Burning permit On sile ins
ec!wr r
f) C D
l
p
,y
iv
slon Forest Resources it permil 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit 22 On site inspection by I•) U Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 da

counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
lnan five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections y
(N/A)
should be request(.," al leas' len days h0ore actual burn is planned.-

90

Oil Refining Facilities -120 days
rvU. (NIA)
If pr,rnul requucc!. 1;)UAicwiori i days before begin construction
?
Dam Safely Permit Applicant must Inir• N C riuah!led eng,ricer to prepare plans 30 days
inspect consiri!c Ilcn, cer!tfy cnnslrudir;n is aCcordin
g .o EHNR approv
ec; ratan-, M•a) a!•;n requ :r pgrnil unci,r rnosquilo eorilrol program. And (60 days)
r„ fm; !:o - '- . ,. .,: i, ray neri An inspection of site is neces
e; IO ve:,ly hIii. r! Cias:lica: pn c m1mmun'. lee or 520000 must ac
?i,,.?pan•• tht' ;1:w::. "fc
a.?", "r%r: ?+ :;rOCeSSrng I(±e based On
a
o^rcen!agC cr th, -"os, .,.
- requireC u:u1n .. ;rn r,lnlinn

PERM,! E - - SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS
File surely bond of 5.5,000 with EHNR running to Stale of N C. „
C? Permit to drill exploralcrry oil r,r qas wolf conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon
Abandonmenl, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulation;:
r Geophysical Er.ploralion Perm i Applicalrof, lileo with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
LJ A;,;,I cat on by letter No standard application form
? State Lakes Conslruclion Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15 i'.
de:.cnphons 8 drawings o' structure 8 proof of ownership
of riparian properly.

401 Waler Qualify Ceriihcation NIA (13r
? 5`
CAMA Permit for 1,1AJCR development $250 Gr! Ice most accompany application (15G
22
CAMA Permit for MINOR d°veloprnent ?LO 00 lee must accompany application (25
? Several geodetic rnonurnenl, ar:: located w or n e.e l,rojecl area it any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please nolily.
C Geodetic Aurrey• Cloy 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 1
? Abandonment of any well.- it regwreC, niu, l t,e in ac--ordance with Lille 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
? Notification of the proper reoiona: o!lice u. r.; ;•., :,.ICC' `or;,I-,,ii underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation opera:
? Compliance with 15.=• WV-(- 2H 1000 IGoa::;;+''. SI %rr:v:cter Rules) i required.
* Other comments (atlact,
..,.,!ai n. 16 CiIE COmmP, nl authority):
L } , Sr?vl?tiI;sJ? c r' ?;r?.? Cam. 1??? /-1?s [?!? f?Ay Ss j /A/
Wr7?{ ??l S (\Y'?i? C.!? f(=mac.-f.4,?i, jl`( P/ 7?u?r` F-)4?-S'6"j -y- ? LCr
-TEE Sc?rir ?N,- l ?s r> JSr f_ O/ "SS?'? ,
7-3
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding These permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodlin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P G Boy. 9`-, 0 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] (919) 7332314
?Washinglon Regional Ofh,-?, ?Wilminglon Regional Office
142; CFr;)'nna A enua: 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, INC 27885 Wilmington, NC 28405
(gig) 946648? (9 1-9) 395-3900
-? \•. ,... n,,...,, r. .. i)r,. ,r,n -n mrlirn
00
State of North Cai-NIII,'I
Department of Environment, Health, and i?'atur tl }Z tic tlrr e'
Division of Soil and \X?atcr Cnnscrv,ino?n
512 North Salisbury Sweet • Pilei,?h, Nc,rrh C '-!ruling 27ol I
Jame: t_, Martin, Governor l),n,cl V'. Sides
William \V C4n,, Jr., Secretary Director
June 5, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison ?l ? r
SUBJECT: Proposed widening of US 401 in Wake County.
Project No. 92-0915
The n_r.oposed involves widening US 401 from it's junction with
US 1 in North Raleigh to SR 2224 at the Neuso River. Try;
Environmental Assessment should identify tlnicr;_te, prime, or
important farmland that will be impacted. ?•. t. lands cvJ -iuc ton
should be included. Actions that minimize itr?acts are desired.
DH/tl
il' J

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27/611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee IC,_
Project Review Coordinator
Douglas G. Lewi
Directo
Hannink; and Assessmer
?.?
Y \- r
RE: 92- 0915 - Widening of US 401 in Wake County
DATE: July 10, 1992

The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If, during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged -to notify our respective
divisions.
MM: bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster
I'() liw. _- ILiicc?. !Nord) ,nnl, -i,11 ,

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commissions _
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: July 6, 1992
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation regarding fish and wildlife concerns for
improvements to US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224, Wake
County, North Carolina, Project No. 92-0915.
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. J.
Ward of the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from improvements to US 401 and associated stream, and
river crossings. The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
has reviewed the proposed project, 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. 661-6674)
The NCWRC recommends the use of existing alignments whenever
possible and supports the NCDOT in its consideration of such an
alternative for this project. Given the nature of surrounding
land use in the project area, potential for significant fisheries
and wildlife impacts is primarily confined to the vicinity of the
Neuse River (Section D). Floodplain encroachment should be
minimized in this area and sedimentation and erosion control
measures strictly implemented to avoid undue loss or degradation
of fish and wildlife habitat.
Our ability to evaluate project impacts and provide
beneficial recommendations when reviewing project environmental
documents will be enhanced by inclusion of the following
information:

Memo P--cue 2 July E? ,C)92
i. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources w=ithin, adjacent to, or utilizing the study
corridor. Potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories.
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including State and
Federal species of special concern, within, adjacent
to, or utilizing study corridor.
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.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included. 1
5. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
wetlands and impacts associated with fragmentation.
6. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of
streams crossed and the extent of such activities.
7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
a. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
For additional information on endangered or threatened
species in the study area, please contact Randy Wilson, Nongame
and Endangered Species Program Manager, at [phone]. If we
can further assist your office, please call David Yow, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project.
DLS/DLY/lp
cc Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame and Endangered Species Program Manager
David Yow, NCWRC Highway Coordinator
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO July 16, 1992
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
- - of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:

,11 J"I 2() 1992
D1VIS??N of
?-; l a H bVq yS PAC'
? RESEARG?'`?`?
We have reviewed your letter of May 26, 1992, requesting
comments on the "R-2425, Raleigh, US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224,
Wake County, F.A. Project M-5934(3)RS-4074(1), State Project
9.8052008.
The US 401 widening would not cross any U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers constructed flood control or navigation projects.
The widening is sited in Wake County and the city of Raleigh
and both participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program.
The widening in the city of Raleigh crosses the upper reaches
of Beaverdam Creek which was mapped by approximate methods above
SR 2213. That portion in Wake County crosses Neuse River which
has been mapped by detailed methods with the flood plain deline-
ated and a floodway defined. The widening/extended drainage
structure's hydraulic effects on the Neuse River 100-year flood
levels and the floodways should be determined and addressed in the
Environmental Impact Statement. For those stream crossings that
were mapped by approximate methods or have not had their flooding
problem defined, the roadway widening and extended drainage
structures should be designed with no more than a 1.0-foot flood
surcharge above the 100-year flood level. The hydraulic effect
of the project should be coordinated with Wake County and Raleigh
for possible revisions to their flood insurance maps and report.
Executive Order 11988 should be reviewed and complied with.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with your proposed roadway widening and drainage
structure extensions, including disposal of construction debris.
-2-
Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first
be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review those plans for a
project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of our Regulatory Branch, Wake Forest, North
Carolina, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the
proposed project. If we can be of further assistance to you,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
i
Lawrence W. Saunders' r
Chief, Planning Division
-Triangle Preenways Council
P.O. Box 12276
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

At

June 25, 1992
L. J. Ward, Manager
NCDOT, Planning and Environmental Branch`-<4 -;;.
Post Office Box 25201 <1-1, .
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
4 10-
Q- o
JUL 1 1992
DIVISION OF C)
iHIGHWAYS
The Triangle Greenways Council (TGC) has a particula interest in
the Neuse River :and offers the following remarks on he proposal
? r .
for improvement to U.S. 401 in Wake County for co>.deration.
Enclosed is ;:a copy of The Futurq, Of Neuse River ,,,which was
reared bs"
p p y, _the.TGC in 1985, in cooperation with the ake County
Parks and Recreation Commission and others. It de ibes the
role the River could.. have in the enhancement of t46; County's
future if , all parties`-.,involved in it$i fate work!,'..'--together.
Decisions made by the NCDOT,. for the U.S;;, 401 crossi;? g of the
River will have a significant effect on th' River's f, iture as a
community asset. •?, :. 3I
Over the past, few years, initial and major?te % hqy .
' been taken
by local governments toward the protection ands ulAc use of the
?+.
Neuse River. Wake County accepted a greenway e Sament on lands
bordering the River in the 'southeastern quadFa t of the U.S.
401/River crossing.' There have been discussi?IletWeen both the
County and Raleigh ' governments with the _,_pt??pers of, a,°-proposed
development at this crossing, about thg;;, yStablishment of a canoe
access area. Raleigh also____acc.u?p1.ated about six miles of
greenway corridor during the development of the Neuse River
sewerline which extends above and below U.S. 401.
The Triangle Greenways Council asks that the planning and design
of U.S. 401 improvements include the integration of greenway
access along the River and canoe access to the River. Further,
the NCDOT should collaborate with the Planning Departments and
the Parks and Recreation Departments of both Wake County and the
City of Raleigh to properly integrate these public facilities
along the River. These items should be treated as an incidental
feature of the proposed project, and enhancement monies provided
by ISTEA should be used only to the extent that other sources are
not available.
L. J. Ward
Page Two
June 25, 1992
Your attention to these remarks is appreciated, and we look
forward to the opportunity to review the environmental
documentation for the proposed improvements.
Sincerely,
b4-
Larkin Kirkman
Secretary
Attachment
cc: Wake County Commissioners
Raleigh City Council
Mike Jennings
David Carter
George Chapman
Jack Duncan
I . S . CORRIDOR DES 16N
r_CT: _8-1402103 _ COUNTY: Wake
.D. NO. : ?R -24' 2>> F . A . PROJECT: STP-410(1 )
(tCLUt,"I 1UIV f/-JJa.JI111-1-
Alternate 1•-•- of 3_ Alternate
ESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 401 from U? i to ?l?rtl' ^? SR 2044 Raleigh
- a
_-- - ?_ J
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL )
-
- -- - --
pe of
splacee -
owners Tenants Total Minor-
ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M
-
50 UP
dividuals - --------
._.__
milies
1
0
1
0
0 0 1 0 0
S AVAILABL
1 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING
s}nesses 1 1 ?_
+ t
?
R
s -
r 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale _
en
For
m 0 - --
n,profit U 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20H $ 0-150-
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 150_250
S NO? EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 250-400

X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 1 400-600 0 70-100 * 400-600
-
X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
0
600 UP
0
100 UP
600 UP
- - affected by displacement
0
3Will business services still TOTAL 1 ---
- -- be available after project
4. Will any business be dis-
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
x As a suburban area.to Raleigh, there is plentiful
- - employees, minorities, etc. replacement housing in all price'ranges.

- X 5. Will relocation causi- c,
housing shortage
3. There are numerous other businesses available in
X 6. Source for available hous- the area.
-
X ing ( 1 ist )
Will additional Dousing
7
4. Two businesses will lose significant parking areas
-- -- .
programs be needed on US 401 side. This might not mean they would
X B. Should Last Resort Housing need to relocate.
--
X be considered
9. Are there large, disabled,
A. L & L Food Mart.- grocery store, probable
families
etc
rl
ld employment of 5-10 persons.
.
y,
e
e
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN B. Smith & Johnson Flooring - probable employment
_
10. Will public housing be of 8-12 persons. (Currently for rent.)
- -- needed for project
Is public housing avail-
11
NOTE: The residential unit is a new house not shown
-- - .
able on the orthophotograph at Fox rd.
12. Is It felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
--- - during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
- - means
14. Are suitable business sites
-- - available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
_ 1._ l1 q
Relocation Agent Date Approved Date
rm 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & I Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
-.1.5. CORRIDOR
jECT: B.1402103
,.D. N0. R-242 5
DESIGN
COUNTY= Wake
F . A . PROJECT: STP-410(1 )
KtLUGH 11 UIV HJJ 1 J I HIS
Alternate _.2-._ of _3? Alterna
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 401 from US 1 to north of SR 2044, Raleigh
1010. lip
11 INCOME LEVEL
McTrnn MCD1 errrc
i Pelacuc owners Tenants Total cities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
.ndividuals

,am i l i es
0 _
0
0
0
3usinesses 1 - 0 1 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
-arms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent -
-
on-Profit 0- 0 0 0 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
fES ND EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M NA 250-400 NA 40-70M NA 250_400 NF
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-600 70-100 400-600
-
. -
- X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 600 UP 100 UP 600 UP
affected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL
-
X be available after protect
4. Will any business be d s- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. There are other snack shops along US 401 in thi=
- - .employees, minorities, etc. area.
X ,
5. Will relocation cause a
-- housing shortage 4. Bud's Bite IN Brew is a small restaurant--snack
X 6. Source for available hous- shop that probably employs 3-4 persons. They
-- ing ( list ) will lose parking along US 401-, but might not
X 7. Will additional housing actually need to relocate.
- - programs be needed
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
-- - be considered NOTE: There are two new 1SFD's Just north of Fox
X 9. Are there large, disabled, Drive not shown on the orthophotograph. They
ilies
f
l
t
ld appear to be clear of the proposed R/W, but
- -- c.
am
y, e
e
er
HESE SO FOR DESIGN
ANSWER could become displacees if septic systems or
j
to. Will public housing L-.-: wells exist and cannot be moved elsewhere.
- - needed for project
it. Is public housing avail--
able
12. Is it felt there will he ad-
egiate DDS housing available
--- -- during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
-- - means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
Relocation Age t Date
rm 15.4 Revised 5/90
Approved Date
Original b 1 Copy: State Relocation Ag
2 Copy: Area Relocation Fil
E . I . S _ - CORRIDOR - DESIGN
.jJECT: 8.1402103 COUNTY: Wake
I.D_ NO_: R-2425 F.A. PROJECT: STP-410(1
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
Alternate -3 of ,3 Alternate
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 401 from US 1 to north of SR 2044 Raleigh
- - ES TIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
ype of Minor- ----
?isplacee Owners
- Tenants
--- Total
-- sties
----- 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
nd i y i dua 1 s --------
,3m 1 i es
uginesses - VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
arms -
Owners Tenants For Sale For Ren t
on--Prof It 0-20H $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0 -150
AN SWER ALL QUESTI ONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
ES NO I EXPLAIN ALL 'YES' ANSWERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
1. Will special relocation 70--100 400-600 70-100 400-600
- - services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 600 UP 100 UP 600 UP
- - affected by displacement
3. Will business services still TOTAL
-- be available after pro)ect
4. Will any business be dIs- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
- - employees, minorities, etc. Negative report on this section.
5. Will relocation cause a
- - housing shortage
6. Source for available
hous
- ing (1 ist )
7. Will additional housing
- programs be needed
8. Should Last Resort Housing
- -- be considered
9. Are there large, disabled,
eld
l
t
f
ili
- er
y, e
c.
am
es
ANSWER
F
-- TH
SF AI S(1 FD_R DES I GN
10. Will public housing be
- - needed for protect
it. Is public housing avail-
- - able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
- - during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
- - means
14. Are suitable business sites
- - available (list source)
15. Number months estima;.,,J to
complete RELOCATION
Relocation Agen Date
1 15.4 Revised 5/90
Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 CoPy: Area Relocation File

a.,a SIN[o?
"IT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201
r?
June 23. 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Linwood Stone. Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
ATTENTION: Angela Smith. Project Planning Engineer
'Vjl
c?yC?y(
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
FROM: Janet L. Shipley, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: 'natural Resource Technical Report for
US 401 widening, from US 1 to SR 2224. Wake
County: TIP# R-2425, State Project= 9.SO5200S:
Federal Aid No. M-5834(3)RS-4074(1).
The following Natural Resources Technical Report and
Executive Summary have been prepared following a fiel.d surrey
conducted by Environmental Unit Staff December 4, 1992. This
report contains one outstanding issue; the presence or
absence of the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon).
Scientific surreys must be conducted to confirm or refute the
presence of this species. Due to seasonal restrictions.
surreys can only be conducted from spring through fall.
cc: l'. Charles Bruton. Ph.D
Randal' Turner
Dennis Pipl_in. P.E
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US 401 Widening, from US 1 to SR 2224
Wake County
TIP No. R-2425
State Project No. 9.8052008
Federal Aid No. M-5834(3)RS-4074(1)
The following summary of R-2425 is prepared for
inclusion in a federal EA/FONSI document. It is requested
that the Natural Resources Technical Report be submitted in
its entirety along with the EA document to reviewing natural
resource agencies.
Outstanding Issues
One federally protected species issue needs to be
resolved; the presence or absence of the federally Endangered
dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). Due to
seasonality restrictions, surveys can only be conducted
spring through fall.
Personal communication with Dr. Alvin Braswell (NC
Museum of Natural History) reports that the Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisi), a state Special Concern (SC)
amphibian was present in the Neuse River prior to a 1981
chemical spill. This population may be recovered, but no
recent surveys have been conducted. In the event the animal
is present, I strongly recommend that stringent "best
management" practices be implemented for this project.
Water Resources
Subject project crosses five drainages within the Neuse
River drainage system, including the Neuse River, which is
the largest waterbody crossed via bridge. Spanning
approximately 37.9 m (125'), the Neuse River is characterized
by a muck bottom and at the time of the natural resource
investigation, had a water depth of approximately 1 m (`3').
Piedmont levee forests occur on natural levees adjacent to
the river.
Four culvert sites are located within the project area,
carrying waters of Beaverdam Creek. two unnamed tributaries
to Beaverdam Creel: and a direct tributary to the Neuse River.
These tributaries of the Neuse River, are characterized by
much:/sand bottoms and adjacent vegetation is comprised of
bottomland hardwood species. Stream width varies from 0.9 to
1.5 m (three to five'), with the exception of Beaverdam
Creek, which has a stream width of approximatelN
3 to 4.6 m (10 to 151). Water depth was less than half a
meter (1.5') at all sites. Jurisdictional wetlands are
associated with Beaverdam Creek, while the unnamed
tributaries are comprised of surface waters only.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters
of North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). A summary of "best usage" water classifications for
water resource components likely to receive impacts are
listed in Table 3 below. A summary of the "best usage" for
which the waters in each class must be protected. follows.
Any stream which is not named in the schedule of stream
classifications carries the same classification as that
assigned to the stream segment to which it is tributary.
Table 1. "Best Usage" Classifications of Water Resources
WATER RESOURCE
Neuse River
Beaverdam Creek
CLASSIFICATION
C
C
Class C designates waters suitable for secondary
recreation, aquatic life propagation and survival. fishing.
wildlife and agriculture. The supplemental classification of
NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) indicates waters needing
additional nutrient management (particularly fertilizer run-
off) due to their being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed
monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates. Good water quality- is associated with
both high taxa richness values and the presence of many
intolerant forms. Water quality degradation gradually
eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a
community structure quite different from that in an
unstressed stream. The Neuse River crossing at Wake
Crossroads on NC 401 received a bioclassification of Good-
Fair in August 1989.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters. Outstanding
Resource Waters, nor Water Supplies (WS-I. or WS-II) will be
impacted by the proposed project, nor do they occur within
one mile of the project area. No National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits have been
issued within the project area.
Water Resource Impacts
Impacts to water resources can have far reaching
effects, both spatially (distance from the initial
disturbance) and temporally (up the food chain). Impacts to
water resources include the following:
- Culverts and/or pipes will be extended, reducing the linear
feet of natural stream channel.
- Increased sedimentation from construction and/or erosion.
- Changes in light incidence due to shading and vegeta•tion
removal.
- Alterations of water level due to interruptions or
additions to surficial and/or groundwater flow.
- scouring of stream beds due to the channelization of
streams.
Biotic Communities
Five biotic communities were identified in the project
area: Hardwood Forest, Piedmont Levee Forest, Mixed
Pine/Hardwood, Mesic Forest, and Man-Dominated. Man-
dominated communities comprise most of the project area and
are characterized by fallow and cultivated fields, pasture
land, shrub-scrub, and scattered residential and commercial
development. Fallow fields consist of successional species
such as broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), goldenrods (Solidago
sp.), aster (Aster pilosus), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and
sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia). Cultivated fields contain
unharvested crops of soybeans (Glycene max), with a thick
growth of sicklepod interspersed. Pasture lands are
comprised principally of fescue (Festuca sp.).
The northwestern end of the project area supports a
shrub-scrub community. Once cleared, a dense, low stand of
sweetgum, red maple, water oak (Ouercus ni ra), and
blackberry has now formed. Barnyard grass (Echinochloa
crusgalli), goldenrods (Solidago spp.) and aster (Aster sp.)
are common.
Residential neighborhoods and commercial development are
man-dominated lands where man's structures or activities
preclude natural plant succession. Maintained grounds and
lawns support turf of fescue (Festuca sp.) as the dominant
vegetative component, complemented with landscape
ornamentals. Pecan (Carya illinoensis), red cedar, loblolly
pine and various oak trees (Ouercus spp.) are typical.
The semi-rural nature of the project area, combined with
a mix of plant community patterns, provide a variety of
opportunities for various forms of wildlife. Forested tracts
have all the necessary components (food, water, protective
coverage) to support a number of small mammals and birds.
Mesic woodlands bordering small tributaries also function as
travel corridors.for.transient. species. Common mammals
likely to inhabit the project area include the grey squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
cottontail (Svlvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
eastern mole (Scalopus aauaticus), and white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus).
Larger mammals, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virizinianus), seek refuge in forested woodlands, and browse
along ecotonal fringes between forests and fields. A number
of scat samples were noted during this field investigation.
Avifaunal abundance is typical in the Piedmont region of
North Carolina where a patchwork of habitat types is
available. Common passerine species which were sighted or
expected to occur include American robin (Turdus
miQratorius), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), mockingbird (Mimus polvglottos),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), and common crow
(Corvus brachyrhvnchos). Birds of prey include redtailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter
striatus).
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), worm
snake (Carphophis amoenus), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) are
but a few reptiles that may be found in the project area.
Common amphibians are the slimy salamander (Plethodon
Alutinosus), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and the
three-lined salamander (Eurvicea Auttolineata) are likely to
occur in the project area and reside in burrows under logs,
stones and leaf litter in swamps and along streams.
The Neuse River and it's tributaries are host to a
myriad of fish species. Common non-game inhabitants are the
golden shiner (Notemigonus crvsoleucas), redfin pickeral
(Esox americanus), margined madtom (Noturus Ayrinus),
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), swallowtail shiner
(Notropis Procne), and bluehead chub (Nocomis micropoizon).
Yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), pumpkinseed (Lepomis
Aibbosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus) provide sport fishing
opportunities.
Biotic Resource Impacts
Impacts on natural communities are reflective of the
relative abundance of each system present in the study
corridor. Table 2 summarizes potential losses from
widening of the existing road. Calculations are based on
right-of-way limits of 39.4 m (130 feet). Values are
expressed in hectares and acres.
Table 2. ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
BIOTIC COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
Man-Dominated
Hardwood Forest
Mixed-Pine Hardwood
Piedmont Levee Forest
Mesic Forest
Hectares Acres
98.8 40.0
1.5 0.6
47.7 19.3
2.7 1.1
0.6 0.6
151.3 61.6
The majority of impacts will occur in man dominated
communities. Many mobile animals such as deer, opossums,
rodents, and passerine birds are cosmopolitan in nature,
easily adapting to urbanization. Resident species will be
displaced or eliminated by construction activities and
habitat range will be reduced.
Aquatic species will be particularly affected.
Dredging, filling, pile-driving operations, slope
stabilization and land clearing are construction activities,
resulting in the direct loss of benthic organisms and an
increase in silt .load in aquatic and wetland environments.
Mobile benthic macroinvertebrates are better able to avoid
impacts, and will have a faster recovery rate from siltation,
than those species that are filter feeders and relatively
immobile. The removal of benthic organisms reduces the
potential food supply for vertebrate and other aquatic
organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on aquatic organisms;
decreases the depth of light penetration, inhibiting plant
and algal growth; clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-
feeding benthos and the gills of fish; buries benthic
organisms on the bottom, cutting them off from a food source;
adversely modifies preferred benthic substrate and fish
habitat; and spoils downstream spawning beds for fish.
Jurisdictional "Waters of the US" Impacts
Surface waters and their
the broad category of "Waters
defined in 33 CFR 328.3. The
(COE) takes jurisdiction over
fill material into these wate
of the Clean Water Act.
associated wetlands fall under
of the United States" as
US Army Corps of Engineers
the discharge of dredged or
rs as authorized by Section 404
Of the five :waterbodies crossed, Beaverdam Creek has 1.5
ha (0.5 acres) of associated wetlands, located to the east
and west of the existing alignment (Figure 1).
Jurisdictional wetlands are characterized as Palustrine,
Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily flooded (PF01A)
as defined by Cowardin et al (1979). This wetland community
was identified in the project corridor on the basis of low
soil chroma values, hydrophytic vegetation and the presence
of hydrology or hydrological indicators, such as stained,
matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree
bases and surface roots.
A symmetrical widening of the alignment in the vicinity
of Beaverdam Creek will likely require a Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5 (a) (26), due to wetland impacts exceeding 0.7 ha
(0.3 acre).
It is anticipated that other culverted stream crossings
will be authorized by Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a)
(14)]. Nationwide #14 allows for road crossing fills of non-
tidal "Waters of the United States", provided that the fill
does not exceed 200 linear feet below the plane of ordinary
high water mark of the adjacent waterbodies and that the fill
placed in waters of the U.S. is limited to a filled area of
no more than one third acre.
A General Permit (CESAW-CO82-N-000-00,31) is likely to
apply to the bridge replacement over the Neuse River. This
permit authorizes the placement of fill material associated
with the construction , repair or replacement of bridges
spanning navigable waters and waters the United States.
However, final judgement concerning specific permit
jurisdiction is reserved by the COE.
A section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and
for which a federal permit is required. State permits are
administered through the DEHNR.
It seems likely that stream channel modification
and or relocation will be required for the west side of
Beaverdam Creek. Approximately 15.2 m to 30.3 m (50 to 100)
linear feet of stream will be affected. In accordance with
the 1976 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (72 Stat. 563, as
amended; 16 USC 661 et seq., NCDOT will coordinate such
activities with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide
permits or General permits are authorized, according to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. Final discretionary
authority in these matters rests with the COE.
Protected Species
The FWS reports several federally protected species for
Wake county as of May 13, 1993.
Table 3. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Wake County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker E
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle E
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf-wedge mussel E
Rhus michau xii Michaux' Poison Sumac (W) E
Biological conclusions concerning the presence or absence
of each federally protected species is summarized below.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No suitable habitat is present for
the red-cockaded woodpecker. No impacts to this species will
result from project construction.
Bald Eagle
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Suitable habitat is present in the
project area, in Piedmont levee forests adjacent to the Neuse
River. A nest survey of the areas was conducted. No
evidence of nests or the bird was seen. The proposed action
will have no impact upon this species.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Within the project area, Beaverdam
Creek, unnamed tributary and the Neuse River provide
potential habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel. It is
recommended that sound, scientific surveys be conducted to
confirm or refute the presence of this organism (Personal
comm. John Alderman, NCWRC). Due to seasonal restrictions,
surveys can only be conducted from Spring through Fall.
Michaux's Sumac
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Suitable habitat exists in the study
area. A plant by plant search was conducted along the length
of the alignment, in field and pasture margins and along open
roadside shoulders. No specimens were seen within the impact
zone. The proposed action will not impact this species.
US 401 Widening, from US 1 to SR 2224.
Wake County
TIP No. R-2425
State Project No. 9.8052008
M-5834(3)RS-4074(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
R-2425
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
JANET L. SHIPLEY
June 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................1
Project Description ...................................1
Methodology ..........................................2
II. PHYSICAL RESOURCES .....................................2
Study area ............................................2
Topography and soils ..................................2
Water Resources .......................................3
Water Resource Impacts ................................5
III. BIOTIC RESOURCES .......................................5
Plant Communities ....................................5
Wildlife .............................................7
Aquatic Life .........................................8
Biotic Resource Impacts .............................8
IV.A. SPECIAL TOPICS .......................................9
Jurisdictional Waters of the US Impacts ..............9
Permits .............................................10
Mitigation ..........................................11
B. RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ........ .................11
Federally Protected Species .........................11
Federal Candidate Species ...........................13
State Protected Species .............................13
V. REFERENCES ..........................................15
Appendix A - Natural Resource Agency Comments
1
I. INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is written to
aid in the preparation of a Federal EA to be followed by a
FONSI. The purpose of this technical report is to describe
the natural systems found within the project area and to
document probable impacts to these systems.
Pro.iect Description
The proposed project is the widening of US 401 to a six
lane divided section with a 16 foot grassed median. Widening
will take place from US 1 to SR 2224, Wake County, for a
distance of 2.8 km (4.5 miles). Proposed right-of-way width
is 39.4 m (130'). The project has been divided into three
sections. A brief description of each section and the cross
sections to be studied are listed as follows:
Section A: From US 1 to the Raleigh City limits
approximately 1 km (0.6 mile) south of SR 4400.
Alternate 1: six-lane, curb and gutter section
with 4.9 m (16') grassed median symmetric widening
(total 96-feet).
Section B: from the Raleigh City limits to the northern Wake
expressway (see vicinity map).
Alternate 1: six-lane, curb and gutter section with a
4.9 m (16') grassed median asymmetric widening to the
east (total 29 m, 96-feet).
Section C: from the Northern Wake Expressway to north of SR
2044 (Ligon Mill Road), including realignment of SR 2224
(Mitchell Mill Road).
Alternate 1: six-lane divided, curb and gutter section
with a 4.9 m (16') grassed median, widening to the west.
Alternate 2: 'four-lane divided, shoulder section with a
14 m (46') grassed median, widening to the west.
Neuse River Bridge Replacement. Widening to the east is to
be contained within right-of-way limits of 33.4 m (110) feet.
The existing bridge is 9.1 m (30') wide and 106 m (350'
long).
Alternate 1: six-lane divided, curb and gutter section
with a 4.9 m (16') median. Dual structures measuring
12.1 m (40') wide x 106 m (350') long, and 15.8 m (52')
wide x 106 m (350') long respectively, are proposed.
2
Alternate 2•
width of 19.4
of-way width
Methodology
Dual structures are proposed, with a total
m (64') and 106.2 m (350') long. Right-
is 33.4 m (110').
The study area is defined by right-of-way limits of
39.4 m (130'). An ecological survey was conducted December
4, 1992 to identify vegetative communities and wildlife
species contained in the project area. Vegetative
communities and wildlife were inventoried and mapped during
on-site surveys. Wetlands were identified, using methods in
the "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual" (1987).
In-house preparatory work was done prior to the field visit.
The Wake County soil survey, National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
maps, the hydric soils list for Wake County and USGS Wake
Forest quadrangle map were studied to identify potential
wetland sites. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin" (N.C. Dept.
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources) was consulted
to determine best usage classifications for water resources.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) files were consulted to determine if any
protected flora or fauna occurs in the project area. The
EnvironmentalSensitivity Base Map of Wake 'County (produced by
the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis) was
utilized to identify sensitive natural resources that may be
present in the project area.
II. PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Study Area
Subject project lies in and to the immediate north of
the City of Raleigh, located in Wake County in the Piedmont
physiographic province in north-central North Carolina. The
relief of the project area is gently sloping to sloping. The
northern portion of the project is located in rural to
lightly populated residential areas, while the southern end
of the project lies in the City of Raleigh.
Topography and Soils
Subject project lies within the Piedmont Soil Region.
specifically within the Felsic Crystalline System. The
topography in this system is extremely variable. Broad
gently sloping uplands are common, as are moderately to
steeply sloping areas. The bedrock is granite, granite
gneiss, mica gneiss and mica schist.
The major soils of the area are the Appling soils, with
sandy loam textured surfaces, clay textured B horizons,
kaolinitic clay mineralogy, and firm, slightly plastic B
v?A

U
W
O
cl?

z 0. z

w ,
_0

U
w
1
1 NE?s?
1

10

`ham h `0 (3b N
h Q? ?O• <U? co
J
?hh0 ?O• '14 ?O. O ?". Z
h
h w r
.. ?

,r 05
O• 1 Q 5
ti ?d \ O .11. O
5 a9
Cv?01 O /
Ilk
r' 0 ! .
C*) .07
ry „h, ?hh /'J Z
ry? co
may' ??
?$??
h/
(?U)
O Z
? a
w M v
6
?a

N N

N
N
O Q w
azz?
z

U)
U)
-JOT Z
crA
a N
u.
-1 CC 0LP
gzK o
I- cr
N
S O Z
Q l i.l ,
Q
O p
? j J ? 3
Z I- is n_ -?
4r; un -
0
j-
tom.., ?
iii

w
TI.
? v
0. h/ E
n
rl h. h
O
/ ?? h
rly
? h 90-
1
!'h
do.
rll
4el
I or
(01 6s
,:::'•'•'•' n
w
'/ a ?f \ h h
?5 dr i?•• ? RD,
N E
1
e2 0/ 3 g (CAST
.... ......... .: .16
FAU
FA i
O/
h/ / / O ?! •• l ^ Al ' M f!;:1 h. „`.
rv/
3
horizons.. Appling soils occupy large areas of the local
landscape where the parent material is uniform.
Fine-loamy, well to to very poorly drained soils occupy
most of the flood plains, forming natural levees,
particularly along the Neuse River. Typical soils are of the
Congaree, Wehadkee, Bibb and Worsham series. These soils are
hydric or have hydric inclusions because of saturation for a
significant period during the growing season.
Table 1. SOIL SERIES
US 401 STUDY AREA
SOIL SERIES CLASSIFICATION HYDRIC INCLUSION
Appling Series Non-hydric
Wedowee Series Non-hydric
Louisbur g Series Non-hydric
Wehadkee and Bibb Series Hydric
Worsham Series Hydric
Congaree Series Non-hydruc Wehadkee
Water Resources
Subject project crosses five drainages within the Neuse
River drainage system, including the Neuse River, which is
the largest waterbody crossed via bridge. It is the second
largest drainage basin lying entirely within North Carolina
and is formed by the confluence of the Eno and Flat Rivers
northeast of Durham. The river flows in a generally
southeast direction from its origin, to below New Bern. The
upper one third of the river lies within the Piedmont Region
of North Carolina and the Piedmont tributaries are usually
swift and turbid, flowing through narrow flood plains.
Spanning approximately 37.9 m (125'), the Neuse River is
characterized by a muck bottom and at the time of the natural
resource investigation, had a water depth of approximately
1 m (^3'). Piedmont levee forests occur on natural levees
adjacent to the river.
Four culvert sites are located within the project area,
carrying waters of Beaverdam Creek, two unnamed tributaries
to Beaverdam Creek and a direct tributary to the Neuse River.
These tributaries of the Neuse River are characterized by
muck/sand bottoms and adjacent vegetation is comprised of
bottomland hardwood species. Stream width varies from 0.9 to
1.5 m (three to five'), with the exception of.Beaverdam 1
Creek, which has a stream width of approximately 7)
3 to 4.6 m (10 to 15'). Water depth was less than half a
meter (1.5') at all sites. Jurisdictional wetlands are
4
:iated with Beaverd.am Creek, while the unnamed
A aries are comprised of surface waters only.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters
irth Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
A summary of "best usage" water classifications for
resource components likely to receive impacts are
d in Table 3 below. A summary of the "best usage" for
stream component likely to receive impacts is summarized
Any stream which is not named in the schedule of
.m classifications carries the same classification as
assigned to the stream segment to which it is tributary.
e 2. "Best Usage" Classifications of Water Resources
RESOURCE
River
rdam Creek
CLASSIFICATION
C
C
Class C designates waters suitable for secondary
ation, aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
ife and agriculture. The supplemental classification of
Nutrient Sensitive Waters) indicates waters needing
ional nutrient management (particularly fertilizer run-
due to their being subject to excessive growth of
scopic or macroscopic vegetation.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
sses long term trends in water quality at fixed
oring sites by the sampling for selected benthic
invertebrates. Good water quality is associated with
high taxa richness values and the presence of many
erant forms. Water quality degradation gradually
nates the more sensitive species and leads to a
.nity structure quite different from that in an
'essed stream. The Neuse River crossing at Wake
roads on NC 401 received a bioclassification of Good-
in August 1989.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters, Outstanding
Irce Waters, nor Water Supplies (WS-I, or WS-II) will be
:ted by the proposed project, nor do they occur within
file of the project area. No National Pollutant
urge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits have been
:d within the project area.
Water Resource Impacts
Impacts to water resources can have far reaching
effects, both spatially (distance from the initial
disturbance) and temporally (up the food chain). Impacts to
water resources include the following:
- Culverts and/or pipes will be extended, reducing the linear
feet of natural stream channel.
- Increased sedimentation from construction and/or erosion.
- Changes in light incidence due to shading and vegetation
removal.
- Alterations of water level due to interruptions or
additions to surficial and/or groundwater flow.
- scouring of stream beds due to the channelization of
streams.
III. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities
throughout the project area reflect the topographic
positioning, hydrologic influences, and past and present land
use practices. The following five profile descriptions have
been adopted and modified from the NCNHP classification
scheme (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Hardwood Forest
The realignment of Mitchell Mill Road will traverse
through hardwood forest comprised of a mature canopy of
southern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Q. alba), willow
oak (_Q_. phellos), and water oak (Q_ ni ra). Sourwood
(Oxvdendron arboreum), dogwood (Cornus florida) and.Hickory
(Carva sp.) comprise the understory. The herbaceous layer is
sparse, but elephant's-foot (Elephantopus tomentosa), and
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron) are common.
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) and muscadine
(Vitis rotundifolia) make up the vine component of this
community.
Piedmont Levee Forest
This community type is found on natural levee and point
bar deposits on large floodplains associated with the Neuse
River. Soils are coarse textured and alluvial in nature, and
are mapped as Congaree (Typic udifluvent). This is a
palustrine, seasonally to intermittently flooded system, with
a mature, relatively undisturbed canopy dominated by river
birch (Betula ni ra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green
ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), and bitternut hickory (Car a
cordiformis). Understory species are few, but are comprised
6
erican holly (Ilex ovaca), bladdernut (Staphvlea
lia and saplings of red maple (Acer rubrum . Woody
such as poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), cross vine
onia capreolata), and wild grape (Vitis spp.) are
nent. Due to the open nature of the canopy, the herb
is dense. Lining the banks of the Neuse River are
stands of (Chasmanthium latifolia), with a carpet of
alized creeping Charlie (Glecoma hederacea) inhabiting
evee deposits adjacent to the banks. Other herbs noted
Geranium maculatum), and violets (Viola spp).
Pine/Hardwood Forest
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest is a successional community
is representative of those areas that have a canopy of
rcent or more pine. Southern red oak (0. falcata), post
2 stellata), and mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa)
a canopy with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Scrub pine
irginiana) and red cedar (Juniperus virQiniana) often
as subcanopy components with sourwood (Oxvdendron
eum), dogwood (Cornus florida), privet (LiQustrum
se), beauty berry (Callicarpa americana) and sapling
h of canopy species. A slight shift in species
sition is noted on lower ridges. Sweet=gum (Liauidambar
ciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip tree
odendron tulipifera) become major canopy components.
erbaceous layer is sparse or totally,lacking, but
dcovers such as Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
uefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and
dine (Vitis rotundifolia) are typical.
Forest PF01A (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved,
uous, Temporarily flooded)
Mesic woodlands are prevalent along creek channels,
w floodplain fringes, and lower slopes throughout the
cape. This system is subjected to infrequent flooding
revailing mesic conditions due to topographic
ioning. The canopy/subcanopy is dominated by sweet-gum,
aple, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) willow oak
cus phellos), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), and ironwood
inus caroliniana). Loblolly pine dominates the canopy
me areas. Shrub development consists of blueberry
inium sp.), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus) and
t (LiQustrum sinense). Ground cover densities may vary,
ypical components are Christmas ferns (Polystichum
tichoides) on slopes, and a "weedy" introduced grass,
ostegium vimineum) occupying level bottoms. Dense
s of knotweed (Polygonum sp.) occur within power line
s of way that cut across this community.

Man-Dominated Areas
Man-dominated communities in the project area are
comprised of fallow and cultivated fields, pasture land,
shrub-scrub, and scattered residential and commercial
development. Fallow fields consist of successional species
such as broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), goldenrods (Solidago
sp.), aster (Aster pilosus), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and
sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia). Cultivated fields contain
unharvested crops of soybeans (Glycene max), with a thick
growth of sicklepod interspersed. Pasture lands are
comprised principally of fescue (Festuca sp.).
The northwestern end of the project area supports a
shrub-scrub community. Once cleared, a dense, low stand of
sweetgum, red maple, water oak (Ouercus nigra), and
blackberry has now formed. Barnyard grass (Echinochloa
crusgalli), goldenrods (Solidago spp.) and aster (Aster sp.)
are common.
Residential and commercial development are man-dominated
lands where man's structures or activities preclude natural
plant succession. Maintained grounds and lawns support turf
of fescue (Festuca sp.) as the dominant vegetative component,
complemented with landscape ornamentals. Pecan (Carya
illinoensis), red cedar, loblolly pine and various oak trees
(Ouercus spp.) are typical.
Wildlife-Terrestrial
The semi-rural nature of the project area, combined with
a mix of plant community patterns, provide a variety of
opportunities for various forms of wildlife. Forested tracts
have all the necessary components (food, water, protective.
coverage) to support a number of small mammals and birds.
Mesic woodlands bordering small tributaries also function as
travel corridors for transient species. Common mammals
likely to inhabit the project area include the grey squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), opossum (Didelphis viriziniana),
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
eastern mole (Scalopus aauaticus), and white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus).
Larger mammals, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), seek refuge in forested woodlands, and browse
along ecotonal fringes between forests and fields. A number
of scat samples were noted during this field investigation.
Avifaunal abundance is typical in the Piedmont region of
North Carolina where a patchwork of habitat types is
available. Common passerine species which were sighted or
expected to occur include American robin (Turdus
misratorius), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), blue
8
(Cyanocitta cris.tata), Northern mockingbird (Mimus
Alottos), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), and
ican crow (Corvus brachvrhynchos). Birds of prey include
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and sharp-shinned hawk
ipiter striatus).
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
heastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), worm
e (Carphophis amoenus), black racer (Coluber
trictor), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) are
a few reptiles that may be found in the project area.
tic Life
The Neuse River and it's tributaries are host to a
ad of fish species. Common non-game inhabitants are the
en shiner (Notemiaonus cr'ysoleucas), redfin pickeral
x americanus), margined madtom (Noturus Ayrinus),
k chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), swallowtail shiner
ropis Procne), and bluehead chub (Nocomis micropogon).
ow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), pumpkinseed (Lepomis
osus), bluegill (Levomis macrochirus) and redbreast
ish (Lepomis aurit.us) provide sport fishing
rtunities.
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water-dependent
completion of larval stages in their life cycle. Some
ies are totally aquatic. One of interest, but not
on, is the Neuse River water .dog (Necturus lewisi), a
mander that is endemic to North Carolina and inhabits the
streams and larger tributaries of the Neuse and Tar
rs. It prefers leaf beds in quiet water in winter and is
only infrequently in summer. In 1981, a toxic spill of
am hydroxide from an upstream waste water treatment plant
responsible for an aquatic ecosystem kill in the river,
he vicinity of the US 401 crossing. Approximately eighty
Neuse River waterdogs were collected. No recent surveys
been conducted, but the population may be recovered
s. comm. Dr. Alvin Braswell, NC Museum of Natural
Dry). Other salamanders likely to occur in the project
are the marbled salamander (Ambvstoma opacum), slimy
nander (Plethodon Alutinosus) and the three-lined
nander (Eurvicea Auttolineata).
is Resource Impacts
Impacts on natural communities are reflective of the
tive abundance of each system present in the study
idor. Table 3 summarizes potential losses from
ling of the existing road. Calculations are based on
t-of-way limits of 39.4 m (130 feet). Values are
:ssed in hectares and acres.
Table 3. ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
PLANT COMMUNITY
Man-Dominated
Hardwood Forest
Miae-Pine Hardwood
Piedmont Levee Forest
Mesic Forest
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
Hectares Acres
98.8 40.0
1.5 0.6
47.7 19.3
2.7 1.1
0.6 0.6
151.3 61.6
The majority of impacts will occur in man dominated
communities. Many mobile animals such as deer, opossums,
rodents, and passerine birds are cosmopolitan in nature,
easily adapting to urbanization. Resident species will be
displaced or eliminated by construction activities and
habitat range will be reduced.
Aquatic species will be particularly affected.
Dredging, filling, pile-driving operations, slope
stabilization and land clearing are construction activities,
resulting in the direct loss of benthic organisms and an
increase in silt load in aquatic and wetland environments.
Mobile benthic macroinvertebrates are better able to avoid
impacts, and will have a faster recovery rate from siltation,
than those species that are filter feeders and relatively
immobile. The removal of benthic organisms reduces the
potential food supply for vertebrate and other aquatic
organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on aquatic organisms;
decreases the depth of light penetration, inhibiting plant
and algal growth; clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-
feeding benthos and the gills of fish; buries benthic
organisms on the bottom, cutting them off from a food source;
adversely modifies preferred benthic substrate and fish
habitat; and spoils downstream spawning beds for fish.
IV.A SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the US Impacts
Surface waters and their
the broad category of "Waters
defined in 33 CFR 328.3. The
(COE) takes jurisdiction over
associated wetlands fall under
of the United States" as
US Army Corps of Engineers
the discharge of dredged or
fill material into these waters as authorized by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act.
10
Of the five waterbodies crossed, Beaverdam Creek has 1.5
).6 acres) of associated wetlands, located to the east
vest of the existing alignment (Figure 2).
;dictional wetlands are characterized as Palustrine,
>ted, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily flooded (PFOlA)
:fined by Cowardin et al (1979). This wetland community
.dentified in the project corridor on the basis of low
chroma values, hydrophytic vegetation and the presence
7drology or hydrological indicators, such as stained,
!d vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree
and surface roots.
,t Reauirements
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
i'Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required
the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material
"Waters of the United States".
A symmetrical widening of the alignment in the vicinity
;averdam Creek will likely require a Nationwide Permit 33
330.5 (a) (26), due to wetland impacts exceeding 0.7 ha
acre). This permit authorizes discharges of dredged or
material into headwaters provided: 1) The discharge
not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters of
JS. 2) The permittee notifies the district engineer if
iischarge would cause the loss of more than 2.47 ha (1
I of waters of the US, in accordance with the
ification" general condition. For dischargers into
Inds , the notification must include a delineation. 3)
iischarge, including all attendant features, both
)rary and permanent, is part of a single and complete
:ct.
It is anticipated that other culverted stream crossings
be authorized by Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a)
?. Nationwide #14 allows for road crossing fills of non-
"Waters of the United States", provided that the fill
not exceed 200 linear feet below the plane of ordinary
water mark of the adjacent waterbodies and that the fill
:d in waters of the U.S. is limited to a filled area of
ire than one third acre.
A General Permit (CESAW-CO82-N-000-0031) is likely to
r to the bridge replacement over the Neuse River. This
it authorizes the placement of fill material associated
the construction , repair or replacement of bridges
zing navigable waters and waters the United States.
Ter, final judgement concerning specific permit
3diction is reserved by the COE.
A section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
ired for any activity which may result in a discharge and
Mot
\uj`&Ii- NLI
oo?x/1 \•'\? y????•T. a...oRa? •? ??
r 11 •.``,. ` I , .?' I j ?- IL i' .II II '1 .--_ ????'i, I ?• 11 } 'r• '
•
r? ) i ?_ ?, __?: ? ,'-vI. ".• ,,l' ?I" ,," i I ?' ? I ?;'? ,)Il ;;:(? i ?, ?I?? `?
94.0E 1
fil?`\ /- ?//I ? II' 1 ?`Id I?'\?\J ?I'.\ ,?II ? j LI .I f/• '' 1/ ?? _? ?
II ? i ___?_?? 11 /-? 1 _?? 1 \ l F? 1 I ,1, I 1 / ? , / i I I I' i?/\ I, ?' ?.? • -/ •. I I
,- ?. ?? 1?? ?%^ I ?? II ?v?`1 ?a?,? ??_ i'':/j v l , "fit ???'???`•?t??{ ?="\?- - `? ?` `?
( I•? 1 1 ? ?/ I / ? ??flx ' r ?- \ i?\ - './ +I I I I I, _ •?? ?' ,/ / ,'? •? ? '? `?r? \ 1' +y"= ''.. 1 IS? 1.
410
V
9an
l \
u 1 lI -
q/
r
??• ` a {!\\;u•/' / ) ) c cl I Jr?ii i, ' ?'I I 11 c..J,•? ?.?i? I
•
I? ddd ?( I , I ? ff • 1-??- ? ?
4?1?(z?l I(?+'? III ^ ¦ ?o?
t , I I f I _ _tM •L,C
l ( I I
N I 1. r
77 , 1
v. I??,I> 1? ? ?? - -
\? ( ?, I l VA Llalm?y
' oli
'I •I l? ?? ?.. ?,1 _v? - ( )?-?,, I I SCx
I ,,) \ \ r ?' I. ; ; , , t I' III S' I ° l ` 1, ?I. u..) .• ?II?` : 1 .=
?' 'o I' _- /1 q' ?(I l ( \ I ? it II r ? II ?I Ih L?' n ?? .••?. " ? ? ??
- ?,, ?? 1 A ?V t I I.? ? • r _ S II = aNI91
? \ I I (I I 4?JI? _
to:
)? 1 1, 1/ /. ? ? ) _ ?? ?? _?• I ! t
?I _I ,• • ??? ,,,i -, , h?'_ ,(?1- --,?I , ,_ v?l ., ? I?, ?ni?e,s9l?sr ? .
?
?
?I<1Z -one-
(l I..Ila.i \ ) ./ ?1 ?I ( I. ( _I `??\ q r6Z ]? I II? • /). :I -c.-_1???` l `?1 \ I#'
'(W1Z(J) ? I II• ,?/, ?\ r ??? ' >?-o o, I I'1???1'li ; 'rlf? l.. ? I ? I I???? '??? (? ?? 1 ?7? ?__ ? t•
u l
' Q
, II / o) I - ,?? r i ?'1i t' ? III" ?f' vv s v I, IIII'I ? Ill ? v? o
I ?,I v 1. ? r •II ? 1 II, ? n5c I. ,? ? - ? °(\' I. I I??? , ,J?I? (? P _
(;-: \ I
XlF'
• 1 \\ 1 l
,!7 I,II '? ?I ??I ?,- ??-- ,? ? ? ? ?I,:>"? ?•• I?,??lr 1'?I?J;/? J' ( ?ZVUL ? x?//// ? J ...).
?\ ,I /, ! •( 1 - ?' ( I I I, I ( dOa' I? I I \ \) - - Ji 11 fit' I ?.J 1 1
to,
1'• /? I I? ? ???nl??I? ? __ ? ) Iv 1 l C ' ? -? I, ?- ' ?I. ) ?? ? ly I?? ??? I ?? (' ?? ?I ? '. ?? ? ?, I ? lv('oc?' -?
n
rf.
' It h9Z-_f?:,I?? _. .-,__ _)- ??:.- _I I 1 ? I \1 I11 1 I (a II?-? ? •?./ I ?ll 111 I i I lP I ?1 f'(? ?
I I(I ? i , , /\ ? l I _ ? ?'?, // / ?_ •l'? _ ?i r ////J \? •?•• ?l?".]l' ? (
3 1533?VM _. : CJ£
\ ` ; ?'t.•. ,•1\' ?'\ • l "0 IW 6
HHF/M1 7W 9C NOSH.9(IN3N 1
•_tisa -\ \ 1•F• ,/ -?.? r II• V• ??. .=i'- ?-?' 3" 1 69zv
z,
???ZZZ? ` / l ?/ / I i. l \J \ \ /rr \ • \
to
I(? 1 ) l spsoaso.c? asna A l3 .L
9S _??-) J / ;. Y4111' 1 ;.:,? ? , ;. .? `, \ \ I \r'.•lf1 0' ? / r I r••
e_? ?? 1`?? lam. ` ?? I n •. l Solis Plivilam
z J7
DOZ Il , ,. - iT
? '?? ' : a i -?? ??'? J ? ?, , '?.'? _ - ? ??\_ t 1'IT• A ? ll ll O ;') C
\ I/
t C C Z N S ?? 1 T S l) 10 t SA
I? l , 1 z1 I ;\ ?i _ l1
""A p
40
?
'???.,?-J Ate' _)?, law „vv?. it l l ?•?. '?il?'1? 9 _I.
? J ?• v (% I ?OOZ - ??
els
007??. < o?\\
1 ??, , ?'(G;? (' ?,, sly ;_??J???-•? ? ? _?.V???' ? ';??ml?;, _? I(
\ ? i
11
for which a feder:al permit is required. State permits are
administered through the DEHNR.
It seems likely that stream channel modification
and or relocation will be required for the west side of
Beaverdam Creek. Approximately 15.2 m to 30.3 m (50 to 100)
linear feet of stream will be affected. In accordance with
the 1976 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (72 Stat. 563, as
amended; 16 USC 661 et seq., NCDOT will coordinate such
activities with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide
permits or General permits are authorized. according to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. Final discretionary
authority in these matters rests with the COE.
IV.B RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
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.
The FWS reports several federally protected species for
Wake county as of May 13, 1993.
Table 4. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Wake County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Picoides borealis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Alasmidonta heterodon
Rhus michauxii
COMMON NAME
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Bald Eagle
Dwarf-wedge mussel
Michaux' Poison Sumac (W)
STATUS
E
E
E
E
A brief description and habitat requirements for the
above listed species are summarized below.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (E)
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was once a common bird
in the mature pine forests of the Southeast. It lived from
east Texas to Florida and north to Missouri, Kentucky and
Maryland. Today, its range and population have been reduced
through loss of habitat. Forty-one North Carolina counties
12
are known to currently support active RCW colonies. These are
largely restricted to the upper, middle and lower coastal
plains.
The red-cockaded woodpecker has specific nesting and
foraging habitat requirements. Nesting habitat consists of
pine or pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands over
60 years of age. Available foraging habitat is defined as
pine and pine-hardwood stands (50 percent or more pine) over
30 years of age contiguous to and within 0.5 miles of the
colony centroid. The 0.5 mile radius from the colony
centroid represents the foraging range of clans and may
encompass areas outside of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No suitable habitat is present for
the red-cockaded woodpecker. No impacts to this species will
result from project construction.
Bald Eagle (E)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
The bald eagle is associated with coasts, rivers and
lakes, usually nesting near bodies of water where they feed.
The largest, living trees in an area are preferred. Open
expanses of water in combination with perching trees or snags
exist in the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Suitable habitat is present in the
project area, in Piedmont levee forests adjacent to the Neuse
River. A nest survey of the areas was conducted. No
evidence of nests or the bird was seen. The proposed action
will have no impact upon this species.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel (E)
Alasmidonta heterodon
In North Carolina, the dwarf wedge mussel is known from
both the Tar and Neuse River systems. It prefers areas of
deep runs with coarse sands. It may also be found on bottoms
of gravel or mud, among submersed aquatic plants and near
stream banks underneath overhanging limbs.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Within the project area, Beaverdam
Creek, unnamed tributary and the Neuse River provide
potential habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel. It is
recommended that sound, scientific surveys be conducted to
confirm or refute the presence of this organism (Personal
comm. John Alderman, NCWRC). Due to seasonal restrictions,
surveys can only be conducted from Spring through Fall.
Michaux's Sumac (E)
Rhus michauxii
This species is endemic to the inner coastal plain and
13
lower piedmont of North Carolina. It occurs in sandy or
rocky open woods. It is an erect, rhizomatous shrub, growing
to a height of 0.2 to 0.4 meters. The entire plant is
densely pubescent. Leaflets are oblong-lanceolate and their
edges are simply to doubly serrate. White to greenish-yellow
flowers appear in June and are followed by red fruits.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Suitable habitat exists in the study
area. A plant by plant search was conducted along the length
of the alignment, in field and pasture margins and along open
roadside shoulders. No specimens were seen within the impact
zone. The proposed action will not impact this species.
Candidate Species
Candidate species are species which are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until
they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. These species are mentioned here for the purpose
of information, as they may be listed under a protected
status at a later date. The habitat column indicates the
availability of suitable habitat in the project area.
Table 5. FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
WAKE COUNTY
Scientific Name
Mvotis austroriparius
Aimophila aestivalis*
Elliptio .iudithae
Elliptio lanceolata
Fusconaia masonai
Lasmigona subviridis
Speyeria diana
Trillium pusillum
var. pusillum
Monotropsis odorata
Common Name Status Habitat
Southeastern bat C2 yes
Bachman's sparrow C2 yes
Neuse slabshell C2 yes
Yellow lance C2 yes
Atlantic pigtoe C2 yes
Green floater C2 yes
Diana fritillary C2 yes
Carolina trillium C2 yes
Sweet pinesap C2
State-Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered
and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture.

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database
was reviewed to determine if any state protected species
14
occurrences have been reported for the project area. None
are presently recorded. However, personal communication with
Dr. Alvin Braswell (NC Museum of Natural History) reports
that the Neuse River waterdog Necturus lewisi. a state
Special Concern (SC) amphibian was present in the Neuse
River, prior to a 1981 chemical spill. This population may
be recovered, but no recent surveys have been conducted.
In the event the animal is present, I strongly recommend that
stringent "best management" practices be implemented for this
project.
In addition, the FWS provided information on several
Candidate (C) species that occur in Wake County that may
occur in the project corridor. No surveys were conducted for
species or-suitable habitat. The following state
designations for these species are provided in Table 5.
Table 6. STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
WAKE COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status/Rank
Myotis austroriparius Southeastern bat SC/S2
Aimophila aestivalis* Bachman's sparrow SC/S3B/S2N
Elliptio judithae Neuse slabshell E/S1
Elliptio lanceolate Yellow lance T/S2
Fusconaia masonai Atlantic pigtoe T/S1
Lasmig na subviridis Green floater E/S1
Trillium pusillum
var. pusillum Carolina trillium E/S1
* Indicates no specimen from that county in at least 20
years.
* Species that occur in the project area
NC Rank Designations: S1 = Critically imperiled in NC because
of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences), or because of
some factor making it especially vulnerable to extirpation
from NC; S2= Imperiled in NC because of rarity (6 to 20
occurences or few remaining individuals; S3= Rare or uncommon
in NC (21 to 100 occurrences).
15
IV. REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North
American Birds. (6th ed.) Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence..
Kansas. 877p.
Ehrlich, P.E., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birders
Handbook. A Field Guide to the Natural History of North
American Birds. Simon and Schuster, N.Y., N.Y. 785 p.
Depoe, C.E., J.B. Funderburg, and T.L. Quay. 1961. The
reptiles and amphibians of North Carolina: a preliminary
check-list and bibliography. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.
77:125-136
Federal Interagency committee for Wetland Delineation. 1987.
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C.
Cooperative Technical Publication. 76 pp.
Godfrey, R.K., J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants
of Southeastern United States, Dicotyledons. The University
of Georgia Press, Athens. 933p.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North American Mammals. North
Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, N.C. 70 p.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 264p.
North Carolina Wildlife Resourses Commission. 1974. North
Carolina mammalian species with keys to the orders and
families. N.C. Wildl. Resour. Comm.,Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DER. 1992. Classifications and water quality
standards assigned to the.waters of the Neuse River basin.
Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, N.C. 34p.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill. 408 p.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and,G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.. 1183 p.
16
Scott, S.L. (ed.). 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North
America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 464
Smith, R.R., J.B. Funderburg and T.L. Quay. 1960. A
checklist of North Carolina mammals. N.C. Wildl. Resour.
Comm., Raleigh.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial
Mollusks. May 1990. A Report on the Conservation Status of
North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna.
246 p.
USDA-SCS 1970. Soil survey of Wake County, North Carolina.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Wahington, D.C.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. The University of
North Carolina Press., Chapel Hill. 255 p.
i
07-21-92
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 2 E I V4p
Q Q
JUL 24.1992.
IVTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS DIVISION OF
MAILED TO FROM HIGHWAYS
h'=SEAS
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGG
LJ WARD DIRECTOR
PLANNING C ENV BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG/ INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 401 FROM US 1 TO SR 2224
IN WAKE COUNTY (TIP R-2425)
S AI NO 92E42200915 PROGRAM TITLE - S:OPI NG
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED t 1 NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
1 X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOJLD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE 19191 733-0499.
C.G. REGION J
t-

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
t-
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGee -
Project Review Coordinator
92- 0915 - Widening of US 401 in Wake County
July 10, 1992
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If, during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
MM: bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster
P0.. &,a 27657. Itilcigh. North Camlina 27611-76117 1 plxiu 419-733.6376
-fin fguwl Opportunity A11irmativc Aaiun Empk,yvr
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment

f
der,

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources-,.-
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Sides
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
June 5, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison t
SUBJECT: Proposed widening of US 401 in Wake County.
Project No. 92-0915
The proposed involves widening US 401 from it's junction with
US 1 in North Raleigh to SR 2224 at the Neuse River. The
Environmental Assessment should identify unique, prime, or
important farmland that will be impacted. A wetlands evaluation
should be included. Actions that minimize impacts are desired.
DH/tl

ti6 - ??
\ "0"
?

rte. - ?
;J

PO Nix 27(787 Raleigh. \urth ( amlLna 27,mi -047 Teleplumv 919 733 23()2
An Equal OpTitmmin- ,Urhnn.mvc •k oon Empluwi
Stale of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
71-
Alter 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 same Normal Process
Regional Office., I
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

? Permit to construct d operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, d sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post -application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual 190 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pie-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permil to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment lacilily•granted alter NPDES Reply (NIA)
lime, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit -whichever is later.
I
?
Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
,
(NIA)
?
Well Construction Permit 1
Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre•applicalion conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

C Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement
f 60 days
-j acilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H. N/A (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
mast be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520. r`.. .???r ?,?
•
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be In compliance with 15A
• :.
so days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal ,rv
;?
NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group c ' ,? i;>:•..
919-733-0820. ?• ;
)
J
J
<<? • (90 days)
? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An eds oh sedimentatio
? control plan will be required If one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before be innin activity. A lee of 30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan 30 days)
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Adl of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surely bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
? Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be Issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)

? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22

i On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties
n coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are Involved, Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.''

?
Oil Relining Facilities
NIA 90.120 days
(NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.

?
D Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
am Safely Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces•
sary to verify Huard Classification. A minimum lee of 5200.00 must ac•
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
?sws Continued on reverse

PERMITS
Permit to drill exploralory.oil or gas well
Geophysical Exploration Permit
--,I Stale Lakes Construction Permit
401 Water Ouality Certification
CAMA Permit lot MAJOR development
LAMA Permit for MINOR development
Normal Process
Time
(sialulory time
PPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
SPECIAL A

File surety bond of 55,000 with EHNR running to Slate of N,C.
.
Gays
10 (t Gay
operator
y drill
well
conditional that any
EH
NR rules and regulations.
lugged according
p
abandonment, be p ugg to
Application filed with EHNR al least 10 days prior to Issue of permit 10rda s
Application by letter. No standard application form.
Application lee based on structure site is charged. Must include 15.26 days
20 d)
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership
of riparian property.
W days
(130 days)
NIA
•
5days
$250.00 lee must accompany application
days)
days

0 fee must accompany application
$50.0

days)
Several geodesic monuments are located in or new the project area. If any . Box 2onu ants need to be moved or destroyed. Please nolily:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. C] Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage lanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 days
hlAl
C3 Compliance with 15A NCAC 21-1.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
t?ll?} : S1E01•"'t?i '?' k/LQfror? Ce/J?X?1- /??uS
P,`M,?cuc- ,t?vAJ ?r
t,-rr)k 157JS A04&so Alr egogm • I g
O F .?J?'? a+M?7 IL s?4ii'^ ? 1/X ? ps m asr W- hhvOYte=40 /bp
W??,i, rQS '?f'?'lGr•? fit' /^•r.l??M?I?17?aJJ OAF' SM76L67- fr:E.cs `f--
REGIONAL OFFICES
stions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
Q
ue
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovla Building
NC 28301
ville
tt
WPlace
59 ,
e
Faye
281101
Asheville. [phone]
[phone] 08
? Mooresville Regional Office g h Regional Office
? 3800 RaleiBarrett ReDrive. gional Suite 101
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
5 7609
Raleigh
, , NC NC 2 2
2314
Mooresville, NC 2811 -
(919) 73
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
? Washington Regional Office
Carolina Avenue
1424 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Was
Washington, NC 27889
946.6481
(919) [phone]
0 Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
,n•n, n^e w%^,
•?w,dr .1:..
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Msources
James G: Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIXW COMMENTS
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretar
it,
Project Number: 9-09/ S County: l(V?
Project Name: PreriA+P?-p?e+??«-!e yo us C/O/ d_1 -44. On
Charles H. Gardner
Director

Us l 40 5Ka?Y
i
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 markerp.
Other (comments attached)
A J
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at (9 733-3i6.
1'1'q2
?????"JZrvy 6' ? / 2 ?• f) c'=_!•.,?.
Revievlefr
Date C.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment c U (Z 1i
This project 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.
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].
?? ib?. za'. ?' 6- 15- 9Z
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunly Affirmative Acdon Employer
NORTHC/IFf FALLFOR IDORANf D20(PL) ' bb I ?E
NOR8EN0 ELMQHE :',• '?'? WK 75
.\BE/RY 2000 WOM©L
JADE ...... ch
FRIENDSHIP j Q p pn? Vt -- CHEMICAL
i l
5ENIOR .•% 0 P. \v? Vin P?E'ti?
?i APTS JOIllbrook ., ., /JP. -0- KERR Neuse
HSHNSON 6 Lt t?N Q
COX r0 APEPPRRN Crossroads
hq /RALEIGH q J Y 2217
UNITED I CURB iR 0K?< KMART -10
cgs
Z 217 OpCOLLECT ?? \s
DEPART WHITT wKn
MtiNOR'01
MONT 9 DRESSER GENERAL
gV5 Pc, - ONEY "j fR
G?•/.••• •? ?AEROTRON wKI P RUN
CORNING NPOINS ,?. A.A`.
REN GaEE .y \ to 1 < . • fAS
rN v TW00 2108% ,;? ?J, lir, CURv
STILLWELL
WAIN CITIZEN '.;? FAOp, OLLIE
SCOUTS ATTS RgyFWake
MOODS FACTORY NTER _
?WK5i .:? FISHER Crossroads
ROBERT
0? . WY NS
?? t r WK 12
KWIK NEW HOPE FJOLDCN /
9 s G y POw¢il .
(UNINC.) o ?v
POP. 6,7459=_ ?s 169 DRO
Fsf _ _
tiOGS JCQV
BARD \
WK 8 .? CLIFTON
• HESTER /
' AYLORS ? f
MAZE I /
? _ER WK 7x
ers E Grove WIGGINS
3PIL``•(?=M ?B L
168 ORD
iABTREE AMSBURY? k WK 6
CROSS
65 x2JS5? Az
?F 7- PE WK 5 NEUSEOCA p JOHNNY
wEL% L,12JS7 LAKE Q' 172 DRn
NEUSE MAY
l Milburni4 .12 JS
/1-2 JS 6

4
Project Number: #92-0915
Wake County
If the existing water lines will be relocated during the
construction. Plans for the water line relocation must be
submitted to the Division of Environmental Health Plan Review
Branch through the City of Raleigh.

I

t?
. It. '
N\

0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 0.
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program &Xu'? jz?x
Date: July 6, 1992
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation regarding fish and wildlife concerns for
improvements to US 401 from US 1 to SR 2224, Wake
County, North Carolina, Project No. 92-0915.
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. J.
Ward of the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from improvements to US 401 and associated stream and
river crossings. The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
has reviewed the proposed project, 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).
The NCWRC recommends the use of existing alignments whenever
possible and supports the NCDOT in its consideration of such an
alternative for this project. Given the nature of surrounding
land use in the project area, potential for significant fisheries
and wildlife impacts is primarily confined to the vicinity of the
Neuse River (Section D). Floodplain encroachment should be
minimized in this area and sedimentation and erosion control
measures strictly implemented to avoid undue loss or degradation
of fish and wildlife habitat.
Our ability to evaluate project impacts and provide
beneficial recommendations when reviewing project environmental
documents will be enhanced by inclusion of the following
information:

Memo Page 2
July 6, 1992
1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the study
corridor. Potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories.
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including State and
Federal species of special concern, within, adjacent
to, or utilizing study corridor.
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.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
wetlands and impacts associated with fragmentation.
6. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of
streams crossed and the extent of such activities.
7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
8. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
For additional information on endangered or threatened
species in the study area, please contact Randy Wilson, Nongame
and Endangered Species Program Manager, at [phone]. If we
can further assist your office, please call David Yow, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project.
DLS/DLY/lp
cc Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist-
Randy Wilson, Nongame and Endangered Species Program Manager
David Yow, NCWRC Highway Coordinator

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 18, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of High2ransp ?.
Department of nation We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Hi reservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widen US 401 from US 1 to SR 2223, Wake
County, R-2425, 9.8052008, M-5934(3),
#. RS-4074(1), CH 92-E-4220-0915
With regard to archaeological resources, we recommend that intensive
surveys be undertaken for Section B from SR 2041 to its northern end,
Section C, and Section D to locate and evaluate any archaeological sites that
may be affected by the proposed project. Your staff may want to coordinate
some aspects of their survey with investigations undertaken in compliance
with the stipulations outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for
the Northern Wake Expressway, as some of these areas overlap with this
project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the
following structures of historical or architectural importance within the
general area of the project:
2heus (Seth) Jones House. East side of US 401, 0.35 mile south of
2042, Raleigh vicinity. The house was placed on the National
Register on July 7, 1975, and is also designated as a local historic
landmark.
Rufus Ivey House. 61 15 Louisburg Road, Raleigh vicinity. The house
was included in our state study list on July 11, 1991.
Sion Rogers, Sr. House. 4262 Louisburg Road, Raleigh vicinity. The
house was placed on our state study list on July 7, 1991, and is also
designated as a local historic landmark.
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
IL -
JUnl 799c

109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
June 18, 1992, Page 2
The following properties located within the area of potential effect have
not been evaluated for National Register-eligibility:
Rufus Jordan Buffaloe House No. 2. East side of SR 2036, 0.2 mile
north of SR 2215, Raleigh vicinity.
Rufus Jordan Buff aloe House No. 2. Northeast corner of SR 2215 and
SR 2036 junction, Raleigh vicinity.
House. West side of US 1, 3500 black of Capital Boulevard, Raleigh.
St. Matthews Rosenwald School. Southeast side of US 401, 0.5 mile
northeast of SR 2213, Raleigh vicinity.
New Hope Baptist Church. West side of US 401, at junction with New
Hope Road, Raleigh vicinity.
O'Hara-Stell Farm (with mill site). Northwest side of US 401, 0.5 mile
northeast of SR 2006, Wake Crossroads vicinity.
Bridge over Neuse River. US 401 over Neuse River, Wake Crossroads
vicinity.
Please note that while the MOA for the Northern Wake Expressway (R-2000)
includes mitigation for the Alpheus Jones House and the Rufus Ivey House,
it does not completely outline mitigation which may be necessary for this
project. We feel close coordination between our agencies concerning the
MOA and this project would be beneficial.
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: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
Federal Highway Administration
Raleigh Historic Properties Commission
F. Vick

JUN 1992
REmYED
SECIIIAAW
OFFICE
DOA
U.S. 401 North Corridor Plan
(Maps located on pages 54.M through 54S)
Introduction
This small area plan extends along U. S. 401 from U. S.1, across the Neuse River, to Rolesville's
present jurisdiction and from Buffaloe Road, Harris Creek, Mitchell Mill Road and Jonesville
Road on the south to the C S X Railway, the Neuse River, Tom's Creek and Burlington Mill
Road on the north. The primary planning area for the U. S. 401 Corridor excludes those areas
on the west side of the Neuse which are northwest of the heavy dashed line shown an the
Land Use Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan. This line follows New Hope Road, Hollenden
Drive, Spring Forest Road, Fox Road and a Branch of Perry Creek. Plans for this excluded area
are shown only for illustration purposes.
The larger area includes all of the Interlocal Agreement Area (agreement with Wake County to
provide water and wastewater services as jurisdiction is extended), the perimunicipal area
(additional area into which Raleigh expects to grow), plus the area of mutual interest between
Rolesville and Raleigh located between Jonesville Road, Mitchell Mill Road, Burlington Mill
Road and Forestville Road. These areas were included to provide a more complete plan for
the City of Raleigh and to lay the foundation for future joint planning between Raleigh,
Rolesville and Wake County.
The overall character of the U. S. 401 area is residential and very rural with much of the land
still in fields and tree stands. The Neuse River is the major natural feature along the corridor.
Several housing developments dominate the area west of the river. Most of the remainder of
the study area has remained very low density. Enriching the historic character of U. S. 401 are
four large nineteenth century houses, a late eighteenth century Federal style coastal cottage
and an old mill site featuring several remaining outbuildings.
The 1991 zoning patterns along U. S. 401 would allow hundreds of acres of retail uses to be
developed. Much of this potential retail development, however, would not meet the retail use
guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
7/91 Ralmigh ComM6nsivw Plan Wd6x st DisWd Pion 5.4.9
Goals and Objectives
The overall goal of the plan is to provide better guidance for making land use and public r,
investment decisions.
Goal l: Improve Land Use Planning
Objective 1. Provide a foundation for joint planning with nearby or adjacent towns
Objective 2 Refine the land use plan to limit strip retail development by separating retail and
other intense development (focus areas) with less intense uses (transition areas)
Objective 3. Provide guidelines for the development of gateway corridor transition areas as
less intense uses which provide visual relief.
Objective 4. Plan an urban corridor which can support transit and make the most efficient use
of the existing roadway
Objective 5. Maintain the primarily residential character of the corridor, especially north of the
Northern Wake Expressway
Objective 6. Promote affordable housing and higher density, transit oriented housing
Objective 7. The Neuse River Corridor, including the river's natural features, should be
protected and used for recreation
Goal 2: Improve Economic Development
Objective I. Explore possible employment areas, particularly at the location of the Northern
Wake Expressway
Objective 2 Provide a better transportation link between the employment areas along U. S.
North and U. S. 401, where nearby housing can be provided
Goal 3: Improve Transportation
Objective 1. Provide safe and adequate facilities for the projected traffic flow on U. S. 401,
including careful planning of intersections and interchanges, median cuts, frontage access and
road capacity design
Objective 2 Plan for transit and appropriate transit oriented, high density/intensity uses
along the 401 corridor and along routes which lead to the U. S.1 employment base, including a
link to a possible regional transit system
Objective 3. Plan additional roads to serve the land uses within the greater corridor area,
paying particular attention to connections between subdivisions
Objective 4. Place greater emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including access
between developments, access within developments, access to retail and employment areas
and recreational loops.
Northwst District Pion 5-4.10 Raleigh Comprehensive Plop 7/91

Goal 4. Create an Attractive Gateway
Objective 1. Develop corridor guidelines for public and private landscaping which will
promote an image for the corridor. and influence land use and public investment decisions.
Objective 2 Preserve the existing character of the corridor, including outstanding views, tree
stands, wetlands, the Neuse River and historic structures
Objective I Provide guidelines for the development of new buildings and roadways which
will promote the rural, residential and historic character of the corridor
concepts
The U. S. 401 North Corridor Plan is based on the idea that more compact urban growth is
desirable for the future of the City of Raleigh. The underlying philosophy is that growth
through urban sprawl patterns, with its low-density subdivisions, low-rise suburban shopping
and work centers, and exclusive reliance on the automobile, exponentially increases the costs
of infrastructure: water lines, sewer lines and especially roads, and exacts heavy costs in local
environmental quality. Compact, more intense urban growth patterns, designed with transit
and pedestrian travel in mind, is more efficient in terms of real estate costs, transportation
costs, and commuting time, as well as infrastructure.
The land use recommendations within this plan are largely based on transportation and visual
resource concepts which use the natural and built environment as a framework. These envi-
ronments were surveyed and charted to provide an information base for the plan
Additional elements which play an important role in this plan are existing plans for the area
which are city-wide or regional in scope, or plans which the City has already approved. In *e
U. S. 401 corridor, these include the Northern Wake Expressway, Greenway along the Neuse
River and local creeks, and approved site plans, such as Spring Forest Station at the Spring
Forest/U. S. 401 intersection
Visual Resources
Although its effects on the land use and transportation plans encompass a larger area, the
focus of the visual resource element is confined to the 3000 foot corridor surrounding U. S. 401.
An inventory of existing visual and natural resources revealed areas of unparalleled good
views, outstanding historic structures, and valuable tree stands. The basis for the visual
resource concept is to preserve and protect the historic, residential and rural atmosphere of the
corridor. Special streetyards are used in combination with development techniques designed
to preserve views of forest and pastures. Three areas of special interest have been identified to
be preserved and emphasized, by allowing open views in lieu of streetyards and encouraging
higher density development behind or to the side of the special area. The visual resource
design also recommends median planting, and encourages tree preservation through rezoning
or landscape ordinance credits.
Transportation
U.S. 401 North is a principal arterial and a gateway to Raleigh froiri the northeast. It is very
important that the carrying capacity and aesthetics of the roadway be improved to the highest
7/91 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Northead Diskid Wan
5.4.11
r
n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkA NSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. IR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Linwood Stone, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
ATTENTION:
FROM: Janet L. Shipley, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Addendum to Natural Resource Technical Report
for US 401 widening, from US 1 to SR 2224,
Wake County; TIP## R-2425, State Project#
9.8052008; Federal Aid No. M-5834(3)RS-
4074(1).
The following information on the federally Endangered
Bachmans's warbler was inadvertently left out o e orlg'nal
Natural Resource Technical Report. Please insert the
following information:
vermivora bachmanii (Bachman's warbler) E Animal Family: Parulidae
Date Listed: 3/11/67; 12/2/70
Distribution in N.C.: Wake
-- Bachman's warbler ranges throughout the southeastern United -
States during the breeding season and winters in western Cuba and
the Isle of Pines. The only confirmed nesting records occurred
between 1897 and 1937. Of the 30 observed nests 26 were in I'On
Swamp, Charleston County, South Carolina. Other nests were in
Kentucky, Missouri, and Alabama.
This small warbler has a total length of 12 cm. The male has
a yellow forehead, chin, and shoulders. Its crown and bib are
black. Immature males have less black on their crown and less
yellow on their shoulders, but more white on the lower belly.
Females are generally drabber with the throat and breast being
gray or yellow and the crown gray. Males and females are both
characterized by having a thin bill that is slightly downcurved
and white undertail coverts.

Bachman's warblers nest in low, wet forested areas with
standing permanent water. There is a preference for hardwood
forest containing sweet gum, oak, and black gum, with openings in
the forest canopy filled with dense thickets of cane, blackberry,
and other vines and shrubs. Nests are found near the ground in
undergrowth. Nesting begins in late March or early June and
clutch size is usually 3 -4 eggs. Their winter migration begins
in July.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. Mesic forests and Piedmont
levee forests do not provide suitable nesting habitat for the
Bachman's warbler.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor