19990757 Ver 1_Complete File_19990713

mitigation request
ilk s Suej,
Subject: mitigation request
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 200108:26:14 -0500
From: Jeff Jurek <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC Wetlands Restoration Program-DENR
To: Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>, Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
The purpose of this email is to notify you of the North Carolina
Wetlands
Restoration Program's (NCWRP.) intention to accept payment into the
Wetland
Restoration Fund for compensatory mitigation for stream/wetland impacts
for
the following project:
Project name: TIP# R-2906 NC 55 Widening
River Basin: Cape Fear
8digit catalog unit: 03030002
County: Wake/Durham
DWQ Project # (if known):
COE Project # (if known): 199920092
CAMA Project # (if known):
Wetland impact: 0.79 ac riparian wl
Stream impact: 2652 ft
Wetland mitigation: 0.79 ac
Stream mitigation: 2652 ft
If for any reason you feel that the NCWRP should not accept payment for
the
above project, please notify me (Jeff Jurek) by email or phone 919
733-5316
within 5 working days upon receipt of this message. If no response is
received within 5 working days, NCWRP assumes you concur with this
payment.
E
1 Jeff Jurek <[e-mail]>
1 of 1 1/9/01 8:34 AM
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 23, 1999
Wake County
DWQ Project # 990575
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material in 0.25 acres of wetlands or
waters for the purpose of a road widening, as you described in your application dated July 6, 1999. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3127. This
Certification allows you to use National Pemiit Number 23 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should
get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment
and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval
will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. This
approval shall expire when the corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as otherwise provided in the General
Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
Stevens
5
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorey
Central Files 990757.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd, Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/wetlandc.html

14
-74 J9 . r-"?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNffiNT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 11, 1999
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric C. Alsmeyer.
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
RF??-?? r
Subject: Wake County, Widen NC 55 From the Proposed Holly Springs Bypass
to North of US 1, Federal Project No. MA-55(4), State Project No. 8.1403
T.I.P. No. R-2905.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen
existing NC 55 for a distance of approximately 1.6 miles to five lanes to improve traffic
flow and to enhance safety.
Approximately 0.1 hectares (0.25 acres) of jurisdictional wetlands and 456 feet of
jurisdictional streams will be affected by the construction of the proposed project. The
stream impacts are associated with two culvert extensions. We have minimized the
effects on the stream to the greatest extent possible by removing the riprap except at the
outlet of the culvert. We have relocated approximately 190 feet of the stream into a
meandering channel that is the same width as the existing channel. The bottom of the
relocated channel will have substrate similar to that in the existing stream. We will
mitigate the stream impacts for the remaining 266 feet of stream by using the North
Carolina Wetland Restoration Program at a ratio of 2:1. In addition to the CE, we have
also included copies of permit drawings (Sheet 1 to 8) that depict the impacts.
. US !
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII,
Volume 61, Number 241.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, as a courtesy copy for
their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E.,.Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. S. Varnadoe, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Jay Bissett, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer

MAP
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
1500m 0 3000m PROJECT R-2905
NC 55 FROM THE PROPOSED HOLLY
1100,000 SPRINGS BYPASS TO NORTH OF US I

o oJ=
P7-
< N
0
=

?
Cr<
LO L&J

Lij
03>- O O?
0oz N OZ
?L=iU ?O
0
x
t? W
W
OzQ W
o 2 N
NQ
Q F- N3 x

O CL >
p CL O >-
min
L
p L-
L
5
M Z

L.LJ Z
O CL
= N
V) w
N

a
3 co co
Q ? LO k_

W
y.
'

Lli f
I
X
1

Q
W

0 (f)
1
to
C)
Z
?
V)
J N

l

Z

0-

_ rJ `
J
O
2
O
t?
Y
b i]3HS 1135
0 0?
=o >v-, °
W =
a Ln to ?-
CL con
I Z I Z
o=Z N OZ
o II a=o °C aO
O LLJ
U
O °4 W I F U ?oa ~a
to 3 ? M CL
(6 aC
LO a- 5: a crm
Lu-
R U-
U ?t7
00 t,'fZ
?c/ ?N?' I I / / z z?
i?
\\ i l o
,:
w
LE
V) °
3 LC)
i? •c > W
w
U
a
W
i
Q
N
LA-
/ N
Z
/ / I 4 W
I / ? ti a
zo o=

Q N
i-
CC< =o

-
?
Z o Z 0
CV o
Oc O
O Z
ix
0-0
O Z Y F.-
LLI H N

a? C
a Mn.

cc Go

-
p0
LL.N
U
Z LO Z
Ix
V
a
Z V)

W J

Q> L-Li
cr-
? Z
Q

W E
W z
co
?
O
V o
LLJ
LLI
z

W Q)
61

U V/
Q_

i

1 .
1
1 ? M
1 «
C « « •J
h ,
W
/
1 ?F
' I
I`
1]3HS
O
«
«
• r
•
•
V
TIS

Z J?
O O
Z LL
O
W=

(LX -
s92z C"
N CLO
oz
Q= = =
O
ti U
= ?--
F
- ?
U W
pZ w =V)
?-N
Q d
1-in3 Z M
a.
W>
p a- o
?m
?
O N
U n Z
1
Z
cr-
L)
Z
N
,w

` I
o_
W
o
0
(n O
Ln
W r
cr- N
\
m W'
N d ~
Q
Z W
J f" O W
U
2 Q
Q 3 Na ct
:3
Z
- QW N
2
J
W J Z
LL :2 - U-
V) LN U N
w w? W
F- F- 0: F-
O O Q O
z zw z
w w J W
C3 0 U O
•
I

_j V)
Z J

I O =O
I
W a
W
I
I ?Q
Lin
N w
0 31: >- 0
I W VOZ N OZ
I
i 0
U
:
I (.., w
D
U
N
I 0 w zle --j ~ V
f
I W 3 CC M CL
I I I a> °' zm
p? ?
(n
I W Lin

U
to o
I 1 I Z It

I W Z to
m •

I •

I •
•
I •

M

R ? g

I Lij
W p
I • t
-
• ? O
WWi
C v '
NM13lI

a•
= W }

I Q
CL
I 0 0..
I
W Z W

Q ~V)
T I
I
0
z
C3
LLJ
~
WZ
3 N
W J
Z~
I Q W
=
Z
I
J 3
J W

n
Lj_ z
V) V) -
N N
Z
I F- 1=

I I Z z w
U
D
IOW fl
I
I
I •.
W

O
3 Z J O
0
M LA-

?Oti
f
a- 3:
N W=
CLO

<= 04
Ix O Z
w

p
U W
=

'`E
E
//? W
W
Zbd
H W 1
-N
E SE /

in ?
3
a
o
LL-

/
Z Ln z
U 0-
ZV)

d
8 / Q

/
I

/ •
/ / o
in
' • / • -
/
Ln
G• w
/ a
W }
/ a
WW / 'I 0 W
V C'
/ ` t W W O 3 NQ ouC
W w Q Z Z?
as ?
?y Q W N
J
I `? X W J ?
W
i?F W 3 lL ? Z W
4 J CL N N O N
p CCC w h- H X FW-
W' O O Q O
a ® . E?
g Z ZW Z
LAI DU 0 LLJ
0
I
I
m

ccE rn
cR

o L

n rn
°
in
m ti
w U
v
f/7 0-6 N N
H
U l0 C
C R E
O
O
O r
O
a U a ui
?

W
F C C ?+
H 0 p E
v
O
ccn
J (
? uSU

W

C p L O O O O

vs u.
3:
R ° W) M
°
c w 10
? t O O O O
Z O C C
IL v
'
N C ? r
(O
M
Of

R C N
=
C CID

O
r
O co

O
V d
U ° 0 0 6

m
m? v
c c
?
t R i..
_ O O O O
Q m N
y c
U y
Q c
G C
z
o 0 0 0
>
X >
Q
Z W c

g

E

H
c 'a

c
N
C N
C14

IV)
U')

)
y O O O O
lL m C o o O
m
7 m
U N
7
w

,
?
a
J
J
,
o t
°
:°. o o v uoi
U `- o

10
+
+
+ M cn
N

J
w C

.

Z J
O O
~
Q N O

03>- O O?
ZOZ N OZ
=
a
o ? ?o
LL U E- La l 1--
LA-
H
Y
w
N
O
Z

F-tN? 2a.
0'5 _ CL
?
Q LL
N

Q
a U ?
Z

- _
Z U
Z a-
N

f_
I
i

z W J ? °tS Q

LLI
V)

a_ LLI

a_ o

k
X M

N
N ?
M
? N
D ?
Q > N N
? QV J N
Z YZ N fr
i
3 aQ ?
O aZ Q
-J
? U
to O -
?
W } -
O

? LL
Z
W
W
? ?
Q
Q
Z Y
? Y
w

O ? v N W ?

?
W m Z
Q Q
O O
?
O

O
Z ?
W O N .6 Q tD

U

a
~ } Cl =
m
NC 55
From the Proposed Holly Springs Bypass to North of US I
Wake County
Federal Aid Project MA-55(4)
State Project No. 8.1403301
TIP Project No. R-2905
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
744-77
Date F p. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
C ,,?---
V? /1A/
cholas L. Graf, P. E.
Date
0't- I
Division Administrator, FHWA

NC 55
From the Proposed Holly Springs Bypass to North of US 1
Wake County
Federal Aid Project MA-55(4)
State Project No. 8.1403301
TIP Project No. R-2905
lk

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July, 1997
Documentation Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch by:
Aileen S. Mayhew
Project Planning Engineer

rJect A. Hunkins, P. E.
Planning Unit Head

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E.
Assistant Branch Manager
001151?U"tA
r` '
',H?C A Rot /A,*,
??.•?FESStOiyN
a4 SEAL 9l t
18496
E A.
???jq1
Summary
Categorical Exclusion
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action,
Categorical Exclusion.
2. DESCRIPTION OF A TION
The Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) propose to widen existing NC 55 to five lanes to improve
traffic flow and to enhance safety. The project begins at the Proposed Holly Springs
Bypass, approximately 390 meters (1280 feet) north of SR 1448 (Bobbitt Road), and ends
just north of US 1 in Apex, Wake County. The current termini appear in the 1998-2004
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The proposal includes replacement of Bridge No. 71 (the existing bridge on
NC 55 over US 1). The US 1 interchange will be improved by upgrading the diamond
configuration at the interchange to meet current design standards (lengthening and
widening and/or realigning of the ramps). The recommended ramp improvements will
improve the level of service of the US 1 interchange. Intersection improvements will
occur at the NC 55/SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) intersection. Approximately 350 m
(1148 ft) of SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) will be realigned so that the new intersection
of NC 55 and SR 1158 is approximately 140 m (460 ft) north of the existing intersection.
The total cost of the proposed improvements is $7,798,750, which includes
$948,750 for right of way and $6,850,000 for construction. The 1998-2004 NCDOT TIP
includes a total funding of $8,020,000 for the project, including $1,170,000 for right of
way and $6,850,000 for construction. Right-of-way acquisition and construction are
scheduled in the 1998-2004 TIP to begin in Fiscal Years 1998 and 2000, respectively.
11
3. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
a. Permits
It is anticipated that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Nationwide 14 Permit (minor road crossings) will be required for the project. A
Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required from the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) - Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), formerly known as the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM), for activities resulting in a discharge into any of the streams involved
with this project.
b. Federally-Protected Species
Four federally-protected species were listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for Wake County as of May 2, 1997. This project will have no
effect on the dwarf wedge mussel, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, or
Michaux's sumac.
C. Wetland Impacts and Mitigation
It is anticipated that less than 0.1 hectare (0.1 acre) of wetlands will be
impacted by the proposed project. The final decision concerning compensatory
mitigation for the wetland impacts lies with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
d. Stream Impacts and Mitigation
Stream impacts will result with implementation of the proposed project.
These impacts are associated with the extension of culverts and/or pipes. The
details of stream involvement and modification will be detailed in the application
for the 401 Water Quality Certification, and compensatory mitigation with regard
to stream mitigation is left to the discretion of DWQ. NCDOT will coordinate
with DWQ to fulfill the necessary requirements regarding stream mitigation.
e. Bicycle Accommodations and Sidewalks . 00
To accommodate bicycle traffic, the lanes along NC 55 will be striped as
follows: 3.9-meter (13-foot) outside through lanes, 3.3-meter (11-foot) inside
through lanes, and a 3.6-meter (12-foot) center turn lane. Bridge No. 71 on
NC 55 over US 1 will accommodate bicycle traffic with 3.9-meter (13-foot)
outside through lanes, 3.3-meter (11-foot) inside through lanes, 3.6-meter
(12-foot) left-turn lanes, and 0.6 m (2 ft) of lateral clearance on each side. The
structure will also include 1.5-meter (5-foot) sidewalks on both sides. Bicycle-
safe drainage grates will be specified as a safety feature to be included in the
iii
design, as well as "Share the Road" signs. A three-bar metal handrail at
pedestrian height (1067 millimeters [42 inches]) will also be provided.
f. Best Management Practices
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the project in order to minimize impacts to water resources
in the study area.
w
g. Underground Storage Tank and Hazardous Material
It is anticipated that the proposed improvements to NC 55 will encroach
upon three (3) properties identified as Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites.
The project will be designed to avoid impacts to these sites to prevent the
possibility of long-term, costly remediation. However, if impacts to these sites
are unavoidable, a more detailed geotechnical evaluation of UST involvement will
be required before right-of-way acquisition is initiated.
h. Geodetic Survey Markers
Currently, it is anticipated that three geodetic survey markers will be
impacted by this project. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted
prior to construction regarding the relocation of these markers along the project.
4. Ai TE NATIVE CON In .RAT)
Three widening alternatives were initially considered: symmetrical, east side and
west side widening. Cursory consideration was given to widening NC 55 symmetrically
the entire length of the project. Early on, it was determined that Bridge No. 71 over US 1
would need to be phase constructed; therefore, widening symmetrically was not prudent
and was removed from further evaluation. The two remaining widening alternatives
considered were:
Alternative A: East Side Widening (Recommended)
Alternative B: West Side Widening
The above alternatives involve widening the existing roadway to five lanes with
curb and gutter, the replacement of the existing bridge, and additional improvements to
selected intersections and the US 1 interchange. Traffic signals will also be added at two
intersections: the intersection of NC 55 with the US 1 eastbound ramp terminal and the
intersection with SR 1444 (Lufidn Road).
In addition to the widening alternatives, postponement of the proposed action, a
"do nothing" alternative, and alternate modes of transportation were considered.
IV
Alternative A (east side widening) is recommended because it reduces residential
impacts and utilizes the abandoned railroad right of way. It also avoids impacts to the
power substation on the west side of NC 55 just south of the US 1 interchange, is less
costly, and has the best overall design.
5. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL. AND ADVER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA Ts
The proposed improvements will allow more efficient vehicular operation and
reduced travel time, resulting in road-user cost savings. Traffic safety will be enhanced.
Access to homes, businesses, and public facilities in the area will be improved. Also,
increased vertical clearance under the proposed NC 55 bridge will offer additional safety
improvements to motorists traveling on US 1. The project will also provide an improved
link between the Proposed Holly Springs Bypass (TIP Project No. R-2541) and the
proposed widening of NC 55 from US 1 north to US 64 (TIP Project No. U-2901).
Approximately 2.5 hectares (6.1 acres) of additional right of way will be required.
No prime farmland or state and locally important farmland will be taken. Less than
0.1 hectare (0.1 acre) of wetlands will be impacted. It is anticipated that two businesses
will be relocated as a result of this project. No Section 4(f) properties will be impacted.
None of the residences or businesses along the project will experience a "substantial
increase" in noise impact due to the project, according to the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA's) noise abatement criteria (NAC) guidelines; however, a
maximum of seventeen homes and businesses will experience noise levels above the
NAC in the design year.
Four federally-protected species were listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for Wake County as of May 2, 1997. This project will have no effect on the dwarf wedge
mussel, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, or Michaux's sumac.
6. COORDINATION
The project has been coordinated with the following federal, state, and local
agencies:
Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
* U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
* U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
* N.C. Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
* N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* Division of Water Quality (formerly Division of Environmental
Management)
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Geological Survey - Raleigh
I&
Triangle J Council of Governments
Wake County
Town of Apex
Town of Holly Springs
Those who provided input into the project study are denoted with an asterisk (*).
7. BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated this project
will not have a substantial detrimental effect on the quality of the natural or human
environment. The proposed project will cause no substantial changes in route
classification and land use and is not controversial in nature. The project has been
reviewed by federal, state, and local agencies, and no objections have been raised. No
major objections to the project were voiced at the Citizens Informational Workshop held
on June 11, 1996. For these reasons, it is concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is
applicable to the project.
8. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Transportation Building
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1
A. General Description of Project 1
B. Purpose of Project I
C. Project Status and Historical Resume 1
D. Existing Conditions I
I . Length of Roadway Section Studied 1
2. Route Classification I
3. Existing Typical Section 2
4. Existing Right of Way 2
5. Access Control 2
6. Speed Limits 2
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures 2
8. Traffic Data 3
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature 3
10. Intersecting Roadways 3
11. Degree of Roadside Interference 4
12. Degree of Utility Conflicts 4
13. Railroad Crossings 4
14. School Bus Data 4
15. Airports 5
16. Sidewalks and Greenways 5
E. Capacity Analysis 5
I . Mainline Analysis 5
2. Intersection Analysis 6
F. Accident Analysis 7
G. Project Terminals 8
H. The Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan 8
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 9
A. General Description 9
B. Length of Project 9
C. Project Termini and Independent Utility 9
D. Typical Section Description 10
E. Design Speed I 1
F. Right of Way I 1
G. Access Control 1 I
H. Construction Limits I I
ii
CG
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
I. Intersection / Interchange Treatment 12
J. Bridges and Drainage Structures 13
K. Special Permits Required 13
L. Changes in the State Highway System 14
M. Bikeways 14
N. Sidewalks 14
0. Greenways 14
P. Landscaping 14
Q. Noise Barriers 14
R. Degree of Utility Conflicts 14
S. Cost Estimates 15
T. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area 15
U. Anticipated Design Exceptions 16
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 16
A. Recommended Improvements 16
B. Other Design Alternatives 16
C. Bridge Rehabilitation vs. Bridge Replacement 17
D. Postponement of Project 17
E. "Do Nothing" Alternative 18
F. Alternative Modes of Transportation 18
IV. SOC IAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 18
A. Social Effects 18
1. Land Use 18
a. Existing Land Use 18
b. Future Land Use 19
2. Boundaries and Population 19
3. Relocatees 19
4. Environmental Justice 20
5. Public Facilities 20
6. Social Impacts 20
7. Cultural Resources 21
a. Historic Architectural Resources 21
b. Archaeological Resources 21
8. Section 4(f) Resources 22
iii
L
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
9. Section 6(f) Resources 22
B. Economic Effects 22
C. Environmental Effects 22
1. Biological Resources 22
a. Terrestrial Communities 23
b. Aquatic Communities 25
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 26
d. Federally-Protected Species 28
e. Federal Species of Concern 31
2. Geological Resources 33
a. Soils 33
b. Mineral Resources 33
C. Erosion Control 34
3. Wetlands 34
a. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters 34
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 34
4. Permits 37
a. Nationwide 14 Permit 37
b. 401 Water Quality Certification 38
C. Wetland Mitigation 38
(1) Avoidance 38
(2) Minimization 38
(3) Compensatory Mitigation 39
d. Coordination with Other Agencies 39
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation 40
6. Water Resources 40
a. Characteristics 40
b. Best Usage Classification 41
C. Water Quality 42
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 42
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
7. Farmland 43
8. Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise Analysis 44
a. Characteristics of Noise 44
b. Noise Abatement Criteria 45
C. Ambient Noise Levels 46
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels 46
e. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis 48
(1) Highway Alignment 49
(2) Traffic System Management Measures 49
(3) Noise Barriers 49
f. "Do Nothing" Alternative 50
g. Construction Noise 50
h. Summary 51
9. Air Quality Analysis 51
10. Stream Modification 54
11. Hazardous Materials 54
12. Geodetic Survey Markers 55
13. Construction Impacts 55
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 57
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies 57
B. Citizens Informational Workshop 58
C. Public Hearing 58

TABLES
Table 1 Bridge / Culvert - Structural Data 3
Table 2A Mainline Capacity Analysis 6
Table 213 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6
Table 2C Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7
Table 3 Accident Rates (Per 100 Million Vehicle Kilometers) 8
Table 4 Project Cost and Impact Summary 17
Table 5 Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts 27
Table 6 Federally-Protected Species for Wake County 28
Table 7 Federal Species of Concern for Wake County 32
Table 8 Mapping Units Found Within the Project Area 33
Table 9 Wetland Impacts 35
V
TABLES (continued)
Table 10 Surface Water Impacts 36
Table 11 Culvert - Hydraulic Data 40
Table 12 Stream Characteristics 41
Table 13 One-Hour CO Concentrations (PPM) 53
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic of Project (Proposed Improvements)
Figure 3 Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 The Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 5 Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 6A Proposed 5-Lane Typical Section
Figure 6B Proposed Bridge Typical Section
Figure 7A Proposed Intersection Geometry
Figure 7B Proposed Interchange Geometry
Figure 8 Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Vicinity of
TIP Project No. R-2905
Figure 9 Wetland and Surface Water Impact Areas
Figure 10 Approximate 100-Year Floodplain Limits
APPENDICES
Appendix A Relocation Reports
Appendix B Discussion of Division of Highways Relocation Programs
Appendix C Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix D Citizens Informational Workshop
Appendix E Traffic Noise Analysis Data
Appendix F Air Quality Analysis Data
Appendix G Hazardous Materials Evaluation

I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
NC 55 from the Proposed Holly Springs Bypass, north of SR 1448 (Bobbitt Road), to
north of US 1, approximately 300 meters (984 feet) north of the intersection with NC 55
and SR 1158 (South Hughes Road), in Wake County. The project area is shown on
Figure 1. The proposed improvements are shown on Figure 2.
For the purpose of this document, NC 55 will be described as a north/south
highway.
B. Pose of Project
The primary purpose of the project is to provide a safer highway for motorists.
The widening of NC 55 will improve the level of service of the facility by providing
additional through lanes and a center turning lane for the anticipated traffic increase.
The proposed upgrading of NC 55 will improve access to homes, businesses, and public
services in the area.
C. Project Status and Historical Resume
The 1998-2004 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for the
widening of the existing two-lane roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter facility and the
replacement of Bridge No. 71 over US 1. Right-of-way acquisition and construction are
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Years 1998 and 2000, respectively. The TIP includes a total
funding of $8,020,000 for the project, including $1,170,000 for right of way and
$6,850,000 for construction. The total cost of improvements recommended in this report
is $7,798,750, which includes $948,750 for right of way and $6,850,000 for construction.
D. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the studied section of NC 55 is approximately 2.3 kilometers
(1.4 miles). Photographs of existing conditions along the project are shown on
Figure 5.
2. Route Classification
NC 55 has two classifications within the project limits. From the south
terminal to US 1, NC 55 is classified as a Minor Arterial. From US 1 to the north
terminal, NC 55 is classified as an Other Principal Arterial.
3. Existing Typical Section
The southern terminus of the project has two lanes and a pavement width
of approximately 6.6 m (22 ft) plus 0- to 0.6-meter (0- to 2-foot) paved shoulders
and 1.8- to 2.4-meter (6- to 8-foot) grassed shoulders. Just south of the US 1
interchange, NC 55 widens to three lanes. On each side of the US 1 interchange,
the typical section of NC 55 is a three-lane section, with 3.9-meter (IMoot) travel
lanes and a 3.3-meter (11-foot) center turn lane, plus 1.2- to 1.5-meter
(4- to 5-foot) paved shoulders. Near the northern terminus of the project, NC 55
tapers back to two lanes with a pavement width of approximately 6.6 m (22 ft)
plus 0- to 0.6-meter (0- to 2-foot) paved shoulders and 1.8- to 2.4-meter
(6- to 8-foot) grassed shoulders.
4. Existing Right of Way
The right-of-way width along NC 55 is approximately 30 m (100 ft) along
the project. The right of way at the US 1 interchange is variable.
5. Access Control
The US 1 interchange has full control of access. Otherwise, there is no
control of access along the project.
6. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit is 70 kilometers per hour (km/h) (45 miles per hour
[mph]) within the Apex town limits and 90 km/h (55 mph) outside the town
limits.
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures
One bridge and one reinforced concrete box culvert are located within the
project limits. General information about these structures is listed in Table 1.
The locations of the bridge and culvert are shown on Figure 2.
TABLE 1: BRIDGE / CULVERT - STRUCTURAL DATA
SITE LOCATION/ DATE STRUCTURE SUFFICIENCY VERTICAL
NO. BRIDGENO. BUILT LENGTH/CLEAR RATING CLEARANCE
ROADWAY WIDTH
(BRIDGE);
SIZE (CULVERT)
1 Bridge No. 71 1962 71 m by 8.5 in 75.9 4.6 m*
Over US 1 (233 ft by 28 ft) (15'-4")*
East End of the US 1 N/A 1 @ 2.4 in by 1.8 m N/A N/A
2** Interchange Ramps (8 ft by 6 ft)
Over Middle Creek (t)
NOTES: denotes that the bridge has insufficient vertical clearance. The
standard vertical clearance for a bridge over interstates, freeways, and
arterials is 5.0 m (16'-6") to 5.2 m (179-011).
"**" denotes existing culvert.
"t" denotes tributary of creek.
"N/A" denotes that information is not available.
8. Traffic Data
The current (1997) traffic along NC 55 ranges from 19,900 vehicles per
day (vpd) just north of the NC 55/SR 1448 (Bobbitt Road) intersection to
16,990 vpd just north of the NC 55/SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) intersection.
NC 55 is expected to generate from 34,800 vpd just north of the NC 55/SR 1448
(Bobbitt Road) intersection to 26,100 vpd just north of the NC 55/SR 1158
(South Hughes Road) intersection by the year 2020. Truck traffic comprises
approximately seven percent of these volumes (4 percent dual-tired vehicles
[DUAL] and 3 percent truck-trailer semi-trailer [TTST]). Projected traffic
volumes, major turning movements, truck data, and design hour data are shown
on Figure 3.
For the purpose of this document, traffic studies along NC 55 will be for
the years 2002 (the project "Build" year) and the design year (2020).
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The existing horizontal and vertical curvature is fair along the project.
10. Intersecting Roadways
An interchange exists at US 1 and NC 55. All other highway intersections
along the project are at-grade.
4
The intersection of NC 55 with the US 1 westbound ramp terminal is
currently signalized. All other intersections are stop sign controlled.
11. Decree of Roadside Interference
The southern terminus of the project is predominantly residential.
Development along NC 55 becomes slightly heavier traveling north toward the
US 1 interchange. In the vicinity of the US 1 interchange, development along
NC 55 is moderate and mostly commercial in nature. North of the US 1
interchange, roadside development transitions to a lighter nature.
12. Degree of Utility Conflicts
Multiple telephone cables are located along both sides of NC 55 for the
length of the project, along with buried fiber service along the west side of NC 55.
From US 1 to Dixie Pipeline, a 152-mm (6-inch) gas pipe follows NC 55 on the
west side. Three gas lines cross NC 55 just south of SR 1444 (Lufldn Road). A
152-mm (6-inch) high pressure pipe crosses under NC 55 and serves Dixie
Pipeline's pumping and storage station east of NC 55. The line is encased in
14.6 in (48 ft) of 254-mm (10-inch) encasements. A three-phase Carolina Power
& Light (CP&L) distribution/service system exists 15 in (50 ft) west of the
centerline of NC 55. Cable television service is also attached to the CP&L poles.
A 102-mm (4-inch) water line runs on the west side of NC 55 from
Rigsbee Auto Parts to the south. From north of US 1 to just north of SR 1444
(Lufldn Road), a 305-mm (12-inch) water line runs on the east side of NC 55; a
406-mm (16-inch) water line runs along the east side of NC 55 from SR 1444
(Lufidn Road) south to Holly Springs; a 152-mm (6-inch) water line runs from
SR 1444 (Luflcin Road) south to Rigsbee Auto Parts; and a 152-mm (6-inch)
water line crosses NC 55 just north of SR 1444 (Luflcin Road).
Therefore, based on this information, the degree of utility conflicts is
anticipated to be moderate to high along this segment of NC 55.
13. Railroad Crossings
The CSX Transportation previously owned the railroad tracks that
paralleled much of the project. These tracks have now been abandoned and
removed. There are no railroad crossings on this project.
14. School Bus Data
Fifteen (15) school buses traveling to and from six schools utilize this
section of NC 55 each day in Wake County.
5
15. Airports
The project is outside the critical air space regulated by the Federal
Aviation Authority (FAA).
16. Sidewalks and Green=s
Sidewalks currently exist in front of Wicker Mart/Amoco on the west side
of NC 55, south of the US 1 interchange, for a distance of approximately 54 m
(178 ft). Sidewalks also currently exist in front of Burger King and Pizza Inn on
the east side of NC 55, north of the US 1 interchange, for a distance of
approximately 93 m (306 ft). No greenways exist within the project limits.
E. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic system and how these conditions are
perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A level of service definition generally
describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels are defined
for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter
designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operation conditions and
LOS F representing the worst.
1. Mainline Analysis
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for the existing two-lane
highway and the proposed five-lane undivided highway with the Proposed Holly
Springs Bypass in place. The analyses were performed for the years 2002 (the
project "Build" year) and the design year (2020). The results of these studies
represent the worst case "peak" scenario and are shown in Table 2A.
6
TABLE 2A: MAINLINE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
SEGMENT OF 2002 /2020 LOS 2002 /2020 LOS
NC SS (EXISTING (PROPOSED
(FROM/ TO) 2-LANE 5-LANE
FACILIT19 FACILITI)
SR 1448 / SR 1444 E/F B/C
SR1444/US1 E/F B/C
US 1 /SR 1158 E/F B/C
SR 1158 / North E / F B / B
Terminal (3)
NOTES: (1) denotes project segment with highest 2002 projected ADT.
(2) denotes project segment with highest 2020 projected ADT.
(3) denotes project segment with lowest 2002 & 2020 projected ADT.
The results show that the widening of NC 55 to five lanes will
substantially improve the level of service of the facility.
2. Intersection Analysis
Capacity analyses were also performed for three major unsignalized and
the three signalized intersections for the existing two-lane highway and the
proposed five-lane undivided highway. The results represent the worst case
"peak" scenario. See Tables 2B and 2C for results of these analyses.
TABLE 2B: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION 2002 2020 2002 2020
WITH NC 55 NO NO WITH WITH
IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT
SR 1444 E / C F / F ,.::}'.•: ;,}}'r;.f..:.:....
4
•
X
'
;S
•
' rte:>x. <:,.:,. .y
}F4

(Luflcin Road)
}
.v
. i
.
;
r
:y
;: +7 n
.;
,
:?r?:. f `•
::'':jf•{T
•SA:•sy.{+'':'.}'C?}'?\:
00
??:}.h.:??:>«:??:??'
, 4
.
1 Eastbound F /F F / F •`•frf .:,?.,,"?:,,'.''`•:: ?;,>:'.:::...,:.,: ??:::`
Ramp •x?: :
., .?r:
. ? f£;:r:.:. f
?:>;::?
SR 1158
(South Hughes D/C F/E D/C F/F*
Road)
NOTES: All level of service results are divided into two parts: left and right turns
(minor streets) / left turns (NC 55).
"*" will be monitored for future signalization.
7
TABLE 2C: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION 2002 / 2020 2002 / 2020
WITH NC SS (EXISTING (PROPOSED
2-LANE FACILIT19 S-LANE FACILITY
SR 1444 :.....ti:::.::::.:<.:.4:.:.:.4:;: A.::.

(Lufkin Road }St'?h" . ...''v+.i?:'tiisti,ilrj.?:'•?y-:{•:12,?s4,::i?'
?'::??::• ':? : ?:' '>?:`:::::

US 1 Eastbound ..?4+. C / C

US 1 Westbound F/ F B/ C
Ramp
NOTE: denotes that LOS results include the recommended addition of
an exclusive right-tum lane onto the side road (see Section IM).
The intersection capacity analyses show that the level of service for the
traffic movements addressed will increase slightly,or remain basically the same
due to the proposed widening, with the exception of the SR 1158 (South Hughes
Road) intersection. The intersection of NC 55 with SR 1158 (South Hughes
Road) will not be signalized as a part of this project. However, once this
intersection is signalized, the capacity analysis shows that the level of service for
the year 2002 and the design year 2020 would be a LOS B. This intersection will
be reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Branch as traffic increases, and a signal
will be considered when warranted.
F. Accident Analysis
A comparison of accident rates along NC 55 with average statewide rates for
urban and rural two-lane "NC" routes are shown below in Table 3. The accident rates for
NC 55 are based on the period from January, 1994, to December, 1996. The statewide
averages were generated from data for the years 1994-1996.
TABLE 3: ACCIDENT RATES (PER 100 MILLION VEHICLE KILOMETERS)
ACCIDENT RATES AVERAGE AVERAGE
TYPE ALONG NC SS STATEWIDE STATEWIDE
RATES FOR RATES FOR
URBAN RURAL
"NC ROUTES" "NC ROUTES"
All Accidents 157.14 188.20 134.39
Fatal 2.38 0.56 1.59
Non-fatal 57.14 79.22 62.23
Nighttime 38.10 35.74 43.39
Wet Conditions 40.48 40.04 29.60
The comparison shows that the overall accident rate along the subject segment of
NC 55 is lower than the urban statewide rate and higher than the rural statewide rate.
There were sixty-six accidents reported within the studied period; approximately
51.5 percent of the accidents were rear-end, slow or stop accidents. Twenty-five
accidents were located at the US 1 bridge ramp terminals. It is anticipated that the
proposed widening of the existing roadway will reduce the likelihood of these types of
accidents by adding through lanes and a center left-turn lane. The accidents at the US 1
interchange ramps may be reduced with the exclusive left-turn lanes extending the length
of the bridge.
G. Protect Terminals
The southern terminus of the project is located approximately 390 m (1280 ft)
north of the SR 1448 (Bobbitt Road) intersection with NC 55. NC 55 is currently two
lanes at this location but will be widened south of the intersection as a part of TIP Project
No. R-2541 (Proposed Holly Springs Bypass). This project is proposed to have a two-
lane facility on a multi-lane right of way on new alignment.
The northern terminus of TIP Project No. R-2905 ends approximately 300 m
(984 ft) north of the intersection with NC 55 and SR 1158 (South Hughes Road). The
existing roadway is currently two lanes at this location; however, north of this terminal,
NC 55 will be widened to three lanes and ultimately to five lanes under TIP Project
No. U-2901.
H. The Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thorou re PI n
The Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan was updated in 1995 and now
includes the Apex area (see Figure 4). NC 55 is identified as a major thoroughfare in this
plan. The Thoroughfare Plan recommends a five- or six-lane cross section for NC 55
along the project.
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. General Description
Proposed improvements to NC 55 include widening the existing roadway to five
lanes with curb and gutter from the Proposed Holly Springs Bypass to north of US 1 in
Wake County. The proposal also includes replacement of Bridge No. 71 (the existing
bridge on NC 55 over US 1), the US 1 interchange will be improved by upgrading the
diamond configuration at the interchange to meet current design standards (lengthening
and widening and/or realigning of the ramps), and the relocation of approximately 350 m
(1148 R) of SR 1158 (South Hughes Road). The proposed improvements are shown on
Figure 2.
B. Length of Project
The length of roadway to be improved is approximately 2.3 km (1.4 mi).
C. Project Termini and Independent Utility
The southern terminus of the project is located approximately 390 m (1280 ft)
north of the SR 1448 (Bobbitt Road) intersection with NC 55 and will tie into TIP Project
No. R-2541 (Proposed Holly Springs Bypass). TIP Project No. R-2905 includes the
widening of NC 55 northward from the vicinity of TIP Project No. R-2541 (Proposed
Holly Springs Bypass). Improvements to the US 1 interchange were incorporated into
this project due to the extensive improvements needed for this interchange to operate at
an acceptable level of service in the design year. The northern terminus of the project is
located approximately 300 m (984 ft) north of the intersection of NC 55 with SR 1158
(South Hughes Road). Due to the adverse impact of traffic operations north of the US 1
westbound ramp terminal, particularly at the intersection of NC 55 with SR 1158 (South
Hughes Road), it was necessary to extend the limits of TIP Project No. R-2905 northward
for a distance of approximately 300 m (984 ft) beyond the SR 1158 (South Hughes Road)
intersection with NC 55. Extending the northern terminus of the project will provide
lanes with adequate storage for turning traffic. The northern terminus of the project will
tie into TIP Project No. U-2901. TIP Project No. R-2541 (Proposed Holly Springs
Bypass) is scheduled in the current TIP to be under construction prior to the
commencement of construction for TIP Project No. R-2905.
The five-lane and multi-lane cross sections for these projects are compatible.
These improvements are part of a program to upgrade NC 55 to a multi-lane facility from
Fuquay Varina to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway in Durham.
10
According to Title 23 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 771.111 (f),
"...in order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to
transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated... shall:
(1) Connect a logical termini and be of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
(2) Have an independent utility or independent significant, i.e., be usable and
be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation
improvements in the area are made; and
(3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable
transportation improvements."
This project will connect a planned multi-lane roadway adjacent to NC 55 north
of Holly Springs (TIP Project No. R-2541 [Proposed Holly Springs Bypass]) with a
planned five-lane facility along NC 55 north of SR 1158 (South Hughes Road)
(TIP Project No. U-2901). As noted above, this project is part of a program to upgrade
NC 55 from Fuquay Varina to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway in Durham to a multi-
lane facility.
The environmental impacts of the other portions of this program (TIP Project
No. R-2541 and TIP Project No. U-2901) to widen NC 55 are being addressed under
separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. The proposed project
(TIP Project No. R-2905) can stand alone as a functioning project and is designed to be
compatible with the other TIP projects along NC 55. NCDOT and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) have determined this project meets the criteria set forth in
23 CFR 771.111(f).
D. Typical Section Description
It is recommended that NC 55 be widened to a five-lane, 19.2-meter (64-foot)
(face to face) curb and gutter section. This width includes 3.9-meter (13-foot) outside
through lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic, 3.3-meter (11-foot) inside through lanes,
and a 3.6-meter (12-foot) center turn lane. The berm width will be 3 m (10 ft). The
proposed typical section is shown on Figure 6A.
Bridge No. 71 on NC 55 over US 1 will be replaced and will provide six lanes.
The lane configuration will consist of two through lanes in each direction and a left-turn
lane in each direction. The proposed structure will have a clear roadway width of 22.8 m
(76 ft). This width will accommodate bicycle traffic with 3.9-meter (13-foot) outside
through lanes, 3.3-meter (11-foot) inside through lanes, 3.6-meter (12-foot) left-turn
lanes, and 0.6 m (2 ft) of lateral clearance on each side. The structure will also include
1.5-meter (5-foot) sidewalks on both sides. The proposed typical section is shown on
Figure 6B. The proposed lane configuration is shown on Figure 7B.
II
The project will be widened on the east side the entire length of the project, tying
in with the Proposed Holly Springs Bypass at the southern terminus and with the existing
roadway at the northern terminus.
E. Design Speed
The design speed is approximately 80 km/h (50 mph) for the entire length of the
project.
F. Right of Wav_
The proposed right-of-way width will be 36.6 m (120 ft) along the entire length of
the project. Approximately 2.5 hectares (6.1 acres) of additional right of way will be
required. In addition, some temporary easements may be required for this project.
G. Access Control
The control of access will not differ from the existing conditions.
H. Construction Limit
Along NC 55, the construction limits are the same as the project termini. Ramp
work associated with raising the grade on Bridge No. 71 over US 1, to provide increased
vertical clearance, will be required in order to tie the ramp terminals into the proposed
bridge. The diamond configuration at the US 1 interchange will be upgraded to meet
current design standards (lengthening and widening and/or realigning of the ramps).
Additional lanes will be incorporated onto both ramps on the east side of NC 55
(quadrants A and B ramps) and the ramp in the southwest quadrant of NC 55 (quadrant C
ramp). The ramp improvements in quadrant A will extend approximately 400 m (1312 ft)
eastward along US 1 from the ramp intersection with NC 55. The ramp improvements in
quadrant B will continue for approximately 762 m (2500 ft) eastward from the ramp gore
area along US 1. The ramp improvements in quadrants C and D will not extend past the
existing gore areas for those ramps. The ramp and quadrant designations are shown on
Figure 2. No other roadway improvements to US 1 will be included as a part of this
project.
Intersection improvements will occur at the NC 55/SR 1158 (South Hughes Road)
intersection. SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) will be realigned so that the new intersection
of NC 55 and SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) is approximately 140 in (460 ft) north of the
existing intersection. The existing intersection is approximately 100 in (330 ft) from the
intersection of NC 55 with the US 1 interchange westbound ramp terminal. The
realignment will continue approximately 350 m (1148 ft) along SR 1158 (South Hughes
Road) from its intersection with NC 55.
12
I. Intersection / Interchange Treatment
One intersection with NC 55 is currently signalized and will remain signalized at
the US 1 westbound ramp terminal. The US 1 eastbound ramp terminal intersection and
the SR 1444 (Lufkin Road) intersection will be signalized as a part of this project.
An exclusive right-turn lane will be added to the intersection of SR 1444
(Lufkin Road) with NC 55. The proposed lane configuration is shown on Figure 7A.
The existing US 1/NC 55 interchange configuration will remain the same. The
US 1 interchange will be improved by upgrading the diamond configuration at the
interchange to meet current design standards (lengthening and widening or realigning of
the ramps). The ramp improvements include widening the ramps in quadrants B and C
(see Figure 2) to accommodate two lanes of traffic. The ramp in quadrant B will taper
from two lanes to one lane and then merge with the US 1 traffic; this tapering will occur
for approximately 762 m (2500 ft) eastward from the ramp gore area along US 1 in
quadrant B. The off-ramp in quadrant A will accommodate four lanes of in-coming
traffic: two exclusive right-turn lanes, a shared through and left-turn lane, and one
exclusive left-turn lane. The ramp improvements in quadrant A will continue for
approximately 400 m (1312 ft) eastward along US 1 from the ramp intersection with
NC 55. The intersection of NC 55 with the ramp in quadrant D will shift slightly to the
north to tie in with NC 55 and the ramp intersection of quadrant A. The ramp
improvements in quadrants C and D will not extend. past the existing gore areas for those
ramps. The recommended ramp improvements will improve the level of service of the
interchange. Exclusive right-turn lanes will be added to both on-ramp intersections. The
proposed lane configuration is shown on Figure 7B. No other roadway improvements to
US 1 will be included as a part of this project.
The existing bridge will be replaced with a wider structure which will
accommodate six lanes (two through lanes and a left-turn lane in each direction) with
differential striping for bicycles.
The intersection of NC 55 with SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) is located
approximately 100 m (330 ft) from the intersection of NC 55 with the US 1 interchange
westbound ramp terminal. This distance is not adequate because queues from the US 1
interchange ramp terminal are expected to adversely impede traffic operations at this
intersection. Therefore, intersection improvements will occur at the NC 55/SR 1158
(South Hughes Road) intersection. SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) will be realigned so
that the new intersection of NC 55 and SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) is approximately
140 m (460 ft) north of the existing intersection. The realignment will continue
approximately 350 m (1148 ft) along SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) from its intersection
with NC 55; a cul-de-sac will be constructed at the eastern end of existing SR 1158
(South Hughes Road) close to where it currently intersects with NC 55 (see Figure 2).
13
Raised monolithic islands will be incorporated on NC 55 south of the US 1
interchange between the ramp terminal and SR 1444 (Lufkin Road) and north of the US 1
interchange between the ramp terminal and SR 1158 (South Hughes Road). These
islands will prevent left-turning vehicles from impeding the flow of traffic near the US 1
interchange area.
J. Bridges and Drainage Structures
The existing Bridge No. 71 over US 1 will be replaced with a new structure. The
new structure will have a clear roadway width of approximately 22.8 in (76 ft), including
0.6 m (2 ft) of lateral clearance on each side (see Figure 6B). The proposed bridge will
be raised approximately 0 to 1.2 m (0 to 4 ft) to provide additional vertical clearance, as
needed, over US 1. The current vertical clearance for Bridge No. 71 is 4.6 m (15'4"),
which is below the standard of 5.0 m (16'-6") to 5.2 m (17%0"). The proposed vertical
clearance for Bridge No. 71 is 5.0 m (16'-6"). The new structure will be striped to
provide six lanes (two through lanes and a left-turn lane in each direction) with
differential striping to accommodate bicycle traffic. The proposed lane configuration is
shown on Figure 7B. The new structure will also include a 1.5-meter (5-foot) raised
sidewalk in each direction. NC 55 is anticipated to be widened on the east side. The
replacement bridge (Bridge No. 71) will include 1067-mm (42-inch) pedestrian safe rails,
as per American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO)
standards.
Bridge No. 71 over US 1 will be phase constructed in order to maintain traffic
throughout the construction period. A portion of the proposed structure will be
constructed on the east side of the existing bridge. Roadway approaches will be
constructed and traffic will be diverted onto a portion of the new structure. The existing
structure will be removed. The remaining proposed structure and approaches will be
constructed.
A culvert exists at the US 1 interchange in quadrant B. The existing culvert will
be lengthened, as needed, to accommodate ramp improvements. A pipe exists at the
US 1 interchange in quadrant A and approximately 915 m (3000 ft) eastward from the
ramp gore area along US 1 in quadrant B. These pipes will also be lengthened, as
needed, to accommodate ramp improvements.
K. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Nationwide 14
Permit (minor road crossings) will be required for the project. A Section 401 Water
Quality Certification will be required from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) - Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), formerly known as the Division of Environmental Management (DEM), for
activities resulting in a discharge into any of the streams involved with this project.
14
L. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are anticipated.
M. Bil g=s
NC 55 from US 64 in Apex south to Fuquay Varina is listed in the 1998-2004 TIP
as needing an incidental bicycle safety accommodation when sections of this roadway are
proposed for improvement. Incidental bicycle improvements for NC 55 are proposed as
part of this project. The improvements include: wider outside lanes, bicycle-safe
drainage grates, and "Share the Road" signs. To accommodate bicycle traffic, the lanes
along NC 55 will be striped as follows: 3.9-meter (13-foot) outside through lanes,
3.3-meter (11-foot) inside through lanes, and a 3.6-meter (12-foot) center turn lane.
Bridge No. 71 over US 1 will be striped as follows to accommodate bicycle traffic:
3.9-meter (1 Moot) outside through lanes, 3.3-meter (11-foot) inside through lanes, and
3.6-meter (12-foot) left-turn lanes.
The replacement bridge (Bridge No. 71) will include 1067-mm (42-inch)
pedestrian safe rails. The replacement bridge does not need AASHTO standard rails to
accommodate the bicycle traffic since sidewalks will separate bicycle traffic from the
bridge rail.
N. Sidewalka
NCDOT will replace existing sidewalks that are disturbed by project construction.
The replacement bridge over US 1 (Bridge No. 71) will include 1.5-meter (5-foot)
sidewalks on both sides. No additional sidewalks will be incorporated into this project.
0. Green=s
No greenways are planned in conjunction with this project.
P. Landscaping
No unique landscaping is proposed for this project.
Q. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed for this project.
R. Degree of Utility Conflicts
The degree of utility conflicts is anticipated to be moderate to high along this
segment of NC 55. The recommended improvements will minimize impacts to adjacent
utilities.
15
S. Cost Estimates
The cost estimates for the proposed improvements are as follows:
Construction:
NC 55 widening & replacement
of Bridge No. 71 over US 1 $ 5,400,000
US 1 interchange ramp improvements 1,250,000
Realignment of SR 1158 200,000
Total Construction Cost: $ 6,850,000
Right of Way:
NC 55 widening & replacement
of Bridge No. 71 over US 1 $ 528,750
US 1 interchange ramp improvements 200,000
Realignment of SR 1158 220,000
Total Right-of-Way Cost: $ 948,750
Total Cost: $ 7,798,750
T. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
There are several TIP projects in the project area; these projects are shown on
Figure 8 and are described below:
1. TIP Project No. R-2500: Widening of US 1 to a four-lane divided
freeway from north of US 15-501 to US 64, Wake County. Sections A, B,
and C are currently under construction.
2. TIP Project No. R-2541: Proposed Holly Springs Bypass, proposed two-
lane facility on multi-lane right of way on new alignment, Wake County.
Right-of-way acquisition and construction are scheduled for Fiscal Years
1996 and 1998, respectively.
3. TIP Project No. R-2635: Proposed Western Wake Expressway, proposed
four-lane divided freeway on new alignment from US 1 south of Apex to
NC 55, in Wake County. Right-of-way acquisition and construction are
scheduled for post year (after Fiscal Year 2004).
4. TIP Project No. R-2906: Widening of NC 55 to multi-lanes from US 64
in Wake County to SR 1121 in Durham County. Right-of-way acquisition
is scheduled for Fiscal Year 2003 and construction is scheduled for post
year.
16
5. TIP Project No. R-2907: Widening of NC 55 to a five-lane curb and
gutter facility from SR 1108 in Fuquay Varina to SR 1114 at the proposed
Holly Springs Bypass, Wake County. Right-of-way acquisition and
construction are scheduled for Fiscal Years 1998 and 2001, respectively.
6. TIP Project No. U-2901: Interim widening of NC 55 (Williams Street) to
a three-lane shoulder section, with an ultimate five-lane curb and gutter
facility section from US 1 to US 64, in Wake County. Right-of-way
acquisition and construction are scheduled for post year. Section A is
currently under construction by the Division.
U. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated for this project.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements
It is recommended that NC 55 be widened to five lanes from the Proposed Holly
Springs Bypass, north of SR 1448 (Bobbitt Road), to north of US 1, approximately 300 m
(984 ft) north of the intersection with NC 55 and SR 1158 (South Hughes Road). The
roadway will be widened to the east. This widening recommendation will minimize
overall environmental impacts, right-of-way damages, and project costs. The proposed
improvements of the project are explained in Section II and are shown on Figure 2.
B. Other Design Alternatives
Three widening alternatives were initially considered. Cursory consideration. was
given to widening NC 55 symmetrically the entire length of the project. However,
Bridge No. 71 over US 1 will be phase constructed in order to maintain traffic throughout
the construction period; therefore, widening symmetrically is not prudent and was not
evaluated further. The two remaining widening alternatives considered were:
Alternative A: East Side Widening (Recommended)
Alternative B: West Side Widening
The total cost, estimated number of relocatees, and summary of impacts associated with
each alternative are shown in Table 4:
17
TABLE 4: PROJECT COST AND IMPACT SUMMARY
CONSTRUCTION, NUMBER OF AREA OF HISTORIC
ALTERNATIVE RIGHT OF WAY, RELOCATEES WETLANDS SITES
& TOTAL COSTS (ResidentiaU IMPACTED IMPACTED
Business) hectares(acres)
$ 6,850,000
A* $ 948,750 0/2 <0.1 (<O.1) 0
$ 7,798,750
$ 7,050,000
B $ 1,017,500 0/0 <0.1 (<O.1) 0
$ 8,067,500
NOTE: "*" denotes recommended alternative.
Alternative A is recommended as the preferred alternative because it is the least
costly alternative.
C. Bridge Rehabilitation vs. Bridge Replacement
The existing Bridge No. 71 has an asphalt overlay and would require
rehabilitation and a latex modified concrete overlay. The structure also has a severely
deteriorated red lead paint system that will require removal, containment, and disposal.
These factors contribute to an estimated cost of $1,230,000 to retain and widen the
existing bridge. The existing Bridge No. 71 would also need to be raised to provide an
adequate vertical clearance above US 1. In addition, raising and rehabilitation of the
existing bridge would create challenges and difficulties in maintaining traffic through the
project site during construction.
A new replacement bridge is estimated to cost $1,000,000 including removal of
the old bridge. Therefore, a new replacement bridge is recommended in lieu of
rehabilitating Bridge No. 71.
D. Postponement of Pject
Postponement of the project would result in a continuing deterioration of traffic
capacity and safety conditions in the future as traffic demands increase. Therefore, this
alternative is not recommended.
18
E. "Do Nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited adverse environmental impacts
that are anticipated as a result of the project, there would be no positive effect on the
traffic capacity and safety of the highway. Therefore, this alternative is not
recommended.
F. Alternative Modes of Tranap ation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the project area. There
is currently no mass transit system in existence or planned in the project area due to the
low population density of the area. Staggering work hours, car-pooling, and van-pooling
are possible ways to reduce highway congestion; however, these congestion management
measures are not within the control of NCDOT and cannot be incorporated into this
project.
IV. SOCIAL._ ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FFFEC S
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
The proposed improvements are located within the municipal limits and
extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of Apex. The Town has an active
planning program and adopted the 2010 Land Use Plan in 1989. The town
adopted and enforces zoning regulations.
a. Existing Land Use
The project area is generally urbanized, with a substantial amount
of industrial development fronting the roadway throughout the length of
the project. A small section of residential development is located at the
project's southern terminus, north of SR. 1448 (Bobbitt Road). Industrial
development composes the remainder of the area fronting the roadway
south of the interchange with US 1. There are highway commercial
developments at the US 1 interchange. The project area is predominantly
wooded and undeveloped north of SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) to the
northern project terminal.
19
b. Future Land Use
The project area is subject to the Town of Apex's zoning
ordinance. Generally, the existing land uses along the roadway are
consistent with the current zoning districts. Expansion of primarily
industrial uses with some areas of commercial and residential uses is
permitted by the zoning ordinance in undeveloped areas adjacent to these
existing uses.
2. Boundaries and Population
Wake County is bounded by Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Granville,
Harnett, Johnston, and Nash Counties.
The Bureau of Census 1990 population for Wake County, North Carolina
is 423,380.
3. Relocatees
It is anticipated that two businesses will be relocated as a result of the
construction of Recommended Alternative A. The right of way needed for this
project will reduce the size of these business properties; therefore, a final
determination on whether these businesses require relocation will be conducted
during the right-of-way acquisition phase. However, for the purpose of estimating
impacts, an assumption was made that these two businesses will require
relocation. No rlocatees are anticipated with the implementation of Alternative
B. Appendix A, pages A-1 and A-2, includes the relocation report for Alternative
A (Recommended) and Alternative B.
It is the policy of the North Carolina Department of Transportation to
insure that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction
of state and federally-assisted projects. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
(1) Relocation Assistance
(2) Relocation Moving Payments
(3) Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
See Appendix B for further discussion of the NCDOT Relocation
Programs (pages B-1 and B-2).
According to the relocation report, there are suitable business sites
available for those businesses who will be displaced by this project.
20
4. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 requires that each federal agency, to the greatest
extent allowed by law, administer and implement its programs, policies, and
activities that affect human health or the environment so as to identify and avoid
"disproportionately high and adverse" effects on minority and low-income
populations.
The proposed project will not require the relocation of any minority or
low-income populations nor will it segment an existing minority community or
separate residential areas from nearby services, such as schools, businesses, or
parks. The proposed action does not require any right of way or easements from
minority or low-income populations.
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on June 11, 1996 (see
Section V. Comments and Coordination), to gather input from the public on the
proposed project. The project has also been coordinated with the Town of Apex.
Input solicited as a result of the workshop has been considered and incorporated
into the project, as practicable.
Based on studies and public involvement incorporated into this project's
development, this project has been implemented in accordance with Executive
Order 12898.
5. Public Facilities
No public facilities are located adjacent to the existing highway.
6. Social Impacts
The proposed roadway improvements will help to alleviate some of the
highway congestion along existing NC 55. The overall safety of the facility will
be enhanced by providing a storage area for turning movements, thus keeping
vehicles out of the traffic flow. Motorists will be able to reach their destinations
with greater efficiency. The proposed widened facility will provide increased
comfort, convenience, and safety in travel.
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion and will not
interfere with accessibility to facilities and services.
21
7. Cultural Resources
a. Historic 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 35 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally-
funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed in
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation will be given an opportunity to comment.
To comply with Section 106, the area of potential effect (APE) of
the subject project was surveyed by the Historic Architectural Resources
section of NCDOT. The research revealed no properties listed on either
the National Register of Historic Places or the State Study List. Only one
property, the Rogers Hack House, is over fifty years of age. A written
description of the property and an evaluation of its integrity were
requested by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in lieu of a
complete Phase II Report. The property was found not eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places due to numerous character-
altering changes it has undergone. Therefore, NCDOT and FHWA have
determined that no properties within the APE are eligible.
The SHPO has concurred with the above findings (see pages
C-16 through C-19 in Appendix Q. This action completes compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
b. Archaeological 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 35 CFR Part 800 regarding any archaeological resources within
the APE.
No previously known archaeological sites are located within the
APE. Under the advisement of the SHPO, no further investigation was
conducted in connection with this project. This correspondence from the
SHPO is contained in Appendix C (pages C-16 and C-17). This completes
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 for archaeological sites.
22
8. Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966
specifies that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, historic
site, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance may
be used for a federal aid project only if:
(1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land,
and
(2) Such highway program or project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm of Section 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
There are no Section 4(f) properties located within the project corridor;
therefore, a Section 4(f) evaluation is not required.
9. Section 6(f) Resources
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 states
that "no property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall,
without the approval of the Secretary [of the Department of the Interior], be
converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses."
There are no known properties within the proposed project corridor which
have been acquired or developed with assistance of Section 6(f) funds.
B. Economic Effects
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (Preliminary Data for
November 1996) indicated that Wake County had a labor force of 300,930. Out of the
labor force for the county, 295,360 persons were gainfully employed, with 1.9 percent of
the work force unemployed.
A variety of industries and businesses are scattered throughout the project. The
existing highway is inadequate by current design standards and often crowded during
business hours. The proposed widening will enhance the business community by
providing a wider and safer facility for movement of commercial traffic. In addition,
businesses along the proposed project will have improved accessibility.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships
between vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial and aquatic
23
ecosystems. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats
are cited, along with brief descriptions of their respective "roles" within that
community. Animals that were observed during site visits are denoted by an
asterisk (*) in the text. Sightings of spoor evidence are equated with sightings of
individuals. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
used for plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same
organism include common name only.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project
study area: (1) Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest and (2) Disturbed
Community. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate
the entire range of the two terrestrial communities discussed.
(1) Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Within the project area, large tracts of mixed
pine/hardwood forest occur on xeric upland sites characterized by a
dominant loblolly pine (Pi= tac&) canopy with some short-leaf
(R. =hi=) and Virginia pine (P. virginiana) interspersed
throughout. Hardwood and shrub species that form the canopy and
subcanopy layer include sweetgum (L`quidambar st, ra?ci W,
blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), black haw (Viburnum dola=),
willow oak ( uerm phellos), black cherry (Pn= serotina),
persimmon (iospyros virginiana), mockernut hickory (Czya
tomentosa), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), red maple ($m
rubrum), blackjack oak (Q, marilandica), northern red oak
Q. nra), white oak (Q. alba), and dogwood (Cornus fl,Qdda).
A sparse herbaceous and vine layer is present in this xeric
community. Dominant plants observed include Christmas fern
(Iolystichum acrosticoides), ebony spleenwort (©gpplenium
plea yneuron), bracken fern (Plmdm a), and Japanese
honeysuckle (L,oni= japolka)•
Mammalian species commonly occurring in forested
habitats often include white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginiana),
southern short-tailed shrew (Blaring carolinensis), and white-
footed mouse eromyscus leucopus). Shrews and smaller mice
prefer forests with a thick layer of leaf litter. Carolina chickadee
(pma carolinensis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
tufted titmouse (Fxua bicolor), and blue jay (C• anocitta cristata)
24
are common permanent residents of deciduous or mixed
woodlands. The spring peeper (Hyh crucifer) inhabits woodlands
where it may be observed under forest litter or brushy
undergrowth.
(2) Disturbed Community
This community encompasses several habitats that have
recently been or are currently impacted by human disturbance.
Roadside shoulder/maintained lawn, powerline right of way, and
successional habitats are included in this portion of the project
study area.
Roadside shoulder/maintained lawn is a community in
which the vegetation is kept in a low-growing, disclimax to early-
successional state. This portion of the project study area is
regularly mowed and may receive frequent herbicide application.
This habitat is located immediately adjacent to NC 55 and in front
of residential/commercial structures fronting NC 55. Several
herbs, including bush clover (Lesped= sp.), fescue fta= sp.),
broomsedge (Andropogon yirginicus), dandelion (Taraxacum
officionale), horseweed (EfL&= canadensis), dog fennel
(Funatorium capillifolium), goldenrod (Solid= sp.), and bahia
grass (paspalum sp.), are common throughout. Soft rush (Juncus
effusus) and sedges (Cvnerus spp.) are located in lower areas
adjacent to unnamed tributaries (UT) and roadside ditches.
A powerline right of way parallels NC 55 along the
western-most edge of the project study area. Several species of
herbs, shrubs, and saplings less than 1 m (3 ft) tall are located in
this habitat, indicating that it receives infrequent maintenance
(i.e. mowing and application of herbicides). Herbaceous species
located here include dog fennel, bracken fern, winged sumac (Rho
copallina), sunflower (Heliant = sp.), goldenrod, rabbit tobacco
(Qnaphalium obtusifolium), beggar's tick (Desmodium sp.),
fescue, plume grass (EdmUm sp.), strawberry (Fragaria
virginiana), St. John's wort (Hypericum sp.), bush clover, and
broomsedge. Shrubs and saplings located in this community
include blackberry (Rub= sp.), mockernut hickory, sweetgum,
privet (Lig m si==), black cherry, wax myrtle, willow oak,
and silverling (accharis hWimillia).
Successional habitats are regeneration areas that prosper
along the abandoned railroad track that parallels NC 55 in the
southeastern portion of the project study area. Upland cut ditches
25
are located adjacent to portions of the railroad track. These ditches
were created during construction of the railroad track as the fill
was subsequently used to raise the grade of the railroad track. Due
to its abandonment in the recent past, several species of trees,
shrubs, and opportunistic herbs have overtaken here. Broomsedge,
panic grass, bahia grass, fescue, bush clover, foxtail grass (Setaria
sp.), dog fennel, horseweed, mugwort (Artemesia vulgaris),
elephant's foot (Elephantopus tomentosus), catbrier (Smilm
rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle, and yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens) are vines and herbs located in this
habitat. Additional species observed here include blackberry,
silverling, loblolly pine, Virginia pine, persimmon, red maple,
sweetgum, privet, and wax myrtle.
White-tailed deer* and raccoon* (rocyon 1=) carrion
was observed along a roadside shoulder adjacent to NC 55. The
raccoon, as well as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
forage nocturnally in this habitat and are often observed as roadkill
on adjacent roadways. The least shrew (C1yp1otis parva), eastern
cottontail* (SylyiLU= Baddam), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomvs humWia), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus) frequent disturbed or open areas dominated by
herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging and nesting habitat.
Snakes such as the black racer (Coluber constrictor) and eastern
garter (1w=phis siddia) may venture into this community to
feed on small mammals and insects. The mourning dove (Zenaida
asiatica) is a consumer of weed seeds often inhabiting fields,
woodland margins, and suburban neighborhoods. Turkey vultures
(Cathartes am) forage almost exclusively on carrion.
b. Aquatic Communities
Three aquatic community types are present in the project study
area: Piedmont intermittent stream, Piedmont perennial stream, and a
small pond. Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of
the water influence floral and faunal composition of the aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also
greatly affect aquatic communities.
Intermittent streams often experience interruption of flow during
dry spells. Periods of flow interruption are generally seasonal, with the
summer months being drier than the winter. During dry spells, streams
often retain water in shallow pools along their course. It is these pools,
which are influenced in size and depth by climatological events, that
provide habitat for a great diversity of aquatic and semiaquatic species.
26
A higher diversity of species can be found in streams shaded by a dense
canopy of trees and shrubs.
Amphibians commonly observed in and adjacent to intermittent
streams include northern dusky salamander ( esmognathus fuscus) and
two-lined salamander (~mycea bisline=). Southern leopard frogs (E=
sphenocephalla), which forage on insects, are common throughout this
community. Fish diversity in intermittent streams is relatively
depauperate; however, their proximity to ponds in the vicinity of the
project may allow certain species of fish, such as sunfish (j epomis sp.), to
immigrate into the upper reaches of these tributaries.
Perennial streams support an assemblage of fauna that require a
constant source of flowing water.
Amphibians and reptiles commonly observed in and adjacent to
perennial streams include northern dusky salamander, three-lined
salamander (Emlycea guttolineata), pickerel frog (R= per), and
northern water snake erodia sipedon). According to Fish (1968),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) have been collected along
Middle Creek in the project vicinity. Members of the sunfish (Loomis
sp.) genera, as well as the black crappie (PlQ&Q1nis nigwmaculatus), may
inhabit the pond located in the project study area.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or
near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions.
This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of the ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance to each community. Project construction will result in the
clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 5
summarizes the potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities,
resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using
the proposed right-of-way (ROW) width of 36.6 m (120 ft), of which 7.2
m (24 ft) is already paved. Usually, project construction does not require
the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
27
TABLE 5: ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
COMMUNITY IMPACT
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Disturbed Community 2.1 ha (5.3 ac)
13.1 ha (32.2 ac)
Total Impact: 15.2 ha (37.5 ac)
NOTE: Impacts are in hectares (acres).
The biotic communities found within the project area will be
altered as a result of project construction. The terrestrial communities
serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for faunal organisms.
However, the majority of the project study area is in a highly altered state
and plants and animals here are well adapted to disturbed conditions.
Flora and fauna occurring in the disturbed community are common
throughout North Carolina because of their ability to persist in disturbed
habitats. Therefore, it is likely that the plants and animals inhabiting the
disturbed community will be temporarily displaced during and after
project construction.
The proposed construction will result in habitat reduction for
faunal species. Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial
animals (moles, shrews, snakes, etc.) from construction machinery used
during clearing activities. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls will
be maintained during clearing activities. All cleared and grubbed areas
along the roadways will be revegetated prior to project completion to
reduce loss of wildlife habitat.
Construction activities will invariably impact the water resources
located at the project area as well as those downstream. Increased
sedimentation and siltation is often directly attributable to construction
activities. The suspended particles will also impact filter feeders
inhabiting the streams. These impacts eventually are magnified
throughout the food chain and ultimately affect faunal organisms located
in higher trophic levels such as fish; mammals, and reptiles.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to
interruption and/or additions to surface and groundwater flow. The
change in water level may severely impact spawning activities of mobile
and non-mobile organisms. Toxic runoff from spills, construction runoff,
and highway spills may result in mortality to aquatic species inhabiting the
water resources located in the project area. Strict adherence to Best
28
Management Practices (BMPs) will be enforced during the construction
phase of this project.
d. Federally-Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with human development. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 2, 1997, the
USFWS lists four federally-protected species for Wake County (see
Table 6). A brief description of the characteristics and habitat of the listed
species follows.
TABLE 6: FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR WAKE COUNTY
SCIENTIFICNAME COMMONNAME STATUS
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
NOTES: "E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Federally Listed: March 14, 1990
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on
the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in
color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
29
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina
are found in the Neuse River Basin (including Middle Creek) and in the
Tar River system. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and
industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt-free streambed with well
oxygenated water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Unnamed tributary (UT) # 1 is a perennial tributary of Middle
• Creek. Known populations of dwarf wedge mussel are located in Middle
Creek, but these populations are downstream of the project in Johnston
County. The portion of Middle Creek located in the project study area was
surveyed during the most recent site visit by NCDOT biologists Chris A.
Murray and Mark A. Hartman. This survey included in-stream searches for
mussels and searches for mussel middens along the streambanks. The
project site is adjacent to areas undergoing rapid development. This stream
was channelized and exhibited sedimentation, which is likely attributable to
adjacent land clearing activities. No mussel populations were observed in
the project study area. The UT # 2 is an intermittent headwater of Middle
Creek which does not provide a sufficient or constant water flow necessary
to support the dwarf wedge mussel. It can be inferred that suitable habitat
for the dwarf wedge mussel does not exist at the site. A review of the
database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare Species and Unique
Habitats (NHP) revealed no known populations of dwarf wedge mussels
within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area. Impacts to this species are
not expected from project construction.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) T
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Federally Listed: March 11, 1967
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and
short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in
• color. In flight, bald eagles can be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are within 0.8 kilometer (a half mile) to open water
with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area,
and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can
cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season
for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major food
source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
30
A small pond is located in the project study area. Additionally,
several unnamed ponds are located in the project vicinity. These water
bodies are too small to provide suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for
the bald eagle. A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique
habitats revealed no known populations of bald eagles within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the project study area. Therefore, no impacts to this species are
expected from project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Federally Listed: November 13, 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the
nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal
stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with
streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by
the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pi= palustri s), for foraging and nesting
habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick
understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat
for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are 2:60 years old
and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart
disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6 to 30.0 in (12 to 100 ft)
above the ground and average 9.1 to 15.2 m (30 to 50 ft) high. They can
be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree.
The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for red-cockaded
woodpeckers, in the form of old growth pine forests, is not located in the
project study area. There were no pines of sufficient size and density
located in the project study area or nearby vicinity. A review of the NHP
database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known
31
populations of RCW within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
Impacts to this species are not expected from project construction.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Date Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The
bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly
serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color.
Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are a
red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac
is dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its
habitat. It usually grows in association with basic soils and occurs on sand
or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can
get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other
species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat for Michaux's sumac does exist in the project study area,
notably in ecotonal areas of open disturbed habitat and mixed
pine/hardwood forest. A plant-by-plant survey was conducted at the
project study area by Chris A. Murray and Phillip C. Todd on November
30 and December 6, 1995, and by Chris A. Murray and Mark A. Hartman
on October 24,1996, and by Chris A. Murray on June 11, 1997. A known
population of Michaux's sumac was visited prior to the site visits. No
populations of Michaux's sumac were identified in the project study area.
A review of the NHP rare species and unique habitat database, which was
conducted before the site visit, did not reveal any populations of
Michaux's sumac within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
Impacts to this species are not expected from project construction.
e. Federal Species of Concern
There are nine federal species of concern (FSC) listed for Wake
County. FSC are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. FSC are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to
extinction although no sufficient data currently exists to warrant a listing
32
of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T) or Special Concern (SC) by the Natural Heritage Program List of Rare
Plant and Animal Species of North Carolina, 1993, are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 7 lists Federal Species of Concern for Wake County, the
species' state status (if afforded state protection), and the existence of
suitable habitat for each species in the project study area. This species list
is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
TABLE 7: FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR WAKE COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMONNAME N.C.
STATUS SUITABLE
HABITAT
Myotis austroriparius southeastern myotis SC No
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC No
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T No
Lasmigona subviridus green floater E No
Elliptio lanceolata yellow lance T No
Speyeria diana * diana fritillary SR Yes
butterfly
Heterodon simus* Southern hognose snake SR ?
Trillium pusillum var. Carolina least trillium E No
pusillum
Monotro sis odorata Sweet inesa C No
NOTES: "SC" denotes that species is of Special Concern and requires
monitoring.
"SR" denotes that species is Significantly Rare and has not been listed
as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but
has been determined by the NHP to need monitoring.
"C" denotes that species is a Candidate species which is very rare in
North Carolina.
denotes that species not observed in Wake County in at least
50 years.
denotes that species not evaluated.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the database of the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare Species and Unique Habitats
revealed a population of rigid sedge (Carex tetanica) within the project
study area. This plant is listed as "Significantly Rare" in Wake County.
33
There are no additional records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species or unique habitats in or near the project study area.
2. Geological Resources
a. &ih
The project study area is located within the Mayodan-Granville-
Creedmoor association. This association contains deep or moderately
f deep, well-drained and moderately well-drained soils that have a subsoil of
friable sandy clay loam to very firm clay. The soils present here are
derived from sandstone, shale, and mudstone. Refer to Table 8 for soil
mapping units found along the project area.
TABLE 8: MAPPING UNITS FOUND WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
MAP UNIT
SYMBOL SPECIFIC
MAPPING UNIT PERCENT
SLOPE HYDRIC
CLASSIFICATION
MgB Mayodan gravely 2-6 -
sandy loam
MgB2 Mayodan gravely 2-6 -
sandy loam, eroded
CrB2 Creedmoor sandy 2-6 -
loam, eroded
CrC2 Creedmoor sandy 6-10 -
loam, eroded
WsB2 White Store sandy 2-6 -
loam, eroded
WsC2 White Store sandy 6-10 -
loam, eroded
CtC Creedmoor silt loam 6-10 -
CtB Creedmoor silt loam 2-6 -
NOTE: "-" denotes a map unit that is a non-hydric soil.
b. Mineral Resources
There are no mineral resources of economic significance known to
be within the project corridor.
34
C. Erosion Control
Surface drainage is well established along the project corridor due
to the relief and friable nature of the soils and subsoil. Rainfall is freely
absorbed preventing surface wash. Erosion and sedimentation will be
controlled through the appropriate specification, installation, and
maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control measures.
3. Wetlands
a. Characteristics of Wetland and Surface Water
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Title 33 of the Code of
Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3, 1987 Guidelines. Wetlands, defined in
33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place
fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344). Wetlands were also rated in accordance with methodologies
recommended by DEHNR-DWQ and Cowardin classification system.
b. Summary of Anticipated Impar
Jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters will be impacted by the
widening of NC 55. Wetland impacts are summarized in Table 9; surface
water impacts are summarized in Table 10, and the location of the sites are
shown on Figure 9. Actual impacts may be less than reported because the
entire right of way is often not impacted by construction projects.
Two mechanisms are currently being used to describe wetlands: a
classification system developed by Cowardin (1979) and a numerical
rating system developed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
The Cowardin system provides a uniform approach in describing
concepts and terms used in classifying wetland systems. The DWQ rating
scale gauges wetland quality using a numerical rating system (0-100 with
100 being the highest value) that emphasizes water storage, bank/shoreline
stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life values, and
recreation/education potential.
35
TABLE 9: WETLAND IMPACTS
SITE NO. WETLAND IMPACT
(HECTARES /ACRES) DWQ
RATING COWARDIN
CLASSIFICATION()
Wetland 1 <0.1 / <0.1 28 PEM2C
Wetland 2 <0.1 / <0.1 28 PEM2C
Wetland 3 <0.1 / <0.1 24 PFO 1 C
NOTE: (t) Cowardin values are as follows:
P = Palustrine
EM = Emergent
2 = Non-Persistent
C = Seasonally Flooded
FO = Forested
1 = Broad Leaved Deciduous
WETLAND SITE 1: West Side of NC 55 South of the US 1
Interchange and Just South of the Wicker Mart/Amoco
station: This wetland is currently dominated by hydrophytic
vegetation, including soft rush (hmm effusus), sedge (Cyprus
spp.), seedbox (jzLwigia sp.), Japanese grass (Microstegium
vimineum), and elderberry (Sambucus canadgnsis). The sandy
clay loam soil present exhibited a matrix color of l OYR 6/1 with a
mottle color of l OYR 6/8, a color that is indicative of a hydric soil.
Evidence of wetland hydrology included saturation within 30 cm
(12 in). This wetland is providing an important ecological function
to the stream. The recommended widening to the east will not
impact this site.
WETLAND SITE 2: East Side of NC 55 North of the US 1
Interchange and Just North of The Inspection Center: This
wetland is currently dominated by hydrophytic vegetation,
including soft rush, common cat-tail (Iynha latifolia), and false
nettle (Boehmeria gylindrio). The clay loam soil present
exhibited a matrix color of l OYR 5/1 with a mottle color of l OYR
6/6, a color that is indicative of a hydric soil. Evidence of wetland
hydrology included saturation within 30 cm (12 in). This wetland
is providing an important ecological function to the stream. The
recommended widening to the east will impact this site; however,
this widening will minimize wetland impacts to Wetland Site 1,
and the recommended widening to the east will be tying into
existing NC 55 at Wetland Site 2.
36
WETLAND SITE 3: East Side of NC 55 North of the US 1
Interchange and Just North of the Gore Area of the
Interchange Ramp in Quadrant A: This wetland is currently
dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, including black gum vssa
sylvatica), red maple (Am rubrum), sweetgum liquidambar
Mmciflua), jewel weed (Impatiens cnensis), sedge (Carex spp.),
and maiden cane (Arundinaria gigs=). The sandy clay loam soil
present exhibited a color of IOYR 4/1, a color that is indicative of a
hydric soil. Evidence of wetland hydrology included saturation
within 30 cm (12 in), water stained leaves, and inundation. This
wetland is providing an important ecological function to the
stream. The recommended widening of the US 1 interchange ramp
in quadrant A will impact this site.
TABLE 10: SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
SITE SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS
UT # 1 118 m (390 ft)
UT#2 15m(50ft)
Pond <0.1 ha (<O.1 ac)
NOTES: Values for the unnamed tributaries are in linear meters (feet).
Values for the pond are in hectares (acres).
Actual impacts to surface waters have been calculated using the
proposed right-of-way widths and may be less than reported because the
entire right-of-way widths are often not impacted by construction projects.
The amount of surface water impacts may be modified by any changes in
roadway design.
Culvert/pipe extension is planned for all stream crossings. This
will affect the quality of the functioning stream systems. In addition to
decreasing the total area of the natural streambed, it also constitutes
potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity.
Potential impacts resulting from the modification. of NC 55
include:
(1) sedimentation from fill material and surrounding bare soils
during construction;
(2) possible chemical and toxic infiltration of elements from
construction activities;
37
(3) channel relocation;
(4) changes in hydraulic regimes; and
(5) losses of biodiversity.
Stream impacts will result with implementation of the proposed
project. These impacts are associated with the extension of culverts and/or
pipes. The details of stream involvement and modification will be detailed
in the application for the 401 Water Quality Certification, and
compensatory mitigation with regard to stream mitigation is left to the
discretion of DWQ. NCDOT will coordinate with DWQ to fulfill the
necessary requirements regarding stream mitigation.
4. Permits
Impacts to surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, a permit will be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill
material into "Waters of the United States." A Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit
(minor road crossings) may be applicable to the project. Final decisions
concerning applicable permits rest with the COE.
a. Nationwide 14 Permit
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) authorizes
fill for roads crossing Waters of the United States, including wetlands and
other aquatic sites. Standard conditions include:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for
the actual crossing;
(2) the fill placed in Waters of the United States is limited to a
filled area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.34 ac);
(3) no more than a total of 61.0 linear meters (200.0 ft) of the
fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed to
prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high
flows and tidal flows and movement of aquatic organisms;
and
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete
project for crossing of a Water of the United States.
38
b. 401 Water Quality Certification
This project will require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification
from the DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section
401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water certification for
any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
into Waters of the United States. The issuance of a Section 401 permit
from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
C. Wetland Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental
Quality (CEQ), a wedind mitigation policy which embraces the concept of
"no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
maintain and restore the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance, minimization
and compensatory mitigation (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects must be considered sequentially.
(1) Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United
States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts, such measure should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Avoidance of Wetland Site 1 has been achieved by
recommending the alternative which utilizes the existing roadway
bed and widens NC 55 on the east side. The wetland is located on
the west side of NC 55. Wetland Sites 2 and 3 cannot be avoided
due to their proximity to the existing roadway and due to the
limited space needed to complete the improvements associated
with this project. NCDOT will continue to minimize impacts
through the use of Best Management Practices.
(2) Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the
39
United States. Implementation of these steps will be coordinated
through project modifications and permit conditions.
Practical means to minimize impacts to surface waters and
wetlands impacted by the proposed project include:
(a) Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of ROW widths and/or fill
slopes.
(b) Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms,
and temporary ground cover during construction.
(c) Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion
control BMPs for the protection of surface waters
and wetlands.
A five-lane shoulder section was initially proposed for the
subject project. However, the northern terminus of the project is
urban in nature, and continued urbanization is expected to occur
along the rest of the project. Therefore, the existing roadway
typical section was decreased and a five-lane curb and gutter
section was proposed to reduce the amount of right of way
required, impacts to businesses, and other potential project-related
impacts to the natural environment.
(3) Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may
not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable,
adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has occurred. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the United
States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site. Actions authorized under
Nationwide Permits may require compensatory mitigation. The
final decisions concerning compensatory mitigation rest with the
COE and the DWQ.
d. Coordination with Other Agencies
No special coordination with other agencies is required for the
proposed project.
40
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Both Apex and Wake County are participants in the National Flood
Insurance Program. The entire project runs along a ridge. There is one major
stream crossing associated with this project, which is located on the east side of
NC 55 under the east end of the US 1 interchange ramps over a tributary of
Middle Creek (see Table 11 for specific information regarding the crossing,
Figure 2 for the location of the crossing, and Figure 10 for the approximate
location of the floodplain limits).
TABLE 11: CULVERT -HYDRAULIC DATA
SITE ISSTRUCTURE ABOVE DESIGNATED SUBSTANTIAL
HYDRAULICALLY HEAD- FLOOD CHANNEL
ADEQUATE? WATERS? HAZARD MODIFICATION
AREA? REQUIRED?
Middle
Creek Yes Yes No No
Tributary
Refer to Section I.D.7 of this document for additional information
regarding the culvert.
The portion of roadway proposed for improvement is located in the
jurisdiction of two National Flood Insurance Program participating communities,
which are the town of Apex and Wake County. From a review of Panel 491 of the
March 1992 Wake County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Flood
Insurance Rate Map, the road is not located in an identified flood hazard area.
There are no buildings in the vicinity of the tributary crossing with floor elevation
below the 100-year level, and any extension of the existing culvert to
accommodate the proposed highway improvements will not have a significant
impact on the existing floodplain nor on the existing flood hazard.
6. Water Resources
a. Characteristics
Water resources located within the project study area include one
unnamed tributary of Middle Creek (UT # 1), one unnamed intermittent
tributary of Middle Creek (UT # 2), and a pond (see Figure 9). The
41
unnamed tributary of Middle Creek is a perennial stream. The UT # 2 has
recently been channelized within the project area, as part of the widening
of US 1 (TIP Project No. R-2500). The streambed of UT # 2 is underlain
by riprap.
The proposed project is located along a topographic ridge. The
unnamed tributaries of Middle Creek (UT # 1 and UT # 2) are located in
the Neuse River Drainage Basin.
The unnamed tributary of Middle Creek and the unnamed
intermittent tributary of Middle Creek both originate approximately 915 m
(3000 ft) north of US 1. The UT # 1 crosses under US 1 at the east end of
the interchange ramps. The UT # 2 crosses under US 1 approximately
915 m (3000 ft) east of the interchange ramps, specifically under the ramp
in quadrant B. The portion of the tributaries of Middle Creek located
within the project area are channelized. A small pond is located near the
northern terminus of the project. Additional information concerning these
tributaries is presented in Table 12.
TABLE 12: STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Tributary Creek Width Creek Depth Substrate Flow
UT # 1 2.0 m (7.0 ft) 0.2 m (0.5 ft) Sand, Gravel, Moderate
Cobble, Stone
UT # 2 0.8 m (2.5 ft) 0.2 m (0.5 ft) Riprap, Cobble, Moderate
Gravel, Sand
b. Best Usaee Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The best usage classification of
unnamed tributaries is the same as the water body to which they are a
tributary. According to the DWQ, the best usage classification of Middle
Creek (DWQ Index 2743-15-1) is C NSW. Class C waters are suitable
for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. NSW is a supplemental classification
indicating nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) which require limitations on
nutrient inputs.
Neither Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), nor High Quality Waters (HQW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the project study area.
42
C. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by the DWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality.
The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites.
Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality;
thus, the species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality. A monitoring station is located on SR 1301 (Sunset Lake Road)
over Middle Creek. This monitoring site is located approximately 4.3 km
(2.6 mi) south of where Middle Creek crosses the project along the US 1
interchange ramps. This site received a bioclassification of poor in
May 1986.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit.
There are no permitted dischargers that will impact water bodies located in
the project area; however, one discharger is located within the project
vicinity, downstream of the proposed project. The Apex Wastewater
Treatment Plant is a permitted discharger located approximately 0.7 km
(0.4 mi) south of where Middle Creek crosses the project along the US 1
interchange ramps. This facility is permitted to discharge up to
3.6 million gallons/day.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources in the project study area are
dependent on final construction limits. Existing culvert intakes and
outfalls do not extend more than 1.0 m (3.0 ft) beyond the existing edge of
pavement. These culverts will have to be extended, thus increasing the
amount of impacts to water resources.
Construction related impacts to water resources include reduced
water clarity which can be attributed to increased sedimentation and
erosion during activities conducted in and adjacent to streams. Locally,
the construction of this project will increase the amount of impervious area
in the project study area and ultimately vehicular use of the roadway. This
will directly lead to an increase in concentrations of toxic compounds (gas,
oil, and highway spills) which may be carried into nearby water resources
via precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased amounts
of toxic materials can adversely alter the water quality of any water
resource, thus impacting its biological and chemical functions.
43
Activities in the streams often result in alterations of the water
level due to interruptions or additions to surface and/or groundwater flow.
In addition, the destruction of natural substrates often occurs during the
installation of culverts and pipes. Removal of streamside canopy during
construction typically results in decreases in dissolved oxygen (due to
increased water temperature), temperature instability of the stream, and
increases in sedimentation resulting from devegetation of stream banks.
The unnamed tributary of Middle Creek, the unnamed intermittent
tributary of Middle Creek, and the pond will be affected by road
construction and widening. Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts
to water resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control
guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project. This includes:
(1) Reduction and elimination of direct and non-point
discharge into the water bodies and minimization of
activities conducted in streams.
(2) Installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth berms
to control runoff during construction.
(3) Placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of
disturbed sites to reduce runoff and decrease sediment
loadings.
(4) Elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or
adjacent to streams which would reduce the potential of
accidental discharge of toxins into water bodies.
7. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies
to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils, as designated by the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (formerly the U.S. Soil Conservation Service). Farmland soils located in
an urbanized area or in an area committed to urban development by the local
governing body is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The proposed
widening of NC 55 is located in an intensely urbanized area. Although some
vacant land remains in some areas, this land is also slated for industrial,
commercial or residential development. Therefore, no further consideration to
prime or important farmland soils is required.
44
8. Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening of NC 55, from approximately 390 m (1280 ft) north of the
SR 1448 (Bobbitt Road) intersection to approximately 300 m (984 ft) north of the
SR 1158 (South Hughes Road) intersection with NC 55 in Wake County, on noise
levels in the immediate project area. The project location and ambient
measurement sites are shown on Figure N1 (see Appendix E, page E-1). 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 Register (CFR). If traffic noise impacts are
predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for
reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
a. Characteristics of Noise
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 decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz).
Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often
expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be
expressed in dBAs. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N 1 (see Appendix E, page E-2).
Review of Table N1 indicates that 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 sound depends essentially on three things:
45
(1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
(2) The relationship between the background noise and the
intruding noise.
(3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note
that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother
some more than others and some individuals become upset if an unwanted
noise persists. The time patterns of noise also enter into an individual's
judgment of whether or not a noise is offensive. For example, noises
occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to be more
offensive 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 more objectionable than the blowing of a car hom 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 time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and
are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their
lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises,
including airplane, factory, railroad, and highway traffic noise. In relation
to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed
rapidly over the past few years.
b. Noise Abatement Criteri
a
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to
be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria
and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference
(Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2 (see Appendix E, page E-3).
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
46
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.
C. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of
this noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic
environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level
increases. The existing Leq noise levels along NC 55 as measured at 15 m
(49.2 ft) from the roadway were approximately 70 dBA north of US 1 and
71 dBA south of US 1.
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 level averaged approximately 3.4 dBA higher
than the measured noise level for the locations where noise measurements
were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching"
of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the
computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed. The
calculated noise levels presented the worst possible case and were thus
used in determining site impacts.
d. Procedure For Predicting Future Noise Levels
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. Due
to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications
must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The Barrier Cost Reduction (BCR) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-
RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number and
type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor
location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground
elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the
47
existing two lanes of NC 55 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility from
approximately 390 m (1280 ft) north of the SR 1448 (Bobbitt Road)
intersection to approximately 300 m (984 ft) north of the SR 1158 (South
Hughes Road) intersection. Only those existing natural or man-made
barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections and
proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents the "worst case" topographical conditions. The noise
predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for
the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level of service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used
with the assumed posted speed limit of 90 km/h (55 mph). The highest
posted speed limit of 90 km/h (55 mph) currently along NC 55 was
utilized to determine the results in the noise analysis since this value yields
the noisiest conditions. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise
levels are not anticipated to be greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted
during the peak hour of the design year 2020. A land use is considered to
be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the
FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial
noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as
7.5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 480 meters (24, 49, 98, 197, 394, 787, and
1574 feet) from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides
of the roadway). The location of these receptors was determined by the
changes in projected traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along
the proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid of receptor
points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels were calculated for
each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N3.A (Alternative A - East Side Widening) and Table N3.B
(Alternative B - West Side Widening) (see Appendix E, pages E-4 and
E-5). Information included in these tables consists of listings of all
receptors in proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise
levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in
Table N4 (see Appendix E, page E-6). 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. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, there are 17 impacted receptors
48
along Alternative A and 18 impacted receptors along Alternative B, due to
highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum extent of the
72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 33 and 58 meters (108 and
190 feet), respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control
over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and
land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N5 (see Appendix E, page E-7) indicates the exterior traffic
noise level increases for the identified receptors in each roadway section.
No receptor is expected to experience a substantial increase in their
exterior noise level. The predicted noise level increases for this project
range from +4 to +8 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely
possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is
more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a
doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
e. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The 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.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy,
federal/state governments are no longer responsible for providing noise
abatement measures for new development which building permits are
issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date
of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a
proposed highway project will be the approval date of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents (such as a Categorical
Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, or Record of Decision) or
the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development
occurring after the Date of Public Knowledge, local governing bodies are
responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the
proposed facility.

If traffic noise impacts are predicted for buildings with permits
issued before the Date of Public Knowledge, noise abatement measures to
reduce or eliminate these noise impacts must be considered. In the project
49
area, there are 17 and 18 such receptors impacted along Alternative A and
Alternative B, respectively. Possible noise abatement measures are
discussed below:
(1) Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as
to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance
between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental
parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is
primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance
from noise sensitive areas to minimize noise impacts to those
areas. It is anticipated that no substantial increase in noise impacts
will result from the implementation of either of the studied
alternatives. Therefore, changing the horizontal alignment will not
be considered as an alternative for noise abatement.
(2) Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to
their effect on the capacity and level of service on the proposed
roadway. For example, lowering the traffic speed on the roadway
would reduce noise impacts to the area; however, the resulting
capacity and level of service for the roadway would decrease.
(3) Noise Barriers
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.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction, it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
substantial 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,
50
crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a
concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction (at least
5 dBA's, but preferably 8 dBA's), a barrier's length would
normally be eight times the distance from the barrier to the
receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 in (49.2 ft) from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 120 in (393.6 ft) long to
provide sufficient noise reduction. An access opening of 12 in
(39.4 ft) (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, pages 5-27).
Most commercial establishments and residences along
NC 55 will have direct access connections to the proposed
roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade, with
the exception of the US 1 interchange. In addition, businesses, 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 not be acceptable
abatement measures in this case.
f. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur,
the noise levels of three receptors would approach or exceed the FHWA
NAC. Exterior noise level increases for the "no-build" alternative are
approximately +1 dBA.
g. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly
from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during
grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature
of construction noise, 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.
51
h. Sumni=
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of
Title 23 CFR Part 772.
9. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial
and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of
common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The
impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. 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 (SOD, and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate).
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For
this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected
carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, 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 m
[328 ft]) 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 concentration was obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR). Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine
the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and compared 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.
Automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to
the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new
52
cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements
may be offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of
the area.
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 (6.2 to 12.4 miles) 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 substantial 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 (i.e., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are
very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air
quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The
burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the
fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating
lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasoline. The overall
average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.53 gram per liter. By 1989, this
composite average had dropped to 0.0035 gram per liter. 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 it unlawful to sell, supply, or transport leaded gasoline or lead additives.
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 at the nearest
sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic
53
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 year 2000 and
the design year 2020 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission
Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division
of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of
1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst case air quality scenario was investigated at the interchange of
NC 55 and US 1. The "build" and "no build" one-hour CO concentrations for the
worst case receptor located in the vicinity of the right of way for the years 2000
and 2020 are shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13: ONE-HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM)
NEAREST SENSITIVE 2000 2020
RECEPTOR
Build 6.9 7.1
No Build 5.9 6.5
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations for the build scenario 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 for the "build" option is less than
9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level will not exceed the standard.
See Tables Al through A6, pages F-1 through F-12, in Appendix F for input data
and output.
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-
Durham nonattainment area for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO), as defined
by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these
areas as "moderate" nonattaininent areas for 03 and CO. However, due to
improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for 03
on June 17, 1994, and "maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995. Section
176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects
conform to the intent of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
Air Quality. The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures
for Wake County. The Capital Area 1996 Transportation Improvement Program
54
(TIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The Municipal
Planning Organization (MPO) approval date for the TIP is July 20, 1995. The
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) approval date of the TIP is
April 4, 1997. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final
conformity rule found in 40 CFR Part 51. There has been no substantial changes
in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the
project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning 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 North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that 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 utilized under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures
will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust
is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process, and no additional reports are necessary.
10. Stream Modification
It is anticipated that no creeks along the project will involve any major
stream modification. If the final design shows major modifications are necessary,
the issue will be coordinated with the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
11. Hazardous Materials
A field reconnaissance survey conducted by the NCDOT Geotechnical
Unit along the project corridor identified six potential sites for underground
storage tanks (USTs) (see Appendix G, pages G-1 through G-3, for a list of the
sites). Of these sites, three are still operational facilities. The proposed project
will avoid impacts to these properties as much as possible. Any impacted sites
will be reevaluated prior to right-of-way acquisition for the project.
Remains of a pump island are located on the east side of NC 55, across
from the Apex Veterinary Hospital. The pumps and vent piping have been
removed. No evidence of fill ports was observed. There was some evidence that
the tanks at this location have been removed, but this has not been confirmed.
Additional investigation may be required if the widening of NC 55 extends more
than 23 in (75.4 ft) to the east side of the existing roadway.
55
12. Geodetic Survey Markers
This project will impact three geodetic survey markers. The North
Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction regarding the
relocation of survey markers along the project.
13. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction of the
proposed project, the following measures, along with those already mentioned,
will be enforced during the construction phase:
a. All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's
health and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any
materials to and from construction sites along the project and that any
inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
b. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering
the safety and general welfare of the public and to prevent diminishing the
value, utility, or appearance of any public or private properties.
C. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all
laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees, including those of the
N.C. State Board of Health, regarding the disposal of solid waste. All
solid waste will be disposed of in accordance with the Standard
Specifications of the Division of Highways. These specifications have
been reviewed and approved by the Solid Waste Vector Control Section of
the Division of Health Services, N.C. Department of Human Resources.
d. 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.
e. The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Before
construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the
contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Division of Highways will be
held to discuss various construction procedures, including a discussion of
precautionary steps to be taken during the time of construction that will
minimize interruption of service.
56
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be
disposed of by the contractor. The contractor will be encouraged to sell
timber rather than burning to minimize the need for piling and burning
during construction. If any burning is needed, this activity will be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of
the North Carolina SIP for Air Quality. 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 performed under constant surveillance.
g. 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 whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be
responsible for this work will be made at that time.
h. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained as possible to alleviate
breeding areas for mosquitoes.
i. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
j. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
k. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the contractor
before work is started. The schedule will show the time relationship
between phases of the work which must be coordinated to reduce erosion
and shall describe construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with the
erosion control schedule, the contractor will be required to follow those
provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. Temporary erosion control measures, such as the use of berms,
dikes, dams, silt basins, etc., will be used as needed.
1. Trees should be protected from construction activities to avoid:
Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy
equipment.
Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a
practice that impairs root aeration.
Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other
damaging substances over the root systems of trees.
57
M. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on
this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of
material from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification
shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the
proposed borrow source.
n. All borrow/waste areas will avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
o. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to
brief disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be
made to insure that the transportation needs of the public will be met both
during and after construction.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal, State. and Local Agencies
The project has been coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local
agencies. Comments were received from the following agencies:
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
DEHNR - Regional Office
Division of Water Quality (formerly Division of Environmental
Management)
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Land Resources
Wildlife Resources Commission
Refer to pages C-1 through C-19 in Appendix C for the agency's comments.
58
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on June 11, 1996, from 4:00 to
7:00 p.m. at the Apex Town Hall Board Room (see pages D-1 and D-2 in Appendix D for
news releases concerning the workshop). A Public Officials Meeting was held prior to
the workshop from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. at the same location as the workshop. Thirteen
people attended the officials meeting, including nine NCDOT representatives;
approximately nineteen people attended the workshop, including six NCDOT
representatives.
Each attendee at the Citizens Informational Workshop was given the opportunity
to review maps showing the project limits and the proposed typical sections for each
alternative, ask questions, and make comments. In addition, handouts were made
available to all meeting attendees (see pages D-3 through D-12 in Appendix D). Each
handout contained a comment sheet which could be completed and submitted to the
Division of Highways.
Comments received on the proposed roadway improvements were generally
favorable. Those who attended the workshop felt that the widening of NC 55 was
needed.
C. Public Hearing
A Public Hearing will be held following the completion of this report to provide
additional information on the proposed project to local citizens and to gather further
input. Input from the hearing and other sources will aid NCDOT in making further
design modifications to address the concerns and needs of interested parties.
ASM/am
R-2905
FIGURES
IF HIGHWAYS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
NC 55
FROM PROPOSED
HOLLY SPRINGS BYPASS TO
NORTH OF US 1
WAKE COUNTY
TIP PROVECT NO. R-2905
a r _
-du
t?
"Aa
'E

1
VISIT;

?,r'?
goll, 11*1 Mm WAS
jot

?
W

1 Ah
-
1hk ?
•?
9 1, ??: we

1
4
A
TO
W

TIP PROJECT NO. R-2905
NC 55, WAKE COUNTY
PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITH PROPOSED HOLLY SPRINGS BYPASS
ESTIMATED ADT 1997/2002/2020

END
PROJECT
1980
2420
4000
SR 1158 -
(SOUTH HUGHES RD.)
US 1
8120
9920
16400
NC 55
16990
18970
110 26100
130
2000
18940
1960 21280
2360 29700
3800
1090 6050
1310 7170
2100
`11' 200
1 1 8020
870
1430 9580
1700 15200
20700 2070
23440 2490
33300 14000
i 20230
24510
39000
US 1
98o
lino
19900 1900
23140
34800
BEGIN
OJECT
110 220
130 260
200 400
3050
3670
5900
SR 1444
(LUFKIN RD.)
SR 1448
(BOBBITT RD.)
I PR ?
110
1130
200
19900
14000 23140
14220 16500 34800
16780
TOT 25MO 1
J
_
PROPOSED HOLLY 220
I SPRINGS BYPASS 210
500 6120
I 6920
soo 100
I 2" 110 9800
oo
O 260 200 130
1100 300 I? 400
1100 '?
iloo 8001 00
SR 1191
1I0
sooo I Tm (TECHNOLOGY DR.) 130
I 6120
6620
14720 98oo
17280
126500
NC 55
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
1997/2002/2020
DHV 10%
DUAL 4%
TTST 3%
FIGURE 3
/ - \
j4p
e
.
- `' • ..•+4l Jit• lt.l M7rbr AT• -Ty?.Y•
14
Ij.
. 1'( ?`?-+ ` \ ? _?•}or ? `. T : . era or.u?..? iV W.. ?/ls•.. .. ,1.../ ?,.__ /.
f fin, ` ? .j +' K 11 I' 1 ? \t ? T ? 1' I
q? 1(` _ _ ? '.?? ` ` Ff 1 T.J, . y r i{ t u toi.? _? r???..• n ? + . 1
1 ? n 0 [+'1 yr\ ?vr ,??? i?° F/! 1..TS" S ,w ??. _
' f
?l _ `mod z e - 1 i I { ? ?1 II
SST • t-C 't? T? ? ? ? ? ?Oy. S
¦ r .rwsah ?t , .? q • •
•
' ?-_r r S
a , r rouu° ` rye ° S ? . • Q
'? 1 i I .t•r•? t
1-
•
1 ,r I 1 ( V
tY' ? ? j /t I r • ?y?,,?? .?A ??? ?. r j ? i r ?' ae BSI . .???!' ? r,
?: //'/ L , C ? '/? + s -7 • : . 6 %? ..[IOC. Ipr
/ 1 r R . + , ? • 1. ? ? `I__-? ? ? r+lt
V N ? 1
1 Yrl .. q ?a sAiS b LL ? ••• 'trt O+.W' '' I ?" • ? • ,
?r.rrrr. rrr.rr.rr / . ? , 1
_ q 3= 6 ? ' / II g
- -j -__ uttsi r f
a ae c¦ it
a ±'A ?$?'p3 li 41 S ?? m z A
at m
al -1 0
a
I iMlQ , O?III sa ?'?I#rKF? =Tpr
^1111 ; ?? ? ? : ?+ 1=???? m m > ct
i
III, 11I4031l' NO. R-2905
PHOTOS OF EXISTIN(;
CONDITION'S
C' S5, :1T BRIDGE: NO. 7
1
OVER US 1,
INTE.RSE CTION k'17TI1
"[I's"1,1301 NI) RA'DII',
LOOKING SOI 'I'll
NC 55, 1N I F. RSE(`TI0N
NVITFI SR 1158,
LOOKING NORTII
N(' S5, ON BRIDGE. NO. ?1
OVER US I,
INTERSECTION XNATH
EAS.FI601 NI) RA t1 P.
LOOKING SOt 'I'll
EI(ITItE:S

4
Z
O
H
Z
LO W 0
0 ?0

N
(5 W
Q cn
oC Z U °C

p
Z - W
M

Z
0 F-
?°
.
F- U ? w°
Z
)
O LO W
oC U 'n =
CL Z pU
W Z LIJ
J
0
6
O
cr
CL
*
U-j
cc
E 4? w
O O m
ri
Et-
co
0 C\l

O
O
cr
0
O
107
O
n`
W
Ci
N
*
E
rn w 4-
vi
CO
m
D
U E?
(? T
O
w
w
O
U E
c0 N
LL C9
m
w
F-
o ?
cwn 0
00
CL z
O Q
d CO
m
D
U
O
z
z
w
0
0
'w
VJ
O
CL
O
cr-
d
H
z
W
2
w
Q
CL
0
Z
H
X ?
/ W w
? F-
1? ~
W D
co 0
O p
CL z
Oa
CC m
D
U
.R
Y E
N -?
T
? co
M
N
of
* *
} r= 4
Q rnM
T
co
W
O
H
'
(
3
E
O N
0 0 ?.

117
O

L E

O O

E ?i

N
O
T

Ai
vim
Q
co
W
D
0
LL
CO
W
J
U
U_
m
w
Q
O
O
U
Q Q
O Q
= O
m
C9
z
J
'?^
Q
V/
Z X
O w
H LL
O
W
Q Z
LU
w -J
m
w
J z
U
Z w
U
* 'K
*

LL
s
cc
Z
O

F- M 4-

U M T
LO w

0
VJ

CV

_I

r 4-
O Q M T
? Z U
-
O

Z -
Z
W ?

`L ?-
Cf)
J
Q F

LL
C,i
N
..
U
U

U
F w (D
A
L m

uj

L
O
?

U

?

L w

o
0 LJ N ? T
U m ?' o
Z
Q
U
Q
CL w L
- U)
CFJ
wC
6

T ??

I
J J
CL A L
wa
O # 00
C r r`
W I co p_
0
W
M T Q
Q
cc w
F- a
O J
c0 LL LL. U
o N Z
ACC
L

LL iC it
T S
m
t0
W
m
LL
TIP PROJECT NO. R-2905
INTERSECTION OF

NC 55 AND SR 1444 (LUFKIN ROAD)
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
NC 55
.......:...
Y' '`3 J
r
1
I I
I
f
I I
I
FIGURE 7A
L
--------------
TIP Project No. R-2905
NC 55 at US 1
Proposed Interchange Geometry
I I
I I
' US 1
I I I t
Westbound Ramp
• I I I I
I I I I
US 1
Eastbounc
D
'11 TIT
I I ? i
? I I I
? , I I
I i , I
I ? I
I
, I I
, , I I
, I I I
, 1 I I
i I I I
I I I
, I I
I I I i
Bridge No. 71
over US 1
I I ?
I I ?
I I
I I
NC 55 FIGURE 713

ca
T
1?i1 O C
O O
J `? r
o
II
1 w
I ?
I
a
oo
I
a?

7D 1
o
z

H
00
?t w k .1
W c ?
p,oc?
N
m .
.?
?a
? O O rn
m

?
? rn
O rn
v
N

b

y
O C)
y
O z
'y
O
Z Z y kr1
t,j

O
` j

O

INN
R
u ;
Z m ??
I < ,
. --
\ ?,? ?` f B s h f
O.
ax,
J.:? Ij \J ?I Ir``.\`- F!? • :,' rV ti L-""?.-. ) - v? ? -? ; ,.?L G'/i'•'?\ •' f ,??? `-
_ V !lull ??`? ?:..
J- yqM 7 '••' 1 1494/ '?? ? r" ?'? , `.
?i i_?((f-??" ?r lh ,?`Sr ••'C'?• miry r'/'`- / I? ,^??
FF.-- ? ''?\?.??•,`?-?-?. ? ?' (? P /?S^ P N? 1'II ., ?, `010 -- ^ r/. ,, r` ?--,
-? \ ????\??Way ?? yv' Q/ +M3 .-`Q'?tFlihh??!?•''-i i-? ,iii' i ??'?? ?^ ^-``?"?J ^
> '?? C_ f 1\ WETLAND SITE #
Trailer
?, Vr?l?\ \ al-' 1 « /\ / t n6 der
Park
a WETLAND SITE # 3 `
-11si END
J < \ \
PROJECT
41158
Tr iler,
ark
- POND ?; l ).', I (j/
` jrn?i?! ", ?•??.?
.o, _ \ ?,/? ??• '?;° ?-. a.\ - I o;t?`i l?\1` `fi'r,
(r\
Tankt
`!f? - r; ?? ? ` ?, ?, h'?r?_ - \ D\^ _ ? ? / '? ?5? '•\ To' erg.. I \ `.•
`? \ ?_1 D ,o •?? 1171 ,\ J ? / - ., ? . ?_ ? , , (' : , ???-, ? ? -.
a??\ 1 = / \ \ /f V? S?t1b tas ?i?s \. \?i' 1. % ??/ /?; ??% l ?:• it
1153 ___. % ._ \ ^ ? j 17 ? ?? l 1 ?! ? ? ? ?--• ',1 ??\ -?4r/ ?/,i ..
428 .. -
Q \_ _ WETLAND SITE # 1 j ? •Tow6\
BEGIN
!/??? PROJECT !•.y?? _?;,
p
??. t ) ? i r {% i ice. ?'_.•-.?:ti./- ?_\-?^': / ! \ ? ?..- / ?\ ...'? ? _ •/r
4 f \? ?1 ?1 f - \SK f
fw;
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
DMSION OF EUGHWAYS
'EAL
f _ LEGF?NIT BEAif7;
NC 55, FROM PROPOSED
WETLAND SITE ,? -- HOLLY SPRINGS BYPASS TO
NORTH OF US f
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
tj WAKE COUNTY
NC 55 WIDENING ••••••• (? , _% WETLAND/SURFACE WATER IMPACT AREAS
US I RAMP IMPROVEMENTS TIP PRO.YECT Mi R-2905
l l / & SR, 1158 REALIGNMENT
1:24,000 ` FIGURE. 9
/i'? ,?? t?? f l\ \\?? ? ?, .?(?i ? rte.: =", r?--?' -?•'%/ ./?, ? ?i% .. } ? \ \ 1 1 "r..- ? -r! f f ^' ?? / ?' ? .t
••N I,?? ?. ?? 1?•` ?-II?`\-?'?? -- - -' ?J-?-\• • ••.?••., • •? ? .?- 1. :\ 1\ ?t 1 /' / • ??, ? `\' ? / - _. s=??\?•\
11 IN
Sch
^ ?i'..e,, J• ? - i5f ? ?i'-?l?'?I , \/?? i1A 11 ?-.-'.'?^ -\ •\\. ?O •i r :'"rte\.- j?
S H? _ ? , ?? , ..? ? J ???? \ - "'-•-? ?C??- ? 1''I 1135 i ?1? ? 1/'` :,-?? = J? ?? ??'1?.'_-?
e- e V,
??? 'i i1t=r / ryy, ? I .lam//° l ?'? i:1- •%-^ o )?/1?1??,? ?•:??' N .??,.'?%
?? \\??-??\ r( :, t,? I •? ?? ?._. ice'/i'?1?5 , \\ < ??
j `4\ 'SCh ' ?,"•• 1 130$ --'??' _ r
c ? JIi q •y I ? - -? '-=?1
?3z'•%' ..``,\1' .\I '?/?'?J /?• ."?`?? ?-
450-
•1157 -•• \? :°) 1 I " `i < \, r ?? T. •'???. ?\ r it
t• -?.?'? . , ? --_ J _ ( _._453• . _ = ---; ,' rt ?` ??,? , u \? , ??, J .R,'
,?,! ?`O ,i / i ?-: •\ 7r it -?29
m' • ?., _ v _ ----? a ?.` ji
\4:/
?f?'? ?'r.\ - ./?. ,•1158_ ??7 •-=-?.U?% I ?I ?\?..^i?1145 ?.\ .:? -•? -
- i?? ? 4f 118('. _? \'• K .?? O ? , ?L' ?• ? ? / 11 -
' ?_ 1 '~?' •_ - Ste ,?
END _ ank
PROJECT ?' `?,?• _ \ •I' ?' ?Nyi •' T. er-T,
- _ x`.=yS??A". ;I ?i?? ':?, I, ? '/ "` ?? \ -
\/ ? ?.rg! \ 1171' it.
tas
?_ (y
Ois
ow r
BEGIN
V PROJECT
;.? ,.. Jam. / ?: -',' '? ? ? •- _ %'/ ?.\,. . L•?? ? ?.?-:.' -
: I ? .Q • ?----- / l?f! `.1 -/• '\ ? \J?" ?? - ?- • .. 'ate .? , /? / ?1 -?+
.303
?i ?' ? ??/ ( ?j /Chapel ? ? / '?'' !
1153'
LEGEND:
?\ -1 n e
FLOODPLAIN LIMTS
NC 55 s

( , f? , Feiwnvl`Ile 130 , I
R-2905
APPENDIX A
RELOCATION REPORTS
77RELOCATION REPORT
a E.I.S. E] CORRIDOR [:]DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1403301 COUNTY Wake Alternate A of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2905 F.A. PROJECT MA-55(4)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 55 from proposed Holly springs Bypass to North of US 1, Apex
...y-::::.:....:?: rf.??.'ii::i,.is:{:i;i:}? ?i:?••vi-- i f:>.--vvy::: y:; .. .

ESTtMATED>715PLAGEES< ...... .....

...:JNCQME LEVEL... .:: .
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0
Businesses 1 1 2 0
::.:...1/A1.UE:OF VMLii1NG .....::.
DWECUNG: A1tA1LABE E :::.:.:.
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20m $ 0450 0-20m $ 0450

:.... ......
ANSWE ............. ...... <
R fiF3:`QiJESiTOt1iS .. . . 2040M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250400 40-70M 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400.600 70400m 400-600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 UP 100 UP 600 UP
displacement?
TOTAL
X 3. Will business services still be available after
..: ::(Respond by 1. 1 .........
project? 3. Both will have reduced-size property from which they
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, in fact may not have to relocate.
.....................
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. (A) A & K Food Mart is clear of RM, but canopy and
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 1 of 3 pump islands would be lost. 4-6 employees.
j?; 6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? (B) Apex Detail & Auto Sales is clear of R/W; however,
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? front yard is used for cars for sale. Property
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. appears large enough to accommodate continued
families? operation. 2-4 employees.
X 10 . Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11 . Is public housing available? 14. A few business sites are available per signs in the
X 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing area.
housing available during relocation period?
X 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14 . Are suitable business sites available list
source).
15 . Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? SIX (6)

Relocation Agent, A. M. Simpson Date `><« Approved by Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02195 d
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-1
RELOCATION REPORT
ED E.I.S. [D CORRIDOR [3 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1403301 COUNTY Wake Alternate B Of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2905 F.A. PROJECT MA-55(4)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 55 from`°proposed Holly springs Bypass to North of US 1, Apex
:
`
?
?
?
%%?y ?i:nw::i?::.%{S::.hv:t4y
•u%:::;.i::}
:
,•:4:•it::. ?i::i.
i::; ii}::jjti::i:
ESTIMAT ED DISPLACEE$ IINCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential
Businesses

VALUE OF
TIM.
..
...
.......... ..D ..f11ELLlNG AV. LAS..:::::.:
Farms owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20m $ 0450 0-20m $ 0450
::::..::::
:............:..: iBfNSiIYE .. :.:
R f?LicQlJEStif3 > : - :::::::
2040M
150-250
20-40M
150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250400 40-70M 250-400
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70400m 400.600 70-100M 400.600
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up 600 UP
Mom displacement? TOTAL

3............ .
3. Will business services still be available after :::::..:.::::
..................
.....
...
:::
..EMais (rtespond:by >vumberj::a
...
......:....project?
.............
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
....................
indicate size, type, estimated number of
NEGATIVE REPORT
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
.....................
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
..............
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? ?nw
6-17-96

Relocation Agent, A. M. Sim son Date Approved b Date
Forth 15.4 Revised 02195 d
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-2
R-2905
APPENDIX B
DISCUSSION OF DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will
be available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore,
the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost, or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
the Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible
and qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-
133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession or replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after the
NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas
not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent
and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means of the families
' and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property-
B-1
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either public or private, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships
to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, the NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased payments, and incidental expenses may not exceed $22,500
(combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses,
on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the
state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state
or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement
housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of
time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income
for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal
law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitaion. 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. Adequate replacement •
housing will be available for all relocatees. Last Resort Housing will be considered if the
financial situation of tenants or owners warrant such action.
B-2
R-2905
APPENDIX C
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 50`
P.O. BOX 1890 .l?
a
'°°°•"`°
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPAY TO
ATTENTION OF July 3, 1995
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
GE /\
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager ? UUL u 6 1995
Planning and Environmental Branch 2
North Carolina Division of Highways ? DWISIC!gr .
Post Office Box 25201 Cc>' ''?IGLIVVAYs:
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 ?N?ll?p?lt
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of May 12, 1995, requesting our
comments on "NC 55, From Proposed Holly Springs Bypass to North of US 1, Wake
County, Federal-Aid Project No. MA-55(4), State Project No. 8.1403301, TIP
Project No. R-2905" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199503168).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources,
including waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The
proposed roadway does not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
6
1?JM ?
William R. Dawson, P.E.
Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
Primed as. 9 Recycled Paper
C-1
July 3, 1995
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"NC 55, From Proposed Holly Springs Bypass to North of US 1, Wake County,
Federal-Aid Project No. MA-55(4), State Project No. 8.1403301, TIP Project No.
R-2905" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199503168)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The portion of roadway proposed for improvement-is located in the
jurisdiction of two National Flood Insurance Program participating
communities, which arc the town of Apex and Wake County. From a review ;,f
Panel 491 of the March 1992 Wake County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
Flood Insurance Rate Map, the road is not located in an identified flood
hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of the pertinent United States
Geological Survey topo map of the area.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone], Extension 23
a. Review of the project indicates that the proposed work would not
likely involve the discharge of excavated or fill material into waters and/or
wetlands. The project is located on a ridge between the drainage basins of
Little Branch and Middle Creek, above headwaters.
b. Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, would be required for any
discharge of excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands in'
conjunction with this project, including the disposal of construction debris.
When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any work
within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would
appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a project-specific
determination of Department of the Army permit requirements. It is probable,
if the impacts from the proposed project are minor, that the work could be
authorized under one or more nationwide or regional general permits.
c. Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to
Mr. Alsmeyer.

C-2
Unh:ei! States Department of the Interior s G E I
F
64 Post Raleigh Field Office
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your May 12, 1995 letter requesting U.S. Fish and•Wildlife
Service (Service) comments on the proposed improvements to NC 55 from Holly
Springs Bypass to north of US 1 Wake County, North Carolina. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and candidate
(C) species that are known to occur in Wake County. Candidate species refers to
any species being considered by the Service for listing as endangered or
threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed rule. These species are not
legally protected under the Act or subject to its provisions, including Section
7, until formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. Although
candidate species have no legal status and are accorded no protection under the
Act, their inclusion will alert you of potential proposals or listing.
Therefore, it would be prudent for you to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate
species or their habitat.
The Federally-listed red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is known to
occur in Wake County. If any of the road widening plans include removing pine
trees greater than or equal to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat,
surveys should be•conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a one-half mile radius of the project boundaries. If
red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or active cavity
trees are found, you should contact this office for further information.
Additionallv, the Federally-listed endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
c zuntrr. at=e=== to he c;= a cs t
upon some form of disturbance to maintain the open quality of habitat. Disturbed
areas, such as maintained railroad and highway rights-of-way, are providing some
of the openings historically provided by periodic fires. These disturbed areas
have little competition for light by other plant species. Michaux's sumac is
known to occur in areas of sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic
soils. If potential habitat exists for the above listed species and the results
of surveys indicate that Federally-listed species are located within the project
area, the project has the potential to adversely affect Federally-listed species,
and you should contact this office for further consultation before proceeding
with the project.
The Service's review and. comment on the endangered species section of any
environmental document could be expedited if it contained the following
information:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
?
Office Box 33726
? ? • JUN
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 l?
2 ? 19Ar
June 22, 199
_ ? Dt1/(S? J, 7•i '
o ? :.,, Gv of
?
.?:,GN 4•
'- ?^?r Lys yS ?2,
??GNDrE`? ??,
C-3
i. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
aflectsd b_r the action:
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results or related Studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species or
critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects; and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
If any wetland habitats are to be impacted by the proposed project, including the
following information in the environmental assessment would great facilitate our
review:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
A list and acreage of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland
types should follow the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each
wetland type to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal
Manual for Identifvina and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels along
with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which would
be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses associated with the project. These
measures should include plans for replacing unavoidable wetland losses.
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction as
a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to similar
environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in the area
(cumulative impacts).
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
c- -= "r3=== :- tai= :f cur cf i== can V_-;7.!-,r an-
additional ^information or clarification,` please contact Kate Looney, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 16).
'Sincerely,
L.R. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
C-4
Wake County
Birds
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocenhalus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Plants
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxiii) - E
Clams
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - E
There are species which, although not Raw listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Birds
Bachman's sparrow (Aimoohila aestivalis) - C2*
Mammals
Southeastern bat (Mvotis austrorioarius)- - C2
Insects
Diana fritillary butterfly (Soeveria diana) - C2
Clams
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Green floater (Lasmiaona subviridis) - C2
Neuse slabshell (Elli do iudithae) - C2
Yellow lance (mussel) (Elliotio lanceolata) - C2
Plants
Carolina trillium (Trillium pusiilum var. pusiilum) - C2

*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
C-5
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF.ADMINISTRATION
116 NEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
07-07-95
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
N-C- DEPT* OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
FRANK VICK DIRECTOR
PLANN. S ENV- BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG-/INTER-OFF
RECD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOYING - PROPCSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 551 FROM PROPO •D HOLLY
SPRINGS BYPASS TC NORTH OF US 1, TIP #R-2905 2 Jul J ?,
SAI NO 95E42200E47 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING ?''S'/C1,r•
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CARCLI14TAL
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS- AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW. THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED t ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULC YOU HAVE A?iY QUESTIONS? PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. R_GION J

R
C-6
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
A4
?EHNR
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee l_
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0847 - Scoping, Widening of NC 55 on the South Side
of Apex, Wake County
DATE: June 27, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
RECEIVED
attachments JUG! 2 " 1995
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
C-7
Clayton, North Carolina
May 25, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Leg. Affairs
FROM: Don K Robbins, Staff Forester bQ??
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for Widening of NC 55 on the South Side of Apex in Wake
County
PROJECT: #95-0847
DUE DATE: 6-26-95
To better determine the impact to forestry in this urban setting, the Environmental Assessment
should contain the following information concerning the proposed project.
1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production
as a result of new right-of-way purchases and all construction activities.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be
involved within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber that is
to be removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize the need for piling and
burning during construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should
comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning. .
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to
prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the
right-of-way and construction limits. Trees outside the construction limits should
be protected from construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that
impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances
over the root systems of trees.
We would-hope that the widening would have the least impact to forest and related resources in
that area.
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Albert Coley - Wake County
C-8
laeriewing ?ptLEIG1i REGIONAL OFFICE
f North Carolina '
f=a
S
r.
tate o
ecst:.lCA ,
artment of Environment. Hesff+ and Naturaf?Bes iii •
Due Date:
De
mber
t N
p
.
u
projec
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
the EIiNR permit(s) andlor approvals indicated may need to be o btained in
project it has been determined that
e he form.
fter review of this rder for this project to comply with North Carolina Law. on the
reverse
R
h
ional Office indi ated
eg
e
uestions regarding. these permits should be addressed to t
available from the sam
uidelines relative to these plans and pef are
d Normal Process

Time
g
It applications, information an
egiCflal Off ice.
TION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
Rory
mit)
SPECIAL APPLICA
PERMITS
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
n
ti
30 days
o
to construct a operate wastewater treatment construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-applica
pearl °0 days!
(
i
IaciUtiss. sewer system extensions. i sewer
technical conference usual
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
to acttvit On-site inspection.
NPOES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Pral?Op??cat c?edays ofn ence psual. Additionally. obtain permit to
R
l !)0•(20 days

(N,AI
ep
y
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES
dtsctsarginq into stale surface waters. time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit-whichever is later.
' 30 days
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary (NIA)
Water Use Permit
7 days
Complete application must be received and permit issued
to the installation of a well-
t (15 days!
prior
Well Construction Permi

must be served on each adjacent riparian property
Application c. ci
tion conference usual. Filling
li
55 days
ca
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On•site inspection. Pre-app
I may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (00 pays!
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
I I 60 days
Permit to construct b operate Air Pollution Abatement NIA l90 days(
facilities andlor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2DA520•
Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A NIA
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group (9C days!
919.733.0920 1:?P?61s ?cji c za. 3
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0600.
The Sedimm-ilation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion d sedinentauo 20 days
I control plan wilt be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect I at least 30 130 dasc
days belz.re be innino activity A fee of 130 for thelirst acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or part in : accdmoanv the oian (30 days!
ffi? "T he.Sedime.:?tior• -ollution Controi Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: t
On-site tnspectiori:usual. Surety bond.filed'witn EHNR. Bond amount
- 3G days
it i es with type•`ithe find 'number of acrei'of affected.lane Any area _
Mince y =„!?ii} mimid greater ilmb bfA ieri: rt:st be;.0ermtt%C. The appropriate bonU ( -60 day.,
• •'Aoo's( p!reia''y)"
• . 0, tft ermit can'be.tstued i.4?;3n%-N.C;.blv?ston.Fofjst Resource9 tt tiettrit 1 ray
(N AI
1 Nonn 'ri: 't?:mong permit stcedit43;j"days -' - -
d Cte lns(wetffy by W& Eivislo., Fw a1 tlquirrid•";r6`:ire 1 day
• .On sas
;?'r iiaut+ areeri:e y Burning Pe e It ?• Z2 • Inspc_ua` = (Ni:•?
:: :than t: idrbi bl priiurld clianng activ':ias site
in .=at*l N.C. with organic sOio° invdved.
` 1' •al hum is
•`shoutd t1e ?elei=`n`s1 less, ter tlay..+;` ot'e•?csa_
• 90.120 Lay
-i ? - ? n?r?e-+'? _..a.r?••.!?- - (NIA)
+ NIA
n .0" ;6d:=-n Far lttt:: -
If peffil ,tlpuS(t!d. 11001i"d6ri W c3ys-befdi% kilft t:0?_.rueLa`.
s
AphGan! must err! N G 1441&AI*Cz*nrl.,eet to: ?t :arhK z':; loy 30 Cay_
:inspecticu?s:nlciton.dirtnt; n: tu't!uavaet 110
?' ,to Ili.: ),oyrin• Antl (60 days)
Darn Safety Permit sip plena. Mat.f!'•frl(iequite 111C:Mr 1!undel'
a4u-pirrnit (tpmvdits o: rc gi:f;rs. ri'R,speatf6n is s:tr i:, r .Ces- r_
¢Srt/•tl:.7rUY ;i.tzaiib''Ctasrf .atm-%. A minrlitu l 44to ?t°`'2 ??1?"r red ac t
ar• Cpr,?v?th6 KapNnn: tt'i xditi?riai brtt!esrni IC.,
' CO51 AJII 0e ?urreti ?ADn?9?'?'IWn _
.. wt-wiiw? pT'Shs? (Jt'r11 '^r? 11;5 _ ..-
_. tpntinuee on reverse
n
C-9
EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 20 .0800
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner; '
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-213;
143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
.0803 ?iIGHWAY PROJECTS
Environmental assessments regarding highway projects shall be
rev' ed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
e North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. If there is no assessment,
or if an assessment shows that there may be a problem in complying with
an ambient air quality standard, or if the environmental impact
assessment fails to show that the highway project will not result in
violations of applicable portions of the control strategy, and will.not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national standard, then
the following regulatory provisions shall apply:
(1) A person shall not construct or modify any highway if that
highway will result in a contravention of ambient air quality
standards;
(2) Before construction or modification of any highway with an
expected maximum traffic volume of 2,000 vehicles per hour or
more within 10 years, a person shall apply for and have
received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600 , and shall
comply with any terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary Amendment Eff.
March 8, 1994 for a Period of 180 Days or
Until the Permanent Rule is Effective,
Whichever is Sooner;
Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1);
143=215.109;
Eff. February 1, 1976;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1994; July 1, 1984.
.0804 AIRPORT FACILITIES
Before constructing or modifying any airport facility designed to
have at least 100,000 annual aircraft operations, or at least 45
peak-hour aircraft operations (one operation equals one takeoff or one
landing) , the owner or developer of the airport facility shall apply
for and have received a permit as described in 15A NCAC 2Q .0600, and
shall comply with all terms and conditions therein.
History Note: Filed as a Temporary
March 8, 1994 for a
Until the Permanent
Whichever is Sooner;
Amendment Eff.
Period of 180 Days or
Rule is Effective,
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
S 27
D-800-2
C-10
State of North'Carolina 4C.
` .
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources ". ;
Division of Land Resources'
lames G. Martin, Govemor PROJECT REV18W COMIU TS Chaiies K Gardner y
MMam W. Cobey, Jr., Sea+ebW ti.. Director' .,-. ?e
.Project Number: Oef4/7 County: /to"? -V;,
Project' Name: /
Geodetic Su w
l This project will impact 3 geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic'
' Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation.Control
No comment
This proje9E 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 16cated 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].
A? -Q Gt)4,461; S/Z el / 9 5
Reviewer Date'
-
P.O. Box 27687.• Raleigh. N.C- 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
.Az Equal Opportunity Affirm. C-11 . in Employer
P'1/1' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor & ator
Habitat'Conservation Program
DATE: June 21, 1995
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDO`Q regarding fish and wildlife concerns for NC 55 improvements,
from the proposed Holly Springs Bypass to north of US 1, Wake County,
North Carolina. TIP No. U-2905, SCH Project No. 95-0847.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (43 Stat. 401, as amended, 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen NC 55 to a five-lane shoulder facility from just north
of US 1 to the proposed Holly Springs Bypass. The existing bridge over US I will also
be rehabilitated or replaced.
At this time we have no specific recommendations or conecrns regarding the
subject project. However, to aid in document preparation, our general informational
needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
C-12
Memo
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
June 21, 1995
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need
for channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minirnizing or compensating for direct and
. indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the
environmental effects of highway construction and quantifies the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will
result from secondary development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state,
municipal, or private developirient projects, a description of these projects
should be included in the environmental document, and all project
sponsors should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please me at [phone].
cc: Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
.Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Noneame/Lndangered Species Program Mgr.
Howard Hall, U.S. Dish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
C-13
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 7• ?
95'A
Division of Environmental Management A
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E3 E H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 27, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, 'Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0847; Scoping Comments - NC DOT R
Proposed Improvements to NC 55, Wake County
TIP No. R-2905
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizationsk
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of.stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts .
1) Identify the.federal manual_ used for identifying and -
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4)- Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
.5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-c onsumer paper
r-1 A
Melba McGee
June 27, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may.state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: -
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if. wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10956.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
C-15
•?Fo?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. HuaL Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 6, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal. Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: NC 55 from proposed Holly Springs bypass to
north of US 1, Wake County, R-2905, Federal Aid
Project No. MA-55-(4), State Project No.
8.1403301, ER 95-8490
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On March 30, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey 'be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our comments.
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
C-16
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
April 6, 1995, 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.
Si ly,
avi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
bc:
Brown/Bevin
Claggett/Hall
County
RF
C-17
^aSfAlFo
d .,, a y
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 22, 1996
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM G E I V
TO: Charles Bruton, Environmental Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tre"rm ortation 4 1996
Qua 2
FROM: David Brook G?
clom
Deputy State istoric Preservation Officer aN1, OF G'
G {-ttG1? ? ???
SUBJECT: NC 55 from Holly Springs Bypass to north
of US 1, Wake County, R-2905, Federal OR'-
Aid Project MA-55(4), State Project
8.1403301, ER 97-7297
Thank you for your memorandum of August 14, 1996, concerning the above
project.
At our August 8, 1996, meeting with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), we discussed the Rogers-Hack House, a property within
the above project's area of potential effect that NCDOT believes is not eligible due
to a loss of integrity. Since the house is included in The Historic Architecture of
Wake County, we believe it merits a written evaluation. We agreed that a brief
evaluation of the Rogers-Hack House would be sufficient to determine its eligibility
and that as Phase II report would be unnecessary.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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: N. Graf
C-18
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??V
s t=,?? g
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 6, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for widening
of NC 55 from Holly Springs Bypass to north of
US 1, Wake County, R-2905, Federal Aid Project
MA-55(4), State Project 8.1403301, ER 97-
7923
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
G E !\
O
>?fC 1 ? 1996;
D'VISICN OF
HIGHWAYS
4
Thank you for your letter of November 25, 1996, transmitting the historic
structures survey report by Ed Davis concerning the above project.
We concur that the Rogers-Hack House (WA 856) is not eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places because it has undergone numerous character-
altering changes. Therefore, there are no properties listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register within the project's area of potential effect.
The report in general 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 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,
.? t
David Brook

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc:
VH. F. Vick
B. Church
Wake County
Historic Preservation Commission
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 2507 g33
C-19
R-2905
APPENDIX D
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR WIDENING OF NC 55 FROM THE PROPOSED HOLLY SPRINGS BYPASS TO
NORTH OF US 1 NEAR APEX
Project 8.1403301
R-2905
Wake County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above Citizens
Informational Workshop on June 11, 1996 between the hours of 4:00 PM and
7:00 PM in the Apex Town Hall Board Room, 205 Saunders Street.
Interested individuals may attend this informal drop-in workshop at their
convenience during the above stated hours. Department of Transportation
representatives will be present to answer questions and receive comments relative to
the proposed project. There will be no formal session held.
Under this project, it is proposed to widen NC 55 and the bridge over US 1 to a
five lane section. Comments received from the public at this workshop will be used in
the preparation of the environmental document being developed for this project.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ms. Aileen Scott,
P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone [phone].
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the meeting to comply with the American Disabilities Act. To receive
special services, please contact Ms. Scott at the above address or phone number or
fax [phone] as early as possible so that arrangements can be made.
N
D-1
Highway 55 continued from page I
D QT representative AiII-en
Mayhew heard valuable
comments on the Hwy. 55
widening project from Apex residents
and businesses at a recent citizens
infonnational workshop. The insight
regard im, the location of an historic
building and suggested locations for
traffic lights is typical of the types of
information DOT is presentlr
soliciting.
'.?•_ Planning and environmental
studies for the improvements To NC
55 are currently in progr.ss. DOT
ha- indicated that communication
:. citizens is most appropriate
cu-,c.g this planning phase in>pite of
,i:: f:^ct that specific right-of-way
impacts to individual propeiies is not
i;-sov n. To express ti'our corrrrr.n+s.
concerns or questions regarding "III'
Prqiect R-?905 call Aileen Maybe«•,
75 3 -314 1, or writ-. her at:
Aileen S. Mayhew
Planning & Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
NC Departnicgt of Transportation
Post Office Rox `5201
Raleigh, NC 27611
The planning, studies and conclusions
will address the impact the proposed
hight.ay project may have on the
natural and human environment and
will be summarized in a document to
be completed in Scptember, 1996. A
public hearing for the project will be
held in late 1996.
In T.I.P. Project No. R=2905 the:: NCDOT proposes to.
"improve the existing two-lane facility from tha
proposed Holly Springs Bypass to North of
US 1 by widening the facility. A five-lane
facility will be constructed the entire length of
the project, and Bridge No. 71 over US 1 will
be replaced and widened to five lanes."
It is anticipated that a tnaximurri of an additional 20 fc t ofriig.lit-of way
acquisition, if iiriy, may be rep cssa:ti to accommodate the five hi,ne5. Specific
right-of-Way impacts to individual, proreriieswill be presented at the public
haring. The lengt;i of the project is approximartlti' 1.6 miles an..,' the right-of-
way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 1). jC onstru_.tior. is plar.+.,;.d for th,Q
year 2004. ?tG$
The first phase of NC ti; comiructi-oin begin= this r'-. Jl v ith the widenirq ofthe
section between Hughes St. and the Salem Se. bridge to time lades. As Hvly. 545
is a state road; any questions Ie'Laro.ng the impending i4iiSiTlr?ti0r1 and its
impact on business aczess, etc., should be dire:tcd to DOT.
Apex will be the beneficiary of numerous mit,or DOT proiects for tJ'.e next
several years. The widening of NC 145 from US I to US' 64 is on the
Transportation Improvement Program schedule to b gin planning in 1998; `viih
righ*.-of ?vay acqui:i rn in 200'. The Holly Sprints Bypass is currcntlv in the
planning stage, with right-of-hay acquisition scheduled for 1996 and
construction bi 1998. The Westtni NVakle Expressway, US 1 (South) to NC 5-44.,
isn't scheduled to begin until after 2003.
D-2
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
OR

0
WAS COUNTY
t
NC 55 WIDENING
FROM THE PROPOSED
HOLLY SPRINGS BYPASS
TO NORTH OF US 1
T. I. P. NO. R-2905
JUNE 119 1996
Citizens Informational Workshop
D-3
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
NC 55
FROM THE PROPOSED HOLLY SPRINGS BYPASS
TO NORTH OF US 1
WAKE COUNTY
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. MA-55(4)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1403301
T.I.P. ID NO. R-2905
Purpose of the Citizens Informational WorkshoR
The purpose of the citizens informational workshop is to involve the public in the
project planning process. If you have comments or suggestions about the proposed
improvements described in this handout, please let a representative of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) know. A comment sheet is provided for you to
write your questions or concerns so that we can keep a record of and fully consider your
ideas, comments, and suggestions.
The NCDOT realizes individuals living close to a proposed project want to be
informed of the possible effects of the project on their homes and businesses. However,
exact information is not available at this stage of the planning process. Additional design
work is necessary before the actual right-of-way limits can be established. More detailed
information will be available at a later date.
Written comments on this project may be left with NCDOT representatives at the
citizens informational workshop or submitted through the mail. If additional information
is needed or you would like to submit comments after the citizens informational
workshop, please address your requests and comments to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
A summary regarding NCDOT's public involvement and project planning process
is attached for your information.
Description and Purpose of the Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) proposes to widen existing NC 55 between
the proposed Holly Springs Bypass and US 1, and widen Bridge No. 71 over US 1. The
NCDOT proposes to widen NC 55 from a two-lane facility to a five-lane facility (see
attached Figure 1).
D-4
The alternatives being considered are:
1. Widen existing NC 55 to a five-lane facility symmetrically the entire length
of the project.
2. Widen existing NC 55 to a five-lane facility on the east side the entire
length of the project.
3. Widen existing NC 55 to a five-lane facility on the west side the entire
length of the project.
It is anticipated that a maximum of an additional 20 feet of right-of-way acquisition, if any,
may be necessary to construct the five-lane facility. The length of the project is
approximately 1.6 miles. The purpose of the project is to provide a safer facility for local
and regional users and to accommodate traffic anticipated to be generated by the Holly
Springs Bypass at the southern project terminal. The proposed Holly Springs Bypass
(T.I.P. ID NO. R-2541) is currently in the planning process.
Project Schedule and Cost
The schedule for right-of-way acquisition and construction of the proposed
improvements to NC 55, as well as current cost estimates based on preliminary design, are
summarized below:
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST
PROJECT STAGE PROGRAM SCHEDULE CURRENT COST
RIGHT OF WAY
ACQUISITION
FY 1999
$ 740,000
CONSTRUCTION FY 2000 $ 3,250,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 3,990,000
Current Status
Currently, planning and environmental studies for the improvements to NC 55 are
in progress. Planning studies and conclusions regarding this project will be summarized in
an environmental assessment document, which addresses the impacts that a proposed
highway project may have on the natural and human environment. The environmental
assessment is scheduled to be completed in September, 1996. A public hearing for the
project will be held in late 1996. The improvements currently under study are described
below.
D-5
Proposed Improvements
The NCDOT proposes to improve the existing two-lane facility from the proposed
Holly Springs Bypass to North of US 1 by widening the facility. A five-lane facility will be
constructed the entire length of the project, and Bridge No. 71 over US 1 will be replaced
and widened to five lanes.
Anticipated Right-of-WaYImpacts
. The proposed improvements to NC 55 will require a maximum additional right-of-
way width of approximately 20 feet, if any, and may necessitate the relocation of
residences or businesses in some areas along the project. However, until both
environmental studies and preliminary designs are completed, specific right-of-way
impacts to individual properties cannot be determined. Anticipated impacts to individual
properties will be presented at the public hearing, currently scheduled for late 1996.
D-6
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
PROJECT PLANNING
Planning/environmental studies for highway projects are conducted in
order to comply with either the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
or the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The type of document
published following the planning study depends on the magnitude of the
project and its expected environmental impact. These documents may be one
of the following types: '
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EA Environmental Assessment
CE Categorical Exclusion
These documents discuss the purpose. and need for the proposed
improvements, evaluate alternatives, and analyze the project's impact on
both-the human and natural environment. Areas of concern which these
documents address include:
- Efficiency and safety of travel
- Neighborhoods, communities
- Relocation of homes and businesses
- Economy of project area
- Historic properties, sites
- Wetlands
- Endangered species
- Wildlife/plant communities
- Water quality
- Floodplains
- Farmland, land use plans of project area
- Hazardous materials involvement
- Traffic noise/air quality
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN PROJECT PLANNING
As stated above, project planning/environmental studies are conducted
in order to comply with NEPA. NEPA requires that "agencies make diligent
efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA
procedures."
Public Involvement is an integral part of NCDOT's project planning
process. The concerns of citizens and interest groups are always
considered during project planning studies. Additional alternatives are
of,-en studied for projects, or recommended alternatives chanced, based on
comments received from the public.
D-7
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
NCDOT provides a number of opportunities for citizen and interest
group participation during project planning. Some of these opportunities
are listed below:
SCOPING LETTER Published in N. C. Environmental Bulletin. This
letter notifies agencies and groups on the State
Clearinghouse mailing list that a project study has
been initiated and solicits comments from them.
CITIZENS Informal meeting with the public.. NCDOT staff conduct
INFORMATIONAL these workshops to speak one-on-one with citizens
WORKSHOP about projects. Comment sheets are provided for
citizens to write down their questions, comments, and
concerns. The number of workshops scheduled for a
project depends on the scope and anticipated impact of
the project.
NEWSLETTERS On some projects, newsletters are sent to area
residents and interest groups. Newsletters-describe
the project, discuss the project's status, and
outline the alternatives being studied.
DOCUMENT Copies of environmental documents are submitted to the
DISTRIBUTION State Clearinghouse for distribution and a notice is
published in the N. C. Environmental Bulletin. Upon
request, NCDOT will provide copies of the document to
the public. Copies are available for public viewing
at NCDOT Raleigh and Division offices, at the State
Clearinghouse, council of government offices for the
project area, local government offices; and sometimes
in local public libraries.
SMALL GROUP Presentations are given at the request of neighborhood
MEETINGS associations or other interest groups.
PUBLIC HEARING One or more formal public hearings for the public
record are held. Format typically involves a short
presentation followed by an opportunity for citizens
to comment.
CITIZEN LETTERS Citizens are encouraged to write NCDOT and provide
information and express their concerns regarding
proposed improvements. Correspondence from citizens
and interest groups is considered during the course of
the planning study and are included in the project
file.
D-8
`:OR'nl CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSrORTA' IO'
eG= DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
nRANC1I
NC 55
FR (l PROPOSED HOLLY SPRINGS BYPASS
TO NORTH OF US 1
WAKE COUNTY
T.1. P. PROJECT NO. R .2905
T n
Engineer: Mayhew
COMMENT SHEET
NC 55
FROM THE PROPOSED HOLLY SPRINGS BYPASS
TO NORTH OF US 1
WAKE COUNTY
TIP NO. R-2905
JUNE 11, 1996
(You do not have to answer all the questions on these
sheets, but please take the time to give us your
comments and concerns regarding this project. Please
continue any responses on the back of this sheet.)
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMIvIENTS, CONCERNS AND/ OR QUESTIONS REGARDING PROJECT R-2905:
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS ON THE
FOLLOWING PAGES.

11
D-10
WAS THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO YOU? WERE NCDOT
REPRESENTATIVES UNDERSTANDABLE AND CLEAR IN THEIR EXPLANATIONS?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.

41
WERE DISPLAY MAPS EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND? PLEASE
EXPLAIN.
WERE NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES COURTEOUS AND HELPFUL?
EXPLAIN.
HOW MIGHT WE BETTER PRESENT PROPOSED PROJECTS AND ADDRESS
CITIZEN'S CONCERNS IN FUTURE INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS?
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY?
DO YOU FEEL THE MEETING WAS ADEQUATELY PUBLICIZED? PLEASE
EXPLAIN.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS:
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS RELATE TO TRANSPORTATION IN YOUR AREA AND
NORTH CAROLINA IN GENERAL.
WHAT IS YOUR AREA'S MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED?
WHAT IS NORTH CAROLINA'S MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED?
PLEASE
D-11
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN YOUR AREA?
GOOD FAIR POOR
WHY?
WHAT ROAD IN YOUR AREA NEEDS THE MOST IMPROVEMENT? WHY?
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN NORTH CAROLINA?
GOOD FAIR POOR
WHY?
WHAT ROAD IN NORTH CAROLINA NEEDS THE MOST IMPROVEMENT? WHY?
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY
TRANSPORTATION RELATED SUBJECT?
Additional comments can be sent to Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager of the Planning and
Environmental Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611.
D-12
R-2905
APPENDIX E
TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS DATA
FIGURE N1
PROJECT LOCATION & AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES
NC 55
From Proposed Holly Springs Bypass to North of US 1
Wake County
TIP# R-2905 State Project # 8.1403301
E-1
TABLE Nl
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
I
140
Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

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

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

90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD

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

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tam Heinz.)
i

E-2
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
f 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.
E-3
TABLE N3.A
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 55 From SR 1448 (Bobbitt Rd.) to SR 1158 (South Hughes Rd.)
Wake County, State Project # 8.1403301, TIP #R-2905
ALTERNATIVE A - EAST SIDE WIDENING
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL STA DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
SR 1448 (Bobbitt Rd.) to US 1
18 Residence B NC 55 38.0 L 64
19 Residence B 90.0 L 56
20 Residence B 46.0 L 62
21 Business C 30.0 L 66
22 Residence B 33.0 L 65
23 Residence B 30.0 L 66
24 Business C 45.0 L 62
25 Residence C 40.0 L 64
26 Business C 45.0 L 62
27A Business C 30.0 L 66
27B Business C 30.0 L 66
28A Business C 45.0 L 62
28B Business C 34.0 L 65
29 Business C 23.0 R 68
30 Business C 58.0 R 60
31A Business C 35.0 R 65
31B Business C 37.0 R 64
32 Business C 82.0 R 57
33 Business C 32.0 R 65
34 Business C 40.0 R 64
35 Business C 30.0 L 66
36 Business- C 40.0 L 64
37 Business C 60.0 L 60
38 Business C 25.0 R 67
US 1 to SR 1158 (South Hughes Rd.)
39 Business C NC 55 36.0 L 66
40 Business C " 17.0 R 71
41 Business C 30.0 R 67
42 Business C 30.0 R 67
43 Business C 35.0 R 66
NOTE S: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A•weighted noise levels.
Category E noise levels shown as exteriorlinterior (58/48). .
1/2
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
NC 55 33.0 L - - • 71 + 7
" 85.0 L - - 62 + 6
" 41.0L - - •69 +7
" 25.0 L - - • 73 + 7
" 28.0 L - - • 72 + 7
" 25.0 L - - • 73 + 7
" 40.0 L - - 69 + 7
" 35.0L - - •71 +7
" 40.0 L - - 69 + 7
" 25.0 L - - • 73 + 7
" 25.0 L - - • 73 + 7
" 40.0 L - - 69 + 7
" 29.0 L - - • 72 + 7
" 28.0 R - - • 72 + 4
" 63.0 R - - 65 + 5
" 40.0 R - - 69 + 4
" 42.0 R - - 69 + 5
" 87.0 R - - 62 + 5
" 37.0 R - - 70 + 5
" 45.0 R - - 68 + 4
" 25.0 L - - ' 73 + 7
" 35.0L - - •71 +7
" 55.0 L - - 66 + 6
" 30.0R - - •72 +5
NC 55 31.0 L - - • 72 + 6
" 22.0 R - - • 75 + 4
" 35.0R - - •71 +4
" 35.0R - - •71 +4
" 40.0 R - - 70 + 4
-L=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
-Y=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
• => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
E-4

•

TABLE N3.B
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 55 From SR 1448 (Bobbitt Rd.) to SR 1158 (South Hughes Rd.)
Wake County, State Project # 8.1403301, TIP #R-2905
G
Ai T ERNeT VE B -WEST SIDE WIDENIN
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
M # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL STA DISTANCE (m) -L- Y- MAXIMUM
SR 1448 (Bobbin Rd.) to US 1

18 Residence B NC 55 38.0 L 64
19 Residence B 90.0 L 56
20 Residence B 46.0 L 62
21 Business C 30.0 L 66
22 Residence B 33.0 L 65
23 Residence B 30.0 L 66
24 Business C 45.0 L 62
25 Residence C 40.0 L 64
26 Business C 45.0 L 62
27a Business C 30.0 L 66
27b Business C 30.0 L 66
28a Business C 45.0 L 62
28b Business C 34.0 L 65
29 Business C 23.0 R 68
30 Business C 58.0 R 60
31a Business C 35.0 R 65
31b Business C 37.0 R 64
32 Business C 82.0 R 57
33 Business C 32.0 R 65
34 Business C 40.0 R 64
35 Business C 30.0 L 66
36 Business C 40.0 L 64
37 Business C 60.0 L 60
38 Business C 25.0 R 67
US 1 to SR 1158 (South Hughes Rd.)
39 Business C NC 55 36.0 L 66
40 Business C 17.0 R 71
41 Business C 30.0 R 67
42 Business C 30.0 R
- 67
43 Business C 35.0 R 66
NOT ES: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/mterior (58/48).
2/2
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
NC 55 43.0 L - - ' 69 + 5
" 95.0 L - - 61 +5
" 51.0 L - - •67 +5
" 35.0 L - - 71 +5
" 38.0 L - - ' 70 + 5
" 35.0 L - - •71 +5
" 50.0 L - - 67 + 5
" 45.0 L - - 68 + 4
" 50.0 L - - 67 +5
" 35.0 L - - •71 + 5
" 35.0 L - - '71 +5
" 50.0 L - - 67 +5
" 39.0 L - - 70 + 5
" 18.0R - - •75 +7
" 53.0 R - - 67 + 7
" 30.0 R - - • 72 + 7
" 32.0R - - •71 +7
" 77.0 R - - 63 + 6
" 27.0 R - - •73 +8
" 35.0R - - •71 +7
" 35.0 L - - '71 +5
" 45.0 L - - 68 +4
" 65.0 L - - 65 +5
" 20.0 R - - • 75 + 8
NC 55 41.0 L - - 70 +4
" 12.0 R - - • 77 + 6
" 25.0 R - - ' 74 + 7
" 25.0R - - •74 +7
" 30.0 R - - ' 72 + 6
-L=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
-Y=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
• _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
E-5
TABLE N4
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 55 From SR 1448 (Bobbitt Rd.) to SR 1158 (South Hughes Rd.)
Wake County, State Project # 8.1403301, TIP # R-2905
Description
ALTERNATIVE A - EAST SIDE WID
1. SR 1448 (Bobbitt Rd.) to US 1
2. US I to SR 1158 (South Hughes Rd.)
ALTERNATIVE B - WEST SIDE WIDENING
1. SR 1448 (Bobbin Rd.) to US 1
2 US 1 to SR 1158 (South Hughes Rd.)
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
15m 30m . 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
75 71 65 30.8 m 54.4 m 0 4 9 0 0
75 71 66 33.4 m 58.0 m 0 0 4 0 0
Total 0 4 13 0 0
75 71 65 30.8 m 54.4 m 0 4 10 0 0
75 71 66 33.4 m 58.0 m 0 0 4 0 0

Total 0 4 14 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2.72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
0
A
E-6
TABLE N5
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 55 From SR 1448 (Bobbitt Rd.) to SR 1158 (South Hughes Rd.)
Wake County, State Project # 8.140330 1, TIP # R-2905
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
s Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <=O 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 r- 25 Increases i Criteria 2
ALTERNATIVE A - EAST SI

1. SR 1448 (Bobbitt Rd.) DE WIDEN

0
G
IN
3 21 0 0 0 0

0

0
to US 1
2. US I to SR 1158 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
(South Hughes Rd. )
TOTALS 0 7 22 0 0 0 0 0 0
ALTERNATIVE B - WEST SI

1. SR 1448 (Bobbitt Rd.) DE WIDEN

0
G
IN
2 22 0 0 0 0

0

0
to US 1
2. US I to SR 1158 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
(South Hughes Rd.)
TOTALS 0 3 26 0 0 0 0 0 0
NOTES- As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
2 As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
E-7
R-2905
APPENDIX F
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS DATA
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 1
t
If
JOB: Wake Co RUN: NC 55 / US 1 BUILD 1995
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
------
-- -------------------
VS = .0 CM/S ---
VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
--------------------------
1. NC 55 NB APPR * -105.0 -477.0 35.0 109.0 * 602. 13. AG 455. 16.3 .0 13.2
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 32.0 100.0 27.5 81.5 * 19. 193. AG 1108. 100.0 .0 7.2 .25 3.2
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 27.0 100.0 12.5 40.4 * 61. 194. AG 1148. 100.0 .0 3.6 1.54 10.2
4. NC 55 NB DEP * 35.0 109.0 150.0 570.0 * 475. 14. AG 800. 16.3 .0 13.2
5. NC 55 SB APPR * 130.0 572.0 24.0 110.0 * 474. 193. AG 800. 16.3 .0 13.2
6. NC 55 SB QUEUE * 24.0 119:0 32.4 154.7 * 37. 13. AG 1108. 100.0 .0 7.2 .49 6.1
7. NC 55 SB DEP * 24.0 110.0 -120.0 -475.0 * 602. 194. AG 1055. 16.3 .0 13.2
8. Ramp(55to US 1) * 18.0 119.0 -285.0 -40.0 * 342. 242. AG 45. 16.3 .0 9.6
9. NC 55 WB APPR * 215.0 89.0 32.0 117.0 * 185. 279. AG 645. 16.3 .0 9.6
10. WB Queue * 41.0 117.0 77.9 111.1 * 37. 99. AG 655. 100.0 .0 3.6 .51 6.2
11. NC 55 WBLT QUE * 48.0 111.0 82.2 101.5 * 36. 106. AG 715. 100.0 .0 3.6 .50 5.9
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
---------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION -----
* ------
CYCLE
RED CLEARANCE
APPROACH
SATURATION IDLE
SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LAST TIME VOL FLAW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (9m/hr)
---------------------- -- ----------------------------------------- -------------------- --------------- ----
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 120 55 2.0 415 1600 450.70 1 3
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 120 114 2.0 40 1600 450.70 1 3
6. NC 55 SE, QUEUE * 120 55 2.0 800 1600 450.70 1 3
10. WB Queue * 120 65 2.0 345 1600 450.70 1 3
11. NC 55 WBLT QUE * 120 71 2.0 300 1600 450.70 1 3
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
*
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *------------------------------- ------*
1. R1 (NE CORNER) * 71.0 200.0 1.8
2. R/W (NW CORNER) * 6.0 170.0 1.8
3. R/W (SW CORNER) * .0 100.0 1.8
4. R/W (SE CORNER) * 40.0 100.0 1.8
F-1
TABLE Al (Cont'd)
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4
------*------------------------
MAX * 3.8 4.2 4.4 7.6
DEGR. * 205 150 100 232
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 7.60 PPM AT 232 DEGREES FROM REC4 .
PAGE 2
P
I
F-2
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: Wake Co
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
t VS . .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC 55 / US 1 BUILD 2000
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MM = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
PAGE 3
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Yl n Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *-- --------- ----------------------------- *------------------------------------ --------------------
1. NC 55 NB APPR * -105.0 -477.0 35.0 109.0 * 602. 13. AG 622. 12.9 .0 13.2
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 32.0 100.0 25.9 74.5 * 26. 193. AG 873. 100.0 .0 7.2 .35 4.4
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 27.0 100.0 5.0 10.0 * 93. 194. AG 905. 100.0 .0 3.6 1.88 15.4
4. NC 55 NB DEP * 35.0 109.0 150.0 570.0 * 475. 14. AG 994. 12.9 .0 13.2 -
5. NC 55 SB APPR * 130.0 572.0 24.0 110.0 * 474. 193. AG 994. 12.9 .0 13.2
6. NC 55 SB QUEUE * 24.0 119.0 34.4 163.4 * 46. 13. AG 873. 100.0 .0 7.2 .61 7.6
7. NC 55 SB DEP * 24.0 110.0 -120.0 -475.0 * 602. 194. AG 1302. 12.9 .0 13.2
S. Ramp(55to US 1) * 18.0 119.0 -285.0 -40.0 * 342. 242. AG 55. 12.9 .0 9.6
9. NC 55 WB APPR * 215.0 89.0 32.0 117.0 * 185. 279. AG 784. 12.9 .0 9.6
10. NC 55 WB QUEUE * 41.0 117.0 86.0 109.8 * 46. 99. AG 516. 100.0 .0 3.6 .62 7.6
11. NC 55 WBLT QUE * 48.0 111.0 89.4 99.5 * 43. 106. AG 564. 100.0 .0 3.6 .61 7.2
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
----------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION ----
* ------
CYCLE
RED CLEARANCE
APPROACH
SATURATION IDLE
SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LAST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM PAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (9m/hr)
------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 120 55 2.0 573 1600 355.20 1 3
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 120 114 2.0 49 1600 355.20 1 3
6. NC 55 SB QUEUE * 120 55 2.0 994 1600 355.20 1 3
10. NC 55 WB QUEUE * 120 65 2.0 421 1600 355.20 1 3
11. NC 55 WBLT QUE * 120 71 2.0 363 1600 355.20 1 3
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
*
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
----------------------- -- *- --------- ---------------------------*
1. R1 (NE CORNER) * 71 .0 200.0 1.8
2. R/W (NW CORNER) * 6 .0 170.0 1.8
3. R/W (SW COMM) * .0 100.0 1.8
4. R/W (SE CORNER) * 40 .0 100.0 1.8
F-3
TABLE A2 (Cont'd)
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4
------*------------------------
MAX * 3.8 3.8 4.1 6.9
DEGR. * 209 144 100 220
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 6.90 PPM AT 220 DEGREES FROM REC4 .
PAGE 4
P
.i
F-4
TABLE A3
q
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB:
RUN: NC 55 / US 1 BUILD 2020
ZO = 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MM - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
PAGE 5
-- * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
LINK DES CRIPTION * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
* Xi Y1 X2 Y2
---------- ------- -------------------
----------------
----
----------
------
NC 55
1 NB APPR * -105.0 -477.0 35.0 109.0 * 602. 13. AG 1131. 10.1 .0 13.2
.
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 32.0 100.0 21.3 55.1 46. 193. AG 704. 100.0 .0 7.2 .62 7.7
0
* 27 100
0 -36.4 -159.9 * 268. 194. AG 763. 100.0 .0 3.6 6.54 44.6
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE .
0
* 35 .
109.0 150.0 570.0 * 475. 14. AG 1770. 10.1 .0 13.2
4. NC 55 NB DEP .
0
* 130 0
572 24.0 110.0 * 474. 193. AG 1770. 10.1 .0 13.2
5. NC 55 SB APPR .
* .
0
119 6
83 373.6 * 262. 13. AG 704. 100.0 .0 7.2 1.05 43.6
6. NC 55 SB QUEUE 24.0 . .
7. NC 55 SB DEP * 24.0 110.0 -120.0 -475.0 * 602. 194. AG 2290. 10.1 .0 13.2
8. Ramp(5 5to US 1) * 18.0 119.0 -285.0 -40.0 * 342. 242. AGr 95. 10.1 .0 9.6
NC 55
9 WB APPR * 215.0 89.0 32.0 117.0 * 185. 279. AG 1340. 10.1 .0 9.6
. 0
* 41 0
117 335.6 69.6 * 298. 99. AG 438. 100.0 .0 3.6 1.09 49.7
10. NC 55 WB QUEUE .
* .
0
111 239
1 57.7 * 198. 106. AG 478. 100.0 .0 3.6 1.05 33.1
11. NC 55 WBLT QUE 48.0 . .
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
---------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION -----°----
* CYCLE
RED
CLEARANCE
APPROACH
SATURATION IDLE
SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LAST TIME VOL FLAW RATE EM PAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (9m/hr)
--
---------- -------------- *------------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- --------------- --
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 120 53 2.0 1046 1600 297.00 1 3
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 120 115 2.0 85 1600 297.00 1 3
6. NC 55 SB QUEUE * 120 53 2.0 1770 1600 297.00 1 3
10. NC 55 WB QUEUE * 120 66 2.0 725 1600 297.00 1 3
11. NC 55 WBLT QUE * 120 72 2.0 615 1600 297.00 1 3
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
-------- ----------
*
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
---------- --------------- *---------- ---------------------------*
1. R1 (NE CORNER)
* 71
.0
200.0
1.8
2. R/W (NW CORNER)
* 6.0
170.0
1.8
3. R/W (SW CORNER)
*
.0.
100.0
1.8
4. R/W LSE CORNER)
* 40.0
100.0
1.8
Wake Co
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
F-5
TABLE A3 (Cont'd)
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4
------*------------------------
MAX * 4.2 4.0 4.6 7.1
DEGR. * 200 129 94 211
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 7.10 PPM AT 211 DEGREES FROM REC4 .
PAGE 6
r
l
F-6
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 7
JOB: Wake Co RUN: NC 55 / US 1 NO BUILD 1995
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
---
--------------------°
VS = .0 CM/S ----
VD °
.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
*
LINK
COORDINATES (M)
*
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W
V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
---------------------- -- *------------- ------------------ --------- *------------------------------------ --------- -----------
1. NC 55 NB APPR * -102.0 -477.0 32.0 109.0 * 601. 13. AG 495. 10.1 .0 9.6
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 29.0 100.0 23.0 73.4 * 27. 193. AG 363. 100.0 .0 3.6 .43 4.6
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 27.0 100.0 2.1 -2.3 * 105. 194. AG 1159. 100.0 .0 3.6 3.08 17.5
4. NC 55 NB DEP * 32.0 109.0 147.0 570.0 * 475. 14. AG 800. 10.1 .0 9.6
5. NC 55 SB APPR * 133.0 572.0 27.0 110.0 * 474. 193. AG 800. 10.1 .0 9.6
6. NC 55 SS QUEUE * 27.0 119.0 37.9 165.7 * 48. 13. AG 363. 100.0 .0 3.6 .75 8.0
7. NC 55 SB DEP * 27.0 110.0 -123.0 -475.0 * 604. 194. AG 1055. 10.1 .0 9.6
8. Ramp(55to US 1) * 27.0 119.0 -285.0 -40.0 * 350. 243. AG 45. 10.1 .0 9.6
9. NC 55 WB APPR * 215.0 89.0 44.0 155.0 * 183. 291. AG 645. 10.1 .0 9.6
10. NC 55 WBLT QUE * 48.0 111.0 96.2 97.5 * 50. 105. AG 897. 100.0 .0 3.6 .84 8.3
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
---------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION -----
* ------
CYCLE
RED CLEARANCE
APPROACH
SATURATION IDLE
SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LAST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM PAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
------------------------ -- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 120 36 2.0 455 1600 450.70 1 3
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 120 115 2.0 40 1600 450.70 1 3
6. NC 55 SB QUEUE * 120 36 2.0 800 1600 450.70 1 3
10. NC 55 WBLT QUE * 120 89 2.0 300 1600 450.70 1 3
i RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
*
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R1 (NE CORNER) * 71.0 200.0 1.8
2. R/W (NW CORNER) * 6.0 170.0 1.8
3. R/W (SW CORNER) * .0 100.0 1.8
4. R/W (SE CORNER) * 40.0 100.0 1.8
F-7
TABLE A4 (Cont'd)
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4
MAX * 3.1 3.0 3.6 5.2
DEGR. * 194 171 99 219
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.20 PPM AT 219 DEGREES FROM REC4 .
PAGE 8
P
.l
F-8
TABLE A5
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 9
JOB: Wake Co RUN: NC 5 5 / US 1 NO BUILD 2000
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-----
--------------------------
VS - .0 CM/S VD .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMID - 1.8 PPM
' LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION *
LINK COORDINATES (M)
*
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C
QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *-- ------------------------------ -------- *----------------------------------- --------------- --------
1. NC 55 NB APPR * -102.0 -477.0 32.0 109.0 * 601. 13. AG 622. 16.3 .0 9.6
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 29.0 100.0 21.4 66.5 * 34. 193. AG 363. 100.0 .0 3.6 .54 5.7
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 27.0 100.0 -5.6 -33.8 * 138. 194. AG 1159. 100.0 .0 3.6 3.77 23.0
4. NC 55 NB DEP * 32.0 109.0 147.0 570.0 * 475. 14. AG 994. 16.3 .0 9.6
5. NC 55 SB APPR * 133.0 572.0 27.0 110.0 * 474. 193. AG 994. 16.3 .0 9.6
6. NC 55 SB QUEUE * 27.0 119.0 44.7 194.5 * 78. 13. AG 363. 100.0 .0 3.6 .93 12.9
7. NC 55 SB DEP * 27.0 110.0 -123.0 -475.0 * 604. 194. AG 1302. 16.3 .0 9.6
S. Ramp(55to US 1) * 27.0 119.0 -285.0 -40.0 * 350. 243. AG 55. 16.3 .0 9.6
9. NC 55 WB APPR * 215.0 89.0 44.0 155.0 * 183. 291. AG 784. 16.3 .0 9.6
10. NC 55 WELT QUE * 48.0 111.0 138.8 85.7 * 94. 106. AG 897. 100.0 .0 3.6 1.01 15.7
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * ------
CYCLE RED CLEARANCE
APPROACH
SATURATION IDLE
SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM PAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (9m/hr)
------------------------ ----------------------------------------- -------------------- --------------- ----
2. NC 55 NS QUEUE * 120 36 2.0 573 1600 450.70 1 3
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 120 115 2.0 49 1600 450.70 1 3
6. NC 55 SB QUEUE * 120 36 2.0 994 1600 450.70 1 3
10. NC 55 WELT QUE * 120 89 2.0 363 1600 450.70 1 3
i RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
*
COORDINATES (M)
' RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *- ------------------------------ ------ *
1. R1 (NE CORNER) * 71.0 200.0 1.8 *
2. R/W (NW CORNER) * 6.0 170.0 1.8 *
3. R/W (SW CORNER) * .0 100.0 1.8 *
4. R/W (SE CORNER) * 40.0 100.0 1.8 *
F-9
TABLE A5 (Cont'd)
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4
MAX * 3.8 3.3 4.0 5.9
DEGR. * 203 171 93 221
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.90 PPM AT 221 DEGREES FROM REC4 .
F10
PAGE 10
i
i
c
TABLE A6
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
Z
JOB: Wake Co
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC 55 / US 1
PAGE 11
NO BUILD 2020
20 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* Xi Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *------------------------------- --------- *----------- -----------------------------------------------
1. NC 55 NB APPR * -102.0 -477.0 32.0 109.0 * 601. 13. AG 1311. 42.1 .0 9.6
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 29.0 100.0 10.0 16.3 * 86. 193. AG 226. 100.0 .0 3.6 .96 14.3
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 27.0 100.0 -36.4 -159.9 * 268. 194. AG 763. 100.0 .0 3.6 6.54 44.6
4. NC 55 NB DEP * 32.0 109.0 147.0 570.0 * 475. 14. AG 1170. 42.1 .0 9.6
5. NC 55 SB APPR * 133.0 572.0 27.0 110.0 * 474. 193. AG 1170. 42.1 .0 9.6
6. NC 55 SB QUEUE * 27.0 119.0 530.7 2271.8 * 2211. 13. AG 226. 100.0 .0 3.6 1.62 368.5
7. NC 55 SB DEP * 27.0 110.0 -123.0 -475.0 * 604. 194. AG 229. 42.1 .0 9.6
8. Ramp(55to US 1) * 27.0 119.0 -285.0 -40.0 * 350. 243. AG 95. 42.1 .0 9.6
9. NC 55 WB APPR * 215.0 89.0 44.0 155.0 * 183. 291. AG 1340. 42.1 .0 9.6
10. NC 55 WBLT QUE * 48.0 111.0 961.4 -143.9 * 948. 106. AG 597. 100.0 .0 3.6 1.78 158.0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------
-
-----------------°---
LINK DESCRIPTION -
* CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LAST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NC 55 NB QUEUE * 120 34 2.0 1046 1600 297.00 1 3
3. NC 55 NBLT QUE * 120 115 2.0 85 1600 297.00 1 3
6. NC 55 SB QUEUE * 120 34 2.0 1770 1600 297.00 1 3
10. NC 55 WBLT QUE * 120 90 2.0 615 1600 297.00 1 3
r RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------°----
*
COORDINATES (M)
* RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *--------- ----------------------------*
1. R1 (NE CORNER) * 71.0 200.0 1.8
2. R/W (NW CORNER) * 6.0 170.0 1.8
3. R/W (SW CORNER) * .0 100.0 1.8
4. R/W (SE CORNER) * 40.0 100.0 1.8
F-11
TABLE A6 (Cont'd)
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARXS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* RECI REC2 REC3 REC4
------*------------------------
MAX * 5.2 4.8 4.5 6.5
DEGR. * 203 111 94 207
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 6.50 PPM AT 207 DEGREES FROM REC4 .
PAGE 12
i

Z
t
F-12
R-2905
APPENDIX G
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
EVALUATION
Aft, Af!k 'ex 10-1
GE
O

r-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR POOL BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
April 4, 1995
OR 1 1 1995
DIVISION OF Q?
i4IGHWAYS
O 0.
411 NNIEV.16P
R- SAMUEL HUNT I ( I
SECRETARY
State Project: 8.1403301 95
F. A. Project: MA-55(4)
County: Wake
Description: NC 55 from Proposed Holly Springs Bypass to North of US 1
Subject: Hazardous Materials Evaluation
The purpose of this report is to describe any potential environmental hazards that may affect the
widening and construction of the proposed roadway. Geotechnical Unit personnel have
conducted a' field reconnaissance within project limits and have reviewed files of appropriate
environmental agencies in order to identify any possible hazards.
Hazardous Materials Inventory
Underground 4t?ge Tank (i , 'l'? Facilit;Pc
The field reconnaissance identified six (6) facilities with USTs within project limits.
1. Kenan Transport Co.
1710 East Williams
Highway 55
Apex, NC
UST Owner: Kenan Transport Co.
P.O. Box 2729
Chapel Hill, NC
Facility ID#: 0-000585
This facility is located on the west side of NC 55 north of SR 1448. There are five USTs
registered with the NCDEM at this site. Three tanks are used to store diesel fuel, one for new
motor oil and one for new/used oil mixture. Tank capacities range from 3,790 to 37,850
liters. The tanks are situated behind and beside the two story, metal building, at least 70
meters from the NC 55 centerline.
G-1

r
R-2905
Hazardous Materials Evaluation
Page 2
2. Rigsbee Auto Parts
Highway 55 East
P.O. Box 327
Apex, NC
Facility ID#: Unknown
UST Owner: Ervin Rigsbee
Highway 64 East
Knightdale, NC
This facility is located on the west side of NC 55, south of the Apex Veterinary Hospital.
There are at least two USTs on the property that are no longer in service. They are located in
the grassed island in front of the facility, approximately 11.9 meters from the NC 55
centerline. NCDEM registry information is not currently available.
3. Ryder Truck Rental UST Owner: Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
Route 55 P.O. Box 2586
Apex, NC Highway 301 Bypass North
Rocky Mount, NC
Facility ID#: 0-005391
This two story, metal building is located on the east side of NC 55 approximately 450 meters
south of the NC 55/US 1 interchange. There are four USTs registered with the NCDEM at
this site. The tanks are used to store diesel fuel, new oil and new/used oil mixtures and range
in capacity from 7,570 to 45,420 liters. The tank bed and pump islands are located behind
the building, approximately 75 meters from the NC 55 centerline.
4. Apex Detail and Auto Sales
Highway 55 & US 1
Apex, NC
Facility ID#: Unknown
UST Owner: Ms. Hat (?)
Apex, NC
This facility is located in the western quadrant of the NC 55/US 1 interchange. It is currently
operated as a used car dealership and auto detailing shop. There are two USTs in front of the
station building that were used to store fuel for sale. They are located approximately 22
meters from the NC 55 centerline. A third UST used to collect used oil is immediately in
front of the service bays, nearly 27.4 meters from NC 55. The station no longer dispenses
petroleum. NCDEM registry information is not currently available.
5. F & S Exxon Service Station
1306 East Williams
Apex, NC
Facility ID#: 0-005168
UST Owner: Kenan Oil Co., Inc.
100 Europa Drive, Suite 450
Chapel Hill, NC
G-2
R-2905
Hazardous Materials Evaluation
Page 3
This out of business station is located in the southwest quadrant of the NC 55/SR 1158
intersection. Five UST's are registered with the NCDEM. They were used to store gasoline,
new/used oil mixture and heating oil, and had capacities ranging from 2,080 to 22,710 liters.
Based on the condition of the parking area, it appears that the USTs have been removed from
the property. All pump heads and vent piping have been removed and no fill ports were seen.
6. A & K Food Mart
P.O. Box 220
Apex, NC
UST Owner: L. G. Jordan Oil Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 220
314 North Hughes Street
Apex, NC
Facility ID#: 0-005385
This active convenience store is located on the northeast side of NC 55 at -the intersection
with SR 1158. There are five USTs registered with the NCDEM at this location which are
used to store gasoline, diesel fuel and kerosene. The tanks range in capacity from 3,780 to
37,850 liters and are located approximately 32 meters from the NC 55 centerline. The closest
point of the UST system to the road is the pump island in front of the building. It is
approximately 20.4 meters from the NC 55 centerline.
Additional right of way acquisition should not be allowed to encroach upon the UST's associated
with these facilities. Purchasing properties with UST's may expose the NCDOT to the liabilities
associated with their leakage, removal or abatement.
Other Potential Environmental Hazards
On the east side of NC 55, across from the Apex Veterinary Hospital, are the remains of a pump
island. The pumps and vent piping have been removed. No evidence of fill ports was observed.
There was some evidence that the tanks at this location have been removed, but this has not been
confirmed. If the widening of IBC 55 extends more than 23 meters to the east side of the existing
roadway additional investigation may be warranted.
No other potential environmental hazards were indicated within the project corridor during the
reconnaissance or records search. No landfills, dumpsites or Superfund sites were identified
within project limits.
G-3