20071470_Other Agency Comments_20071127

00
U N
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
T T MH(E AUTHORITY
MICHAEL F EASLEY 1578 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N C 27699-1578 DAVID W JOYNER
GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
November 27, 2007
Heinz J Mueller
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, NEPA Program Office
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
JO
RE: Response to USEPA letter dated November 8, 2007 regarding the Western Wake Freeway
Reevaluation Report; STIP Protect Number R-2635.

Dear Mr Mueller
I am in receipt of your November 8, 2007 letter regarding the Reevaluation Report of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Western Wake Freeway, Wake County, North Carolina
(STIP Project No R-2635) As noted in your letter, the Western Wake Freeway is a 12 6-mile long, 6-
lane, fully access-controlled, new location roadway The project is currently proposed for construction as
a toll facility This project includes a 78-foot median to accommodate potential future High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes
In your letter, you raised two concerns (1) impacts to forested natural systems and jurisdictional waters
have increased in comparison to the impact estimates provided in the FEIS, and (2) impact estimates to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams in the Reevaluation Report differ from the impact estimates given in
the Section 404 Permit Application You requested a full analysis of the reasons for the apparent increase
in impacts since the FEIS, and also recommended re-checking the Section 404 Permit Application for
accuracy We have addressed each of these comments below We also have summarized coordination
that has occurred with USEPA and other agencies while the Reevaluation Report was prepared Finally,
we address the issue of whether these increased impacts warrant any further NEPA study
1. Changes in Impact Estimates between the FEIS and the Reevaluation Report
As your letter points out, the impact estimates in the Reevaluation Report are higher than in the FEIS
These changes result from (1) changes in the affected environment and (2) changes in the project
footprint
C
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORrrY
TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
Changes in the Affected Environment
The first issue that contributes to the apparent increase in impacts involves a change in the natural
environment -specifically, an increase in the acreage ofjurisdictional waters in the project area As
discussed at the January 17, 2007 Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) meeting,
jurisdictional waters were originally delineated for the project in 2001 Minor areas required additional
surveys in 2002 and 2004, due to design modifications The compilation of this data was presented in the
Record of Decision (ROD), which was issued in April 2004
Due to the age of the original delineations and the rate of development in western Wake County, the
jurisdictional waters in the project area were re-surveyed in November 2006 as part of the Reevaluation
Report for this project This re-survey was consistent with U S Army Corps of Engineers policy The
updated fieldwork in November 2006 found that approximately 25 percent of the wetlands, ponds and
streams previously delineated, within the re-survey area, have been altered
The primary reason for the on-the-ground increases was change in hydrology, specifically, increases in
3 impervious surface altering flow patterns which change the location of wetlands and create new ones, and
cause stream channels to lengthen due to a phenomenon termed "head-cutting " Additionally, beavers
have been very active in the area and have increased the size of older ponds and impounded new areas,
resulting in an increase in wetlands in the project area
The increase in jurisdictional waters in the project area, documented in the re-survey, contributed to the
increase in impact acreages for jurisdictional waters for the project This "increase" is not the result of
any change in the footprint of the project itself, but rather a reflection of the fact that jurisdictional waters
have expanded since the FEIS was issued We estimate that the increase mjunsdictional waters in the
natural environment resulted in an increase of up to approximately 4 0 acres (19 9 percent) in the
project's impacts on wetlands, and in an increase of up to approximately 2,377 feet (16 4 percent) in the
4 project's impacts on streams
\1 h Because of the changes to wetlands and streams and an assessment of hydraulic constraints, two bridges,
in addition to those included in the FEIS/ROD, were incorporated into the project design The bridges
y will span Jack Branch and Panther Creek, each bridge will be 270 feet long A commitment to construct
these bridges was added as commitment number 39 of the Project Commitments (Green Sheets) in the
Reevaluation Report These bridges will reduce wetland impacts from those reported in the FEIS at these
locations by 1 36 acres If these two bridges were not included in the project design, the wetland impacts
would have increased by an estimated 3 0 acres due to the increases in wetland boundaries identified in
the 2006 redelmeation These two bridges will also reduce impacts to floodplams along Jack Branch and
Panther Creek
Changes in the Project Footprint
The total difference between the project footprint as calculated in the FEIS (614 5 acres) and the
Reevaluation Report (925 0 acres) is 310 5 acres As explained below, this change results from several
different factors These include updating impacts to reflect the previously approved 78-foot median
width, including a portion of an interchange from the adjacent STIP R-2000 project as part of the Western
Wake Freeway project, using flatter slopes because of the instability of soils in the project area, including
toll plazas for cash collection, and making intersecting roadway modifications These factors are
explained below
Page 2 of 7

C? ,

Updating Impacts to Reflect 78-Foot Median Adopted to FEIS
In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), all impact calculations were based on a "functional
design," which included a46-foot median Between the DEIS and the FEIS, the "preliminary design"
was developed, and it included a 78-foot median This change was explained in Section 2 of the
FEIS, p I1-17
"The design criteria for the proposed freeway included in the DEIS stated that the median
would be 14 meters (46 feet) wide Since the 1-40 HOV Congestion Management Study
concludes the installation of HOV lanes are feasible along the Western Wake Freeway by
2025, the median width was increased to 24 meters (78 feet), to provide adequate space
for the future construction of these lanes within the median The increased median width
was discussed with the Section 404/NEPA Merger Team on November 8, 2001 and
February 20, 2002 "
In the FEIS, the impact calculations continued to be based on the 46-foot median for some resources,
including forest systems, but were updated to reflect the 78-foot median for other resources, such as
wetlands, streams and ponds This distinction is explained in notes # 1 and #2 to Summary Table S-1 in
the FEIS Note #1 states that "Impacts are based on functional designs (including a 14-meter (46-foot)
median) unless otherwise noted " Note # 2 states that "Impacts in parenthesis are based on preliminary
designs (including a 24-meter (78-foot) median and wetland and stream delineations performed for
Alternative A " Summary Table S-1 from the FEIS included updated information - based on the 78-foot
median - for only these items cost, residential relocations, noise, wetlands, stream relocations, and
ponds Summary Table S-1 did not re-calculate the acreage of impacts on "upland natural systems" and
"man-dominated systems" using the 78-foot median See Western Wake Freeway FEIS, pp 5-22 - S-23
By our calculation, the use of the 78-foot median increased the project's direct impacts on "upland natural
systems" and "man-dominated systems" by 48 9 acres This impact was assumed in the FEIS, but it was
not specifically calculated in Summary Table S-1 of the FEIS
In its comment letter on the F S dated March 24, 2004, the USEPA acknowledged the inclusion of a 78-
foot median to the Western Wake Freeway This March 24, 2004 letter notes
"The U S Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the subject
document, and is commenting The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to construct a
new four-lane freeway with a 78-foot median from NC 55 at SR 1172 to NC 55 near SR
1630 in Wake County for an approximate distance of 12 4 miles "
In the Record of Decision, signed in April 2004, FHWA noted that the Merger Team had concurred in the
78-foot median
"The Section 404/NEPA Merger Team selected Alternative A as the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) in August 2000 and
continues to support Alternative A The team concurred on the avoidance and
minimization of impacts (including the median width increase from 14 meters (46 feet) to
24 meters (78 feet)) in February 2002 "
As this information shows, the use of the 78-foot median was disclosed in the FEIS and the Merger Team
members concurred in that decision In addition, the 78-foot median was approved in the ROD
Page 3 of 7
Therefore, the additional impacts associated with a 78-foot median are not the result of any new
information or changed circumstance since the time of the FEIS and ROD
Inclusion of NC 55 Interchange from STIP R-2000 Project
The apparent increase in the project footprint also results from the inclusion of portions of the NC 55
interchange as part of the Western Wake Freeway project
The northern terminus of the Western Wake Freeway - for the FEIS and this Reevaluation Report - is the
Northern Wake Expressway (STIP Project No R-2000) at the NC 55 interchange near Alston Avenue
Construction of STIP R-2000 was completed in July 2007 However, portions of the NC 55 interchange
(i e , the ramps and roadway necessary to connect to the Western Wake Freeway) were not constructed as
part of the STIP R-2000 project The portions of the NC 55 interchange that were not completed as part
of the STIP R-2000 project will be completed as part of the Western Wake Freeway project Therefore,
the impacts of those improvements to the NC 55 interchange were included in the Reevaluation Report as
part of the impacts of the Western Wake Freeway project
The construction of the NC 55 interchange does not result in "new" impacts, since the impacts were
previously approved as part of the STIP R-2000 project Nor is there a change in the termini of the
Western Wake Freeway project, since this project's northern terminus has always been defined generally
as the NC 55 interchange near Alston Avenue The only change is that certain construction activities at
the NC 55 interchange have been shifted from the STIP R-2000 project to the Western Wake Freeway
project The inclusion of the NC 55 interchange improvements as part of the Western Wake Freeway
project results in an estimated 213 acres of additional impacts
Use of 3 1 Cut Slopes ,.-I mq r. -I ( SI p,oS
During the preparation of the Reevaluation Report, FHWA and NCTA decided to adopt 3 1 cut-slopes as
a standard design requirement for the project These slopes are less steep than the slopes that were
assumed in the FEIS The 3 1 cut-slope requirement was adopted because of known instability issues
associated with Triassic Basin soils By our estimate, the use of 3 1 cut slopes resulted in approximately
30 additional acres of impacts along the project (20 feet along 12 6 miles is 30 5 acres)
Toll Plazas
The Western Wake Freeway project has been modified since the FEIS to include toll plazas for both
electronic and cash collection The locations of the proposed toll plazas are disclosed in the Reevaluation
Report The inclusion of the toll plazas resulted in an estimated 37 8 acres of additional impacts 1
Intersecting Roadway Modifications
The project will intersect eight existing secondary roads which will be realigned and elevated over the
freeway, improve Old Smithfield Road, realign CSX railroad, and modify the Kelly Road at-grade
intersection with US 64 (move the crossing to the west and create a small grade-separated interchange)
The area needed for these modifications was not included in the FEIS as part of the project footprint
' The NCTA Board adopted a resolution on November 14, 2007 stating its intentions to eliminate toll plazas for
cash collection altogether from the Western Wake Freeway and Triangle Parkway projects and to collect tolls
entirely with electronic toll collection equipment, provided there are no adverse effects on revenue projections
This decision, if accepted by FHWA, would reduce project impacts as compared to the impacts disclosed in the
Reevaluation Report, without causing any new impacts that were not previously considered
Page 4 of 7
These modifications to the existing infrastructure would be necessary for project implementation even if
the project was implemented as a non-toll roadway These modifications will cover an estimated 135 1
acres
Summary of Changes in Project Footprint
The additions discussed above add approximately 273 6 acres to the total area covered by the project from
that reported in the DEIS/FEIS The total difference between the impacts calculated in the FEIS (614 5
acres) and in the Reevaluation Report (925 acres) is 310 5 acres The remaining 36 9 acres of difference
between the impacts reported in the FEIS and the Reevaluation Report can be accounted for as inaccuracy
in the original measurements (the original measurements were calculated by hand using an aerial
photograph, ruler and map wheel) (5 % variation would be + 30 8 acres) These factors are summarized in
Table 1
Table 1: Project Footprint Changes (in acres)
Change Additional Acreage
Updating Impacts to Reflect 78-Foot Median 489
Inclusion of NC 55 Interchange from STIP R-2000 Project 213
Use of 3 1 Cut Slopes 305
Toll Plazas cash collection 378
Intersecting Roadway Modifications 1351
Other Factors Precision Variations in FEIS Calculations 308
TOTAL 3044
For additional information, please see the attached Figure 1, which illustrates the project footprint, and
Table 2, which shows the acreage impacted by each component of the facility
2. Differences in Impacts between Reevaluation Report and Section 404 Permit Application
In addition to requesting an explanation of the change in impacts between the FEIS and ROD, your letter
also noted a discrepancy in impact calculations between the Reevaluation Report and the Section 404
Permit Application for the project We acknowledge that there are differences between impact estimates
in the Reevaluation Report and the Section 404 Permit Application These differences reflect the
different purposes for which these documents were prepared
The Reevaluation Report and the Section 404 Permit Application were developed concurrently, but in
separate processes for different purposes The Reevaluation Report is an FHWA decision-making tool to
assist in determining whether or not a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is necessary
A reevaluation focuses on the changes in the project, its surroundings and impacts, and any new issues
identified since the FEIS approval The Reevaluation Report for this project focused on the changes in
impacts resulting from tolling and other design changes that have been made to the project since the ROD
was issued in April 2004, as well as any other relevant changes in, or new information about, the existing
environment The impact calculations in the Reevaluation Report were based on January 2007 design
files and were calculated utilizing ARCView software In addition, to be conservative in reporting
impacts, the impact calculations in the Reevaluation Report included "off-set assumptions" - that is, the
project footprint was defined (for purposes of impact calculations) to include an additional area,
extending between 10 feet and 20 feet beyond the slope-stake line The exact width of the off-set
assumption depended on the stage of project design at a given location
The Section 404 Permit Application is intended to detail impacts to jurisdictional waters for the purposes
of issuing an individual permit by the USACE The Section 404 Permit Application was developed
GLOP Page 5 of 7
?
X05r vP
utilizing August 2007 design files (including hydraulic design) and impacts were calculated utilizing
Microstation software As a result, the impacts in the Section 404 Permit Application are more up-to-date
and more precise than those reported in the Reevaluation Report Since the Reevaluation Report was
intended as an internal FHWA decision-making document, it was felt that as long as the impacts in the
report were greater than or equal to those in the Section 404 Permit Application then FHWA had a worst-
case scenario on which to base its decision This type of project-linked worst-case scenario reporting is a
standard practice when completing NEPA documents
3. Agency Coordination Regarding Increased Impact Estimates
NCTA, in coordination with FHWA, has made substantial efforts over the past year to continue to involve
resource and regulatory agencies in considering this project as a toll facility and in the reevaluation of the
FEIS Agency input and comments have been requested throughout the process It should be noted that
the USEPA was present at the following meetings regarding the project, in addition to those mentioned in
the November 8, 2007 letter
• Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) meeting on December 15, 2006,
• TEAC meeting on January 17, 2007,
• TEAC meeting on February 14, 2007,
• NEPA/Section 404 Merger Concurrence Point 4C meeting held on April 18, 2007
The January and February 2007 TEAC meetings and the April Merger Team meeting each specifically
included information regarding the increases in wetland and stream impacts for the project Minimal
comments or concerns were voiced at these meetings regarding the increases in wetland and stream
impacts for the project and no written comments were received after the meetings The January 17,
2007 TEAC meeting handout and the February 14, 2007 TEAC meeting handout both disclosed estimated
wetland, stream and pond impacts very similar to those impacts ultimately reported in the Reevaluation
Report
Additionally, USEPA was invited to attend the October 17, 2007 TEAC meeting to review the findings
detailed in the Reevaluation Report, however, USEPA was not present at that meeting (meeting handout
and minutes attached) Meeting summaries and handouts for TEAC meetings are available on the NCTA
websrte for review at any time by all TEAC members
4. Potential Significance of Changes in Impact Estimates
FHWA signed the Reevaluation Report of the FEIS for Western Wake Freeway on September 7, 2007 In
the Reevaluation Report, FHWA stated that
The FEIS has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771 129 and the FHWA has
concluded
• Changes to the proposed action will not result in significant environmental
impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS,
• No new information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the
proposed action or it's impacts would result in significant environmental impacts
not evaluated in the EIS,
Page 6 of 7
• No updated information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on
the proposed action or it's impacts would result in significant environmental
impacts not evaluated in the EIS,
• A Supplemental EIS is not necessary, and
• The findings of the previous environmental document remain valid
This determination took into account the changes in impact calculations, including the increase in the
acreage of impacts on both upland forests and the aquatic environment
Thank you for your comments on the Reevaluation Report If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me at [phone] or jenmfer hams@ncturnpike org
Sincerely,
-J4a?
(?b? Jennifer Harris, P E
Staff Engineer
Attachments
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Table 2 Component Area Summary
October 2007 TEAC Handout and Draft Meeting Minutes
cc w/ attachments
Ms
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Ms
Mr
Ms
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Clarence Coleman, P E, FHWA
Missy Dickens, P E, NCDOT
Greg Price, NCDOT
Kristma Miller, P E, ARCADIS
Mr Chris Milhtscher, USEPA
Mr Scott McLendon, USACE
Mr Pete Benjamin, USFWS
Mr Rob Ridings, NCDWQ
Mr George Hoops, P E , FHWA
Mr Greg Thorpe, PhD, NCDOT
Mr Shannon Lasater, P E, NCDOT
Mr Tracy Roberts, AICP, NCTA GEC
Page 7 of 7
i
End
_ Project
q
?S
ON?LF 2s
s
O j J2
o
% CARPENTER FIRE STATION RD _? 17
Q D
D R,
O C ?
J {\ C
1
W
W
Z C
?LLI
2
l flr : ?OQ?O GR
OL?O
CN
?5 S
PROPOSED WESTERN
WAKE FREEWAY
Z
?.. m
m ROg
c ERTS RD
r
q

?. N
W+E
S
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
? of pOFT
?,._ tE o4yv
NORTH CAROLINA H
Turnpike Authority
q 1P
OFTnRP"
I _;
Sources: North Carolina 0 0.5 1
Center for Geographic Information Miles
and Analysis (2006, 2007),
Wake County GIS
` Department (2006) 1 inch equals 4,000 feet
O(.D JENKS RD
OLIVE CHAPEL RD
G

.0
Legend
Roads
- - Streams
Interchange
® Y -line
Previously R-2000
Remainder of Footprint

4
G
0
/ SALEM ST
QQ7
J
o -- ? 2
a S1 ( s 0
1 °°? ?` JQ .. J 4 s
d
.r
S1
Q C*D
PLEASANT
PLAINS RDA
O
n o
OLD SMITHFIELD R?
US 64 -?
b '{
O
L
o ?
a
rr?
y
Begin I//y
Project:

e0l

Table 2: Component Area Summary for Western Wake Freeway (STIP No. R-2635)
Area (acres)
Interchanges (green)
Green Level Road2 684
US 642 813
Old US 12 371
US 12 1357
NC 55 Bypass 784
Interchange Total 400.9
Y-Lines (pink`) Carpenter Fire Station Road 41
Green Hope School Road 30
Green Level Road 72
Roberts Road 40
Jenks Road/Green Level Church Road 94
US 64/Kelly Road 31 8
Olive Chapel Road 33
Apex Barbeque Road 3 8
Old US 1 88
CSX Railroad 124
US 1 343
NC 55 Bypass/Old Smithfield Road 129
Y-Line Total 135.1
Remaining L-Line (purple) 383.4
STIP No. R (yellow) 21.3
TOTAL 940.7
1 - Corresponding map legend color for attached Figure 1
2 - Additional footprint area for toll plazas (covering approximately 37 8 acres) is included within these
totals Toll plazas are planned for five locations the mainline plaza to the north of the US 64 interchange,
and ramp plazas at the Green Level Road interchange, the US 64 interchange, the Old US 1 interchange,
and the US 1 interchange
3 - The total area covered by project footprint as reported in the Reevaluation Report is 925 0 acres The
estimated area underneath bridge structures is 15 7 acres The sum of these two areas equals 940 7 acres
[Footnote number 3 of Table 17 in the Reevaluation Report is incorrect The correct footnote should read -
- Upland natural systems describes all areas that are not human-dominated (i a residential lawns and/or
agricultural lands), this includes bottomland hardwood forests To be consistent with the information as
presented in the FEIS, upland natural systems also includes wetland communities which are primarily
associated with the bottomland hardwood forests -- Therefore, the areas for upland natural systems and
man-dominated systems, and the areas for wetland natural systems and ponds, as reported in the FEIS and
Reevaluation Report, are duplicative and not additive ]
WESTERN
Project Description
Western Wake Freeway is a new location roadway (12 6 miles long), proposed from NC 55 at SR 1172 (Old
Smithfield Road) to NC 55 near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue)
Purpose of the Reevaluation Report
In accordance with 23 CFR 771 129, a reevaluation is conducted to assure that the environmental documentation
(FEIS) for the proposed action is still valid prior to proceeding with mayor project approvals or authorizations The
reevaluation report is a decision-making tool developed to assist the FHWA in determining whether or not a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is necessary The reevaluation focuses on the changes in
the project, its surroundings and impacts, and any new issues identified since the FEIS approval To assist
FHWA in determining whether an SEIS is needed, the Reevaluation considered the following issues
¦ relevant changes in, or new information about, the existing environment,
¦ the changes in impacts resulting from tolling, and
¦ other design changes that have been made to the project since the April 2004 ROD was issued
Changes Con5i?ere? in the Reevaluation Report
The 2004 FEIS and ROD approved Alternative A for the Western Wake Freeway project The Reevaluation
Report summarizes the impacts of Alternative A as they were presented in the FEIS Using Alternative A from the
FEIS as a baseline for comparison, the Reevaluation Report documents the impacts of a Reevaluated Alternative
A, both as a toll and a non-toll facility
¦ Alternative A Reevaluated (Non-Toll Facility) The "Alternative A Reevaluated" corresponds to Alternative
A from the 2004 FEIS and ROD with impacts updated, as necessary, to reflect changes in the affected
environment and/or continued progression of the project's design Preliminary design has been
completed for Alternative A Reevaluated
¦ Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls (Toll Facility) The "Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls" is the
same as the Alternative A Reevaluated, except that it has been modified to include toll collection NCTA
is evaluating two potential toll collection methods at each toll plaza electronic collection and temporary
on-site payment Preliminary design has been completed for Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting
STIP Project No R-2635, State Project No 6 408006T
October 17, 2007
New Information or Changes in Project Impacts
There are no significant new impacts resulting from the addition of the toll plazas The following table details changes
that will occur if the Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls is implemented The numeration of section headings
corresponds to the sections in the Reevaluation Report
Project Change in (Toll Plazas)
3 4 1 Soclo-Economic or New Information
The toll facility would require users to Population and income levels continue to No The toll facility may reduce the benefits of the
pay a toll to use the facility, where the increase in the project study area project for some users, but even with tolling, the
FEIS assumed the facility would be project provides a benefit to users of all income
free levels by reducing congestion on NC 55 and
providing a new transportation option
3 4 2 Land Use
The addition of toll plazas slightly Several land use plans have been updated No Project continues to be consistent with local
increases the project footprint Western Wake Freeway continues to be land use plans
consistent with all updated plans
3 4 3 Relocations
Two additional relocations are No new residential or business construction No Relocations due to the project have increased
necessary due to the additional has occurred within the project footprint from 46 to 48
footprint needed for the toll plazas
No other additional relocations were
identified
There potentially will be two land-
locked parcels due to the additional
footprint needed for the toll plazas
3 4 4 Environmental Justice
The toll facility would require users to Two additional "pockets" of minority No The toll facility may reduce the benefits of
pay a toll to use the facility where the populations have been identified, but they project for some users but even with toiling, the
FEIS assumed the facility would be are not close to the project comdor and they project provides a benefit to users of all income
free This could reduce usage by low- would be affected equally by the non-toll or levels by reducing congestion on NC 55 and
income users toll facilities providing a new transportation option
3 4 5 1 Schools
The additional footprint needed for the Two schools (in addition to the 12 identified No The two new schools are not impacted by the
toll plazas does not impact any in the FEIS) have opened within 1/2 mile of project
schools the comdor None of these schools are
within the project footprint
3 4 5 2 Parks and Greenways
The additional footprint needed for the No additional parks or greenways, beyond No This 0 084 acres of land needed for Old
toll plazas does not impact parks or those that were identified in the FEIS and Smithfield Road improvements from one property is
greenways ROD, have been opened or planned in the not a significant change in the projects impacts A
project vicinity finding of "de mmimis" impacts has been made by
A new survey of the Feltonsvllle Community FHWA for this area of parkland, and the official with
Park found that a small amount of land - Jurisdiction has concurred
previously believed to have been acquired
for highway nght-of-way-was still parkland
This sliver of land is needed for
improvements to Old Smithfield Road
Change in Project Concept
(Toll Plazas)
3 4 5 3 Churches and Cemeteries Change in Affected Environment
or New Information Significant New Impacts?
The additional footprint needed for the Two additional churches have been identified No Traffic noise impacts would not disrupt church
toll plazas does not impact churches or in the Feltonsville area Traffic noise levels activities The newly identified cemetery is outside
cemeteries are not expected to approach or exceed the of the project footprint
thresholds inside the churches
One new cemetery has been identified in
addition to the 17 cemeteries identified in the
FEIS
3 4 5 4 Other Facilities
The additional footprint needed for the One new library and one new fire station No These facilities are not impacted by the project
toll plazas does not impact libraries, have opened These facilities are not
fire stations, or other community impacted by the project
facilities
3 4 6 Utilities
The additional footprint needed for the In addition to the utilities noted in the FEIS, No NCTA and NCDOT will coordinate utility
toll plazas does not impact utilities that there are two more natural gas transmission relocations with local governments and utility
would not otherwise be impacted lines, five more water lines and three more providers The new landfill is not impacted
sewer lines that would be crossed by the
project
A new landfill is being developed (South
Wake Landfill)
3 4 7 Historic Architecture
The additional footprint needed for the No new historic architectural resources have No Impacts are unchanged All existing mitigation
toll plazas does not impact known been identified requirements will be met by NCTA
historic architectural resources
NCTA is now the project sponsor and
has agreed to meet NCDOTs
commitments (under an existing
Section 106 MOA) for mitigating
effects on the Green Level Historic
District
3 4 8 Archaeological Resources
The additional footprint needed for the NCDOT archeologists concur that no No Impacts are unchanged
toll plazas does not impact known additional investigations are needed for the
archaeological sites, according to project
NCDOT archeologists
3 4 9 1 Section 4(f)
The addition of toll plazas does not A new survey of Feltonsville Community No The "de minimrs" impact for one property is not
directly or indirectly use any Section Park found that a small amount of land - a significant change in the project's impacts
4(f) resources previously believed to have been acquired
for highway right-of-way - was still parkland
A finding of "de minrmis" impacts has been
made by FHWA for this area of parkland,
and the official with jurisdiction has
concurred
3 4 9 2 Section 6(f)
No Section 6(f) resources are present No new information No Impacts are unchanged
3 4 10 Aesthetic and Visual Resources
Toll plazas slightly increase visual No new information No Increased visual impacts from toll plazas are
impacts minor
Change in Project
(Toll Plazas)
or New Information
3 5 1 Hazardous Material and Waste
The additional footprint needed for the No new information No Impacts are unchanged
toll plazas does not impact any known
hazardous material or waste sites
3 5 2 Air Quality
Tolling may affect traffic volumes and There has been a regional change in air No New CO hotspot analysis and regional
flow, which may affect air emissions quality status, the area was designated as emissions analysis found project conforms to air
A new CO hotspot analysis has been non-attainment for 8-hour ozone standard in quality standards
done to assess impacts, no violations June 2004 The Reevaluation Report includes qualitative MAT
were found New FHWA guidance on MSATs was issued analysis as required by new FHWA guidance
New regional emissions analysis was in 2006
done for ozone, project conforms to
the intent of the SIP
3 5 3 Noise
Tolling may affect traffic volumes and There has been additional development No Tolling does not increase noise impacts and
flow, which may affect noise levels A outside the comdor since 2005, resulting in may reduce them Additional development in the
new noise analysis was done following additional homes that may be impacted by vicinity of the project may result in additional noise
current NCDOT and FHWA policies traffic noise As a result, there would be impacts compared to the 2004 FEIS, but mitigation
more noise-impacted homes than estimated is not required because development occurred after
in the FEIS the date of public knowledge
However, under NCDOT policy, noise All existing NCDOT noise mitigation commitments
mitigation is not provided for development are being retained One additional noise barrier is
after the "date of public knowledge" which is recommended based on the current analysis which
the date of the ROD is consistent with the revised NCDOT Traffic Noise
Policy and not due to increased impacts
3 5 4 Farmland
Protect is in an urban area so analysis No change No Impacts are unchanged
of prime and unique farmlands is not
required
3 6 1 Biotic Communities
The additional footprint needed for the Acreage estimates for each biotic community No These communities are common in Wake
toll plazas increased impacts to biotic were updated using GIS mapping and aerial County Impacts to biotic communities are higher
communities by an additional 37 8 imagery from 2005 Habitat impacts were re- than in the FEIS, due to a range of factors such as
acres This is an additional 4 26 computed Overall habitat impacts increased increased median width lengthened cut slopes, and
percent increase in area beyond the from that reported in the FEIS The increase other factors related to the progression of design
area needed for the non-toll facility is primarily due to progression in the project Differences between the non-toll facility and the toll
design such as the inclusion of increased facility are minor
median width, the recommended 3 1 cut-
slopes and development of the hydraulic
design, and the inclusion of area previously
associated with STIP Project No R-2000
due to changes in construction limits
3 6 2 1 Federally Protected Species
No change Additional surveys were performed in 2006 No USFWS has concurred in finding of "no effect"
to update protected species information to federally listed species
USFWS concurred in 2007 finding of "no
effect" for federally listed species
Bald eagle has been de-listed as a
threatened species
3 6 2 2 Federal Species of Concern
No change Federal protections do not Three new species of concern have been No Federal protections do not apply to species of
apply to species of concern identified for Wake County since the FEIS concern
was issued
3 6 3 Water Resources
The additional footprint needed for the
toll plazas slightly increases water
resource impacts as compared to the
non-toll facility
Project design has advanced, resulting
in more refined impact estimates
Additional bridges have been added in
two locations to minimize impacts on
wetlands
New delineations were done in 2006 to
determine waters subject to federal
jurisdiction USACE has accepted the
revenfication report
No Water resource impacts are higher than in the
FEIS, due to a range of factors, such as newly
formed wetlands, increased offset assumptions, and
the progression of design Differences between the
non-toll facility and the toll facility are minor
3 6 4 Floodplams and Floodways
The additional footprint needed for the
toll plazas has not encroached on
floodplams or floodways
Flood maps were updated in 2006 Base
flood elevations and/or the estimated 100-
year floodplam encroachment widths have
changed since the FEIS
No Four Conditional Letters of Map Revision
(CLOMRs) have been prepared for the
encroachments at Jack Branch, Bachelor Branch,
Panther Creek, and Moms Branch Based on the
current level of design for Sections A and B, two
additional CLOMRs are likely to be needed
Additional CLOMRs and/or Letters of Map Revisions
(LOMRs) would be prepared by the Design-Budd
team, as needed
Summary of Impacts
The following table provides a comparison of quantifiable impacts of Alternative A Reevaluated (Preferred Alternative
from FEIS) with Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls for resources within the project footprint

Factors
Length in miles Alternative A
(Preferred Alternative
• 124 Alternative A

126

+02
Number of interchanges 5 5 0
Number of railroad crossings 1 1 0
Number of toll plazas - 11 +11
Total costs - Please refer to page 7 of this handout
for additional information regarding cost estimates $252 million $540 to $965 million +$288 to $713 million
Residential relocations 46 48 +2
Business relocations 0 0 0
Schools impacted 0 0 0
Parks impacted 0 1 +1
Churches impacted 0 0 0
Cemeteries impacted 1 1 0
Electric transmission lines crossed 1 1 0
Gas lines crossed 3 5 +2
Water lines crossed 5 10 +5
Sewer lines crossed 8 11 +3
National Register districts adversely affected 1 1 0
Archaeology sites adversely affected 0 0 0

Factors

Hazardous materials sites in the footprint Alternative A
(Preferred Alternative
from FEIS)
0 Alternative A
Reevaluated with Tolls

0
Change

0
Number of receivers (residential and
commercial) negatively impaled by noise 389 451 +62
Number of receivers (residential and
commercial) negatively impacted by noise after
the installation of noise bamers
279
262
-17
Prime and unique farmland in acres impacted 0 0 0
Upland natural systems in acres impaled 3277 6457 +318
Wetland natural systems in acres impaled 14 50 2014 +564
Man-dominated systems in acres impacted 2868 2793 -75
Stream crossings 28 29 +1
Stream impacts in linear feet 10,637 15,113 +4,476
Pond impacts in acres 11 09 12 07 +098
Reevaluation Report - Conclusions
The FEIS has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771 129 and the FHWA has concluded
¦ Changes to the proposed action will not result in significant environmental impacts that were not
evaluated in the FEIS,
¦ No new information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the FEIS,
¦ No updated information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or
its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the FEIS,
¦ A SETS is not necessary, and
¦ The findings of the previous environmental document (FEIS) remain valid
Public Involvement
The NCTA in coordination with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) held a Citizens
Informational Workshop (CIW) on February 8, 2007 Maps of the project area were available for review, a handout
was distributed, and a slide presentation descnbing the workshop format, the Westem Wake Freeway project, the
NCTA, a general overview of toll roads, and the public involvement process was presented There were
approximately 404 people in attendance at the workshop and 205 written comments have been received Limited
opposition was voiced to constructing the road Among those who commented on tolling the project, approximately
one-third voiced support for tolling the project
A Small Group Meeting for the Feltonsville Community was held on February 15, 2007 in Apex, North Carolina A
presentation by NCTA included an overview and update of the Western Wake Freeway project, potential
enhancements for the Feltonsvdle Community Park, and proposed improvements to Old Smithfield Road
Additionally, a handout was distributed Approximately 33 citizens attended the meeting, and two written comment
sheets were received at the meeting No additional comments from the Feltonsvdle community have been received
since the meeting Comments and concerns voiced at the meeting revolved around the proposed park improvements,
Old Smithfield Road and tolling of Western Wake Freeway
6
Please refer to Section 7 2 3 and 7 2 4 of the Reevaluation Report for additional details regarding public comments on
the project
COA5
The Western Wake Freeway has estimated project costs that range between $540 million to $965 million
(September 2007 dollars) The change in cost, from that reported in the FEIS and ROD, is primarily due to
increases related to construction inflation, escalating right-of-way and utility relocation costs, and the inclusion
of toll plaza infrastructure (equipment, signing, fiber optics, structures, etc) With the exception of tolling, most
of the factors contributing to cost increases for Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls would also apply to
Alternative A (FEIS)
Schedule
¦ Air Quality Conformity Determination (completed June 2007)
¦ 404/401 Permit Application (application submitted August 27, 2007)
¦ Signed EIS Reevaluation Report (completed September 7, 2007)
¦ 404 Permit Public Notice Comment Period - September 14, 2007 through October 15, 2007
¦ Design-Budd Construction Contract Award (estimated July 2008)*
Open to Traffic (estimated fall 2011)*
* - Subject to the availability of funding
Contact Information
Please contact Ms Jennifer Hams at NCTA or Ms Martha Register at ARCADIS if you have any questions or would
like to request additional information
Ms Jennifer Hams, PE
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mad Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
westemwake@ncturnpike org
or Ms Martha Register
ARCADIS
801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27607-5073
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
martha register@arcadis-us com
Thank you for your participation in the Western Wake Freeway project.
7
NC 55
FUTURE
EN
COLLECTOR
(TOWN OF
CARP)
dCCRIdNON
PARKWAY
CARPENTER
FIRE STATION
ROAD
CUTURE
OCRRISVILLE
FARKWAY
(TOWN OF HUEPEN
CARY)
SCHOOL
ROAD
.u. P Q. N PUu
GREEN
LEVEL
ROAD
t
/ROBERTS
OLD INE
JENKS ZA
ROAD
KELLY US

! hl? FUTURE BEAVER CREE
K
11 DRIVE EXTEKSION
OLIVE (TOWN OF APEX)
CHAPEL
ROAD
APEX a
BARBECUE
ROAD
..» PUI1
AW Puu1
OLD US I
WESTERN WAKE
NORTHERN BAKE MEYOAv
EXPRESSWAY b I.1i +
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
gal
® NORTH IAROLINA
Turnpike Authority
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
4w PU01
uv rtu. ?l
? ?ua
rtt7/
US I Pals NC 55
BYPASS
OLD HOLLY
SPRINGS -
APEX ROAD
TOLL COLLECTION SITE(RANP PLAZA)
TOLL COLLECTION SITE(NAINLINE PLAZA)
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY SECTION A (NCTA)
- - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY SECTION B (NCTA)
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY SECTION C (NCTA)
NORTHERN WAKE EXPRESSWAY NC-540 (NCTA)
(NCTA) = NCTA proposed project
11[11.1410,
Not it ICKI
g