20071470_Environmental Impact Statement_20070907

1 FHWA-NC-EIS-99-03-Reevaluation
W ESTE

-'??O 0 /'-[ 7?
REEVALUATION REPORT
_ for
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
' FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
AND
' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Western Wake Freeway, from NC 55 at SR 1172 (Old Smithfield Road)
to NC 55 near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue),
approximately 12 6 miles, in Wake County, North Carolina
Federal Project No BRSTP-OOOS(491)
State Project No 6 408006T
STIP Project No R-2635
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act 42 U S C 4332(2)(C) and
23 CFR 771 129 (c)
Cooperating Agency
U S Army Corps of Engineers
' Cr 7
Date -/Steven D DeWitt, P E
Chief Engineer
North Carolina Turnpike Authority

-7 5?
V-
o
D e h D
Gregory
ja
Environ gement erector
North C of Transportation

' 07 a ?
D to A.,Joh F ulli n E
Divisi mirnstrator
Federal Highway Administration
September 7, 2007

?f REEVALUATION REPORT
for
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
U S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Western Wake Freeway, from NC 55 at SR 1172 (Old Smithfield Road)
to NC 55 near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue),
approximately 12 6 miles, in Wake County, North Carolina
Federal Project No BRSTP-OOOS(491)
State Project No 6 408006T
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007
Documentation prepared` y'APG4DIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc
C r ° .a,t,?? ?b s ?°
T Qf
l a?. ° ° t e'^ f °
^ a ti a ?}La '?1iv
S [ / z
c° AL v v 4
SE
O
O a b SEP, L
0 2V 434 U
1\ ?l
Byf J.
J' J O'q mi , P, m? Kristina S Miller, P E
Senior Vic Pre ideri'° Project Manager
'j For the North Carolina Turnpike Authority
it
014,-VyAr" )4
n,44nnifer H Harns, P E
Staff Engineer
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
I In coordination with the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Envirnagement erector
Greg Vevopment , Ph
Projeand E ironmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
September 7, 2007

1.
1
Findings and Conclusions
The purpose of this Reevaluation, in accordance with 23 CFR 771 129, is to assess
whether any changes that may have occurred in project design concept or scope, the
affected environment, or proposed mitigation measures would require supplemental
environmental documentation or if the environmental document and resultant project
decisions are still valid This Reevaluation Report assesses the implementation of
tolling to Western Wake Freeway (STIP Project No R-2635) and identifies any
changes to the design of the Recommended Alternative, Alternative A, and to the
natural and human environment that have occurred since the previously approved Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) This Reevaluation will specifically address
tolling Western Wake Freeway from NC 55 at Old Smithfield Road (SR 1172) between
Apex and Holly Springs to NC 55 near Alston Avenue north of Cary in Wake County, a
distance of 12 6 miles
The Record of Decision (April 2004) for the Western Wake Freeway notes the following
primary reasons for identifying Alternative A for the project as the Recommended
Alternative
¦ Public support, as demonstrated at the Corridor Public Hearing, was
overwhelmingly for Alternative A and in opposition to Alternative C,
' Fewer relocations would result (46 residential relocations for Alternative A
f versus 146 residential relocations and 4 business relocations for Alternative
C),
¦ Impacts to the Charleston Village and Cameron Park neighborhoods in Apex
were avoided, and
Alternative A demonstrated lower overall construction costs and right-of-way
costs, as compared to the other alternatives
Additionally, it is noted in the ROD (2004) that
• 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
1]
Findings and
Conclusions
I September 7, 2007

Findings and
Conclusions
There has been no information developed as part of this Reevaluation Report that
would call into question the original basis for selecting of Alternative A Tables 16 and
17, in the body of the report, summarize the new information and impacts due to
changes in the affected environment and the addition of tolling
The following reasons continue to support the validity of the selection of Alternative A '
¦ Public comments received during the Citizens Informational Workshop
(February 8, 2007) and associated comment period indicated continued
support for constructing the road,
¦ Fewer relocations would still result from the implementation of Alternative A,
even as a toll facility The additional footprint for the toll plazas increases the
number of relocations from 46, as reported in the FEIS, to 48 However, this
is still well below the 146 potential relocations reported in the FEIS for
Alternative C,
A
hb
h
d
P
k
d C
s in
pex
neig
or
oo
ameron
ar
¦ Impacts to the Charleston Village an
are still being avoided, and
h
t
ll f
l
t
A
i
ave
o
aci
y,
, as a
¦ Although the construction costs for Alternative
increased, the costs for Alternative C would have increased by a similar
amount if the same design changes and inflationary rates were applied to that
alternative Alternative C had higher original costs and therefore is expected
to have higher adjusted costs Alternative A still demonstrates lower overall
construction costs and right-of-way costs, as compared to the other r?
alternatives
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,

September 7, 2007 1 " I
[l
Findings and
Conclusions

¦ 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

11
1
1

1
i
1
I September 7, 2007
'l
List of Acronyms I
1
List of Acronyms I
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AMS Ambient Monitoring System
ATT American Tobacco Trail
CAA Clean Air Act
CAMPO Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
CAMSA Capital Area Metropolitan Soccer Association
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CIW Citizens Informational Workshop
CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision
CO Carbon Monoxide
CWA Clean Water Act
DCHC-MPO Durham-Chapel Hill-Carboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DFIRMs Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
EA Environmental Assessment
EEP North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ETC Electronic Toll Collection
ETJ Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FSC Federal Species of Concern
GIS Geographic Information System
GISA Growth Impact Study Area
GPS Global Positioning System
HCM 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 2000
HPA Historic Preservation Act _
HPO State Historic Preservation Office
LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
LOS Level of Service
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU
MPO Memorandum of Understanding
Metropolitan Planning Organization
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics
MTIP Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
September 7, 2007 iv I

1

NCDAQ North Carolina Division of Air Quality
NCDEM North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCDWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NCTA North Carolina Turnpike Authority
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
N02 Nitrogen Dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
03 Ozone
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters
Pb Lead
PM10 Particulate Matter with an Aerodynamic Diameter 10 Microns or Less
PM2 5 "Fine" Particulate Matter with an Aerodynamic Diameter of 2 5 Microns or
Less
ppm parts per million
PSNC
RCRA Public Service Company of North Carolina
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDU Raleigh-Durham International Airport
ROD Record of Decision
RTP Research Triangle Park
SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
SIP State Implementation Plan
S02 Sulfur Dioxide
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
T&R Traffic and Revenue
TDE Temporary Drainage Easement
TEAC Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination
TRM Triangle Regional Model
TSM Transportation System Management
Ng/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
1
1

List of Acronyms
1, September 7, 2007 v

Table of Contents

Findings and Conclusions
i
Acronyms IV
1 General Information 1-1
1 1 Introduction 1-1
12 Protect Description 1-2
1 3 Protect History 1-4
1 31 Wake County and Raleigh Thoroughfare Plan 1-4
1 32 Reservation of Corridor under Official Map Act 1-4
133 2004 FEIS and ROD 1-5
1 34 Consideration as a Toil Road 1-5
1 35 Funding Status 1-6-
1 36 LRTP Amendment and Air Quality Conformity Findings 1-6
1 37 Construction 1-6
14 North Carolina Turnpike Authority 1-7
1 5 Purpose of the Reevaluation Report 1-7
1 6 Changes Considered in this Reevaluation 1-8
17 Traffic Forecasts 1-9
2 Statement of Project Purpose and Need 2-1
3 Changes in Project Impacts 3-1
31 Alternatives Considered 3-1
31 1 Alternatives Considered in the FEIS 3-1
312 Selection of Alternative A 3-2
31 3 The Changes Considered in the Reevaluation Report 3-3
32 Other Protects 3-4
321 Outer Wake Expressway 3-4
322 Triangle Parkway 3-4
September 7, 2007 vi
1
1
w
e
r
1
1
y
1

r
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
3 2 3 NC 55 Improvements 3-5
324 Other Projects 3-5
325 Potential Toll System in Triangle Region 3-5
33 Traffic Operations and Cost Estimates 3-6
331 Traffic Forecasts 3-6
332 NEPA Traffic Forecasts 3-8
3321 Methodology 3-8
3322 Findings 3-8
333 Capacity Analysis 3-9
3331 Methodology 3-9
3332 Findings 3-10
334 Estimated Project Costs 3-11
335 Estimated Toll Costs and Revenue 3-12
34 Impacts to the Human Environment 3-12
341 Socioeconomic Issues 3-12
342 Land Use and Planning 3-13
3421 Existing Land Use 3-14
3422 Land Use Plans 3-14
3 4 2 2 1 Wake County 3-14
3 4 2 2 2 Town of Morrisville 3-14
3 4 2 2 3 Town of Cary 3-15
3 4 2 2 4 Town of Apex 3-16
3 4 2 2 5 Town of Holly Springs 3-17
343 Relocations 3-17
344 Environmental Justice 3-18
345 Community Facilities and Services 3-21
3451 Schools 3-21
Table of Contents
September 7, 2007 vu
35
3 4 5 2 Parks and Greenways
3 4 5 2 1 Town of Apex
3 4 5 2 2 Town of Cary
3 4 5 2 3 Wake County
3453 Churches and Cemeteries
3454 Other Community Facilities
346 Utilities
347 Historic Architecture
348 Archaeological Sites
349 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties
3491 Section 4(f)
3 4 9 1 1 Historic and Archaeological Resources
3 4 9 12 Publicly Owned Parks, Recreation Areas, and
Refuges
3492 Section 6(f)
3410 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Impacts to the Physical Environment
351 Hazardous Material and Waste
352 Air Quality
3521 Methodology
3522 Air Quality Status
3523 Carbon Monoxide (CO) "Hotspot' Analysis
3524 Mobile Source Air Toxics Evaluation
3 5 2 4 1 Unavailable Information for Project Specific
MSAT Impact Analysis
3 5 2 4 2 Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete
Information
3 5 2 4 3 Qualitative MSAT Evaluation
3525 Transportation Conformity Determination
September 7, 2007

Table of Contents

3-21

3-22
3
22
-
3-23
3-24

3-25
3-25

3-27
3-28

3-29
3-29

3-29
3-30
3-32
3-33
3-33
3-33
3-34
3-34
3-35
3-37
3-38
3-38

3-39
3-39
3-41
vw
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
3 5 2 6 Qualitative Analysis of Air Quality for NC 55
353 Noise
3531 Standard Noise Criteria
3532 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Abatement Measures
3533 Interior Noise Levels at Sensitive Receivers
3534 Noise Contours - Information to Assist Local
Governments
3535 Traffic Noise Comparison Alternative A versus
Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls
3536 Qualitative Assessment of Traffic Noise for NC 55
354 Prime and Unique Farmlands
36 Impacts to Natural Environment
361 Biotic Communities
362 Protected Species
3621 Federally Protected Species
3622 Federal Species of Concern
363 Water Resources
3631 Water Quality
3632 Streams and Surface Waters
3633 Jurisdictional Wetlands
3634 Wetlands and Surface Water Mitigation
364 Floodplains and Floodways
37 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
371 FEIS Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
372 Updated Western Wake Freeway Land Use Analysis
373 Overland Pollutant Loading Analysis
374 Conclusion
3741 Indirect Impacts
3-42
3-42
3-43
3-44
3-49
3-50
3-50
3-52
3-52
3-52
3-52
3-54
3-54
3-55
3-57
3-58
3-59
3-63
3-65
3-66
3-69
3-69
3-69
3-71
3-72
3-72
Table of Contents
I September 7, 2007 ix

Table of Contents

l
t
I
t
3 7 4 2 C 3-72
umu
a
ive
mpac
s
38 Summary of Impacts 3-74
4 Evaluation of Major Design Changes and Revised Design Criteria 4-1
41 Revised Design Criteria 4-1
42 Revised Alignment and Right-of-Way 4-4
43 Non-Conforming Design Elements, and Variations and Exceptions 4-5
44 Changes in Mayor Drainage Structures 4-5
5 Project Commitments 5-1
51 Previous Project Commitments 5-1
52 New Protect Commitments 5-1
521 Commitment No 37 - Archaeological Site Assessment 5-1
522 Commitment No 38 - Grade Separation 5-1
523 Commitment No 39 - Additional Bridges 5-1
524 Commitment No 40 -Additional Noise Barrier 5-2
6 Permits 6-1
61 North Carolina Division of Water Quality 6-1
61 1 Section 401 Water Quality Certification 6-1
612 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit 6-1
62 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 6-1
621 Section 404 Permit 6-1
63 United States Fish and Wildlife Service 6-2
631 Section 404 Permit Review 6-2
7 Coordination and Public Involvement 7-1
71 Agency Coordination 7-1
72 Public Involvement 7-3
721 Mailing List 7-3

September 7, 2007 x
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
7 2 2 Project Website 7-4
723 Citizens Informational Workshop 7-4
724 Small Group Meeting 7-9
7241 Feltonsvdle Community Park 7-10
7242 Old Smithfield Road 7-10
7 2 4 3 Western Wake Freeway (Toll Facility) 7-11
725 Local Officials Meeting 7-12
8 References and List of Preparers 8-1
81 References 8-1
82 List of Preparers 8-4
Tables
1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-36
2 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour CO Concentrations (ppm) 3-38
3 Predicted Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentrations (ppm) 3-38
4 Vehicle Miles Traveled by Alternative - Comparison to No-Budd 340
5 Vehicle Miles Traveled - Alternative A Reevaluated verses Alternative A
Reevaluated with Tolls 3-41
6 Noise Abatement Criteria 3-43
7 Criteria for Substantial Noise Increase 3-44
8 Feasibility and Reasonableness of Potential Noise Wall Locations 3-46
9 Impacts to Biotic Communities 3-53
10 Federally Protected Species Listed for Wake County 3-54
11 Federal Species of Concern Listed for Wake County 3-56
12 Length of Stream Impacted 3-60
13 Area of Ponds Impacted 3-62
14 Area of Jurisdictional Wetlands Impacted 3-63
15 Estimated 100-Year Floodplain Encroachment 3-68
Table of Contents
I September 7, 2007 xi
J
Table of Contents I

cts 3-75
t I
P
Ch
I
f
t
16 mpa
anges in
rotec
ion or
New
n
orma
17
18 Summary of Impacts 3-80
a 4-2
t
D
C
t
d R
d
U
d
'
ri
eri
way
esign
oa
p
a
e
19 Protect Commitments (Green Sheet) 5-3
Figures
1 Vicinity Map
2 Toll Plaza Sites
3 Area Protects '
4A 2030 Budd Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls - Daily Forecast Volumes
4B 2030 Budd Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls - Daily Forecast Volumes
5 2030 Budd Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls - AM and PM Peak Hour
Volumes
6 2030 Budd Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls - AM and PM Peak Hour Level of
Service (LOS)
7 Existing and Proposed Subdivisions
8 Feltonsvdle Community
9 Community Facilities '
10 Utilities
11 Green Level Historic District
12 Hazardous Material and Waste Sites
13A Noise Barrier Locations 1
13B Noise Barrier Location 2
13C Noise Barrier Locations 3
13D Noise Barrier Location 4
14A Jurisdictional Waters and Ponds
14B Jurisdictional Waters and Ponds
15A Floodplams Map - UT to Harris Reservoir & Big Branch
15B Floodplains Map - Beaver Creek & Reedy Branch Tributary

September 7, 2007 xn I

11
15C Floodplams Map - Jack Branch & White Oak Creek
15D Floodplams Map - Bachelor Branch
15E Floodplams Map - Panther Creek and Morris Branch
Appendices
A Wake County Mayors' Resolution
B Air Quality Conformity Concurrence
C NCTA and CAMPO Memorandum of Understanding
D De Mmimis Finding
E Cemetery Locations Report
F Memorandum of Agreement in Compliance with Section 106 of HPA and
Associated Letters
G
H Agency Meeting Minutes
Water Resources Characteristics

I
J Local Government Correspondence
Public Involvement Handouts

K Resolutions
I

1
i
1
Table of Contents
I September 7, 2007 x111

1
1 1 General Information
1 11 Introduction
The proposed Western Wake Freeway is a 12 6-mile section of the circumferential
Outer Wake Expressway, which first appeared on the region's transportation plan in
1968 and has been included in all subsequent updates to the plan Since that time,
there has been continued support for and efforts expended toward planning and
constructing the Outer Wake Expressway A portion of the Outer Wake Expressway,
from US 64 in Knightdale, around the northern side of Raleigh to NC 55 at Alston
Avenue (SR 1630), has been constructed and is open to traffic The remaining
sections of the Outer Wake Expressway have yet to be constructed'
The proposed Western Wake Freeway is a north-south route that traverses the
western portion of Wake County This project was evaluated by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) in October 1999 The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for this
project was completed in January 2004, and a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed
in April 2004 At that time, the new highway was being considered as a non-toll facility
The project is not funded in the 2007-2013 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) and is not likely to be constructed in the foreseeable future without the use of
innovative financing, such as tolling
In December 2005, the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) agreed to consider
the financial feasibility of developing Western Wake Freeway as a toll road, in
response to a request from the mayors of five Wake County towns2 A preliminary
traffic and revenue (T&R) study was completed for the project in June 20063 The
study found that the project was feasible to develop as a toll road Based on the
results of the preliminary T&R study, the NCTA is seeking Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) authorization to proceed with the Western Wake Freeway as
atoll road
' The Outer Wake Expressway has also been referred to in some planning documents as the Raleigh Outer
Loop For purposes of this study, the term Outer Wake Expressway is used
2 The five southwestern Wake County mayors represented the towns of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, Fuquay-
Vanna, and Gamer A copy of the mayors' December 2005 resolution is included in Appendix A
3 The Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study is available on the NCTA website
http //www ncturnpike org/projects/Westem_Wake/documents asp
' September 7, 2007
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
1-1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

The purpose of this Reevaluation is to determine whether there is a need to prepare a
Supplemental EIS (SEIS) before proceeding with the project In general, an SEIS is
needed if there are significant environmental impacts that were not previously
evaluated
12 Protect Description
The Western Wake Freeway is proposed as a 12 6-mile long, 6-lane, fully access-
controlled, new location roadway The project would run generally in a north-south
direction, roughly parallel to and just west of existing NC 55 On the south, the project
begins at NC 55 at Old Smithfield Road (SR 1172) between Apex and Holly Springs,
on the north, it ends at NC 55 near Alston Avenue north of Cary in Wake County
(Figure 1)
The Western Wake Freeway was originally planned by NCDOT as a non-toll facility It
is now being proposed by NCTA for construction as a toll facility This document
continues to refer to the project as a "freeway" because the protect would have the
design characteristics of a freeway - that is, it would be an interstate-type roadway with
full control of access The use of the term freeway in this report is not intended to imply
or convey that the facility is "free" or not tolled, rather, it is a descriptive term used to
define the type of roadway that is planned for construction
The Western Wake Freeway is part of the proposed Outer Wake Expressway, an
element of the Wake County Thoroughfare Plan Western Wake Freeway is intended
to relieve congestion on 1-440 and other local roadways, such as NC 55 and NC 54
NC 55 is the closest non-toll alternate route for the Western Wake Freeway Due to
limitations on tolling on the Interstate System, NCTA will sign the Western Wake
Freeway as NC 540, rather than 1-540

On the southern end, the proposed roadway begins at NC 55 just north of its
intersection with Old Smithfield Road, where the facility would eventually tie into the _
portion of the planned Outer Wake Expressway known as the Southern Wake
Freeway The roadway crosses NC 55 Bypass and continues west across Old Holly
Springs-Apex Road (SR 1153) before turning northwest across US 1 and Old US 1
The roadway alignment would proceed north, parallel to and east of Kelly Road
(SR 1163), and across Apex-Barbecue Road (SR 1162) Continuing its northerly track
east of Kelly Road (SR 1163), the roadway would cross Olive Chapel Road (SR 1160),
US 64, Green Level Church Road (SR 1600), Jenks Road (SR 1601), Roberts Road
(SR 1608) and Green Level Road (SR 1615) The roadway alignment would continue
September 7, 2007 1-2

north, parallel to Green Level to Durham Road (SR 1625), before crossing Green Hope
School Road (SR 1621) and Carpenter Fire Station Road (SR 1624) It would turn
northeasterly to the interchange with NC 55 near Alston Avenue at the Northern Wake
Expressway4 Interchanges are planned at NC 55 Bypass, US 1, Old US 1, US 64 and
Green Level Road
As a toll road, the Western Wake Freeway would include toll plazas The locations of
the toll plazas have been determined based on the Preliminary Traffic and Revenue
Study- Proposed Western and Southern Wake Parkways (NCTA 2006a) Toll plazas
are proposed at the following locations on Western Wake Freeway
¦ Mainline Toll Plaza The mainline toll plaza would be located north of the US
64 interchange (Figure 2) with three electronic toll collection (ETC) lanes and
two cash lanes for each direction
¦ Ramp Toll Plazas Ramp toll collection sites would be located at four places
the US 1 interchange, the Old US 1 interchange, the US 64 interchange and
the Green Level Road interchange (Figure 2) Each of the proposed toll
collection plazas associated with these interchanges has one ETC lane and
one cash lane
The toll collection plazas would each include a small parking area, a small building to
house an emergency electric generator, an overhead structure to hold signs and
lighting, and toll-collection equipment The facility may also include additional pole-
mounted overhead lighting, particularly at toll collection plazas and interchanges, as
needed
NCTA is considering two potential toll collection methods at each toll plaza electronic
collection and on-site payment Electronic collection would generally involve pre-
registration with NCTA and a transponder/receiver system that would allow the user to
move through the toll-collection plaza at highway speeds On-site payment would
4 The project's termini remain unchanged from the FEIS The northern terminus of the Western Wake
Freeway, for the FEIS and this Reevaluation Report, is the Northern Wake Expressway (STIP Protect No R-
2000) at the NC 55 interchange near Alston Avenue Construction of STIP Project No R-2000 was
completed in July 2007 However, portions of the NC 55 interchange (i e, the ramps and roadway necessary
1 to connect to the Western Wake Freeway) were not constructed as part of R-2000 They will be completed
as part of the Western Wake Freeway project This modification of construction limits and documentation of
associated natural environment impacts in the vicinity of NC 55 and Alston Avenue has been incorporated
into this Reevaluation Report The change in construction limits does not alter the protects termini
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
I September 7, 2007 1-3
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

allow a user to pay the toll with cash or potentially credit/debit cards at the collection
plaza

For the purposes of design and construction, the 12 6-mile long Western Wake
Freeway project is separated into three sections A, B and C These sections are
illustrated on Figure 2

¦ Section A The southernmost section is Section A, which is 2 1 miles long
Section A begins at NC 55 just north of its intersection with Old Smithfield
Road and ends just south of the interchange at US 1
¦ Section B Section B is 3 3 miles long It includes the interchange at US 1 and
continues northward to just north of Olive Chapel Road
¦ Section C Section C is 7 2 miles long It begins just north of Olive Chapel
Road and continues northward to the interchange with NC 55 near Alston
Avenue at the Northern Wake Expressway
13 Project History

1 3 1 Wake County and Raleigh Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed Western Wake Freeway is a component of the circumferential Outer
Wake Expressway, which first appeared on the region's thoroughfare plan in 1968
Although its location has varied through the years, the proposed project was included
in all updates to the Wake County and Raleigh Thoroughfare Plan since 1972 A
"thoroughfare plan" is the roadway element of the region's long range transportation
plan
1 3 2 Reservation of Comdor under Official Map Act
During the early 1990s, the NCDOT recognized that rapid development in the western
portion of Wake County could foreclose any desirable corridors for the proposed action
or result in extraordinary community impacts, including a large number of relocations
and the division of neighborhoods Therefore, the NCDOT determined that
implementation of the state's Transportation Corridor Official Map Act (Map Act) (G S
136-44 50 to 54) was appropriate 11
I
September 7, 2007 1-4 1

The Map Act permits the preservation of highway corridors when specified conditions
are met Several alternative corridors were developed and analyzed, and a public
hearing was held on May 13, 1993 Subsequently, a 300-foot wide corridor was
selected This preserved corridor was formally adopted by the North Carolina Board of
Transportation on August 6, 1993
With this adoption and once the transportation corridor official map is filed with the
register of deeds, no budding permit can be issued for any budding or structure within
the transportation corridor nor shall approval of a subdivision be granted with respect to
property within the transportation corridor However, per the Map Act, an application
for budding permit issuance or subdivision plat approval for a tract subject to the Map
Act shall not be delayed for more than 3 years from the date of the onginal submittal of
the application
1 3 3 2004 FEIS and ROD
The NCDOT and FHWA issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the Western Wake Freeway in 1996 A DEIS, evaluating three new
location Build Alternatives, the No-Budd Alternative, a Mass Transit Alternative, and a
Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, was approved in October
1999 In January 2004, the project's FEIS was signed by NCDOT and FHWA The
FEIS identified Alternative A, the corridor that followed the alignment preserved for the
project under the Map Act, as the Preferred Alternative (NCDOT, 2004a)
In April 2004, FHWA approved the ROD, and it was published in the North Carolina
Bulletin in May 2004 The ROD selects Alternative A for the project (NCDOT, 2004b)
Alternative A minimizes the social, economic and environmental impacts
1 3 4 Consideration as a Toll Road
In December 2005, mayors of five Wake County towns requested that the NCTA
conduct a financial feasibility study for building the western and southern Wake County
sections of the Outer Wake Expressway as a toll road (Appendix A) The Preliminary
Traffic and Revenue Study, completed in June 2006, found that (1) there is
considerable need for the proposed Western Wake Freeway, (2) the facility would
generate considerable benefits, (3) the facility is necessary to support the anticipated
population and economic growth in the corridor, and (4) a significant revenue potential
would occur with the project
[I
LJ
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
I September 7, 2007 1-5
1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
The request, noted above, by local officials in December 2005 for a financial feasibility
study by NCTA, per NCTA project approval process (NCTA 2006b), initiated the
process by which the Western Wake Freeway would be considered as a toll road
1 3 5 Funding Status
The project is included in the NCDOT 2007-2013 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) as STIP Project No R-2635 However, with the exception of the
planning and design processes, which are currently in progress, the project is
unfunded
1 3 6 LRTP Amendment and Air Quahty Conformity Findings
On September 15, 2004, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(CAMPO) adopted the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) which included
Western Wake Freeway as a non-toll facility Subsequently, Western Wake Freeway
has been designated for construction using toll financing, thus providing the opportunity
to accelerate its construction schedules This change to the scope and schedule for
Western Wake Freeway and modifications to other regional projects' scopes and
completion dates did not coincide with the adopted 2030 LRTP CAMPO amended its
2030 LRTP in May 2007 to reflect these changes This amendment required CAMPO
to complete a new regional air emissions analysis and to demonstrate that the total
protect emissions are within the limits established in the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for air quality CAMPO completed its conformity determination for the amended
2030 LRTP in May 2007 and the U S Department of Transportation (USDOT) signed a
letter of concurrence on June 29, 2007 The USDOT letter is included in Appendix B
In June 2007, CAMPO and NCTA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
facilitate coordination regarding NCTA protects in the CAMPO planning region The
MOU is included in Appendix C
1 3 7 Construction
The Western Wake Freeway is currently being managed for implementation by NCTA,
in consultation with NCDOT NCTA plans to construct the project through Design-Build
contracts, beginning in 2008, following NCDOT guidelines for such contracts Design-
Build is a collaboration between a roadway design contractor and a roadway
construction firm The team is responsible for completing the final design of a roadway
and completing/managing the construction of the roadway Through the use of
September 7, 2007 1-6 1

1

innovative designs and efficient construction methodologies, the team has the potential
to more quickly implement the project
1 4 North Carolina Turnpike Authority
The NCTA was created by the General Assembly of North Carolina in October 2002
(codified in General Statutes 136-89 180 to 198) The NCTA's goal is to implement
alternative financing to pay for much-needed roads during a time of rapid growth,
dwindling resources, and skyrocketing costs This statute allows the NCTA to "study,
plan, develop, and undertake preliminary design work" on up to nine turnpike projects,
and to "design, establish, purchase, construct, operate, and maintain" those protects
The statute additionally provided NCTA with the legal authorization to "fix, revise,
charge, and collect tolls and fees for the use of the Turnpike Projects "
1 5 Purpose of the Reevaluation Report
In accordance with 23 CFR 771 129, a reevaluation must be 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 (SETS) is necessary A reevaluation
should focus on the changes in the project, its surroundings and impacts, and any new
issues identified since the FEIS approval Under FHWA regulations, a SEIS is
necessary when "(1) changes to the proposed action would result in significant
environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS, or (2) new information or
circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action
or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the
EIS" (23 CFR 771 130(a))
To assist FHWA in determining whether an SETS is needed, this Reevaluation
considers the following issues
¦ the changes in impacts resulting from tolling, and

1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
I September 7, 2007 1-7
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
¦ other design changes that have been made to the project since the ROD was
issued in Apnl 2004, as well as any other relevant changes in, or new
information about, the existing environments
16 Changes Considered in this Reevaluation
The 2004 FEIS and ROD approved Alternative A for the Western Wake Freewa
Y
project As a baseline for comparison, this Reevaluation summarizes the impacts of
Alternative A as it was presented in the FEIS Using Alternative A from the FEIS as a
baseline for comparison, this Reevaluation considers the impacts of a Reevaluated
Alternative A, both as a tolled and a non-tolled facility
¦ Alternative A Reevaluated (Non-Toll Facility) The "Alternative A
Reevaluated" discussed in this Reevaluation Report corresponds to
Alternative A as discussed in the 2004 FEIS and ROD with impacts updated,
as necessary, to reflect changes in the affected environment and/or continued
progression of the project design Preliminary designs have been completed
for Alternative A Reevaluated Designs for Sections A and B have been
completed to 25 percent and designs for Section C have been completed to
65 percent
¦ Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls (Toll Facillty)6 The "Altemative A
Reevaluated with Tolls" is the same as the Alternative A Reevaluated, except
that it has been modified to include toll collection Preliminary design has
been completed for Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls Designs for
Sections A and B have been completed to 25 percent and designs for Section
C have been completed to 65 percent The toll plazas are at the preliminary
design level for Sections A, B, and C

5 A written reevaluation report is normally required under 23 CFR 771 129 if FHWA has not taken any major
steps to advance a project within any 3-year time period after approval of the FEIS In the years since the
Western Wake Freeway FEIS, there have been continued steps taken by NCDOT and NCTA to advance the
project Therefore, the 3-year requirement in Section 771 129 does not apply However, the change in
concept from a non-toll facility to a toll facility necessitated a review of the impacts undertaken in this
Reevaluation Report As part of that review, this Reevaluation also considers changes in the project and in
the affected environment
6 Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls was referred to as the Toll Alternative" in the technical reports for
this Reevaluation (Capacity Analysis for Western Wake Freeway 2030 Build Toll Alternative, Environmental
Justice Technical Memorandum, Air Quality Analysis Technical Report, and Traffic Noise Report - Western
Wake Freeway) The name changed in this document to reflect that the addition of toll plazas is a design
change and collection of tolls is a concept change to the pre-existing Alternative A
September 7, 2007 1-8 1
1 7 Traffic Forecasts
Two traffic forecasts are noted in this Reevaluation Report - the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) traffic forecasts and the traffic and revenue (T&R)
forecasts These forecasts have been prepared for different purposes, and therefore
somewhat different methodologies were used for each In general, the T&R forecasts
tend to be somewhat lower than NEPA forecasts Additional details about these two
sets of traffic forecasts are provided in Section 3 3 1
i
September 7, 2007
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
1-9
t

2 Statement of Project Purpose and Need
' The purpose and need statement for the project was first developed for the DEIS in
1999 and was brought forward for inclusion in the FEIS In 2004 This statement from
the FEIS is replicated here As described in the FEIS
"The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a high speed, multi-lane,
controlled-access facility to accommodate the increasing transportation demand
in the western Wake County area The Western Wake Freeway, as a link in the
Raleigh Outer Loop, has remained an important element of the urbanized area's
thoroughfare plans for more than 30 years
The need for the project is demonstrated by the area's increasing travel demand
and the limited number of north-south arterials available to serve this demand
Many of these local roadways have reached or exceeded their practical capacity
and are very congested during peak hours The existing arterial system is
comprised predominantly of rural two-lane roads, which cannot accommodate
substantial increases in traffic volumes Capacity analyses show that the
programmed roadway improvements in the area are not adequate to serve the
projected traffic volumes (Editor's Note Some of these roadway improvements
have already been implemented pnor to this Reevaluation Report) The 2020
projected traffic volumes on NC 55, without the proposed project, perhaps best
illustrate the need for the Western Wake Freeway NC 55 is projected to carry
up to 44,400 vehicles per day by 2020, more vehicles than the widening
improvements to the roadway can accommodate at an acceptable level of
service (Editor's Note Approximately 30,000 vehicles per day can be
accommodated, at an acceptable level of service, level C or better, on a 4-lane
uncontrolled access road 7) This project is also expected to alleviate traffic on
NC 54 and SR 1613 (Davis Drive), which also serve commuter traffic to the
RTP
A secondary benefit of the Freeway is the link it will provide by connecting the
Northern Wake Freeway, portions of which are now in design, under
construction, or open, with the planned Southern Wake Freeway When
1

7 Definitions of LOS and a discussion of the capacity analysis completed for this Reevaluation Report are
included in Section 3 3 3
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 2-1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
completed, the entire Outer Loop will provide needed congestion relief to 1-440,
particularly to its section south of Raleigh
The Western Wake Freeway will also function as a regional facility, dispersing
traffic from western and southern Wake County to the RTP, to the Raleigh-
Durham International Airport, and to the office and institutional developments in
north Raleigh The freeway will substantially reduce travel times for commuters
from Holly Springs, Fuquay-Varna and northern Harnett County bound for points
north and west
The North Carolina General Assembly recognized the need for the proposed
freeway in its 1989 passage of the North Carolina Highway Trust Fund To
accelerate construction, the Act specifically designated several urban loops for
funding, including the Western Wake Freeway
Improved safety is another important factor in the purpose of and need for the
proposed project The congestion experienced on area roadways has resulted
in an increase in the number of accidents, particularly on NC 55, during recent
years The roadway's current accident rate is substantially higher than the
statewide average for similar type routes Without the construction of a major
transportation facility within the area, the number of accidents can be expected
to increase along with the congestion
k
th th
MPO
s wi
e
) wor
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CA
Statewide Planning Branch of NCDOT to maintain the Wake County
Thoroughfare Plan, which was most recently updated in August 2002 The
purpose of the Plan is to ensure an adequate street system exists to meet
existing and future traffic needs within the urban area for its twenty-year planning
period The Plan was developed cooperatively with the planning and
engineering staffs of each local jurisdiction within the urbanized area, based on
existing and planned land use and projected traffic volumes "

The design year (2030) traffic forecasts for Western Wake Freeway for average annual
daily traffic (AADT) for the toll facility ranges from a low of 62,800 vehicles at the
southern end of the project (south of US 1) to a high of 91,200 vehicles north of Green
Level Road Specifics on the design year (2030) traffic forecasts for Western Wake
Freeway are discussed in Section 3 3 2 These forecasts for the Western Wake
Freeway confirm that there continues to be a demand for this facility

September 7, 2007 2-2

In addition, as noted previously, NC 55, the closest non-toll alternate facility is
protected to carry up to 44,400 vehicles per day without the protect by 2020 NC 55 is
being widened to four lanes As noted in the FEIS, some mainline sections and some
intersections of NC 55 under the No-Budd scenario are predicted to operate at a level
of service (LOS) D, E or F in the year 2020 Without construction of an additional
facility, such as Western Wake Freeway, it is likely that the level of service on NC 55
would further decline This existing insufficiency in the capacity for NC 55 perhaps best
illustrates the continuing need for the Western Wake Freeway If Western Wake
Freeway is not constructed, NC 55 cannot accommodate the anticipated increase in
traffic growth for the corridors As traffic volumes continue to increase, it is likely that
the need for this protect in 2030 (the design year) would be even greater than the need
in 2020
The purpose and need statement from the FEIS adequately reflects the purpose of this
protect and the needs of the area Alternative A Reevaluated and Alternative A
Reevaluated with Tolls each meet purpose and need Updated information on the toll
facility's traffic protections and level of service is included in Section 3 3 2 and 3 3 3,
respectively

1
t
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
I September 7, 2007 2-3

3 Changes in Protect Impacts
The study area defined for the Western Wake Freeway in the FEIS roughly covers a
2-mile wide corridor located immediately west of NC 55 that tapers to end-points that
correspond to the Western Wake Freeway protect limits However, the exact limits of
the study area for each impact topic varied based on the inherent nature of each topic
discussed
3 1 Alternatives Considered
3 1 1 Alternatives Considered in the FEIS
This section provides a summary of the alternatives considered for the proposed
protect, as discussed in the FEIS, including the No-Budd Alternative, the Transportation
System Management (TSM) Alternative, widening improvements to NC 55, the Mass
Transit Alternative, and the Budd Alternatives
' The No-Build, or "do nothing" Alternative provides a baseline condition for
comparing the impacts of the other study alternatives As noted in the FEIS,
the No-Budd Alternative would not serve the transportation objectives and
protected needs of the study area
¦ TSM involves a variety of strategies for maximizing the efficiency and
effectiveness of existing transportation facilities TSM can include new
construction as well as operational and institutional improvements Typical
TSM improvements include constructing turn lanes, widening shoulders,
coordinating signal systems, and improving signage to manage traffic
movement As discussed in the FEIS, the TSM altemative does not meet the
purpose and need of the protect
¦ Previously planned widening improvements to NC 55, to upgrade the road to
a 4-lane uncontrolled-access facility, will increase the roadway capacity to
approximately 26,000 vehicles per day As noted in the FEIS, widening
NC 55 would not accommodate the forecasted regional traffic demand for the
area or meet the purpose and need for the protect
¦ As discussed at the time of the FEIS, Mass Transit Service is currently
unavailable within the protect area Plans have been developed which call for
the provision of certain transit services in the study area by 2020 It was
concluded in the FEIS that "Mass transit can assist in serving the
September 7, 2007
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
3-1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
transportation needs of the region's expanding population, however it cannot
accommodate the projected transportation demand generated by the
urbanization of western Wake County during the next twenty-five years
Therefore, the Mass Transit Alternative cannot accommodate the
transportation demand in the area and does not meet the project's purpose
and need "
The selection of Budd Alternatives was based on an evaluation of likely
impacts to the human and natural environments within the Western Wake
Freeway study area, in addition to engineering criteria/constraints
Generalized corridor segments which avoided or minimized impacts were
identified The segments were then incorporated into five preliminary
corridors which were reviewed for geometric conformance to the established
design criteria and adjusted accordingly The five preliminary corridors were
evaluated and compared, and two were eliminated from further study The
preliminary corridors retained in the FEIS were Corridors A, C, and D
Corridor D was later eliminated from consideration as a reasonable and
feasible alternative when land located within the corridor was purchased and
designated as a public recreational facility, Thomas Brooks Park As a public
recreational facility, the land became protected by Section 4(f) of the U S
Department of Transportation Act Corridors A and C avoided impacts to
Thomas Brooks Park
3 12 Selection of Alternative A I
As discussed in Section 1 3, a preserved corridor was identified and formally adopted
by the NCDOT Board of Transportation on August 6, 1993, in accordance with the
State's Transportation Corridor Official Map Act (G S 136-44 50 to 54) Alternative A
follows the alignment of the preserved corridor The ROD notes the following primary
reasons for identifying Alternative A for the project as the Recommended Alternative
Public support, as demonstrated at the Corridor Public Hearing, was
overwhelmingly for Alternative A and in opposition to Alternative C This
public preference for Alternative A was also expressed at the FEIS Citizens
Informational Workshop held on April 24, 2003, in both verbal and written
comments
¦ Fewer relocations would result (46 residential relocations for Alternative A
versus 146 residential relocations and 4 business relocations for Alternative
C) The estimated number of relocations for Alternative A increased between
September 7, 2007 3-2 1

the DEIS and FEIS the DEIS estimated 22 relocations based on functional
designs, which included a 46-foot median, the FEIS estimated 46 relocations
based on preliminary designs, which included 78-foot median However, the
higher estimate in the FEIS (46 relocations) is still less than the estimated
number of relocations for Alternative C (146 relocations)
¦ Impacts to the Charleston Village and Cameron Park neighborhoods in Apex
were avoided
¦ Alternative A demonstrated lower overall construction costs and right-of-way
costs, as compared to the other alternatives
r Additionally, it is noted in the ROD (2004) that
The Section 404/N EPA Merger Team8 selected Alternative A as
the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
(LEDPA) in August 2000 and continues to support Alternative A
There has been no information developed as part of this Reevaluation Report that
would call into question the original basis for selecting Alternative A The additional
area needed for toll plazas would slightly increase protect impacts, by comparison to a
non-toll facility, but the differences are minor and would not affect the choice among
alternatives, because the extent of additional impacts for toll plazas would be similar for
all Alternatives studied in the DEIS and FEIS, including Alternative A and C
3 1 3 The Changes Considered in the Reevaluation Report
The Selected Alternative in the ROD was Alternative A The changes in this
Reevaluation Report include design refinements that have been made since the ROD
and the implementation of tolling Implementing tolling would add toll collection
facilities at five locations (the mainline plaza north of the US 64 interchange and ramp
8 The FHWA and the USACE (as part of USACE's Section 404 permitting process) are required to assess
environmental impacts of proposed actions in accordance with NEPA In North Carolina, to satisfy the needs
of both agencies, the FHWA and the USACE created a mechanism to merge the NEPA highway
development and Section 404 permit processes The merged process includes the Corps of Engineers'
participation and concurrence at several key milestones in the development of each highway project These
milestones include development of the purpose and need statement, selection of detailed study alternatives,
selection of the LEDPA, and avoidance and minimization of impacts to Waters of the United States In
addition to the FHWA and USACE representatives, the Section 404/NEPA Merger Team (Merger Team)
consists of a variety of state and federal regulatory and resource agencies
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-3
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
toll collection sites at the US 1 interchange, the Old US 1 interchange, the US 64
interchange, and the Green Level Road interchange) along the project
3 2 Other Protects
Some other transportation projects in the Triangle Region are recently completed,
currently underway, or under consideration and may influence the use of Western
Wake Freeway These projects include
3 2 1 Outer Wake Expressway ,
The Western Wake Freeway is part of the Outer Wake Expressway (Figure 3), which
also includes the following projects
¦ Northern Wake Expressway as 1-540 The Northern Wake Expressway (STIP
No R-2000) is completed and open to traffic from 1-40 in the west to US 64 in
the east This section is signed as 1-540
¦ Northern Wake Expressway as NC 540 The section of the Northern Wake
Expressway from NC 55 at Alston Avenue to 1-40 opened to traffic in July
2007 A portion of this section -- from NC 55 to NC 54, including the

interchange with the proposed Triangle Parkway (discussed below) -- is under '
consideration by NCTA as a toll facility The section being considered for
tolling includes Sections "AA' and "AB" of STIP No R-2000 NCDOT has ,
signed this recently opened section as NC 540, rather than 1-540, because of
limitations on tolling on the Interstate System

Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway The Southern and Eastern Wake
Freeway consists of STIP Project Nos R-2721, R-2828 and No R-2829
These protects would generally run east-west, connecting the southern
terminus of the Western Wake Freeway to 1-40, and then run north-south from
1-40 to terminate at US 64 NCDOT is currently conducting initial planning and
environmental studies for these protects With the exception of these initial ,
studies, the projects are unfunded in the 2007-2013 STIP
3 2 2 Triangle Parkway
The Triangle Parkway (STIP No U-4763B) is a new location, median-divided roadway
from Northern Wake Expressway in Wake County north to 1-40 at NC 147 in Durham
County This new roadway would be approximately 3 4 miles in length It is scheduled
LJ
September 7, 2007 3-4 1

to be open to traffic in fall 2010 This protect is under consideration by the NCTA as a
toll facility
3 2 3 NC 55 Improvements
NC 55 is a major existing arterial roadway that generally parallels the Western Wake
Freeway to the east This roadway is the closest non-toll alternate route to the
Western Wake Freeway It is currently two lanes in some places and four lanes in
others It is generally an at-grade roadway with signalized intersections As noted in
the FEIS, this roadway is expected to continue to have increasing traffic volumes
Multiple widening improvement protects to sections of NC 55 in the area are noted in
the FEIS (STIP Nos R-2906, U-2901, R-2905 and R-2907) Of these, R-2906 is
currently under construction, U-2901 is unfunded in the current STIP, and R-2905 and
R-2907 have been completed These projects are being or have been implemented by
NCDOT
3 2 4 Other Projects
In addition, planned projects in proximity to Western Wake Freeway include the East-
West Collector and the Morrisville Parkway, all of which are east-west facilities that
would cross the Western Wake Freeway See Figure 3
3 2 5 Potential Toll System in Triangle Region
The NCTA intends to operate three roadways in the Triangle region as a single toll
system These protects are the Western Wake Freeway, the portion of the Northern
Wake Expressway from NC 54 to NC 55 (STIP Nos R-2000AA and AB), and the
Triangle Parkway Together, these roadways would connect to form one contiguous
tolled roadway system from the NC 55 Bypass in Holly Springs to 1-40 at the NC 147
interchange (Figure 3) This contiguous tolled roadway system would be
approximately 18 8 miles in length The protects have logical termini and independent
utility Applicable environmental documentation will be completed for the Triangle
Parkway and for the addition of a toll plaza to Northern Wake Expressway (between
NC 55 and NC 54) For purposes of financing, marketing, and operations, they will be
treated as a single integrated system, which NCTA refers to in its 2006 Annual Report
as the "Triangle Expressway "
1

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-5
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
3 3 Traffic Operations and Cost Estimates
3 3 1 Traffic Forecasts
Two traffic forecasts, NEPA and T&R, are noted in this Reevaluation Report In
general, the traffic volumes predicted for the proposed toll road in the T&R study tend
to be lower than the NEPA traffic forecasts The difference between the two forecasts
is due to the purposes that each forecast serves, and the fact that each forecast utilizes
different standards for analyses that were designed for that particular purpose
lained below
as ex
ies were used for each
t m
thodolo
h
ff
t d
S '
p
,
g
i
eren
e
omew
a
NEPA Forecasts For purposes of evaluating impacts and determining the
preliminary design of the facility, traffic forecasts were developed using r
standard procedures for FHWA NEPA documents These forecasts are
developed based on the existing regional travel demand model, which is
approved by local MPOs (CAMPO and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization [DCHC-MPO]), and state and federal
regulatory agencies for transportation studies in this region These forecasts

are documented in Traffic Forecasts for the Toll Scenarios for TIP No R 2635, ,
Western Wake Parkway, Wake County, North Carolina (NCTA, 2007a)
f
ff
tra
ic
¦ T&R Forecasts For purposes of forecasting revenue, a separate set o
forecasts were developed These forecasts are documented in Prehminary
Traffic and Revenue Study - Proposed Western and Southern Wake '
Parkways (NCTA 2006a) In addition, the NCTA has commissioned a more
detailed "investment-grade" T&R study which is expected to be completed in
September 2007 The preliminary T&R study is available on NCTA's web site
The two traffic forecasts were developed for different purposes They differ in several
ways I
¦ Purpose The NEPA forecast was developed as part of the NEPA study and
was used to design and assess impacts of the proposed roadway The
impacts to the human and natural environments that are discussed in the
environmental document in the NEPA study are based on that design The
T&R forecast was developed for the purpose of estimating the revenues the
toll road is anticipated to generate over the bonding period
¦ Populat?on and Employment Assumptions The NEPA study forecast was
developed using a transportation model adopted by CAMPO, which includes

September 7, 2007 3-6

t

assumptions of future population and employment within the region The
estimates of future population and employment affect the number of vehicles
that are predicted to use regional roadways over a 20-year horizon The
NEPA forecasts use the established, CAMPO-approved assumptions
regarding population and employment growth The T&R forecasts modified
the assumptions regarding population and employment growth This
adjustment was needed to ensure conservative estimates of future revenues
• Calibration The traffic model used to develop the NEPA forecast is calibrated
by the CAMPO according to regional traffic volumes This ensures
consistency in traffic forecasts for different projects in the region By contrast,
' the traffic model used to develop T&R forecasts was calibrated according to
observed volumes within the narrow confines of the project study area As a
result, T&R study forecasts are based on a version of the model that was not
approved by CAMPO or NCDOT The adjustments made in the T&R study
model are appropriate given the purpose of that study, it is used by the
financial community to evaluate the financial return that could be expected
from their investment The T&R study is not used for developing engineering
designs or evaluating project impacts
In sum, there are differences between the NEPA and T&R forecasts, but those
differences reflect the different purposes that each forecast serves In general, the
traffic volumes predicted for the proposed toll road in the T&R study tend to be lower
' than the NEPA traffic forecasts The T&R forecasts are used by the financial
community and potential investors to evaluate project financial risk and the financial
return that could be expected from the investment From the financial standpoint, a
conservative assumption is one that is based on the low end of the predicted range for
population and employment growth and traffic volumes, which correlate to lower toll
revenues These "low-end" assumptions help reduce the risk of overstating the
revenue potential of the proposed toll road The NEPA traffic forecast, as previously
noted, is used to design the proposed roadway, to assess the potential impacts, to
predict design year traffic demand and to document the environmental impacts
associated with the construction of the road Therefore, population and employment
growth and traffic volumes are based generally on the higher end of the range, which
' reduces the risk of under-design and facility failure in the horizon years The two sets
of traffic forecasts are developed independently by two different engineering firms
using traffic models that are calibrated based on different parameters and inputs,
therefore, the results are often different
1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-7
r
Reevaluation Report
1
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
3 3 2 NEPA Traffic Forecasts r
The NEPA traffic forecasts for the Western Wake Freeway and nearby intersections
were developed for the years 2011 and 2030 These forecasts are discussed in the
traffic technical report for this Reevaluation, Traffic Forecasts for the Toll Scenanos for
TIP No R-2635, Western Wake Parkway, Wake County, North Carolina (NCTA,
2007a) That technical report details the implementation of a tolling methodology on '
the Triangle Regional Model (TRM) provided by the CAMPO Details on the model
methodology and outcome are included in the technical report (NCTA, 2007a) and are '
summarized in the following paragraphs
3 3 2 1 Methodology
All non-toll (base) and toll forecasts were developed using previous Western Wake
Freeway forecasts performed for the NEPA process by the NCDOT in July 2001 and
July 2003 All design data were adopted from the previous NCDOT forecasts and
remained consistent through all scenanos
d
ll
d
were
roa
way an
The previous Western Wake Freeway forecasts assumed a non-to
developed for the years 2005 and 2025 The traffic forecasts for this Reevaluation
were developed in two steps First, NCDOT's traffic forecasts for the years 2005 and
2025 scenarios were used to develop estimated traffic volumes for the Alternative A
Reevaluated scenario for the years 2011 and 2030 This was done by projecting a
straight line (constant rate of increase) from the year 2005 forecast volume through the ,
year 2025 forecast volume and beyond This projection was done to generate the non-
toll traffic volume for the years 2011 and 2030 Once the non-toll forecasts had been
developed for 2011 and 2030, the toll forecasts were developed by applying toll-
diversion percentages to the non-toll forecasts (The diversion percentages are
intended to reflect the amount of traffic that will divert to other facilities in order to avoid
paying a toll ) Finally, individual intersection turning movement volumes were balanced
and smoothed through manual adjustments and percentages obtained using turning
movement forecasting software The software employs methodologies described in
National Cooperative Highway Research Program's (NCHRP) Report 365 Travel
Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning (Martin, W A, and N A McGuckin, 1998)
3 3 2 2 Findings
Design year (2030) traffic toll forecasts are shown in Figure 4
L?
September 7, 2007 3-8 1

F
• The AADT for the toll facility ranges from a low of 62,800 vehicles at the
southern end of the project (south of US 1) to a high of 91,200 vehicles north
of Green Level Road This is a decrease from the year 2025 traffic volumes
reported in the FEIS for Alternative A The FEIS reported volumes ranging
from 82,000 to 113,500 AADT The reduction in traffic volume reflects the
effect of tolling on travel demand
¦ Despite the reduction in the estimated traffic for the year 2030, the current
' traffic volumes for the toll facility still warrant the proposed 6-lane cross section
based on a review of general capacity tables in the Highway Capacity Manual
2000 (Transportation Research Board, 2000) Additionally, the capacity
analysis of the current 6-lane design for the design year 2030, completed for
this Reevaluation Report (Section 3 3 3), found that some sections of Western
Wake Freeway may operate at LOS D during peak hours A reduction in the
proposed cross section would further reduce this anticipated LOS
The year 2025 traffic forecasts from the FEIS do not include the proposed Morrisville
Parkway extension and its proposed interchange with Western Wake Freeway The
FEIS notes that the Morrisville Parkway was not part of the regional thoroughfare plan
and it was not funded in the STIP The new traffic forecasts for the year 2030 (non-toll
and toll) for this Reevaluation Report do include this facility and its proposed
interchange The Morrisville Parkway extension and interchange is included in
CAMPO's fiscally constrained 2030 LRTP
' 3 3 3 Capacity Analysis
A roadway capacity analysis was completed for the toll facility and is documented in
Capacity Analysis for Western Wake Freeway 2030 Build Toll Alternative (NCTA,
2007b) The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the operation of the toll facility for
Western Wake Freeway for design year 2030 along with the mainline of NC 55, the
nearest alternate route to Western Wake Freeway The methodology and findings
from that analysis are summarized here
3 3 3 1 Methodology
Level of service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational conditions for
highway facilities The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000), published by
' Transportation Research Board, outlines the procedures of capacity analysis and
defines LOS Six levels of service are defined in the HCM 2000 ranging from A to F,
with LOS A representing the condition where vehicles are almost completely
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-9
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream and LOS F representing
the condition where there are breakdowns in vehicular flow
In this study, Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) 5 21 was used for the analysis of
basic freeway segments, weaving segments, merge and diverge areas for Western
Wake Freeway, the unsignalized intersection of US 64 at the westbound on-ramp from
Kelly Road and the mainline sections for NC 55 Synchro 6, a second capacity model
software, was used for analyzing signalized intersections in this study
Design year (2030) traffic forecast for AADT were taken from Traffic Forecasts for the
Toll Scenarios for TIP No R-2635, Western Wake Parkway, Wake County, North
Carohna (NCTA, 2007a) are included in Figures 4A and 4B The AADT were
converted to AM and PM peak hour volumes by applying the design hourly volume
percentage and directional split percentage provided in the forecast Since the
directional split percentage and the design hourly volume percentage for Western
Wake Freeway mainline and the intersecting roadways were different, as provided in
the AADT forecast, the converted mainline peak hour volumes between interchanges
were not balanced AM and PM peak hour volumes for Western Wake Freeway are
illustrated in Figure 5
For the mainline toll plaza located to the north of US 64, it was assumed that no cash
lanes would be provided in design year, and electronic toll collection would not have
any impact on traffic flow Therefore, the traffic operation at the mainline toll plaza was
analyzed as that of a basic freeway segments
3 3 3 2 Findings
¦ All critical locations, with two exceptions, on Western Wake Freeway would
operate at LOS D or above during peak hours for the design year (2030) if
Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls is implemented (Figure 6)
o The first location that does not achieve LOS D is the merge area of the
US 1 southbound on-ramp from Western Wake Freeway This area is
9 As planned for the opening year 2011, Western Wake Freeway will have cash collection lanes at all of the
toll plazas locations along with ETC lanes A common example of ETC is the transponder based system
such as EZ-Pass As the ETC technology advances and it becomes more widely used by the public, it is
anticipated that ETC, in one or more formats (such as an upgraded transponder system and/or license plate ,
recognition capabilities) will become the sole means of collecting tolls At that time, assumed to be prior to
the design year 2030, the cash collection lanes will be eliminated
11
u
September 7, 2007 3-10
Reevaluation Report
' Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
protected to operate at LOS F during PM peak hour This is due to
exceeding the capacity of US 1 mainline downstream of the on-ramp
and the collector-distributor west of the on-ramp from Western Wake
Freeway southbound
o The second location that does not achieve LOS D is the diverge area
of Western Wake Freeway northbound off-ramp to Green Level Road
This area is protected to operate at LOS E during AM peak hour due
to the insufficiency of the deceleration lane length
¦ The eastbound and westbound direction of the weaving segment on US 64
between Western Wake Freeway and Kelly Road would operate at LOS F
1 during AM and PM peak hours, respectively, for the geometric conditions
shown in roadway design
' '
h
¦ All of the signalized intersections at the intersecting roadways
interc
ange
ramps of Western Wake Freeway would operate at LOS B or C during peak
hours for the design year
• The intersection, assumed to be under signal control, of Kelly Road at US 64
' eastbound ramp would operate at LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours,
and the intersection of Kelly Road at US 64 westbound ramp would operate at
LOS D and F during AM and PM peak hours, respectively, for the geometric
' conditions shown in roadway design
¦ The analysis indicates that the mainline toll plaza would operate at LOS C and
D during peak hours in the design year
¦ Based on the planning level analysis, NC 55 mainline would operate at LOS D
and better during peak hours in the design year
3 3 4 Estimated Protect Costs
The estimated protect costs for the Western Wake Freeway is $695 3 million (August
2007 dollars) with a range from $540 million to $965 million (September 2007 dollars)
This range is necessary with current estimate which is a planning level D cost estimate
This broad range is the best available cost estimate based on current design plans
1
September 7, 2007 3-11
3 3 5 Estimated Toll Costs and Revenue
The preliminary T&R study, discussed above, was completed in June 2006 The study
was conducted at a preliminary feasibility study level and was intended to provide
preliminary estimates of traffic, revenue and toll rate sensitivity The study included a
toll sensitivity analysis, which showed a potential maximum revenue toll range between
$1 25 and $1 50 for the project An opening-year toll rate of $1 25 for the mainline toll
plazas was selected for the revenue analysis to allow for flexibility in future rate setting
An Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study is being prepared and is expected to
be completed in September 2007
3 4 Impacts to the Human Environment
3 4 1 Socioeconomic Issues
Based on socioeconomic forecasts included as part of the TRM, the population within
the Western and Southern Wake Freeway corridors is expected to grow extensively
over the next three decades Population is expected to grow from 153,700 In 2002 to
over 447,000 by 2030 Population growth for both corridors is expected to increase by
3 9 percent annually, which is significantly higher than the expected 2 5 percent growth
annually for the Triangle region
The average household income as included as part of the TRM, in 2002 dollars, in the
Triangle region was $54,411 It was noted that the Western and Southern Wake
Freeway study area has an average household income that is 133 percent of the
Triangle Region, at $72,556 By 2030, the forecast average household income, in
2002 dollars, in the study area is approximately 117 percent of the regional average, at
$67,740 This relatively high household income level correlates with the study area's
high number of residents with college degrees10
While these population and income forecasts differ from those discussed in the FEIS,
the overall trends of population and economic growth are consistent with the trends
that were presented in the FEIS Both the FEIS and the current estimates predict
substantial increases in population and income levels
10 These population and employment forecasts are reported in Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study-
Proposed Western and Southern Wake Parkways (NCTA, 2006a)
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

n
September 7, 2007
3-12 1

Collection of the toll would have an economic impact on the users of the facility The
magnitude of the impact on each individual user would depend on their individual
economic status However, there is currently no funding for a non-toll facility The
' freeway would not be constructed in the foreseeable future without the use of
innovative financing, such as tolling If built as a toll facility, users can choose not to
utilize the freeway, and instead, can use alternate non-toll routes, such as NC 55
These users would have the benefit of less traffic on the alternate non-toll routes as
compared to the No-Build scenario However, due to diversion of some users off of the
toll faculty (I e , users who choose not to pay the toll and instead use the alternate non-
toll route), there would be slightly more traffic on alternate non-toll routes, such as
NC 55, with implementation of Western Wake Freeway as a toll facility as compared to
' a non-toll facility This diversion is not an impact of the protect, because the protect still
reduces traffic volume on the parallel route compared to the No-Build condition
Instead, diversion results in a reduced benefit, to the alternate non-toll route
According to the 2030 traffic forecasts in Tragic Forecasts for the Toll Scenarios for TIP
No R-2635, Western Wake Parkway, Wake County, North Carolina (NCTA, 2007a),
AADT on NC 55 with a toll facility would range from 27,000 to 43,700 vehicles and with
' a non-toll faculty the AADT on NC 55 would range from 28,400 to 45,800 vehicles
Therefore, while the benefits of reduced traffic on existing alternate routes, such as
NC 55, of a toll facility may be lower than the benefits of the non-toll facility, a toll facility
' provides benefits sooner, and represents an improvement over the No-Build condition
for users of all income levels

1

3 4 2 Land Use and Planning
The protect is located within the planning and zoning jurisdictions of Wake County and
the towns of Apex, Cary and Holly Springs The municipal limits and extraterritorial
jurisdictions of the towns of Apex, Cary and Holly Springs are illustrated in Figure 1"
The Town of Morrisville is located near the northern terminus of the proposed Western
Wake Freeway However, only a small western portion of Morrisville is located within
the study area, as defined in the FEIS The protect footprint is not included within the
planning and zoning jurisdictions of the town
" An extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is an area outside of a town's municipal limits that is likely to become
part of the town's limits within the next 10 years and is part of a municipal planning area An area within an
ETJ designation is subject to the town's zoning and building regulations to enable the town to better ensure
that development patterns and associated infrastructure will allow the efficient provision of urban services as
the town grows into that area Regulations regarding ETJs are codified as GS 160A-306 to 366
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-13
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
3 4 2 1 Existing Land Use
As noted in the FEIS, the project would impact existing and proposed neighborhoods
and communities in western Wake County These communities are shown in Figure 7 ,
The majority of these impacts would occur due to the proximity of the proposed
freeway and may include noise level increases and changes in viewscapes, access
and land use Due to preservation of the transportation corridor under the ,
Transportation Corridor Official Map Act, no additional impacts to existing and
proposed neighborhoods and communities, beyond those noted in the FEIS, are
expected to result from changing the project from a non-toll facility to a toll facility
3 4 2 2 Land Use Plans
Updates to area land use plans since the FEIS are identified below All land use
planning documents continue to incorporate the Western Wake Freeway corridor The '
Western Wake Freeway has been, and continues to be, consistent with planned
growth in the study area
3 4 2 2 1 Wake County
,
The following Wake County planning documents have not been updated since the '
FEIS Land Use Plan, Southwest Wake Area Land Use Plan, Growth Management
Strategy, Watershed Plan and Transportation Plan Wake County is in the process of
updating the Southwest Wake Area Land Use Plan Wake County revised the March ,
2003 Wake County Consohdated Open Space Plan in September 2006 Goals of the
open space plan were identified in the FEIS and are consistent with the revised plan
All land use planning documents incorporate the Western Wake Freeway corridor ,
3 4 2 2 2 Town of Morrisville

The Town of Morrisville is located near the northern terminus of the proposed Western
Wake Freeway, within close proximity to the RTP and the RDU Airport Only the small
western portion of Morrisville is actually located within the study area, as defined in the
FEIS The portion of Morrisville within the study area is designated as high density
residential The proposed Western Wake Freeway is identified on the Town of
Morrisville 1999 Land Use Plan Town of Morrisville planning documents have not '
been updated since the FEIS

I
September 7, 2007 3-14
Reevaluation Report
' Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
1 3422 3 Town of Cary
The following Town of Cary planning documents have not been updated since the
FEIS Land Use Plan, Northwest Cary Area Plan, Comprehensive Transportation
Plan, Open Space and Historic Resources Plan and Growth Management Plan The
Carpenter Community Plan and the Southwest Area Plan were adopted after the FEIS
was completed and are discussed below All of these planning documents incorporate
the Western Wake Freeway corridor
Carpenter Community Plan
' The Town of Cary prepared the Carpenter Community Plan and adopted it in
September 2005 The Carpenter Community Plan area is located south of the future
McCnmmon Parkway (currently Old Maynard Road [SR 1632]) and north of Morrisville
' Parkway (SR 3060) It is bounded in the west by NC 55 and extends lust east of the
future Louis Stephens Drive (currently Koppers Road [SR 1635]) The primary
objective of the plan is to restore the Carpenter crossroads area as a "destination focus
area," with the rural village as its centerpiece The Plan vision describes the area as
convenient to the Outer Wake Expressway, via the interchange at NC 55 at the
northern end of the Western Wake Freeway
Southwest Area Plan
' The Town of Cary created the Southwest Area Plan to complement the Northwest Cary
Area Plan While the northwest area is expected to have extensive development, the
Southwest Area Plan is a policy document that emphasizes environmental protection,
low-density residential development and preservation of rural land-use patterns The
southwest area covers the area west of NC 55 to east of the Chatham County line and
north of Green Level Road West (SR 1605) and Roberts Road The northern border is
shared by the Northwest Cary Area Plan Land use along the Western Wake Freeway
is designated primarily as parks, buffers, open space, community recreation, mixed use
' development and residential development that is split fairly equally between very low,
low, and medium-density, as well as a small portion that is designated for office/
institutional development The Southwest Area Plan notes the proposal of anew
1 thoroughfare louring Green Level Church Road with Green Level Road to serve the
Gateway Community Center at the Western Wake Freeway interchange with Green
Level Road The proposed thoroughfare would divert traffic on southbound Western
Wake Freeway away from the Green Level Historic District

September 7, 2007 3-15
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
3 4 2 2 4 Town of Apex
The following Town of Apex land use plan, mentioned in the FEIS, has not been
updated since completion of that document Apex 2010 Land Use Plan ,
Apex Comprehensive Plan, Achieving Our Vision
The Town of Apex adopted its current comprehensive plan, the Apex Comprehensive
Plan, Achieving Our Vision in April 2004 The plan addresses Apex's goal of '
maintaining its small town atmosphere and identifies current and future needs
necessary to achieving that goal These needs include residential development,
growth management, transportation and accessibility to pedestrians and bicycles, '
improved infrastructure, local economic growth, environmental concerns, historic
preservation and improved school facilities
The plan notes the accelerated growth rate of Apex, from 4,968 in 1990, to 28,130 in '
2003, a growth rate of 14 3 percent This is 11 2 percent higher than the metropolitan
statistical area's (MSA's) growth rate of 3 1 percent The Apex plan states that the
accepted sustainable rate for infrastructure is 3 to 5 percent Future infrastructure
goals highlight the creation of a new wastewater treatment facility for the region,
including Cary, Holly Springs, Morrisville, Fuquay-Vanna, and Wake County, in the '
Cape Fear River Basin by 2011 The new facility would allow for water plant expansion
shortly thereafter Transportation goals referenced from the Transportation Plan in
2002 include establishing connectivity among freeways and interchanges, addressing '
specifically the Western Wake Freeway, expansion of NC 55 and construction of the
Apex Peakway, creating pedestrian and bicycle lanes and addressing mass transit
needs, including the proposed rail transit service
The 2025 Land Use Plan Map for Apex primarily shows medium-density residential
development along most of the proposed Western Wake Freeway, with the exception '
of the interchanges at US 64, Old US 1, US 1 and NC 55 Bypass The US 64
interchange is planned to be community and neighborhood mixed use, including
commercial, office institutional and mixed medium to high-density residential
development At Old US 1, the land use plan is also mixed use high-density residential
and office and institutional as well as a mix of office and institutional with industrial
This plan for development extends from Old US 1 to US 1 Finally, at the NC 55
'
Bypass interchange, the land use plan includes protected open space, a landfill and
commercial, office and institutional, and medium-density residential development '

September 7, 2007 3-16
IF
?J

1

1

1

All of these planning documents for the Town of Apex incorporate the Western Wake
Freeway corridor
3 4 2 2 5 Town of Holly Springs
Ten-Year Comprehensive Growth Plan
In 2005, the Town of Holly Springs amended its 1998 Ten-Year Comprehensive
Growth Plan and Map, which was originally discussed in the FEIS The amended
document, Amended Supplement #2 and associated map, focuses on continuing goals
for land use, parks and recreation, public safety, housing, economic development,
transportation, public utilities and the environment Within the transportation section
recent improvements, alleviation of traffic concerns and future needs are addressed
The transportation section includes the Western Wake Freeway corridor The Western
Wake Freeway would form a small section of the Holly Spring's northern boundary with
Apex from NC 55 Bypass west
3 4 3 Relocations
Based on detailed studies and the preliminary design for this project, the FEIS found
that the project would require 46 relocations comprised of 36 owner-occupied
residences, 10 renter-occupied residences, no businesses, and 1 farm
For the toll facility, preliminary relocation studies were conducted in the expanded
construction footprint for the toll plazas, utilizing the base mapping provided by the
NCDOT (updated September 2004) Two additional residences, in addition to those
identified in the ROD - one at the ramp plaza east of Kelly Road and south of US 64
and one at the mainline toll plaza - would require relocation due to the expanded
construction footprint for the toll plazas Therefore, Alternative A Reevaluated with
Tolls would result in 48 relocations
The project footprint is located in the corridor preserved under the Transportation
Corridor Official Map Act (described in Section 1 3 2), which protects the corridor from
development of new houses and businesses During natural resources field surveys
conducted in Fall 2006, no new construction was observed in the project corridor
The project, which is planned as a fully access-controlled facility, has the potential to
landlock property A preliminary review of the non-toll facility determined that
approximately 10 large (greater than 5 acres) parcels would lose access once the
project has been implemented This includes one parcel that contains a residence
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-17
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
(already included as part of the relocations discussed previously) The remaining nine
parcels do not appear to contain residences The preliminary review of the toll facility
determined that two additional large parcels would be landlocked by the expanded
construction footprint for the toll plazas These parcels do not appear to contain '
residences Therefore, there is no change in the estimated number of relocations
The relocation program for the proposed action would 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 protect for this purpose '
3 4 4 Environmental Justice
The FEIS noted the existence of one low income and minority population located in the '
FEIS study area As stated in the FEIS, "At the southern terminus of the study area is
the 50-year old community of Feltonsvdle This historically African-American

community is centered around Old Smithfield Road, although the community extends a ,
short distance north of Holly Springs toward US 1 The community grew incrementally
from the 1940s through the 1970s, and now comprises approximately 85 households
The community residences are largely low income, though middle-income families also
reside there "
,
An Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum (NCTA, 2007d) was completed to
¦ Evaluate the potential impacts to low-income and/or minority communities
resulting from implementing this project as a toll facility as compared to a non-
toll facility,

¦ Document low-income and/or minority community outreach efforts conducted
for the Western Wake Freeway Reevaluation Report, and

¦ Identify any changes to previously-identified low-income and/or minority
communities since the Western Wake Freeway FEIS and identify any
additional low-income and/or minority communities
'

The Memorandum was completed in compliance with regulations and guidelines in ,
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations, FHWA's directive, "FHWA Actions to
[I
u
September 7, 2007 3-18
?II
LJ

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations",
and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Previous studies conducted as part of the Western Wake Freeway FEIS identified the
Feltonsvdle community as the only low-income and minority population within the study
area The 2007 study identified additional minority "pockets " These areas are
generally described as the Tmgen Road area south of Apex and an area west of Old
Holly Springs-Apex Road These areas are not adjacent to the proposed project and
are not expected to be impacted by the protect, either as a non-toll or a toll facility
Property owners in these areas are included on the project mailing list and were invited
to the February 8, 2007 Citizens Informational Workshop Based on sign-in sheets,
' approximately seven people from these areas attended
Impacts to the Feltonsvdle community, comprised largely of African-American families,
were evaluated in previous studies including the Community Impact Assessment -
Western Wake Freeway (NCDOT, 2003b) and the FEIS Feltonsvdle, which appears
to continue to be a low-income as well as a minority community, is adjacent to the
' protect corridor and impacts to this community were considered (Figure 8)
Implementing the Western Wake Freeway as a toll facility as compared to a non-toll
facility would result in similar impacts to the Feltonsvdle community (except for potential
' financial effects discussed below) There are no impacts to the Feltonsville community
from the additional construction footprint necessary for the toll plazas Project
commitments for the Feltonsville community identified by the NCDOT in the FEIS and
ROD for the Western Wake Freeway would offset impacts resulting from the toll facility
or the non-toll facility No additional commitments for the Feltonsvdle community are
recommended as a result of implementing the project as a toll facility The NCTA
would be responsible for protect commitments previously established by NCDOT A
small group meeting was held in the Feltonsvdle community on February 15, 2007 No
concerns with regards to the incorporation of tolls onto this facility were expressed by
mad, phone, or in person at this meeting
The primary effect with the proposal to implement the Western Wake Freeway as a toll
' facility is the financial effect on low-income users In addition to paying tolls, electronic
toll collection does involve establishing an account and some low-income users may
not be willing or able to establish an account The specific payment options have not
yet been determined (See section 1 2 for a general discussion of the toll collection
methods under consideration) Potential financial effects are a consideration for low-
income populations Low-income populations in the southwestern area of Wake
County have the choice to use the toll road or an alternate non-toll route (e g , NC 55)

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-19
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
The existing road network in western Wake County provides a comparable non-toll
route to the Western Wake Freeway
Western Wake Freeway would provide an alternate route to employment centers and '
other areas to the north of the study area A result of construction of Western Wake
Freeway would be reduced traffic and congestion on existing alternate non-toll routes,
including NC 55, which would be highly congested if Western Wake Freeway is not '
built Therefore, completing Western Wake Freeway would benefit all motorists,
including low-income motorists who may choose not to use the toll facility or may tend
to use it less frequently These users would have the benefit of less traffic on the '
alternate non-toll routes as compared to the No-Build condition However, due to
diversion of some users off of the toll facility and onto an existing non-toll route (such
as NC 55), there would be slightly more traffic than with the non-toll facility, resulting in '
a reduced benefit to users of the existing non-toll route As discussed in Section 3 4 1,
the protected increased traffic volumes (AADT) on NC 55 range from 1,400 to 2,100
additional vehicles with implementation of the toll facility Therefore, while the benefits
of the toll facility may be lower than the benefits of the non-toll facility, due to the
diversion of some potential users onto existing non-toll routes, the toll facility provides
benefits sooner and represents an improvement over the No-Budd condition for users
of all income levels
h
N
DOT 2007 ,
-
e
C
The Western Wake Freeway as a non-toll protect is not funded in t
2013 STIP, and it is not likely to be constructed in the foreseeable future without the
use of innovative financing, such as tolling Implementing Western Wake Freeway as '
a toll facility would ensure the construction of this much needed transportation
improvement This accelerated construction schedule is a benefit to the study area as
well as the region
The impacts to low-income and/or minority populations resulting from implementing the
Western Wake Freeway protect as a toll facility are not considered "disproportionately I
high and adverse "
It is noted that impacts to Feltonsvdle, a low-income and minority community, were
identified in previous studies for the Western Wake Freeway Several measures were
included in the FEIS and ROD, as special commitments, to help mitigate for cumulative
impacts to this community The protect commitments are included in Section 5 0 with '
their current status and/or an update No additional protect commitments for this
community have been added as a result of implementing the protect as a toll facility '

September 7, 2007 3-20
' Reevaluation Report
' Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
3 4 5 Community Facilities and Services
The following discussion of schools, parks and greenways, and other community
1 facilities is based on a review of current land use planning maps (as of February 2007)
This review was conducted in coordination with the various municipalities surrounding
the project corridor This information was supplemented with observations made
during natural resources field surveys conducted in Fall 2006 The facilities noted in
the following discussions are new facilities or facilities identified in the FEIS for which
' their status since that time has changed Additionally, these facilities are generally
within a one-half mile radius of the project corridor None of the new facilities noted in
the following discussions are within the project footprint
' 3 4 5 1 Schools
The FEIS identified six elementary schools, three middle schools and three high
schools that serve the study area None of these schools identified in the FEIS are
located in the project footprint Two additional schools serving the area have opened
in recent years These new schools, along with their opening dates and locations, are
discussed below The locations of these facilities are illustrated on Figure 9
¦ Turner Creek Elementary School, located at 6801 Turner Creek Road (SR
1609) in Cary, opened in 2004 This school is located approximately 0 5 mile
east of the project corridor and would not be directly impacted by construction
of the facility, and
¦ Panther Creek High School, located at 6770 McCrmmon Parkway in Cary,
opened in 2006 to 9a, and 10`h grade students Panther Creek High School
adjoins the project corridor to the east No property acquisition due to
construction of the facility is anticipated This school was evaluated for
potential noise impacts as noted in Section 3 5 3 Additional details on the
noise analysis are included in the Traffic Norse Report - Western Wake
Freeway (NCTA, 2007e)
3452 Parks and Greenways
' Numerous parks and greenways located in the study area were identified in the FEIS
None of the parks identified in the FEIS are located within the project footprint Several
' greenways, noted in the FEIS, were proposed to cross Alternative A Project
commitments (Table 19, Nos 3 and 13) were made in the FEIS to accommodate these
greenway crossings Through continuing coordination with the towns of Apex and
September 7, 2007 3-21
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway ,
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Cary, all known greenways crossing the Western Wake Freeway have been '
accommodated The following is an update of facilities previously identified in the
FEIS These facilities are shown on Figure 9
3 4 5 2 1 Town of Apex '
As noted in the FEIS, the Town of Apex owns and operates two parks adjoining the '
project corridor Kelly Road Park and Kelly Glen Park Additionally, the town has plans
to develop the 8-acre Walden Creek Property, identified as the proposed Jenks Road '
Parkin the FEIS A portion of the land on the Walden Creek Property is expected to
be allocated for passive recreation and would predominantly be undeveloped The
other portion is expected to be developed for active recreation '
Of the four Town of Apex proposed greenways noted in the FEIS, three remain in the
Apex Parks, Recreation, Greenways and Open Space Master Plan, created in October ,
2006, including the proposed greenway along Little Branch east of Old Holly Springs-
Apex Road, the proposed greenway along an unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek east
of Apex-Barbecue Road and the proposed greenway for Beaver Creek east of Olive ,
Chapel Road The fourth proposed greenway noted in the FEIS, previously planned
along Reedy Creek, is not in the current plan and has not been constructed The Apex
Comprehensive Plan recognizes a need for the greenways to cross Western Wake ,
Freeway via pedestrian crossings and is continuing to coordinate with NCDOT and
NCTA regarding these crossings
34522 Town of Cary
The Town of Cary is currently expanding the facilities at Thomas Brooks Park, which is '
noted in the FEIS and located at Green Level Church Road and Green Hope School
Road The USA Baseball national training center complex, at the Thomas Brooks
Park, opened in June 2007 Sears Farm Road Park, located at 5077 Sears Farm '
Road, was opened in 2005 The planned park on the Hawes tract is still under
development
As shown in Figure 9, the Town of Cary has three greenways that currently cross the '
project footprint and has two more that are proposed These greenways were all noted
,
in the FEIS This includes the greenway along White Oak Creek The Town of Cary
was awarded a grant in January 2005 from the U S Department of Agriculture (USDA)
for the White Oak Stream Restoration and Greenway The Town of Cary decided to '
work with the Town of Apex to develop a plan identifying land for open space
preservation in the area between Green Level and Wimberly (SR 2761) roads,
September 7, 2007 3-22

' providing for the restoration of 1 5 miles of White Oak Creek and for a major greenway
connection (extension of existing White Oak Greenway) to the American Tobacco Trail
(ATT)
The ATT is a 23-mile rails-to-trails project conceived in the late 1980s by the nonprofit
Triangle Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Following an abandoned rail line, it would run
north from near New Hill in western Wake County, through a northeast sliver of
Chatham County, then into Durham County, where it ends at the Durham Bulls Athletic
Park Currently, approximately 20 miles of the trail are open The final mile of the 6 5-
mile Wake County portion of the ATT opened in 2006 The Wake County portion of the
trail runs from the ATT's southern terminus west of Apex off New Hill-Olive Chapel
' Road (SR 1141) north to the Chatham County line northwest of White Oak Church
Road (SR 1606)
' 3 4 5 2 3 Wake County
As noted in the FEIS, Wake County has obtained a lease for property along Old Holly
Springs-Apex Road for the purpose of developing a soccer facility and park, the Capital
Area Metropolitan Soccer Association (CAMSA) Training Facility The CAMSA facility
is on land once designated as game lands and leased by the county from Progress
Energy (formerly Carolina Power and Light Company) This planned facility is still
under development
' Lastly, a small (0 5-acre) public park, Feltonsville Community Park, was also noted in
the FEIS Feltonsville Community Park is located on the north side of Old Smithfield
Road in the Feltonsville community The park is located on property owned by Wake
' County The park was developed through the initiative of the Feltonsville Community
Organization, which worked with various local governments to obtain a Community

1

Development Block Grant in July 1981 for a number of improvements, including the
park As part of the project commitments (Table 19, No 15), identified in the FEIS and
ROD, NCDOT proposed improvements to Old Smithfield Road to help mitigate
cumulative impacts to the Feltonsville community The proposed Old Smithfield Road
improvements would necessitate the conversion of approximately 0 084 acres of the
Wake County property to a transportation use (for right-of-way and easement), this is
the area between the existing edge of pavement of Old Smithfield Road and the portion
of the Feltonsville Community Park fence parallel to the road (Appendix D) Additional
details concerning the impacts to this park are included in Section 3 4 9 1
No additional parks or greenways, beyond those that were identified in the FEIS and
ROD, have been opened or planned in the project vicinity None of the known parks is
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-23
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway

Wake County '
STIP Project No R-2635 e
located in areas adjoining the expanded construction footprints for the toll plazas, '
therefore, there are no direct impacts from the expanded construction footprint due to
the addition of the toll plazas No impacts, beyond the greenway crossings
documented in the FEIS and the property conversion at Feltonsvdle Community Park ,
noted above, are anticipated As noted in the project commitments (Table 19, Nos 3
and 13), through continuing coordination with the towns of Apex and Cary, all known
greenways crossing the Western Wake Freeway have been accommodated '
3 4 5 3 Churches and Cemetenes
The FEIS identified 13 churches within the FEIS project study area None of the
churches identified in the FEIS were located within the project footprint '
In the Feltonsvdle Community, at the southern end of the project corridor, there are two
churches that have not been previously identified Temple of Faith, located at 2248

NC 55, and Calvary Deliverance, located at 2244 East Williams Street and NC 55 ,
(Figure 9) None of the known or newly-identified churches are located within the
construction footprint As noted in the Traffic Norse Report- Western Wake Freeway

(NCTA, 2007e), these two additional churches are not expected be exposed to interior ,
noise levels that approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria Additional detail on
the noise analysis is included in Section 3 5 4 No impacts to churches are anticipated '
The FEIS identified 17 cemeteries within the FEIS project study area (Figure 9) One
cemetery, located south of Old US 1, was noted in the FEIS as being impacted by the '
project As noted in the FEIS, the removal of graves will comply with North Carolina
General Statute 65-13

The locations of two cemeteries, identified in the FEIS and appearing on project
mapping to be potentially within the project footprint, were verified in field surreys
conducted in April 2007, by qualified archeologists It has been determined, by utilizing '
field-collected Global Positioning System (GPS) data, that neither of the two
cemeteries is located within the project footprint One cemetery is located within
Thomas Brooks Park and the second is located southwest of the planned interchange
with US 1 Details on the search methodology and survey results are documented in a
memo included in Appendix E
Incidental observations made during natural resources field surveys conducted in Fall '
2006 identified one new cemetery located in the project study area near the norther '
end of the project corridor Wake Memorial Park, located at 7002 Green Hope School
1
September 7, 2007 3-24

11
1

1
J

1
1

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Road, approximately 0 5 mile east of the corridor, was established in late 2004
(Figure 9) This cemetery is not located in the project footprint
None of these known cemeteries is located in areas included in the expanded
construction footprints for the toll plazas There would be no impacts to cemeteries, by
construction of Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls beyond the impact noted in the
FEIS to the cemetery located south of Old US 1
3 4 5 4 Other Community Facilities
One new library serving the project vicinity has opened in recent years The West
Regional Library, located at 4000 Louis Stephens Drive in Cary approximately 1 mile?
east of the project corridor, is the newest of the six regional libraries in the Wake
County public library system and the second largest Opened in September 2006, as
part of Cary's Carpenter Village development, West Regional Library provides much-
needed services to the rapidly expanding western half of Wake County, which includes
the Cary, Morrisville and Apex communities
The Town of Cary is currently constructing a new fire station (Fire Station No 7) on
Carpenter Fire Station Road (SR 1624) dust west of NC 55 The Town of Cary has
reached an agreement with the Town of Morrisville to provide space for a Morrisville
crew at this new fire station This will allow for the closure of Morrisville Fire Station
No 3, also located west of NC 55 on Carpenter Fire Station Road The new fire station
is approximately 1 mile east of the project corridor
None of these community facilities, as identified in the FEIS or discussed here, is
located in areas adjoining the expanded construction footprints for the toll plazas
3 4 6 Utilities
As discussed in the FEIS, electrical service within the planning jurisdiction of the Town
of Apex is provided by Apex Power, while the remainder of the FEIS defined study area
is served by Progress Energy (formerly Carolina Power and Light Company) Natural
gas service to most area residents and businesses is provided by PSNC (formerly
Public Service Company of North Carolina) Other natural gas transmission lines
traversing the area include those owned and operated by Colonial Pipeline Company
and Dixie Pipeline Company, who operate a station dust south of Apex on NC 55
Public water and wastewater facilities are provided to portions of the study area by the
towns of Apex, Cary and Holly Springs Wake County does not provide public water
supply services Residences beyond municipal service areas rely on private wells
September 7, 2007 3-25
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
The FEIS notes the project would cross a 230 kV electrical transmission line, owned by '
Progress Energy, located on the south side of US 1 In addition to mayor transmission
lines, numerous low voltage lines providing service to individual households and
businesses would be crossed by the project Also it was noted that Alternative A would '
cross three natural gas transmission lines, eight large (greater than 10 inches) sewer-
lines and five water supply lines
'
For this Reevaluation Report, updated mapping of utility lines for the project corridor
was obtained from the towns of Apex and Cary for the locations of water and sewer
facilities Additionally, a review of the current design plans noted a 4-inch and an '
8-inch natural gas transmission line that were not identified in the FEIS Updated utility
mapping for the project corridor is shown in Figure 10 '
Based on updated mapping, the Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls would cross five
new, large (greater than 10 inches) water lines located along Kelly Road, Jenks Road

(multiple lines), Roberts Road and Green Hope School Road Three additional, large '
(greater than 10 inches) sewer lines would be crossed They are located along
Carpenter Fire Station Road, Morns Branch and Nancy Branch Finally, as noted in

the previous paragraph, a 4-inch and an 8-inch natural gas transmission line, which ,
would be crossed by the project, were identified in the southwestern quadrant of the
Kelly Road and US 64 interchange These new crossings are due to changes in the

affected environment and not due to the expanded construction footprint needed for ,
the addition of the toll plazas
h '
e towns
NCTA and NCDOT will work with the electric and natural gas providers and t
of Apex and Cary to coordinate any necessary relocation of utility lines Any necessary
relocation of utilities would be conducted in a timely and orderly fashion, planned so '
that any disruptions in service are minimized and safety is not compromised
In November 2006, Wake County began construction on a sanitary landfill adjacent to '
and south of the site of the Feltonsvdle Landfill in Holly Springs, which was closed to
municipal waste in 1998 The South Wake Landfill will be located dust south of the
Feltonsville Landfill Wake County plans to open the South Wake Landfill in January
'
2008 when the North Wake Landfill has reached its maximum capacity Access to the
new landfill would be from the NC 55 Bypass west of Holly Springs The South Wake
Landfill would not be impacted by the proposed construction footprint ,
L7
September 7, 2007 3-26
' Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
3 4 7 Historic Architecture
As noted in the FEIS, three properties, the Green Level Historic District, the Green
Level Baptist Church and the Pearson House, were evaluated for National Register-
eligibility by a NCDOT architectural historian in a report dated May 13, 1997 The
report concluded that both the Green Level Historic District and the Green Level
Baptist Church were eligible for the National Register and boundaries were drawn
showing the church within the boundaries of the historic district The Pearson House
' was determined not eligible for the National Register because its farm fields and
outbuildings have been destroyed and the main house is an insignificant example of a
very common building type in Wake County The State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) concurred with this report in their letter of July 9, 1997 A formal nomination to
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was prepared by the Wake County
Historic Preservation Commission and on April 5, 2001, the Green Level Historic
' District was placed on the National Register with boundaries somewhat refined from
the 1997 report (Figure 11) The Green Level Baptist Church was named as a
contributing element within the district, while the Pearson House is not within the
district's boundaries
Prior to formal listing on the National Register, HPO and NCDOT architectural
historians met on January 29, 1998, to discuss the effects of the protect on the two
eligible properties the Green Level Historic District and the Green Level Baptist
Church During that meeting, it was agreed that the project would have an adverse
' effect on the Green Level Historic District and a form was signed to record this
determination FHWA later concurred with the adverse effect by signing the form on
February 2, 1998
' As noted in the ROD, Alternative A would have an adverse effect on the district This
alternative is located approximately 2,500 feet east of the historic district boundaries,
but has reasonable potential to alter the rural historic setting as a result of indirect or
secondary effects A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (Appendix F) between
FHWA and the State Historic Preservation Officer was signed on March 5, 2002, and
' April 2, 2002, respectively, that outlines the measures to be implemented to minimize
or mitigate the adverse effects on the historic district NCDOT, the Town of Cary, and
the Wake County Historic Preservation Commission signed the MOA as concurring
' parties The MOA states that a Historic District Signage Protect, consisting of a
minimum of four signs with small-scale landscaping around each sign, would be
' developed and implemented by NCDOT, the Town of Cary, the Wake County Historic
Preservation Commission, and the HPO Under the MOA, NCDOT committed to
1
September 7, 2007 3-27
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway ,
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
provide up to 80 percent of the total signage project cost and would provide on-going I
maintenance for the signs and landscaping
On February 20, 2007, a meeting was held with representatives of the HPO (meeting '
minutes are included in Appendix G) The purpose of the meeting was to discuss
Western Wake Freeway as a toll facility and potential effects under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act A general overview of the project was provided '
including a review of the potential methods of toll collection and a description of toll
collection sites It was noted that the Green Level Historic District is the only study area
site on or eligible for the NRHP The proposed Green Level Road interchange with
'
Western Wake Freeway was the primary focus point of the meeting, especially the
addition of the toll collection plazas on the interchange ramps NCTA, FHWA and

NCDOT in concert with the HPO confirmed that there are no additional adverse effects '
to the Green Level Historic District beyond those already identified and accounted for
in the existing MOA Based on the discussions at this February 20, 2007 meeting,

NCTA, through a letter to FHWA dated March 20, 2007 with copies to all the MOA '
signatories, agreed to assume responsibility from NCDOT for implementing the MOA
commitments The letter also addressed archaeology (discussed below) FHWA has
acknowledged the transfer of responsibility for implementing the MOA commitments to
NCTA in correspondence dated March 30, 2007 (included in Appendix F)
ld
t
ll
l
h '
no
p
azas, wou
e to
The toll facility, with its additional construction footprint at t
have additional impacts to historic architectural properties beyond those noted above
to the Green Level Historic District '
3 4 8 Archaeological Sites
d
As discussed in the FEIS and ROD, an intensive archaeological survey was conducte
for the Preferred Alternative study corridor in 2001
,
Site 31WA1493, as discussed in the FEIS and ROD, would be directly impacted by the
project Archaeological fieldwork for this site was completed in March 2003 and
demonstrated that the cultural material is confined to the disturbed plow zone ,
NCDOT, in consultation with the HPO, concluded that site 31 WA1493 has poor
archaeological context and is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP HPO
concurred with this finding in a letter dated February 18, 2004 '
NCDOT archaeologists, in coordination with NCTA, reviewed the results of the field
survey completed for the FEIS and the updated project footprint for the toll facility and ,
state in a letter dated March 6, 2007 (included in Appendix F) that "The existing

September 7, 2007 3-28

' archaeological survey adequately covered the project corridor It is unlikely that minor
changes to the footprint of the project associated with the toll plazas would lead to the
identification of significant cultural resources The conclusions for archaeology, as
' currently presented in the environmental documentation for the project, are accurate "
They additionally note, " our staff recommends that no additional archaeological
' investigations are warranted " NCDOT archaeologists informed the Office of State
Archeology of these conclusions and recommendations It is the standard practice of
the Office of State Archeology to provide no comments when dealing with conclusions
' of no effects
As noted in the previous section, NCTA through a letter to FHWA with copies to all the
MOA signatories, agreed to assume responsibility from NCDOT for implementing the
Green Level Historic District MOA commitments The letter also addressed
archaeology, stating that the expanded footprint to accommodate the toll plazas would
' not impact archaeological sites on or eligible for the National Register FHWA has
acknowledged the transfer of responsibility for implementing the MOA commitments to
NCTA in correspondence dated March 30, 2007, and included in Appendix F
3 4 9 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties
3 4 9 1 Section 4(0
Section 4(f) of the U S Department of Transportation Act, as amended, prohibits
FHWA from approving any program or project that requires the use of a publicly owned
park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or a significant historic site, unless
(a) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and the project
incorporates all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from such use, or (b) a
finding of Ve mmimis" impact is made
I I

1
1
3 4 9 1 1 Historic and Archaeological Resources
As noted in the FEIS, the Preferred Alternative would not require the use of any land
within the Green Level Historic District's boundary (Figure 11) or any of the district's
contributing resources The toll facility, with its additional construction footprint required
for the toll plazas, would also not require the use of any land within the Green Level
Historic District The change in facility implementation to a toll facility would not result
in any constructive use of this resource Therefore, the determination of no direct or
constructive use of this Section 4(f) resource remains valid
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-29

Reevaluation Report

Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
There are no additional historic properties or districts identified in the FEIS Therefore, '
the toll facility with its additional construction footprint at the toll plazas would not have
a direct or constructive use of historic architectural resources under Section 4(f)
Based on information as presented in the FEIS and ROD and based on the re- ,
evaluation of archaeological sites for the toll facility design (as noted in Section 3 4 8),
a Section 4(f) evaluation is not required for archaeological sites, as there are no known '
sites within the construction footprint
3 4 9 1 2 Publicly Owned Parks, Recreation Areas, and Refuges ,
As noted in the FEIS, the Town of Apex owns two public parks adjoining the protect '
corridor Kelly Road Park is located on Kelly Road south of the intersection with Olive
Chapel Road and immediately to the south is Kelly Glen Park (Figure 9) These parks
are not located in the immediate vicinity of the expanded footprints for the toll plazas '
As noted in the FEIS, an agreement is in place with the Town of Apex that reserved a
portion of land for highway right-of-way Details on these highway development buffers
are included in the FEIS As noted in the FEIS, Section 4(f) does not apply to publicly- I
owned, public, park land reserved for highway right-of-way
It was also noted in the FEIS that Wake County has obtained a lease for property along '
Old Holly Springs-Apex Road for the purpose of developing a soccer facility and park,
the CAMSA Training Facility The CAMSA facility is on land once designated as game
lands and leased by the county from Progress Energy (formerly Carolina Power and '
Light Company) The lease, which was signed in June 1998, is for a 25-year period
After the initial 25-year term the lease shall automatically renew and continue in
perpetuity for successive 5-year terms The lease specifies that the property will be '
used for public recreational purposes only Given the terms of the lease, this property
could be considered "publicly-owned" and therefore would qualify for protection under
Section 4(f) The planned CAMSA Training Facility (Figure 9) is bisected by the project '
corridor However, it is not located in the immediate vicinity of the expanded footprints
for the toll plazas In addition, as noted in the FEIS, an agreement is in place with
Wake County to reserve the highway nght-of-way through this park Details on the
reserved highway corridor are included in the FEIS As noted in the FEIS, Section 4(f)
does not apply to publicly-owned, public, park land reserved for highway right-of-way
'
Additionally noted in the FEIS, the Town of Cary owns one public park and an adjoining
recreational facility and is developing one, additional, town-owned property that will
contain a public park in the vicinity of the protect corridor (Figure 9) They are the '
Thomas Brooks Park south of Green Hope School Road, USA Baseball to the north of

September 7, 2007 3-30

' Thomas Brooks Park and the proposed park on the Hawes tract immediately north of
Green Hope School Road and west of Twyla Road (SR 3068), respectively These
parks are not located in the immediate vicinity of the expanded footprints for the toll
' plazas As noted in the FEIS, an agreement is in place with the Town of Cary to
reserve the land for highway right-of-way Details on these reserved corridors are
included in the FEIS As noted in the FEIS, Section 4(f) does not apply to publicly-
owned, public, park land reserved for highway right-of-way
' Lastly, a small (0 5-acre) public park, Feltonsvdle Community Park was also noted in
the FEIS Feltonsville Community Park is located on the north side of Old Smithfield
Road in the Feltonsville community (Figure 9) The property on which the park is
' located is owned by Wake County The park was developed through the initiative of
the Feltonsville Community Organization, which worked with various local governments
to obtain a Community Development Block Grant in July 1981 for a number of
' community improvements, including the park Wake County purchased the property
that included the park in 1983 As part of the protect commitments (Table 19, No 15),
identified in the FEIS and ROD, NCDOT proposed improvements to Old Smithfield
1 Road to help mitigate cumulative impacts to the Feltonsvdle community The proposed
typical section for Old Smithfield Road includes widening from the existing two-lane
section (21 feet of pavement) to a three-lane section with curb and gutter (33 feet of
' pavement) that would include a variable width berm on each side
During a 2006 property survey of Feltonsville Community Park, it was determined that
NCDOT right-of-way was never acquired along Old Smithfield Road in front of
Feltonsvdle Community Park and that the only right-of-way that could be claimed is the
existing maintained road corridor, usually determined to be between the tops of the
roadside ditch banks The proposed Old Smithfield Road improvements would
necessitate the conversion of approximately 0 084 acre of Wake County property to a
transportation use (for right-of-way and easement), this is the area between the
' existing edge of pavement of Old Smithfield Road and the portion of the Feltonsvdle
Community Park fence parallel to the road (Appendix D) This area is outside of the
active and useable recreation area of the park and is primarily used for uncontrolled
off-street parking
As a publicly-owned public park, Feltonsvdle Community Park is afforded protections
under Section 4(f) As noted previously, FHWA is prohibited from approving any
protect that requires the use of a publicly-owned park, unless (a) there is no feasible
' and prudent alternative to the use of such land and the protect incorporates all possible
planning to minimize harm resulting from such use, or (b) a finding of "de minimis"
impact is made De minimis impacts on publicly-owned parks are defined as those that
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-31
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
do not "adversely affect the activities, features and attributes" of the Section 4(f) ,
resource Concurrence must be obtained from the official with jurisdiction over the park
or recreation area that the impacts are not adverse NCTA, in cooperation with FHWA,
sent a letter dated April 19, 2007, to Wake County, to obtain their concurrence that the '
proposed right-of-way acquisition would not adversely affect the activities, features or
attributes of the park Wake County signed the concurrence request letter on May 7,
2007 The letter is included in Appendix D Comments regarding the potential park '
impacts were solicited from the public Flyers were mailed to property owners and
hand-delivered to residents in the Feltonsville community A copy is included in
Appendix D Additionally, a newspaper advertisement requesting public input was 1
placed in the Holly Springs Sun, the Apex Herald and the News and Observer The
comment period extended from May 24, 2007, through June 15, 2007 One written '
comment was received that supported the project and it is included in Appendix D
Based on information obtained from public officials with jurisdiction over the property
and the public comment obtained, FHWA has made a finding of de mmimis impacts by '
the signing of this document
The location of the mainline toll plaza and the ramp plazas are not in the vicinity of any I
of the identified parks or recreational areas
As noted in the FEIS, there are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges in the vicinity of the I
project corridor
The proposed Western Wake Freeway would not result in the direct or constructive use '
of publicly-owned land of a public park, or recreation area, historic site, or wildlife or
waterfowl refuge, as subject to protection under Section 4(f) of the U S Department of
Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, beyond the de mirnmis impact to Feltonsvdle '
Community Park discussed previously
3 4 9 2 Section 6(0 1
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCF) protects
grant-assisted areas from conversions to uses other than the original intended
purpose It requires replacement of any land improved with LWCF monies that is
converted to non-recreational purposes No public parks or recreation areas funded
with LWCF monies were identified in the FEIS No additional park or recreational '
areas have been identified No public parks or recreation areas funded with LWCF
monies are located within the construction footprint Therefore, there is no use of
Section 6(f) resources '

September 7, 2007 3-32 1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
3 4 10 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
As discussed in the FEIS, construction of the roadway is expected to have a visual
impact on adjacent areas Visual impacts would primarily be due to clearing within the
project's construction limits, grade separations, and interchanges As part of the
protect commitments (Table 19, No 33), NCDOT agreed to consider the following
measures to reduce visual impacts
¦ Integrate landscaping into the protect design to promote visual continuity of
the highway and blend it into the natural landscape to the extent possible,
' Minimize the loss of vegetation, particularly during construction when
equipment access, storage, and staging are required, and
¦ Design any necessary noise attenuation features to be compatible with
surrounding natural features and development
The conversion of the protect from a non-toll to a toll facility would result in minimal
change in the overall visual impact of the protect The addition of toll collection plazas
would slightly alter the visual effects of the roadway in specific locations The toll
collection plazas would each include a small parking area, a small building to house an
emergency electric generator, an overhead structure to hold signs and lighting, and
toll-collection equipment The facility may also include additional pole-mounted
overhead lighting, particularly at toll collection plazas and interchanges, as needed
Specifications for the overhead structure and any additional overhead lighting have not
been determined
3 5 Impacts to the Physical Environment
3 5 1 Hazardous Material and Waste
Hazardous material and waste sites are regulated by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Hazardous waste is generally defined as
any material that has or, when combined with other materials, will have a deleterious
effect on humans or the natural environment Potential hazardous waste sites include
landfills, dumps, pits, lagoons, salvage yards, and industrial sites, as well as above and
below ground storage tanks Service stations are one of the most common generators
of potential hazardous material sites, as older underground storage tanks may
deteriorate and contaminate surrounding soil and groundwater with gasoline
I September 7, 2007 3-33
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Based on information presented in the FEIS (2004), there are no known hazardous
material or waste sites located within the proposed construction footprint However,
there are three hazardous material sites within approximately one-half mile of the
protect corridor They include a hazardous waste site located off of Green Level
Church Road that appears to be cross-gradient to the protect corridor The second is a
Superfund site located approximately 1 0 mile west of NC 55 Bypass north of Holly
Springs This site appears to be upstream of the protect corridor The third site is an
underground storage tank located just west of NC 55 to the south of its intersection
with NC 55 Bypass This site also appears to be upstream of the protect corridor
Figure 12 shows the locations of known hazardous material and waste sites, as
presented in the FEIS No observations of potential hazardous material or waste sites -
were made during natural resources field surveys of the protect corridor conducted in

Fall 2006 No additional hazardous material or waste sites have been identified at this '
time Roadway construction is unlikely to impact any known hazardous material or
waste site
3 5 2 Air Quality
d th
F
k
reeway an
e
e
An air quality impact evaluation was completed for the Western Wa
methodology and findings are detailed in Air Quality Analysis Technical Report (NCTA,
2007c) The following information is summarized from that report
3 5 2 1 Methodology
l
ity
A carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot analysis is a standard requirement for an air qua
impact evaluation and was included in the FEIS For this Reevaluation, anew CO
hotspot analysis was conducted, by analyzing traffic conditions on the freeway,
executing emission factor models, and implementing dispersion modeling techniques
consistent with NCDOT, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources - Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), FHWA, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance Dispersion modeling was
conducted using the EPA's CAL3QHC computer program for predicting the CO
concentrations near roadway intersections CAL3QHC was used to predict total CO
concentrations at the receptor points described in the previous section for each wind
direction analyzed A local background concentration of 2 9 ppm was used based on
NCDENR guidance

Maximum air quality impacts from motor vehicles are most likely to occur near areas
where traffic is congested and vehicles are stopped with their engines idling The CO
hotspot analysis focuses on evaluating potential air quality impacts around the mainline

September 7, 2007 3-34 1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
toll collection facility and around the most congested intersection where drivers are
expected to experience the most delay The air quality impacts for future traffic
conditions are evaluated one representing the conditions in 2011 when the project is
completed, a second for conditions in 2016, 5 years after the project is completed, and
a third representing the design year conditions in 2030 It is noted that the cash toll
collection lanes are expected to be eliminated from service prior to 2030, leaving only
free-flow ETC lanes
In addition to the updated CO hotspot analysis, this Reevaluation also includes a
qualitative analysis of the potential emissions of compounds identified as Mobile
Source Air Toxics (MSATs), in accordance with FHWA guidance issued in 2006 (after
publication of the FEIS and ROD for this project) In addition to the criteria air
pollutants, EPA also regulates air toxics Most air toxics originate from human-made
sources, including diverse sources such as vehicles, airplanes, dry cleaners and
factories or refineries The MSATs are a subset of the 188 air toxics, also referred to
as hazardous air pollutants (HAP), identified by the Clean Air Act (CAA) The MSATs
are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment MSATs
were not considered in the FEIS, but are currently being considered based on FHWA
guidance that was issued after the publication of the FEIS MSATs are addressed
per the FHWA's Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents dated
February 3, 2006
3 5 2 2 Air Quality Status
The EPA and NCDAQ are responsible for the protection of air quality in North Carolina
As a measure for doing this, the EPA established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQSs) for the following air pollutants carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb),
nitrogen dioxide (NO,), sulfur dioxide (SO,), ozone (03), particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter 10 microns or less (PM10), and "fine" particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2 5 microns or less (PM25) The NAAQS are shown in
Table 1
Under the CAA, federal agencies must ensure that their actions conform to the SIP for
achieving these air quality standards in areas that are designated as "non-attainment"
or "maintenance" for those standards This project is located in a non-attainment area
for ozone and a maintenance area for CO The required conformity determination for
those pollutants is discussed in Section 3 5 2 5
September 7, 2007 3-35
r
Table l National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Type of Concentration Concentration
Pollutant Standard Averaging Time (Ng/m3) (ppm)
Carbon Primary 8-hour! 10,000 9

Monoxide
(CO) Primary 1-hours 40,000 35
Nitrogen Primary and Annual Arithmetic 100 0 053
Dioxide (NO2) Secondary Mean

O
O Primary and 1-hour 235 012
3)
zone ( Secondary 8-hour 156 0 08
Particulate Primary and 24-hour 150 -
Matter (PM,o) Secondary
Particulate Primary and Annual (Arithmetic 15 0 pg/m3 -
Matter Secondary Mean)

(PM2 5) Primary and 24 hour 35 pg/m3 -
S
econdary
Primary Annual Arithmetic 80 0 03
Mean

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Primary 24-hour 365 014
Secondary 3-hour 1,300 05
Lead (Pb) Primary and 3 month 1 5 -
Secondary
Ng/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
ppm parts per million
(1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year
(2) Applies only in Early Action Compact Areas
(3) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years
NCDAQ maintains air quality monitors throughout the state for measuring actual
concentrations of regulated air pollutants Each county throughout the state is
designated by EPA as having attained the NAAQS based on collected monitoring data
Wake County is currently in attainment of the NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, PMto, PM2 5 and lead Conformity findings are required only for the following
pollutants
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
C?

I

t

1

September 7, 2007 3-36 1

t

1

1

1

1

¦ Carbon Monoxide (CO) Wake County is currently a maintenance area for
C012 Conformity determination therefore is required for CO NCDAQ
guidance indicates that the average 1-hour background concentration of CO
used for impact modeling analyses in Wake County is 2 9 parts per million
(ppm) As discussed below, the CO hotspot analysis performed for this project
shows that the project conforms to the air quality standard for CO
Ozone After the publication of the FEIS and signing of the ROD, Wake
County was, and is currently, designated a non-attainment area for the 8-hour
ozone standard, effective June 15, 2004 Recent monitoring data (2004-2006)
Indicate that ozone concentrations have dropped Consequently, on June 7,
2007, NCDAQ submitted a request to EPA to re-designate the area to
attainment for ozone However, at the present time, a conformity finding is
required for the 8-hour ozone standard The conformity finding for this
pollutant is discussed in Section 3 5 2 5
3 5 2 3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) `Hotspot"Analysis
While air quality impacts of tail-pipe pollutants can occur along the entire length of a
given roadway segment, the location of maximum air quality impacts usually occurs at
"hot spots" that typically are located in the immediate vicinity of an intersection or other
area where vehicles will congregate The "hot spots" for this project, as identified in the
Air Quality Analysis Technical Report (NCTA, 2007b), are the intersection of Green
Level Road with the ramps to and from Western Wake Freeway and the mainline toll
collection facility
Tables 2 and 3 below show the maximum CO concentrations predicted by the
CAL3QHC dispersion model over the 1- and 8-hour averaging periods, respectively
For each location, the model indicates that the maximum concentrations are expected
to be well below the NAAQS for both the 1-hour period and the 8-hour period
12 A maintenance area refers to a former non-attainment area that has since been re-designated as having
attained the NAAQS The re-designation process requires the regulatory authority to adopt a plan that
implements measures for maintaining the attainment status
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-37

Table 2 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour CO Concentrations (ppm)
Location Opening Year 2011 Operating Year 2016 Design Year 2030
Green Level Road 45 42 43
Mainline Toll Plaza 40 47 49
F?NAAQS. `35 35 35
Table 3 Predicted Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentrations' (ppm)
Location Opening Year 2011 Operating Year 2016 Design Year 2030
Green Level Road 36 33 34
Mainline Toll Plaza 32 37 39
1NAAQS 9 9 9
A persistence tactor of U 79 is used to convert one-nour results to eignt-nour results
Since the maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations for each scenario are shown
to be below the NAAQS, the proposed Western Wake Freeway with toll facilities is not
anticipated to contnbute to a violation of the NAAQS This finding is consistent with the
finding reported in the FEIS that the Western Wake Freeway is not expected to exceed
air quality standards
3 5 2 4 Mobile Source Air Toxics Evaluation
3 5 2 4 1 Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis
This report includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this
project However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-
specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the non-toll or toll
facility Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502 22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information
Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete Evaluating the environmental and
health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several
key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to
estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure
modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and
then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure Each of
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

r.

11

11
1
1
September 7, 2007
3-38 ,
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that
prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project
These shortcomings and uncertainties are described in more detail in the in Air
Quality Analysis Technical Report (NICTA, 2007b), written for this project
3 5 2 4 2 Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information
Because of the uncertainties, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic
emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level While
available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between
alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the
project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the
project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in
estimating health impacts (As noted above, the current emissions model is not
capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects )
Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not
possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have
"significant adverse impacts on the human environment "
Based on an FHWA qualitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the various
alternatives, some of the alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT
emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures
are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions
cannot be estimated
3 5 2 4 3 Qualitative MSAT Evaluation
As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and
uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable
estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project However, even though
reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at
the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT
emissions under the project Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and
measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and
comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions-if any-from the various
alternatives The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a
study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source
Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at
www fhwa dot gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions htm
September 7, 2007 3-39

For each scenario, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle
miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same
for each alternative Because the VMT estimated for the No-Budd Alternative is
approximately the same as for the Budd Alternatives, higher levels of regional MSATs
are not expected from any of the Budd Alternatives compared to the No-Budd (Table 4)
In addition, because the estimated VMT under each of the Budd Alternatives are nearly
the same, varying by less than 0 5 percent (Table 5), it is expected there would be no
appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives Also,
regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions would likely be lower than present
levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are
projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent from 2000 to 2020 Local
conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover,
VMT growth rates, and local control measures However, the magnitude of the EPA-
projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT
emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations
Table 4 Vehicle Miles Traveled by Alternative - Comparison to No-Budd
No-Budd Alternative A Alternative A Difference between No-Budd
Alternative Alternative and
Reevaluated Reevaluated
with Tolls
Alternative A Alternative A
Reevaluated Reevaluated
with Tolls
VMT 75,601,000 75,264,000 75,595,000 -337,000 -6,000
(045%) (001%)
Source Tnangle Regional Model VMT and VHT Calculations, Martin/Alexiou/Bryson May 1,
2007
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

F
LJ
H
n

i

September 7, 2007 3-40
Table 5 Vehicle Miles Traveled - Alternative A Reevaluated verses Alternative A
Reevaluated with Tolls
Alternative A Alternative A Difference
Reevaluated Reevaluated with
Tolls
VMT 75,264,000 75,595,000 331,000 (0 44 %)
Source Triangle Regional Model VMT and VHT Calculations, Martin/Alexiou/Bryson May 1,
2007
Because of the specific characteristics of the project, there may be localized areas
where VMT would increase, and other areas where VMT would decrease Therefore, it
is possible that localized increases and decreases in MSAT emissions may occur The
localized decreases in MSAT emissions would likely be most pronounced along
existing NC 55 The localized increases in MSAT emissions would likely be most
pronounced along the new Western Wake Freeway However, even if these increases
do occur, they too would be substantially reduced in the future due to implementation
of EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations
In summary, for the Budd Alternative in the design year, it is expected there would be
reduced MSAT emissions in the immediate area of the project, relative to the No-Budd
Alternative, due to the reduced VMT associated with more direct routing, and due to
EPA's MSAT reduction programs In comparing various project alternatives, MSAT
levels could be higher in some locations than others, but current tools and science are
not adequate to quantify them However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel
regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, would over time cause substantial reductions
that, in almost all cases, would cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower
than today
3 5 2 5 Transportation Conformity Determination
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
non-attainment area for ozone (03) and maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO)
The area was designated non-attainment for 03 under the eight-hour ozone standard
effective June 15, 2004 Section 176(c) of the CAA requires that transportation plans,
programs, and projects conform to the SIP The current SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures for Wake County The CAMPO 2030 LRTP and the
2007-2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) must conform to
the intent of the SIP CAMPO completed their conformity determination for the
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 341
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
amended 2030 LRTP and MTIP in May 2007 and the USDOT signed a letter of
concurrence on June 29, 2007 The USDOT concurrence letter is included in
Appendix B
3 5 2 6 Qualitative Analysis of Air Quality for NC 55
A result of construction of Western Wake Freeway would be reduced traffic and
congestion on existing alternate non-toll routes, including NC 55, which would be highly
congested if Western Wake Freeway is not built Thus, there would be the benefit of
less traffic on the alternate non-toll routes as compared to the No-Budd condition If
built as a toll facility, some potential users will divert off of the toll facility in order to
avoid paying the toll, and will instead use alternate non-toll routes, as a result, there
would be slightly more traffic on the alternate non-toll routes with the toll facility than
with the non-toll facility, thus, there is a reduced benefit According to the 2030 traffic
forecasts in Traffic Forecasts for the Toll Scenarios for TIP No R-2635, Western Wake
Parkway, Wake County, North Carolina (NCTA, 2007a), the AADT ranges from 1,400
to 2,100 additional vehicles on NC 55 for the toll facility over the non-toll facility It is
likely that this slight increase in traffic volumes on NC 55 with the toll facility would
result in a corresponding slight decrease in the air quality associated with NC 55 (as
compared to the non-toll facility) However, while the benefits of the toll facility may be
lower than the benefits of non-toll facility, due to the diversion of some potential users
onto existing non-toll routes, the toll facility provides benefits sooner and represents an
improvement over the No-Build condition

3 5 3 Noise
The Traffic Noise Report - Western Wake Freeway (NCTA, 2007e) was prepared to
evaluate the traffic noise for the toll facility The analysis follows FHWA's Highway
Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance (1995) and NCDOT's
Traffic Noise Abatement Policy (September 2004) Specifically, the FHWA Traffic '
Noise Model" Version 2 5 (TNM) was used to compare predicted noise levels for the
design year (2030) and year 2006 ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts can be expected from the proposed protect '
Traffic noise impacts were determined from NCDOT's approved policies and
procedures based on its interpretation of FHWA's noise abatement criteria and
procedures as presented in Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) When traffic noise impacts were predicted, the analysis included an evaluation
of alternate noise-abatement measures Per these policies, the date of public
knowledge for this analysis is April 30, 2004, the date FHWA approved the ROD In

September 7, 2007 3-42 1

accordance with these federal and state traffic noise policies, governments are not
responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new developments where
budding permits are issued within the noise impacted area of a proposed highway
1 project after the date of public knowledge Development that received building permits
after April 30, 2004, were not considered for noise abatement
The NCTA commits to, at a minimum, constructing the three noise walls identified in
the FEIS project commitments (Table 19, No 34), one each along the Kelly Glen,
Scotts Mill, and Ashley Downs subdivisions in Apex
3 5 3 1 Standard Noise Criteria
The FHWA has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in the
planning and design of highways to determine if highway noise levels are compatible
with various land uses and the NCDOT has established approved policies and
procedures based on its interpretation of those developed by FHWA A summary of
NCDOT's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land uses is presented in Tables
6 and 7 The receptors within the vicinity of the project limits were classified as B, C or
E
Table 6 Noise Abatement Criteria
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Criteria for Each NCDOT Activity Category
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
(Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to
continue to serve its intended purpose
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries,
and hospitals
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
(Exterior) Category A or B above
D - Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums
Source North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy -September 2004
Noise mitigation measures must be considered when future noise levels either
approach or exceed the criteria levels in Table 6, or if there are substantial increases
over the ambient noise levels The NCDOT defines "approach" as within 1 dBA of the
I September 7, 2007 3-43
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
A-weighted sound level criteria shown in Table 6 The NCDOT considers a substantial
noise increase to occur when predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed
existing noise levels, as defined in Table 7 Title 23 of the CFR, Section 772 11(a)
states, "In determining and abating traffic noise impacts, primary consideration is to be '
given to exterior areas Abatement is usually necessary only where frequent human
use occurs and a lowered noise level would be of benefit "

Table 7 Criteria for Substantial Noise Increase
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA)
Existing Leg(h) Increase
50 or less dBA 15 or more dBA
51 dBA 14 or more dBA
52 dBA 13 or more dBA
53 dBA 12 or more dBA
54 dBA 11 or more dBA
55 or more dBA 10 or more dBA
Source North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy -
September 2004

3 5 3 2 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Abatement Measures
According to the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, traffic noise impacts are
created when the design year traffic noise levels either (1) approach or exceed the
NCDOT noise abatement criteria (NAC) for each appropriate activity category shown in
Table 6, or (2) substantially exceed the existing noise levels by the established criteria
shown in Table 7 For this report, 523 receptors within the study area were analyzed
All are classified as FHWA Activity Category B, C, or E (see Table 6)
'
When traffic noise impacts were predicted, the analysis included an evaluation of
alternate noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating noise impacts
Consideration for noise abatement measures has been given to all impacted receptors
in the project study area Changes to the proposed highway alignment, the addition of
traffic system management measures, the purchase of property for buffer zones and
the use of vegetation were reviewed and considered as not reasonable and/or feasible
abatement measures

September 7, 2007 3-44 1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
TNM 2 5 was used to model noise barriers at noise-sensitive locations The cost of
each barrier was estimated (assuming an approximate cost of $15/ft2) and compared
with the allowable cost per benefited receptor while meeting the minimum noise
reduction goals NCDOT defines benefited receptors as all receptors that, by the
placement of the noise-mitigation measure, receive a minimum noise-level reduction of
5 dBA
Based on the locations of receivers for which future traffic noise impacts are expected,
11 areas were evaluated to determine whether a noise barrier would be reasonable
and feasible Of the 11 noise wall analysis areas, 4 proved to be feasible and
reasonable based on the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy This is an addition
of one noise barrier to the recommendations made in the Design Noise Report -
Western Wake Freeway (NCDOT, 2002b) for this project Barrier numbers 5, 6, and 8
(one each along the Kelly Glen, Scotts Mill, and Ashley Downs subdivisions in Apex)
were recommended in the previous report and are still recommended The additional
noise wall, barrier number 7, is located adjacent to Olive Chapel Elementary School on
the west side of the proposed facility The primary reasons for noise wall
ineffectiveness in other locations are the distance of receivers from the proposed
alignment and the low density of receivers in wall analysis areas Table 8 summarizes
the feasibility and reasonableness of potential noise wall locations, and the locations
are shown in Figures 13 A-D
September 7, 2007 3-45
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Table 8 Feasibility and Reasonableness of Potential Noise Wall Locations
Wall Location / Barrier Barrier Barrier Barrier Barrier Barrier Barrier Barrier
Barrier # #1 #2 #3 #4 #5* #6" #7* #8*
Is wall NO NO YES NO YES YES YES YES
Feasible?
Number of
Receptors 1 2 3 1 62 139 26 42
Impacted
Without Wall
Average 6 4 18 9 21 22 20 21
Decibel
Increase
Number of 0 0 3 0 38 116 26 9
Benefited
Receptors
Allowable Cost $38
000 $36,850 $43,750 $39500 $45,500 $46,000 $45,000 $45,500
Per Benefited ,
Receptor
Wall Length (ft) 866 1558 1670 738 2945 2880 1050 1580
Average Wall 24 24 23 24 222 182 175 17
Height (ft)
Wall Cost ($15 $311,760 $560,880 $576,150 $265,680 $980,685 $803,439a $275,625 $437,325 a
per ft2)
Cost Per --- $192,050 --- $25,808 $6,778 $10,600 $44,767
Benefited
Receptor
Is Wall --- --- NO --- YES YES YES YES
Reasonable)
Recommend NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES
Wall?
September 7, 2007
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Table 8 (continued) Feasibility and Reasonableness of Potential Noise Wall Locations
Wall Location / Barrier # Barrier Barrier Barrier
#9 #10 #11
Is wall Feasible?
Number of Receptors Impacted
Without Wall
Average Decibel Increase
Number of Benefited Receptors
Allowable Cost Per Benefited
Receptor
Wall Length (ft)
Average Wall Height (ft)
Wall Cost ($15 per ft2)
Cost Per Benefited Receptor
Is Wall Reasonable?
Recommend Wall?
YES YES YES
5 4 8
16 12 27
1 1 2
$43,000 $41,000 $48,500
1725 705 1080
20 21 5 21
$516,900 $227,363 $340,200
$516,900 $227,363 $170,100
NO NO NO
NO
NO
NO
*Previously recommended in Design Noise Report - Western Wake Freeway (NCDOT, 2002b)
**Not previously recommended in Design Noise Report - Western Wake Freeway (NCDOT,
2002b), however, it is now reasonable and feasible
a - These costs have been adjusted to reflect costs associated with the longer of the two
recommended wall lengths from either the Design Noise Report - Western Wake Freeway
(NCDOT, 2002b) or from this analysis as reported in Traffic Noise Report - Western Wake
Freeway (NCTA, 2007e)
Noise walls are recommended for barner locations 5, 6, 7, and 8
Barrier No 5 is along the Kelly Glen Subdivision, located between the east side of
Kelly Road and the west side of the Western Wake Freeway The optimized design of
a noise wall that would provide a minimum 5 dBA reduction is approximately 2,945 feet
long with an average height of 22 2 feet There were 80 receptors included in this
barrier analysis Of these, 62 were expected to have future noise impacts A
maximum of 38 receivers are able to receive at least a 5 dBA reduction in noise levels
with a reasonable noise barrier wall Based on the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement
Policy, the noise wall is reasonable and feasible and, therefore, recommended for
September 7, 2007 3-47
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
construction This barrier corresponds to FEIS recommended Barrier No 5 This
updated wall is 82 feet longer and slightly taller than the wall recommended in the FEIS
(2,863 feet) This barrier would be constructed to the new length (the longer of the two
recommended lengths - 2,945 feet) and the new height recommended in the current
analysis
Barrier No 6 is located along the Scotts Mill Subdivision, located between the east side
of the Western Wake Freeway and Scott's Ridge Trail/Magnolia Breeze Court The
optimized design of a noise wall that would provide a minimum 5 dBA reduction is
approximately 2,880 feet long with an average height of 18 2 feet There were 150
receptors included in this barrier analysis Of these, 139 were expected to have future
noise impacts A maximum of 116 receivers are able to receive at least a 5 dBA
reduction in noise levels with a reasonable noise barrier wall Based on the NCDOT
Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the noise wall is reasonable and feasible and,
therefore, recommended for construction This barrier corresponds to FEIS
recommended Barrier No 6 This updated wall is recommended to be 63 feet shorter
and slightly taller than the wall recommended in the FEIS This barrier would be
constructed to the length previously identified in the FEIS (the longer of the two
recommended lengths - 2,943 feet), however, the height would be adjusted to the new
recommendations
f ,
Barrier No 7 is located along Olive Chapel Elementary School The school consists o
a main budding, 14 modular classrooms, and an outdoor playground According to the
NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the playground is defined as a special use '
area and would be exposed to noise levels that exceed the NAC The Olive Chapel
Elementary School website lists the student population as 925 for the 2006-2007
school year The formula provided in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy for '
determining the equivalent number of residents for special use areas was used to
determine cost effectiveness of a noise wall For this analysis, it was assumed that the
students would be impacted while outdoors for 2 hours each day This equates to 26
equivalent receivers for the barrier analysis The calculation is
Equivalent # of Residents = 925 students/3 * (2 hrs per day/ 24 hrs per day) = 26
With a barrier at an average height of 17 5 feet and a length of approximately 1,050
feet, the 26 equivalent receivers were able to receive the minimum 5 dBA noise level
reduction Based on the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the noise wall is
reasonable and feasible and, therefore, recommended for construction This wall
identified in the FEIS
reviousl
was not ,
y
p

September 7, 2007 3-48 1

Barrier No 8 is located along the Ashley Downs Subdivision, located along the east
side of the Western Wake Freeway Forty-two receivers within the Ashley Downs
subdivision would be exposed to noise impacts without a barrier The optimized design
1 of a noise wall that would provide a minimum of 5 dBA reduction is approximately
1,580 feet long with an average height of 17 feet Based on the NCDOT Traffic Noise
Abatement Policy, the noise wall is reasonable and feasible, therefore, recommended
for construction There were 49 receptors included in this barrier analysis Of these,
42 were expected to have future noise impacts A maximum of 9 receivers are able to
experience at least a 5 dBA reduction in noise levels with a reasonable noise barrier
wall This barrier corresponds to FEIS recommended noise Barrier No 7 This
updated wall is recommended to be 135 feet shorter in length and slightly shorter in
height than the wall recommended in the FEIS This barrier will be constructed to the
length previously identified in the FEIS (the longer of the two recommended lengths -
1,715 feet), however, the height would be adjusted to the new recommendations

I

The two schools evaluated were Olive Chapel Elementary School and Panther Creek
High School A noise barrier is recommended adjacent to Olive Chapel Elementary
School However, budding permits for Panther Creek High School were issued
subsequent to the date of public knowledge for the project, and therefore it was not
considered for barrier analysis
Per NCDOT's Traffic Noise Abatement Policy (September 2004), the opinions of first
row property owners will be requested prior to making a final determination on the
noise abatement measures A positive consensus from these first row property owners
will finalize the recommendation to construct noise walls at locations Nos 5, 6, 7 and 8
NCTA will coordinate with the first row property owners at a specific location(s),
regarding alternate noise abatement measures, if a negative consensus is reached
3 5 3 3 Intenor Noise Levels at Sensitive Receivers
Two churches were classified as Category E receivers and were evaluated for interior
noise impacts Both Calvary Deliverance Church and Guard in Christ Jesus Church
were initially evaluated as Category B receivers to determine if exterior noise impacts
would be expected Upon field observations, no exterior areas of frequent human use
were identified at either location Additionally, church activities are not typically
associated with peak travel periods For example, at Calvary Deliverance Church,
Sunday services begin at 10 00 a m , Tuesday services begin at 7 30 p m and
Thursday services begin at 8 00 p m Due to these observations, both churches were
then evaluated as Category E uses for interior traffic noise impacts According to the
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance dated
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-49
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
June 1995, the noise reduction factor for the Calvary Deliverance Church budding is
25 dB The church is a masonry structure and was considered to have single glazed
windows The projected interior noise level for the church is determined by subtracting
the noise reduction factor from the predicted exterior noise level The expected interior
noise level for Calvary Deliverance Church is 46 dBA (71 minus 25) This noise level
falls short of approaching or exceeding the interior noise level threshold in the NAC
The noise reduction factor for Guard in Christ Jesus Church is 20 dB The church is a
light frame structure with ordinary sash windows The projected interior noise level for
this church is 41 dBA (61 minus 20) Therefore, in the analysis year 2030, neither
church is expected to be exposed to interior noise levels that exceed the NAC
3 5 3 4 Noise Contours - Information to Assist Local Governments
In accordance with federal and state traffic noise policies, governments are not
responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new developments where

budding permits are issued within the noise impacted area of a proposed highway ,
project after the date of public knowledge (for this project it is April 30, 2004) To aid
local governments in planning for future development, impact zones are calculated and
represented as noise "contours " Traffic noise "contours" are shown in this analysis as
estimated distances from the center of the median of the proposed facility where a
receptor could expect to be exposed to traffic noise approaching 67 dBA They apply '
to Category B (Table 6) land uses Traffic noise contours approaching 67 dBA range
from 480 feet to 531 feet from the center line of the roadway for the proposed toll
facility
3 5 3 5 Traffic Noise Comparison Alternative A versus Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls
Alt
t
ll
f
ive
or
erna
as
This section presents traffic noise information for Alternative A as we
A Reevaluated with Tolls The results of the Alternative A noise analysis are
documented in the FEIS The detailed technical analysis for Alternative A can be
found in Design Noise Report - Western Wake Freeway (2002b)
Noise analysis for all alternatives was based on FHWA's 1995 Highway Traffic Noise ,
Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance However, the Alternative A analysis
was based on NCDOT's Traffic Noise and Abatement Policy that existed prior to
September 2004, while the analysis of the toll facility is based on the updated
September 2004 Policy Further, the Alternative A analysis utilized TNM 2 0 while the
toll facility analysis utilizes the updated TNM 2 5 The design year for Alternative A
was 2025 while the design year for the toll facility is 2030 ,
1
September 7, 2007 3-50 1

1 The traffic noise analysis for Alternative A contained 13 barrier analysis areas versus
11 for the toll facility Due to sparse development in proximity to Ramps B and D of the
US 64/Western Wake Freeway interchange, barrier analysis for these two areas are
' not included for the toll facility All other areas analyzed for barriers are the same
between Alternative A and the toll facility The 2002 traffic noise analysis for
Alternative A recommended three noise barriers for construction versus four barriers
recommended in the analysis for the toll facility The additional barrier is adjoining
Olive Chapel Elementary School and is recommended for the toll facility due to
changes in NCDOT policy rather than to design features of the toll facility The
NCDOT Policy in effect until September 2004 had no specific methodology for
assessing noise impacts to schools The updated policy considers schools a "special
use area" and makes it more likely that noise walls would be cost-effective The other
three recommended noise barriers for the toll facility are the same as the three
identified for Alternative A While the dimensions (length and height) of these three
barriers may vary slightly between Alternative A and the toll facility, the benefited
receivers identified for Alternative A would also benefit with the toll facility
' Predicted ADT for Alternative A ranged from 82,000 to 113,500 and from 62,800 to
91,200 for the toll facility, which represents an approximate 20 percent reduction in
traffic due to tolling Ranges for noise levels at measurement locations that were
' common to both Alternative A and the current analysis were 48 dBA to 68 dBA for
Alternative A and 59 dBA to 67 dBA for the toll facility Measured noise levels in the
overall project area ranged from 43 dBA to 70 dBA for Alternative A and from 34 dBA
to 71 dBA for the toll facility Noise contour ranges where exterior sound levels
approach 67 dBA for Land Use Category B receivers were 300 feet to 855 feet for
Alternative A and 480 feet to 531 feet for the toll facility
Alternative A evaluated 414 receivers and found 389 of them to have noise impacts
The toll facility evaluated 523 receivers and found 451 to be impacted The larger
' number of receivers evaluated and impacted for the toll facility is mostly a function of
increased development within the project corridor from the time the noise analysis was
' completed for Alternative Ain 2002
Due to differences in methodologies, the noise impact analyses between Alternative A
' and toll facility are not directly comparable However, when comparing non-toll versus
toll versions of the current design, it is reasonable to expect that reduced traffic
volumes associated with the toll facility would equate to less traffic noise Non-toll and
' toll traffic volumes (for the same roadway) are inherently different due to traffic
diversion that occurs when users intentionally avoid toll roads in favor of existing non-
toll alternate routes Therefore, the conclusion in a noise impact comparison between
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-51
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
toll and non-toll versions of any roadway, where the only difference is tolling, is that the
toll road will have less traffic and an accompanying reduction in traffic noise
3 5 3 6 Qualitative Assessment of Traffic Noise for NC 55 ,
A result of construction of Western Wake Freeway would be reduced traffic and
congestion on existing alternate non-toll routes, including NC 55, which would be highly
congested if Western Wake Freeway is not built Thus, there would be the benefit of
less traffic on the alternate non-toll routes as compared to the No-Build condition If
built as a toll facility, some potential users will divert off of the toll facility in order to
avoid paying the toll and instead will use an existing alternate non-toll route, such as
NC 55 As a result, there would be slightly more traffic on NC 55 with implementation
of the toll facility than with the non-toll facility This diversion results in a reduced
benefit According to the 2030 traffic forecasts in Traffic Forecasts for the Toll
Scenanos for TIP No R-2635, Western Wake Parkway, Wake County, North Carolina

(NCTA, 2007a), the AADT on NC 55 with the toll facility would range from 27,000 to '
43,700 vehicles and with the non-toll facility the AADT on NC 55 would range from
28,400 to 45,800 vehicles It is likely that this slight increase in traffic volumes on
NC 55 with the toll facility would result in a corresponding slight increase in traffic noise
associated with NC 55 (as compared to the non-toll facility) However, while the
benefits of the toll facility on NC 55 may be lower than the benefits of the non-toll
facility, due to the diversion of some potential users onto existing non-toll routes, the
toll facility provides benefits sooner and represents an improvement over the No-Budd
condition
3 5 4 Prime and Unique Farmlands
b
d f
or ur
an
As noted in the FEIS, the Western Wake Freeway study area is planne
development by Wake County and the towns of Apex, Cary, and Holly Springs Prime
and unique farmland sods in areas planned for urban land uses are not protected under '
the Farmland Protection Policy Act There are no impacts to prime and unique
farmland sods
,
3 6 Impacts to Natural Environment
3 6 1 Biotic Communities
As defined in the FEIS (2004), terrestrial plant communities within the study area are
represented by seven mayor community types mixed hardwood forest, bottomland
hardwood forest, pine forest, successional, cutover, urban/disturbed, and agricultural

September 7, 2007 3-52

As noted in the FEIS, loss of habitat would be the primary adverse impact to biotic or
plant communities as a result of the proposed freeway Acreage estimates of biotic
communities occurring within the approximate construction limits from the FEIS were
' estimated based on the line-Intercept method 13 Additional areas were computed at
proposed interchange locations Utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS) and
aerial photography from Wake County (2005), the area of each biotic community within
the protect footprint was updated Table 9 compares the impacts from Alternative A,
and non-toll and toll facilities
Table 9 Impacts to Biotic Communities

11
Community Type Alternative A (FEIS)*
(acres) Alternative A
Reevaluated (acres) Alternative A
Reevaluated with
Tolls (acres)
Mixed Hardwood Forest 2247 1954 2071
Bottomland Hardwood
Forest 288 852 872
Pine Forest 137 2339 2438
Successional 368 152 152
Cutover 237 890 924
Urban/Disturbed 2101 2092 2122
Agricultural 767 593 671
TOTAL 6145 8872 9250
* - As noted in the FEIS this impact summary is based on the functional design completed during
the DEIS studies
' Based on the current designs, the non-toll facility would impact a total of 887 2 acres of
biotic communities, which is 272 7 acres greater than Alternative A in the FEIS This
' 272 7-acre difference is primarily due to progression in the protect design such as the
inclusion of increased median width, the recommended 3 1 cut-slopes, and
development of the hydraulic design, it also reflects the inclusion, as part of this
protect, of an area previously associated with STIP Protect No R-2000, due to
changes in construction limits (see footnote 4 in section 1 2)

13 The line-intercept method is a data gathering method that identifies and quantifies the communities that
intercept a line, in this case the proposed project centerline

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-53

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
The toll facility would impact 925 acres, which is 37 8 acres (4 26 percent) greater than
the non-toll facility This difference reflects the expanded footprint needed for the
addition of toll plazas
3 6 2 Protected Species
3 6 2 1 Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been or are in the process of decline due to
either natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans Federal law, under the
provisions of Section 7 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) The USFWS list
(May 10, 2007) of known populations of federally protected species for Wake County is
discussed below and included in Table 10
Table 10 Federally Protected Species Listed for Wake County
Protected Species Federal/State Habitat On-Site Availability Biological
Status in Preference Conclusion
Wake County
Hahaeetus Delisted - Mature forests Preferred habitat does not exist No Effect
leucocepha/us Federal' near large in the project corridor
bodies of
(Bald Eagle) E - State water
Picoides borealis E - Federal Mature open Preferred habitat is very sparse No Effect
forests, mainly throughout the area No known
(Red-cockaded E - State longleaf pine clusters lie within a 1-mile radius
woodpecker) of the project corridor
Rhus michauwi E - Federal In Piedmont - Preferred habitat is available in No Effect
clayey sods in the project corridor
(Michaux's sumac) E/SC - State woodland, and
woodland
edges
Alasmidonta E - Federal Stable silt-free This species is not known from No Effect
heterodon streambed the Cape Fear River Basin,
E -State therefore, there is no habitat in
(Dwarf wedgemussel) the project footprint
Source u5Fw5, luut
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
SC - Species of Concern
- The USFWS has published the Final Rule to delist the bald eagle, effective date August 8, 2007
Surveys associated with the environmental planning of this project for these four
protected species were conducted in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004 and 2006 The

1

I

September 7, 2007
3-54

surveys were conducted according to the applicable protocols in effect during those
years The specific methodologies and other details of these surveys are documented
in the following reports completed for NCDOT Natural Systems Report - Western
Wake Freeway (1997), Protected Species Report - Western Wake Freeway
Environmental Impact Statement (1998), DEIS (1999), FE IS (2004), Addendum to the
Natural Systems Report of 1997 (2004c), and Jurisdictional Waters Revenfication
' Report - Western Wake Freeway (2006) The latest surveys (performed in 2006) were
conducted to provide NCDOT, in coordination with NCTA, with updated protected
species information in order to complete the Section 404 permit application (discussed
in section 6 2 1)
No populations of the four protected species have been observed in the project corridor
during these surveys A determination of "No Effect14" has been made for the Western
Wake Freeway and these four species Verbal concurrence regarding the "No Effect"
' conclusions was received from the USFWS during the Turnpike Environmental Agency
Coordination (TEAC) meeting on January 17, 2007 The meeting minutes from this
TEAC meeting are included in Appendix G
The USFWS has delisted the bald eagle in the lower 48 states of the United States
from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife, effective August 8, 2007
Prior to delisting, the bald eagle had been listed as a threatened species The Final
Rule pertaining to the determination of recovery and delisting of the bald eagle was
published in the July 9, 2007 Federal Register (Part 111 50 CFR Part 17) The bald
eagle will continue to be protected by the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and populations will continue to be monitored for at
least another five years under provisions of the Endangered Species Act
3 6 2 2 Federal Species of Concern
Sixteen Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are also listed for Wake County (Table 11)
Three of these species are new listings since the FEIS These new species for the
county are indicated in bold text in Table 11 Habitat for 12 of the FSC, including two
' 14 It should be noted that USFWS general policy indicates that a May effect-not likely to adversely effect"
conclusion is the standard conclusion when habitat is available for protected wildlife, as is the case for the
red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) However, the surveys and subsequent conclusions were completed in
accordance with the USFWS Red-cockaded woodpecker (P1coides borealis) Recovery Plan, Second
Revision, January 2003 Appendix 4 of this plan stipulates that if surveys are conducted as specified and "
no active clusters are found, then a 'no effect' determination is appropriate " It should also be noted that "No
Effect" is the standard conclusion for protected plants when surveys have been conducted in the available
preferred habitat during the appropriate survey window and no individuals of the plant were found
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-55

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
of the newly added species, occurs within the study area The FSCs are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered
Table l l Federal Species of Concern Listed for Wake County
Species Federal/State Habitat Preference On-Site Availability
Status in
Wake County
Vertebrates
Aimophda aestivalis FSC - Federal Abandoned fields with Habitat is available in the
(Bachman's sparrow) SC - State scattered shrubs, pines, or project footprint
oaks
Amblophtes cawforns FSC - Federal Freshwater streams with Species is not found in
(Roanoke bass) deep, swift water Prefers Cape Fear River Basin
SR - State slightly turbid and/or dark
swamp water
Anguilla rostrata FSC - Federal Freshwater streams with Habitat is available in the
(American eel) primarily muddy project footprint
Not Listed - substrates
State
Etheostoma collies FSC - Federal Sluggish to calm, clear to Habitat is available in the
lepidinion slightly turbid creeks and project footprint
(Carolina darter) Not Listed in small rivers with a bed of
County -State mud, sand, and rock
Heterodon simus FSC - Federal Flatwoods on coarse sands Habitat is not available in the
(Southern hognose SC - State or porous loamy sods project footprint
snake)
Lythrurus matutinus FSC - Federal Tar and Neuse drainages Species is not found in Cape
(Pinewoods shiner) Not Listed in Fear River Basin
County - State
Myotis austronpanus FSC - Federal Caves, buildings, hollow Habitat is available in the
(Southeastern myotis) SC - State trees, and sewers project footprint
Notuns funosus FSC - Federal Tar and Neuse drainages Species is not found in Cape
(Carolina madtom) SC (PT) - State Fear River Basin
Invertebrates
Elliptio lanceolata FSC - Federal Clean, coarse to medium Habitat is available in the
(Yellow lance) E - State sized sandy substrates project footprint
Fusconaia mason FSC - Federal Coarse sand and gravel at Habitat is available in the
(Atlantic pigtoe) E - State the downstream edges of project footprint
riffle areas
Lasmigona subwndus FSC - Federal Gravel or sandy substrates in Habitat is available in the
(Green floater) E - State medium or small streams project footprint

?J

F
L

1

'I
L?
September 7, 2007
3-56

I

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Table 11 (continued) Federal Species of Concern Listed for Wake County
Species Federal/State Habitat Preference On-Site Availability
Status in Wake
County
Speyena diana FSC - Federal Forested valleys with moist Habitat is available in the
(Diana fritillary butterfly) SR - State rich sod project footprint
Plants
Lindera subconacea FSC - Federal Bogs and riparian habitats Habitat is available in the
(Bog spicebush) T - State project footprint
Monotropsis odorata FSC - Federal Dry forests and bluffs Habitat is available in the
(Sweet pinesap) SR-T - State project footprint
Sagittana FSC - Federal Shallow water wetlands Habitat is available in the
weatherbiana such as beaver ponds project footprint
(Grassleaf arrowhead) SR-T -State
Tn16um pusdlum var FSC - Federal Ecotones between Habitat is available in the
virgintanum E - State savannahs and non-nvenne project footprint
(Virginia least trillium) wet hardwood forests
bource uw-vvs, zuut ana Norin uarouna uepartment or environment ana Naturai resources - rvaturai ventage r-rogram,
2007
SC - Special Concern
SR - Significantly Rare
PT - Proposed Threatened
-T - Throughout
3 6 3 Water Resources
Jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U S were originally delineated for the
Preferred Alternative corridor in 2001, with minor areas requiring additional surveys in
2002 and 2004 (due to design modifications) The compilation of these data was
presented in the FEIS Due to the age of the original delineations and development
altering the natural landscape in western Wake County, the wetlands in the project
corridor were redellneated during Fall 2006 Jurisdictional wetlands were identified
using the three-parameter approach (hydrophytlc vegetation, hydrlc soils, and
hydrology) as outlined in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual Supplementary technical literature describing the parameters of hydrophytlc
vegetation, hydrlc soils, and hydrological indicators was also utilized Evaluations of
each wetland were conducted using the Fourth Version of the Guidance for Rating the
Values of Wetlands in North Carolina (North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources - Division of Environmental Management [NCDEM], 1995)
Potential streams were evaluated for the presence or absence of an established bed
and bank, substrate, vegetation within channel and perennial or intermittent hydrology
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of
1 September 7, 2007 3-57

Reevaluation Report

Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Water Quality's (NCDWQ) Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams, Version 3 1 (NCDWQ, 2005) was used to make stream
determination on all new channels and any previously delineated channel that was
deemed to have changed since the original delineation
The recent fieldwork found that, within the 2006 survey area, approximately 25 percent
of the wetlands, ponds and streams previously delineated have been altered, primarily
due to changes in hydrology (e g , increase in impervious surface and beaver activity)
The USACE, joined by NCDWQ, field verified the updated jurisdictional waters survey
for the project on November 30, 2006 Verbal concurrence for the updated survey was
,
received from the USACE at that time The following discussion of impacts to streams
and surface waters and to jurisdictional wetlands is based on information gathered
during November 2006 Additional details and copies of the various data sheets from ,
the Fall 2006 redelineation of jurisdictional waters are included in Jurisdictional Waters
Revenfication Report - Western Wake Freeway (NCDOT, 2006) Tables from that

report provide additional details of the characteristics of the streams, ponds, and '
wetlands in the project comdor and are included in Appendix H
3 6 3 1 Water Qualtty
All streams, creeks, and tributaries within the study area are part of the Cape Fear I
River Basin
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213 0311, the NCDWQ has classified the water quality ,
of the state's surface waters The classifications are based on the "best usage" of each
waterbody, determined through water quality and land use studies, and input received
in public hearings The best use classification for the waters in the study area has not
changed since the FEIS All receiving waters south of Old US 1 are listed for Class C
uses, which denotes waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture The waters north of Old US 1 are ,
classified as WS-IV, meaning waters protected for water supply within a moderately to
highly developed watershed Point source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted and local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of ,
pollution are required These waters are also classified as nutrient sensitive waters
(NSW), which require limitations on nutrient inputs There are no High Quality Waters
(HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) in
the project area
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of water quality monitoring
stations, strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality

September 7, 2007 3-58 1

data, which help determine a waterbody's classification and corresponding water
quality standards The AMS determines how well a waterbody supports its designated
uses There are no data available for the majority of the streams in the project corridor,
therefore, there is no rating There is only one AMS information monitoring site in the
project vicinity The station is located on White Oak Creek, approximately 3 0 miles
downstream of the project corridor Due to lack of water during the summer months,
' this stream is currently listed as "not rated" (NCDWQ, 2004)
' Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a
comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waters The list includes waters
impaired by pollutants, such as nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria, and
' by pollution, such as hydromodification and habitat degradation The source of
impairment might be from point sources, nonpomt sources, or atmospheric deposition
There are no 303(d) listed waters in the project footprint or within 1 mile downstream of
' the protect corridor (NCDWQ, 2006a)
3 6 3 2 Streams and Surface Waters
' Major streams, defined as a stream draining a watershed of at least 1 square mile, that
occur within the project footprint include Little Branch, Big Branch, Reedy Branch and
Bachelor Branch as free flowing streams Beaver Creek, White Oak Creek, and
Panther Creek are also major streams, but they are currently impounded as beaver
ponds Bridges are currently planned to span Beaver Creek, Jack Branch, White Oak
Creek, and Panther Creek
Figure 14 identifies the jurisdictional streams impacted by the non-toll and toll facilities
Table 12 notes the length of impact for each stream, including the impacts for
Alternative A as reported in the FEIS

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-59

Reevaluation Report Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Table 12 Length of Stream Impacted
Stream ID
No Alternative A (FEIS)
(linear feet) Alternative A
Reevaluated
(linear feet * Alternative A
Reevaluated with
Tolls linear feet *
1 412 431 431
2 208 - -
3 357 411 411
4 243 262 262
5 185 334 334
6 1,688 1,591 1,596
7 633 508 508
7 - 163 162
8 241 262 262
9 126 441 441
13 746 650 650
21 498 500 500
22 20 36 36
24 746 1,020 1,020
27 - 1,187 1,187
28 896 153 153
29 -- 105 105
30 - 31 31
31 398 475 475
32 303 380 491
33 415 429 448
35 - 30 30
37 421 492 492
38 334 550 550
39 177 620 620
41 260 548 548
42 394 607 607
45 - 157 157
46 60 283 283
47 185 211 211
49 - 27 27
51 - 175 175
54 - 237 237
55 - 752 752
56 - 3 46
57a 285 284 284
59 67 63 63
60 - 119 119
92 - 65 65

J

['I

September 7, 2007 3-60
J

Table 12 (continued) Length of Stream Impacted
Stream ID
No Alternative A (FEIS)
(linear feet) Alternative A
Reevaluated
linear feet * Alternative A
Reevaluated with
Tolls linear feet *
93 - 312 312
94 - 29 29
5a 340 - -
TOTAL 10,637 14,934- 15,113**
' a - Identified as stream #17 in the FEIS
b - Identified as stream #4a in the FEIS
* - As noted in Section 1 6, the designs for each roadway section have not progressed to the same point,
thus to be conservative in the estimation of impacts different offsets and assumptions were applied to each
roadway section or alternative to better reflect the level of completion in each section's design These
quantities are based on the following offsets and assumptions Sections A and B (both Alternative A
Reevaluated and Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls) - 15 feet beyond the slope-stake line, Sections A, B
and C at locations of toll plazas (Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls) - 20 feet beyond the slope-stake line,
Section C (Alternative A Reevaluated) - 10 feet beyond the slope-stake line or the edge of the Temporary
Drainage Easement (TDE), Section C (Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls) - 10 feet beyond the slope-
stake line or the edge of the TDE for areas where the design is the same as for the Alternative A
Reevaluated In areas where the Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls design does not match the
' Alternative A Reevaluated design - 20 feet beyond the slope-stake line Sections of streams that are
located within an interchange are counted as an impact if less than a 100-foot, continuous section remains
after the offset is applied This information is based on the design as of January 17, 2007
** - Upon review of TDEs along the project footprint, it was noted that the redelineation surveys for
' wetlands and stream completed in Fall 2006 needed to be expanded to include additional project area
Additional area was reviewed in February 2007, and the additional stream reaches from this 2007 survey
have been added to the table
' Based on the current designs for each facility, the non-toll facility would impact
approximately 14,934 linear feet of stream channel, which is 4,297 feet more than
Alternative A in the FEIS The toll facility would impact approximately 15,113 linear
' feet of stream channel, which is approximately 179 linear feet greater than the non-toll
facility, due to the additional footprint needed for the toll plazas
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
In the FEIS, it was noted that based on preliminary designs, the Alternative A would
impact an estimated 10,637 linear feet of streams (impacts calculated to 10 feet
' beyond the slope-stake line) Several factors have been identified as the primary
causes for increases in the total quantity of impacts, compared to those identified in ___?
the FEIS, for the non-toll facility These factors for the non-toll facility include
changes in stream length (which is primarily due to changes in hydrology such as
increased impervious surface from development), increased offset assumptions
beyond the slope-stake line for estimation of impacts, and the progression of design
development In addition, for Alternative A Reevaluated, some stream impacts
originally included with STIP Project No R-2000 are now included in this project due
to changes in construction limits (see footnote 4 in section 1 2)
September 7, 2007 3-61

Figure 14 Identifies the ponds (open waters generally encountered as man-made
impoundments) Impacted by the project Table 13 notes the area of impact for each
pond for Alternative A, and the non-toll and toll facilities
Table 13 Area of Ponds Impacted
Pond ID Number Alternative A (FEIS)
(acres) Alternative A
Reevaluated (acres)' Alternative A
Reevaluated with
Tolls (acres)
3 0 87 0 87 0 87
4 1 13 1 13 1 13
5 0 74 0 74 0 74
6 057 067 067
8 058 015 017
10 000 001 004
11 1 85 1 85 1 85
14 1 20 1 20 1 20
25 013 0 00 0 00
26 0 78 0 78 0 78
31 1 14 1 14 1 14
34 1 07 3 48 3 48
TOTAL 11 09 12 02 12 07
- As noted in Section 1 6 the designs for each roadway section have not progressed to the same point thus
to be conservative in the estimation of impacts different offsets and assumptions were applied to each roadway
section or alternative to better reflect the level of completion in each section's design These quantities are
based on the following offsets and assumptions Sections A and B (both Alternative A Reevaluated and
Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls) - 15 feet beyond the slope-stake line, Sections A, B and C at locations of
toll plazas (Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls) - 20 feet beyond the slope-stake line, Section C (Alternative A
Reevaluated) - 10 feet beyond the slope-stake line or the edge of the TIDE, Section C (Alternative A
Reevaluated with Tolls) - 10 feet beyond the slope-stake line or the edge of the TDE for areas where the
design is the same as for Alternative A Reevaluated In areas where the Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls
design does not match the Alternative A Reevaluated design - 20 feet beyond the slope-stake line This
information is based on the design as of January 17, 2007
Based on the current designs, the non-toll facility would impact approximately 12 02
acres of ponds, which is 0 93 acre greater than Alternative A in the FEIS Several
factors have been identified as the primary causes for increases in the total quantity
of impacts, compared to those identified in the FEIS for the non-toll facility These
factors for the non-toll facility include the progression of design development and
increased offset assumptions beyond the slope-stake line for estimation of impacts
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

1

17
L

September 7, 2007
3-62
i
i
i
The toll facility would impact approximately 12 07 acres, which is 0 05 acre greater
than the non-toll facility, due to the additional footprint needed for the toll plazas
3 6 3 3 Junsdictional Wetlands
As noted previously in this report, the jurisdictional wetlands for the project were
revenfied during Fall 2006 The following information is based on this updated
delineation Figure 14 illustrates the jurisdictional wetlands impacted by the project
Table 14 notes the area of impact for each wetland for Alternative A, and the non-toll
and toll facilities
Table 14 Area of Jurisdictional Wetlands Impacted

Wetland ID No Alternative A (FEIS)
(acres) Alternative A
Reevaluated (acres)* Alternative A
Reevaluated with
Tolls (acres)*
2 008 019 019
3 1 88 1 03 1 03
7 0 22 0 37 0 37
8 0 03 0 03 0 03
11 0 02 0 05 0 05
12 002 003 003
14 0 56 0 53 0 53
19 003 003 003
20 0 08 010 010
21 1 02 1 02 1 02
22 2 71 2 70 2 70
27 0 22 0 26 0 26
30 0 02 0 04 004
31 001 006 006
33 1 07 1 23 1 23
35 0 01 0 01 0 01
36 0 06 0 06 0 06
38 0 09 018 018
39 - 0 06 0 06
September 7, 2007
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
3-63
Reevaluation Report
Table 14 (continued) Area of Jurisdictional Wetlands Impacted

Wetland ID No Alternative A (FEIS)
(acres) Alternative A
Reevaluated (acres)` Alternative A
Reevaluated with
Tolls (acres)
40 - 0 29 0 35
42 - 010 010
43 013 013 013
44 0 29 0 35 0 35
45 0 01 - -
48 0 10 0 23 0 23
49 0 27 0 82 0 82
51 009 036 036
53 0 29 0 32 0 36
60 1 91 0 99 0 99
63 019 0 50 0 50
64/65 0 37 1 60 1 60
68/69 2 50 2 06 2 06
71 - 012 012
72 -- 001 001
73 -- 0 45 0 45
74 -- 0 58 0 58
82 - 0 14 0 14
84 - 0 18 0 22
86 - 0 53 0 77
87 - 0 55 0 55
88 - Oil Oil
89 0 06 0 06
90 0 12 0 12
91 - 1 06 1 06
92 - 012 012
TOTAL 14 50 1976 2014
' - To be conservative in disclosure and to better allow for a full review of the potential impacts of the project,
these quantities have been updated to reflect the information included in the 404/401 Permit Application
submitted to the USACE and to NCDWQ on August 27, 2007
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
11
September 7, 2007
' Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
' Based on the current designs, the non-toll facility would impact approximately 19 76
acres of jurisdictional wetlands, which is 5 26 acres greater than the 14 50 acres under
Alternative A The toll facility would impact an additional 0 38 acre of jurisdictional
' wetlands, compared to the non-toll facility, due to the additional footprint needed for the
toll plazas
' In the FEIS, it was noted that based on preliminary designs, Alternative A would impact
an estimated 14 50 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (impacts calculated to 10 feet
beyond the slope-stake line) Several factors have been identified as the primary
causes for increases in the total quantity of impacts, compared to those identified in
the FEIS for the non-toll facility These factors for the non-toll facility include newly
formed wetlands (which are primarily due to changes in hydrology such as increased
impervious surface from development), continued beaver activity, increased offset
assumptions beyond the slope-stake line for estimation of impacts, and the
progression of design development In addition, for Alternative A Reevaluated, some
wetland impacts originally included with STIP Project No R-2000 are now included in
this project due to changes in construction limits (see footnote 4 in section 1 2)
' 3 6 3 4 Wetlands and Surface Water Mitigation
' The USACE, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), has adopted a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
' biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the United States Mitigation of
jurisdictional wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include avoidance of
wetland impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time,
' and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508 20) Each of these three techniques
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered in
sequential order, with compensation considered only after all other avenues for
' reducing impacts have been exhausted
It was noted in the ROD (2004) that the preliminary design for Alternative A was
' adjusted to avoid wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable and to minimize
impacts to unavoidable wetland systems Wetland minimization was incorporated into
the preliminary design by bridging the White Oak Creek and Beaver Creek crossings
' Based on the outcome of the Fall 2006 redelineation of jurisdictional waters and an
assessment of hydraulic constraints, bridges have been added at two additional
' locations The first additional bridge, located at wetland #60 (beaver impoundment of
Jack Branch), would be approximately 270 feet long, and the second additional bridge,
located at wetland #68/69 (beaver impoundment of Panther Creek), would also be
1
September 7, 2007 3-65
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
approximately 270 feet long These two additional bridges would further minimize the I
total wetlands impacted by 2 55 acres
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters ,
of the United States are avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters
of the United States, specifically wetlands In general, such actions should be in areas '
adjacent to or contiguous to the protect site, if possible However, there is little
opportunity in the immediate vicinity of the Western Wake Freeway protect footprint for
on-site wetland mitigation As noted in the FEIS, "Most of the mitigation potential in the '
study corridor is preservation There are limited opportunities for wetland
enhancement and the creation of stormwater wetlands " Based on this assessment
and a review of the protect footprint by the NCDOT On-site Mitigation Group, there are ,
no plans for on-site wetland mitigation There is also little opportunity in the immediate
vicinity of the protect footprint for on-site stream mitigation As noted in the FEIS, "One

perennial stream (No 29), a northern tributary of Reedy Branch located immediately '
south of US 64, was determined to have moderate to high potential mitigation value "
As shown in the current design plans for Section C, on-site mitigation as stream

channel relocation is being utilized at this location The NCDOT On-site Mitigation '
Group has reviewed the protect footprint and no additional sites have been identified
for on-site stream mitigation for Sections A or B
Under consultation with the USACE, mitigation requirements for impacted delineated
wetlands would be determined and included as conditions of the Section 404 permit ,
approval It is anticipated that compensation for unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands would be mitigated through a payment-in-lieu to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Ecosystem Enhancement '
Program (EEP) NCTA is coordinating with the USACE, NCDOT and EEP to address
the mitigation needs for the protect The current plan would track mitigation needs
through NCDOT's MOA with EEP, but NCTA would pay for the mitigation via the in- '
lieu-fee program under the EEP MOU with the USACE
3 6 4 Floodplains and Floodways ,
As noted in the FEIS, a floodway and floodplam evaluation was conducted in
accordance with Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management and 23 CFR 650, '
Subpart A Wake County, Raleigh, Cary, and Apex are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The NFIP defines a floodplain as any land area '
susceptible to being inundated by water In NFIP regular program communities, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with other federal
September 7, 2007 3-66

agencies and state and local governments, conducts detailed flood studies to
determine designated floodways to safely remove floodwater during flood events
These studies result in floodway boundaries which are illustrated on Flood Insurance
' Rate Maps (FIRM) The information obtained through these studies is utilized by local
jurisdictions in their land development ordinances and regulations to discourage
development in flood prone areas
Table 15 provides a description of the floodplains within the study area as included in
the FEIS As noted in the FEIS, Alternative A would unavoidably encroach upon the
100-year flood plains (as defined by FEMA), of several area streams In addition the
FEIS notes that the designated flood hazard zones of Big Branch, Beaver Creek, White
Oak Creek, Clark Branch, Jack Branch, Bachelor Branch, and Panther Creek would be
impacted
Executive Order 11988 prohibits floodplain encroachments which are uneconomic,
hazardous, or result in incompatible uses of the floodplain, as well as any action which
would cause a critical interruption of an emergency transportation facility, a substantial
flood risk, or adverse impact on the flood plain's natural resource values For the FEIS,
the impacts of the encroachment of the drainage structures on the 100-year floodplain
were assessed through the use of hydraulic design techniques described in 23 CFR
650, Subpart A Structures at that time were sized to ensure that no increases to the
extent and level of flood hazard risk would result from such encroachments Therefore,
Alternative A was not anticipated to result in uneconomic, hazardous, or incompatible
' uses of any of the study area floodplains
The FIRMs that include the project corridor were updated in May 2006 These maps
were obtained as DFIRMs (Digital FIRMS) through the North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program Figure 15 illustrates these updated DFIRMs and the project
footprint15 Updated descriptions of the floodplains within the study area, based on the
DFIRMs, are included in Table 15 The additional footprint needed for the toll plazas
does not encroach on floodplains
7
15 Definitions of DFIRM defined areas as identified on Figure 15 Zone AE -Special flood hazard area
subject to inundation by the 1 % annual chance flood where base flood elevations have been determined
Floodway - The channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of
encroachment so that the 1 % annual chance flood can be camed without substantial increases in flood
height Zone X (future) -Areas of future conditions 1% annual chance flood
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-67

Reevaluation Report

Western Wake Freeway

Wake County '
STIP Project No R-2635
Table 15 Estimated 100-Year Floodplaln Encroachment ,

Altemative A' (FEIS) Alternative A Reevaluated with Tollsb

,
100 Yr Stream 100 Yr Stream
Floodplaln Width Flood Elevation Width Flood Elevation
feet Elevation* feet (MSL)° feet Elevation feet (MSL)c '
feet (MSL)° feet
(NAVD88)'
Harris Reservoir Tributaryd - - - 270 ft 300 ft 290 ft
'
Little Branch' 164 ft 299 ft * 280 ft - - -
Big Branch 427 ft 302 ft * 280 ft 350 ft 298 ft 280 ft '
Reedy Branch Tributary 164 ft 306 ft * 290 ft 163 ft 310 ft 290 ft
(future) (future) '
Beaver Creek 656 ft 281 ft 270 ft 960 ft 281 ft 270 ft
Jack Branch 427 ft 300 ft * 290 ft 367 ft 293 ft 290 ft
,
White Oak Creek 558 ft 298 ft * 290 ft 552 ft 285 ft 290 ft
Bachelor Branch 328 ft 302 ft * 290 ft 894 ft 300 ft 290 ft
'
Panther Creek 492 ft 278 ft 270 ft 493 ft 275 ft 270 ft
Morris Branch t - - - 175 ft 287 ft 280 ft
,
a - As reported in the FEIS Source FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Wake County and Incorporated Area
b - Source Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps, North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, 2006 The additional footprint needed for
the toll plazas does not encroach on floodplains

c -The FIRMs used in the FEIS reported data in feet (MSL [above mean sea level]) The DFIRMs report data in feet (NAVD88 [North '
America Vertical Data 1988]) These are not equivalent units of vertical measurement
d - A Hams Reservoir Tributary floodplain was not identified in the FEIS, however, one is now included on the current DFIRMs

e - A Little Branch floodplain was identified in the FEIS, however, one is not included on the current DFIRMs '
f - A Morris Branch floodplain was not identified in the FEIS, however, one is now included on the current DFIRMs
* - The 100-year floodplains along some streams were determined by indirect methods and the flood elevations are not enumerated on the '
FEMA maps For these elevations, FEMA maps were compared to USGS topography maps and the elevation at the edge of the
floodplain was estimated

Based on a review of information illustrated on the DFIRMs, the base flood elevations
and/or the estimated 100-year floodplain encroachment widths have changed since the

FEIS Because of these changes a series of Conditional Letters of Map Revision '
(CLOMR) are being prepared The additional footprint needed for the toll plazas does

September 7, 2007 3-68 1

1

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
not encroach on floodplains Based on the current level of design for Section C of the
toll facility, CLOMRs have been prepared for the encroachments at Jack Branch,
Bachelor Branch, Panther Creek, and Morris Branch The Design-Budd team will be
responsible for any Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) needed for Section C Based on
the current level of design for Sections A and B of the toll facility, CLOMRs are likely to
be needed for the encroachments at Big Branch and Beaver Creek The Design-Budd
team will be responsible for any CLOMRs or LOMRs needed for Sections A or B
3 7 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
371 FEIS Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
A qualitative assessment, as noted in Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment -
TIP No R-2635 (NCDOT, 2003a), was conducted in July 2003 for Western Wake
Freeway as a non-toll facility, and summarized in the FEIS The qualitative
assessment determined that induced development from the project is not likely, and
that development would occur within the study area with or without the project A shift
in development patterns is anticipated to occur, with less intense land uses
transitiornng to more intense commercial, office, retail and higher density residential
uses in the vicinity of the proposed interchanges Land use plans indicate that new
development is desirable in the interchange areas The FEIS also noted indirect
and/or cumulative impacts to several specific areas Impacts to the Green Level
Historic District, Feltonsvdle and the Twyla Road neighborhood are expected due
primarily to proximity of these areas to proposed interchanges In addition, intense
development would result in increased impervious surface coverage, increased
stormwater runoff, and a greater chance for non-point source pollution However, the
qualitative assessment noted that local governments have regulations in place to
mitigate potential water quality impacts
3 7 2 Updated Western Wake Freeway Land Use Analysis
As part of this Reevaluation, a quantitative land use analysis evaluated the effects of
constructing Western Wake Freeway as a toll facility rather than a non-toll facility (Land
Use Analysis - TIP Project No R-2635, NCTA, 2007f) This land use analysis
considers land use changes that have occurred since the FEIS was completed In
accordance with the eight-step process identified in Guidance forAssessing Indirect
and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina (NCDOT and
NCDENR, November 2001), a Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) was defined for
Western Wake Freeway This GISA is an area in which indirect and cumulative effects
are likely to occur Urbanized areas, arterial alignments, natural features, and
September 7, 2007 3-69
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway ,
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
commutesheds were taken into account when developing the GISA The boundaries '
of the GISA that were established for this protect include 1-40 in the north, Jordan Lake
in the west, and Davis Drive, US 64, and Lake Wheeler in the east The southern
boundary extends approximately 7 miles, or a 15-minute drive time, from the southern '
terminus of the protect This is where commuters would experience the greatest travel
time savings It is not anticipated that any measurable growth resulting from the
Western Wake Freeway would occur outside of the GISA '
Research has shown that the land development effects of a new highway largely occur
within 7 to 10 years after construction is complete (Cervero, 2003) A 2030 planning '
horizon was assumed for this analysis, consistent with the socio-economic data from
the CAMPO 2030 TRM used for forecasting residential and non-residential growth '
Since the Western Wake Freeway would be constructed by 2011, the 2030 planning
horizon offers ample time to study land use changes following construction
Other transportation protects included in this assessment are part of the 2030 CAMPO '
TRM model They include NCDOT STIP protects, which include NCTA Toll Candidate
Protects (STIP Protect Nos R-2000AA and AB, and STIP Protect No U-476313), and '
protects included in CAMPO's and DCHC-MPO's fiscally constrained LRTPs All
protects included in this assessment are located in the GISA
The key conclusions of the land use analysis are t
Indications are that the Triangle region, which encompasses the GISA, would '
continue to grow at a relatively fast pace The North Carolina State
Demographics Unit indicates that between 2000 and 2030, the populations in
Durham, Chatham and Wake Counties are expected to grow 48 3 percent, '
74 1 percent, and 123 7 percent, respectively The population growth rates
for Chatham and Wake Counties are relatively high when compared to North
Carolina as a whole (50 2 percent) during the same time period
¦ Non-residential development within the GISA has historically been centered
along NC 55 and US 64 Residential development has occurred throughout '
the GISA, but those areas with greater access to these roads (and US 1) have
grown at a faster pace Development is likely occurring in these areas
because land is available, water and sewer are available, and land has
,
traditionally been more affordable than land in the City of Raleigh
¦ In general, the municipalities and counties (Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Vanna, Holly '
Springs, Morrisville and the counties of Chatham, Durham and Wake) within

September 7, 2007 3-70

17

the GISA encourage new development, as long as the development is
compatible with adopted plans for growth and is consistent with development
regulations Many of the towns and counties have residential density limits
based on the suitability of the land for development In addition,
environmental regulations are in place to protect natural resources,
particularly water resources
There is a high potential for a shift in development patterns throughout the
GISA While some of this potential for change is related to construction of the
Western Wake Freeway, rapid growth and development is already occurring
even without the project because the region is an attractive place to live and
work In addition, there is plenty of developable land and water and sewer
services are readily available
' The construction of the Western Wake Freeway, whether as a toll facility or a
non-toll facility, would likely enhance the attractiveness of western Wake
County as a place to live and work It may accelerate growth to a certain
' extent, and planners suggest that some of the residential and non-residential
development that is currently planned may be reliant on construction of the
facility

1
1

Municipal and county planning staff generally agreed that development
patterns are not likely to be substantially different if the road is constructed as
a toll facility or a non-toll facility Non-residential development would still be
concentrated at the proposed interchanges and along mayor feeder roadways,
and residential development would be spread throughout the GISA, as
described in the FEIS
3 7 3 Overland Pollutant Loading Analysis
The Land Use Analysis - TIP Project No R-2635 (NCTA, 2007f) was used to support a
quantitative pollutant loading modeling analysis for NCDOT in order to obtain the
Section 404/401 (of the Clean Water Act) permit (Indirect and Cumulative Impact
Report Overland Pollutant Loading Analysis, NCDOT, 2007b) The hydrologic analysis
area, developed in collaboration with the NCDOT and the NCDWQ, included the
Middle Creek and the Kenneth Creek watersheds due to the presence of sensitive
state- and federally-listed aquatic species A portion of the GISA overlapped most of
the Middle Creek watershed and a small portion of the Kenneth Creek watershed
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-71
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
This watershed analysis evaluated two future scenarios (1) year 2030 protected '
growth without the Western Wake Freeway, and (2) year 2030 protected growth with
the Western Wake Freeway and proposed induced development specifically
attributable to Western Wake Freeway Both future scenarios included reductions ,
resulting from current and possible Best Management Practices, including Phase I and
Phase II stormwater controls and riparian buffers mandated by municipal ordinances
The analysis concluded that, by year 2030, modeling of land use derived from '
predicted growth indicates that the Western Wake Freeway and associated
development would result in a change of less than 1 percent over ambient growth, '
absent the Western Wake Freeway, for all modeled pollutants
3 7 4 Conclusion '
3 7 4 1 Indirect Impacts
The Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment - TIP No R-2635 (NCDOT, 2003a)
and the Land Use Analysis - TIP Project No R-2635 (NCTA, 2007f) both determined

that the Western Wake Freeway would shift development in western Wake County, '
with more intense development occurring at proposed interchange locations While the
timing of development may be affected, the protect would not substantially induce

development in the area Overall, this shift in land use patterns would result in similar '
impacts whether Western Wake Freeway was built as a non-toll or toll facility Based
on the land use and watershed analyses, implementing the Western Wake Freeway as ,
a toll facility as compared to a non-toll facility would result in similar indirect impacts
Specifically, indirect impacts to neighborhoods (Feltonsville, Twyla Road
neighborhood, and the Green Level Historic District) and water quality resulting from '
Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls would be similar to those stated in the FEIS for
Alternative A
'
3 7 4 2 Cumulative Impacts
Besides the Western Wake Freeway, there are several other STIP protects proposed '
in the GISA that will help to improve mobility through the protect area, including the
Triangle Parkway and the Southern Wake Freeway Direct impacts associated with
Triangle Parkway will be disclosed in an Environmental Assessment underway by '
NCTA As stated in Section 3 2 1, NCDOT is in the initial planning and environmental
stages for the Southern Wake Freeway '
L
September 7, 2007 3-72
u

' The Western Wake Freeway along with the Southern and Eastern Wake Freeways are
elements of the planned Outer Wake Expressway, a multi-lane high speed facility that
will provide enhanced system linkage with major radial routes in the Raleigh area,
' including 1-40, NC 54, NC 55, US 64, and US 1 and US 401 The Outer Wake
Expressway will provide improved connections to several Wake County towns,
including Raleigh, Cary, Morrisville, Apex, Holly Springs, Fuquay-Varna and
Knightdale Upon completion, the Outer Wake Expressway will reduce traffic volumes
on 1-440 (Raleigh Beltline), 1-40, NC 55 and other arterial roads by providing an
alternate route for local and through traffic
Completed in July 2007, the Northern Wake Expressway extends from US 64 in
' Knightdale to NC 55 near RTP and forms the northern portion of the Outer Wake
Expressway The environmental impacts were documented in Northern Wake
Expressway, from NC 55 near Morrisville to US 64 Near Knightdale, Wake and
' Durham Counties, North Carolina, Final Environmental Impact Statement (1990) The
EIS identified impacts on cemeteries, community cohesion, biotic communities, water
resources, noise impacts and residential and business displacements The impacts
' associated with the addition of a toll plaza on a section of the Northern Wake
Expressway--between NC 55 and NC 54--is under study by NCTA and will be
disclosed in a future environmental document
' Potential cumulative effects resulting from the Western Wake Freeway can be
determined through a comprehensive analysis of factors, such as impacts from other
t STIP protects in the vicinity, regional development trends, and broader environmental
policies related to water resource, air quality, and habitat protection The majority of
potential cumulative effects related to other reasonably foreseeable transportation
' projects -- a comprehensive listing can be found in Appendix A of Land Use Analysis,
TIP Project No R-2635 (NCTA, 2007f) -- are most notable for land use and water
quality Many of the municipalities and counties within the GISA have residential
' density limits based on the suitability of the land for development In addition,
environmental regulations are in place to protect natural resources, particularly water
resources A comprehensive cumulative effects assessment will be conducted for the
Southern and Eastern Wake Freeways as part of their environmental documents
Most of the recent development has been occurring within RTP and within the western
' and southern portions of the GISA The nature of that development is residential
(including single and multi-family homes) and commercial (including highway-related
' growth, shopping centers and professional offices)

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-73

Reevaluation Report
u
Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Examples of ongoing and planned development within the GISA include the following '
¦ Cameron Pond A 143 acre Cameron Pond development near Western Wake
Freeway and Carpenter Fire Station Road, which will consist of 421 dwelling ,
units as well as recreational uses,
¦ Amberly A 1,100 acre mixed use development located west of Western '
Wake Freeway along Yates Store Road that will feature nearly 2,900 dwelling
units, over 300,000 square feet of non-residential development and
recreational uses, and
¦ Cary Park A 480 acre Park mixed use development located west of Western
'
Wake Freeway at the intersection of Green Level to Durham Road and Cary
Glen Boulevard that will feature 2,500 dwelling units, over 240,000 square
feet of non-residential development and recreational uses
All three developments are in varying stages of construction
Due to the attractiveness of the Triangle Region as a place to live and work and the ,
presence of abundant land and water/sewer service, development is anticipated to
continue in these areas, with or without the Western Wake Freeway and regardless of '
whether the project is a toll or non-toll facility
The protect, combined with other reasonably foreseeable transportation protects, will '
cumulatively benefit transportation in the Triangle Region by reducing congestion on
local roadways and enhancing the intrastate transportation system If one (or more) of
these protects is built as a toll facility, some potential users will divert off of the toll '
facility in order to avoid paying the toll and instead will use alternate non-toll routes
For example, there is projected to be from 1,400 to 2,100 additional vehicles on NC 55
with Western Wake Freeway implemented as a toll facility than if Western Wake '
Freeway is implemented as a non-toll facility This diversion of traffic from a toll facility
to existing non-toll routes results in a reduced benefit
3 8 Summary of Impacts
Table 16 is a summary of new information and/or changes in protected impacts since ,
the FEIS associated with implementing the project as a toll facility A brief explanation
of these changes is included in the table Table 17 is a quantitative summary of '
impacts as reported in the FEIS for Altemative A and current impacts for Alternative A
Reevaluated with Tolls

September 7, 2007 3-74
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Table 16 New Information or Changes in Project Impacts
Section of
Change in Project Concept Change in Affected Environment
Reevaluation Significant New Impacts
(Toll Plazas) or New Information
Report
341 The toll facility would require users Population and income levels No The toll facility may reduce
Socioeconomic to pay a toll to use the facility, continue to increase in the project the benefits of the protect for some
Issues where FEIS assumed the facility study area users, but even with tolling, the
would be free project provides a benefit to users
of all income levels by reducing
congestion on NC 55 and
providing a new transportation
option
342 The addition of toll plazas slightly Several land use plans have been No Protect continues to be
Land Use and increases the project footprint updated Western Wake Freeway consistent with local land use
Planning continues to be consistent with all plans
updated plans
343 Two additional relocations are No new residential or business No Relocations due to the project
Relocations necessary due to the additional construction has occurred within have increased from 46 to 48
footprint needed for the toll plazas the project footprint
No other additional relocations
were identified
There potentially will be two land-
locked parcels due to the
additional footprint needed for the
toll plazas
344 The toll facility would require users Two additional 'pockets" of No The toll facility may reduce
Environmental to pay a toll to use the facility, minority populations have been the benefits of project for some
Justice where the FEIS assumed the identified, but they are not close to users, but even with tolling, the
facility would be free This could the protect corridor and they would project provides a benefit to users
reduce usage by low-income be affected equally by the non-toll of all income levels by reducing
users or toll facilities congestion on NC 55 and
providing a new transportation
option
3451 The additional footprint needed for Two schools (in addition to the 12 No The two new schools are not
Schools the toll plazas does not impact any identified in FEIS) have opened impacted by the project
schools within 1/2 mile of corridor None of
these schools are within the
protect footprint
September 7, 2007 3-75
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Table 16 (continued) New Information or Changes in Project Impacts
Section of
Change in Project Concept
Change in Affected Environment
Reevaluation Significant New Impacts?
(Toll Plazas) or New Information
Report
352 Tolling may affect traffic volumes There has been a regional change No New CO hotspot analysis and
Air Quality and flow, which may affect air in air quality status, the area was regional emissions analysis found
emissions designated as non-attainment for project conforms to air quality
8-hour ozone standard in June standards
New CO hotspot analysis has 2004 (after the ROD)
been done to assess impacts no Reevaluation includes qualitative
violations found New FHWA guidance on MSATs MSAT analysis as required by new
was issued in 2006 FHWA guidance
New regional emissions analysis
was done for ozone, project
conforms to the intent of the SIP
353 Tolling may affect traffic volumes There has been additional No Tolling does not increase
Noise and flow, which may affect noise development outside the corridor noise impacts and may reduce
levels A new noise analysis was since 2005, resulting in additional them Additional development in
done following current NCDOT and homes that may be noise vicinity of project may result in
FHWA procedures impacted As a result, there would additional noise impacts compared
be more noise-impacted homes to 2004 FEIS, but mitigation is not
than estimated in the FEIS required because development
occurred after date of public
However, under NCDOT policy, knowledge
noise mitigation is not provided for
development after the date of All existing NCDOT noise
public knowledge" which is the mitigation commitments are being
date of the ROD retained One additional noise
barrier is recommended based on
an analysis which is consistent
with the revised NCDOT Traffic
Noise Abatement Policy and not
due to increased impacts
354 Project is in urban area so analysis No change No Impacts are unchanged
Prime and of prime and unique farmlands is
Unique Farmland not required
361 The additional footprint needed for Acreage estimates for each biotic No These communities are
Biotic the toll plazas increased impacts to community were updated using common in Wake County Impacts
Communities biotic communities by additional GIS mapping and aerial imagery to biotic communities are higher
37 8 acres This is an additional from 2005 Habitat impacts were than in the FEIS due to a range of
4 26 percent increase in area re-computed Overall habitat factors, such as increased median
beyond the area needed for the impacts increased from that width, lengthened cut slopes, and
non-toll facility reported in the FEIS The other factors related to the
increase is primarily due to progression of design Differences
progression in the project design between the non-toll facility and
such as the inclusion of increased the toll 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 Protect No
R-2000 due to changes in
construction limits (see footnote 4
in section 1 2)
September 7, 2007 3-78 J

1 Table 16 (continued) New Information or Changes in Protect Impacts
I

1
r

i
t
11

1

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
Section of
Change in Protect Concept
Change in Affected Environment
Reevaluation Significant New Impacts?
(Toll Plazas) or New Information
Report
3621 No change Additional surveys were performed No USFWS has concurred in
Federally in 2006 to update protected finding of no effect" to federally
Protected species information USFWS listed species
Species concurred in 2007 finding of 'no
effect" for federally listed species
Bald eagle has been de-listed as a
threatened species
3622 No change Federal protections Three new species of concern No Federal protections do not
Federal Species do not apply to species of concern have been identified for Wake apply to species of concern
of Concern County since FEIS was issued
363 The additional footprint needed for New delineations were done in No Water resource impacts are
Water Resources the toll plazas slightly increases 2006 to determine waters subject higher than in FEIS, due to a
water resource impacts as to federal jurisdiction USACE has range of factors, such as newly
compared to the non-toll facility accepted the revenfication report formed wetlands, increased offset
assumptions, and the progression
Project design has advanced, of design Differences between
resulting in more refined impact the non-toll facility and the toll
estimates facility are minor
Additional bridges have been
added in two locations to minimize
impacts on wetlands
364 The additional footprint needed for Flood maps were updated in 2006 No Four CLOMRs have been
Floodplains and the toll plazas has not encroached Base flood elevations and/or the prepared for the encroachments at
Floodways on floodplains or floodways estimated 100-year floodplain Jack Branch, Bachelor Branch,
encroachment widths have Panther Creek, and Morris Branch
changed since the FEIS Based on the current level of
design for Sections A and B, two
additional CLOMRs are likely to be
needed Additional CLOMRs and/
or LOMRs would be prepared by
the Design-Build team, as needed
September 7, 2007 3-79

Reevaluation Report
I
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Table 17 Summary of Impacts
Alternative A Alternative A Reevaluated
Factors (Preferred Alternative from with Tolls
FEIS
Length in miles 124 126
Number of interchanges 5 5
Number of railroad crossings 1 1
Number of toll plazas - 11
Total costs $252,162,000 $540,000,000 to $965,000,000
Residential relocations 46 48
Business relocations 0 0
Schools impacted 0 0
Parks impacted 02 12
Churches impacted 0 0
Cemeteries impacted 1 1
Electric transmission lines 1 1
crossed
Gas lines crossed 3 5
Water lines crossed 5 10
Sewer lines 8 11
National Register districts 1 1
adversely affected
Archaeology sites adversely 0 0
affected
Hazardous materials sites in 0 0
the footprint
Number of receivers
(residential and commercial) 389 451
negatively impacted by noise
Number of receivers
negatively impacted after the 279 262
installation of noise barriers
Prime and unique farmland in 0 0
acres
Upland natural systems in 3277 6457
acres
Wetland natural systems in 14 50 2014
acres

t

7

1
I
t
s

t

September 7, 2007 3-80

a
i
t,

I

1
C

Table 17 (continued) Summary of Impacts
Alternative A Alternative A Reevaluated
Factors (Preferred Alternative from with Tolls
FEIS
Man-dominated systems in 2868 2793
acres
Stream crossings 28 29
Stream impacts in linear feet 10,637 15,113
Pond impacts in acres 11 09 12 07
I impacts notea for Hiternauve Aare as nuteu in the rmo anuivr upuaieu wim uuvnnauvn Nivvluau 111 Ulu
ROD (In general, impacts are based on preliminary designs [including 78-foot median] and wetland stream
delineations prepared for Alternative A in 2001 Relocations are based on Right-of-Way Estimate Report dated
June 20, 2002, and Relocation Report dated August 1, 2002 However, some impacts are based on the
functional designs and a 46-foot median )
2 No impacts to parks were noted in the FEIS, however, a new survey of Feltonsvtlle Community Park
found that a small amount of land - previously believed to have been acquired for highway nght-of-way - was
still park property A finding of "de m1nimis" impacts has been made for this sliver of park property, and the
official with jurisdiction has concurred
3 Upland natural systems describes all non-wetland areas in the project footprint that are not human-
dominated (i a residential lawns and/or agricultural lands), including bottomland hardwood forests
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 3-81
C

Reevaluation Report

Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

Table 18 (continued) Updated Roadway Design Criteria
Design Factors Alignment Recommended Standards
Horizontal Design Speed Min Radius emax
Alignment L- 70 mph 1,630 ft 010
-Y- lines, Loops and 30 mph 214 ft 0 08
Ramps 40 mph 444 ft 0 08
50 mph 758 ft 0 08
60 mph 1,200 ft 0 08
70 mph 1,810 ft 0 08 _
40 mph 585 ft 0 06
50 mph 833 ft 0 06
60 mph 1,330 ft 0 06
70 mph 2,040 ft 0 06
ADT Average Daily Traffic FDPS Full Depth Paved Shoulder
* The paved shoulders may be adjusted for truck traffic if requirements are met
** The paved shoulder policy only requires the -L- median paved shoulder width to be 4' FDPS Twelve-foot full depth paved
shoulders were used in anticipation of future lanes being added in the median
Source A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004 AASHTO, NCDOT Roadway Design Manual, 2002a
Information may change based on Roadway Policy and AASHTO updates
In addition, the toll collection plazas would each include a small parking area, a small
building to house an emergency electric generator, an overhead structure to hold signs
and lighting, and toll-collection equipment The facility may also include additional
pole-mounted overhead lighting, particularly at toll collection plazas and interchanges, t
as needed Specifications for the overhead structure and any additional overhead
lighting have not been determined E-
4 2 Revised Alignment and Right-of-Way
r-;
As noted in Section 1 6, both Alternative A Reevaluated and Alternative A Reevaluated '
with Tolls are within the study corridor for Alternative A and follow the alignment
established within the corridor as discussed in the ROD There is no change inI
alignment from previous environmental documents
The FEIS and ROD note that a right-of-way width of 300 feet would be required This,
statement is still valid However, there would be some minimal widening of the right-of-
way to accommodate the designs for the mainline toll plaza and ramp toll plazas
Additionally, some minimal widening of the right-of way would be required to `;,'
accommodate the flatter 3 1 cut-slope recommended for the project This widening of
the right-of-way to accommodate the revision of the cut-slope is applicable to both the
Alternative A Reevaluated and Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls ?l
I
September 7, 2007 4-4

I

t

1
1

1
t

4 3 Non-Conforming Design Elements, and Variations and Exceptions
The design exception process documents the economic, physical, social, or
environmental constraints that prevent the application of a specific highway design
criterion or standard There are no anticipated design exceptions identified for this
project based on the current design for either the non-toll or toll facilities
4 4 Changes in Major Drainage Structures
As noted in Section 3 6 3 4, based on the outcome of the Fall 2006 redelineation of
jurisdictional waters and an assessment of hydraulic constraints, bridges would be
added at two additional locations, in addition to the bridges identified in the FEIS and
ROD The first additional bridge would be located at wetland #60 (beaver
impoundment of Jack Branch) and is planned to be 270 feet in length The second
additional bridge would be located at wetland #68/69 (beaver impoundment of Panther
Creek) and is also planned to be 270 feet long At the TEAC meeting on December
15, 2006, the possibility of bridges at these two locations was presented It was noted
that based on prior agency coordination, two culverts had been approved at these
locations NCDOT, which is assisting NCTA with the hydraulics design, stated that
their planned approach for designing these bridges was to size them to meet the
hydraulic needs at the sites and that they would not likely span the entire wetland at
either location No objections were raised by the resource agencies to this approach
for the proposed additional bridges at Jack Branch or Panther Creek The meeting
minutes for the December 15, 2006, TEAC meeting are included in Appendix G
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
I September 7, 2007 4-5

5 Project Commitments
5 1 Previous Protect Commitments
' Table 19 lists the protect commitments as included m the ROD There have been no
changes to these previous commitments Additional information has been included in
Table 19 on the status of these commitments' implementation
5 2 New Protect Commitments
Additional commitments have been made by NCTA for the protect and are described in
the following paragraphs
5 2 1 Commitment No 37 -Archaeological Site Assessment
Archaeological site assessment would be conducted by the Design-Budd team, as
' needed, on lands disturbed for protect construction located outside of the currently
anticipated construction footprint These disturbed lands include those needed for
alignment shifts, borrow pits, and staging areas It has been added to Table 19 as
commitment number 37
5 2 2 Commitment No 38 - Grade Separation
This commitment was made by NCDOT in 2004 and is documented in correspondence
dated January 8, 2004 It was not included in previous commitment table published
with the FEIS or ROD It reads as follows "The Department will consider adding a
grade separation at Zeno Road extension (currently called Beaver Creek Drive) within
the Western Wake Freeway protect if Zeno Road extension has been constructed on
each side of the Western Wake Freeway The Zeno Road extension construction
would have to be completed or underway by the time the Western Wake Freeway
nght-of-way acquisition begins in March 2006 " Coordination among NCTA, with
NCDOT, and the Town of Apex is ongoing Current correspondence is included in
Appendix I This commitment has been added to Table 19 as commitment number
38
5 2 3 Commitment No 39 - Additional Bridges
Based on the outcome of the Fall 2006 redelineation of jurisdictional waters and an
assessment of hydraulic constraints, bridges are being added at two additional
r
September 7, 2007
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
5-1

Reevaluation Report

Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
locations The first additional bridge, located at wetland #60 (beaver impoundment of
Jack Branch), would be approximately 270 feet long, and the second additional bridge,
located at wetland #68/69 (beaver impoundment of Panther Creek), would also be
approximately 270 feet long This commitment has been added to Table 19 as
commitment number 39
5 2 4 Commitment No 40 - Additional Noise Barrier
One additional noise barrier, beyond those noted in commitment No 34, will be
constructed along the western boundary of Western Wake Freeway adjacent to Olive
Chapel Elementary School This commitment has been added to Table 19 as
commitment number 40
These additional commitments have been included at the end of Table 19

1

I
September 7, 2007 5-2 1

Li

t
t

1
1

d
3
C
d
Q
C
w

Q
0
M
t0
?

N ?.
CO)

c a)
m
m
c U
C9 MW OOM
cn 3 V ?' 00 N
C a)Z?F-,v
E U-F- cyco

E - Om OZ
`
A
O Z 7
3:
0
d
O
U IX d
V O V O^ O
as d? d ?a
y v?iw Oaa
o a
N
IL
Of 'O 'a

d y
U.

H ?

U)

Ln
to
U
Z
E
O
U-
0
0
N
ti
N
N
7
3
Q
0
0
O
N
3
w
N
w
R
n
D
c
O
f!!
V
D
O
O
V
a)
L
C
V
d
C
N
co
c
E
E
E
O
V
o XT D
;0 Y 70 ts
m s a ?_ m a a
° o t ° E 3 o c
Z a
)
a) U)
C c c a
o 2 a) c
3
o .2 a) a) `? a)
c E
O c 0 o
°) c 0
o 0 o E L
o p rn w c°n a) v F- c c

m
'
a)
m 0 ` Q)
o
0
0) z O L Q O _
a)
2 N ; 0
-

c L n
) c
E
° .
L E
' o 0.
L°O
>" ° N n o ?' a)
c- O U co
C c
o 7 w "
° o
a L) c a
' 3
U o m v)

(D
W 0.

O 0
D
a) c

0
L
CD
'a `a) o
-°
o
-NO (D
0 m
0) m
Q E
2
Co 0 L a
)
.
C 2 p m
cn '° a) o )
a c >
O O O E 0
rn j a)
O O U CL,
E m e ? a) 0) O SQ U 00 3 C O U d 'O
N E E o

0>
c E
CU Z w a)
0 L) 0 C a)
c
o `a a)
c c
o m c ° . '
0 -E
m ° o c_
d W m > W U) °
U) 0)-o CO 0 0 w E co
te
°
O W C 5) O~ m o
U U c
0 a7 c a
)
co L c c W 0

m CO u
cu c (D
Q) a) C)
cn
Y LL (n
a) N a) w 0
L 0?
_O

N
a)
0 tz
p
>6 N
c>
> =
D
:3 E
?+ U a)
w h
(n
co
i

X- U
0
0 o C
) ° a)
a 0 LL a)
w +
m E u
c a)
C
0
cn
O
U) (L Z
- a . O
-0
.L

a) ED
° c U
c (a Lo p a) a) ° o g rn m e
E
ca
E 3 cu
-
O)
a --° T
$ U 0
a) o c
0 > a) a)
co w a) c 0 o m cn
m o N c
j
U _
C C 0 cn 0
m -0 N m F- 0) U E W to y C ca

z L m m 3
c° Q 0)
c Q
° V c
o O c cn
p-0 C cow a)
m am 3 3
0
o w `O aa)) U c,
u) °
(D
c m c
to 8 C 0
Z Co c)
o o cn o o
V E 0 L Z
U F- a7 0
-° E N
a3
d a) 0
-°
(n m as .O V-.
O
c
c (n
d `? 2 ° c cn c 0 c
0 Z a) FL F- c c
N 0
cn
w Q 5
F- (D 0 L 0 _)
U a)
L o Q U 0 U)
F- c 0? .0 aCy) 2
7 p a) E
a) °U U E W L C L U) a) a
L C U C 3 U U -p m 75 U
a5 O
W Z n W F- W F- p w cn Q c? Z as m? Q Z ca
.0 cu 0
m
n
O O
0 0
> m Z 0 L
Z
? _ w
> EL.
a) co
c
cn o) a) co
c W Q p w
caU o cm
U) c ° C7
O` CU
c U
f0 ? d L m
0) -ca
m p) c Z o
a)
w w E O E
- O U) cu
o >
c 0 `-> o (m
- o
`0 W Ln a) a
w >,z) E E a)
c " a) U U) aa))
o Q w cn ° c
o U _ a) as
U)
?mL
L)
7 C
n LL En W
E U a) Z
0) 3 c = M >'
_ (n
E > a) ? W
0 m c o c
° CL o > o
p O
Q 3 U W U
V5
U ?
N N
C U
O a)
U a
C N
O ?
w
U U
w D
cn O
C CL
U a)
o
O
a ate)
as
w ?
7 a)
0
U
L a)
U
= N C
3 ° o
Z o a)
CD .= -
(n -0
(D_ m o
C U
L ?
a)
C N w
a)
L 3 O
Ln 0
LL c m
U o
p o) a)
.0
L
cn
F-
N
N
d
°
co
C CD U
O)
D U)
U L w
0 U 00
C 7
L N
m
0 3
m d N
m U
p U .?.
Q o
cn to
C N U
N N ?
U a C o
c M _
> m cn m
m E a) O
c
m ) L
a
>
° o a m
2 m
C
n o
E o a
c?N_t5 >'
m E 3
_ C
3 E o 5
0)
c o
c
-o Z, -0 m
m` U 3 c°o
M Iv
U
E
y
v
c
a)
O
p
N
m
3
a
c
a)
0 'D
"O a3
E
U O_
a 0
-W
F- U
O Q
p (n
z p
0) L
c --
3 w
O 3
O
c
F- 'o
U °
Z L)
0
0
cC
7
U)
a)
N
as
c
a)
3
C
N
E a)
C
am
N W
= O
3 cn
to °-
°
CL
U
`o >
m "
() Q
as U)
O O
3 c
0 0
O U
O
z
LO
M
LO
L

c c
a> N
° E
> m
o m w a) m
-C °
U O
? 'd N E 0 E 0 C c O
E ?m0
.0 C o
C N J
`? Co O Z
O a) C N
E U N
m
Cu
70 0)
y CL
> m '0 m2 LL
m E
O
m 0 E C Q' 3 0 m CO O
6 Q E
C)
U N a) 0
- a r C O
m ?' Q d
(n N E i
-o
_
L
p
N O C6 O U o
O
c y .a U cn
a O a
L_ LL U O
_ M
m w N ° 0 o oc a)
°
3 m o O°
"a
N Q)
Q L a)
v 12 U LL to
a) CD - M
3 O
C) Q`
o O m' C
H O c 3
O O O
O °°?
a) C O fn m N N Y C O
3 ?°
0) Q C :3
to Q J F-
O`
m E
-0 m Q N w m Cm xx ::
-
O
j-- U ?q - a) o o c m
CD
m 0 U a)
O g c°? °- ° 0 L E c CD ° Co w Co a) w v
N= U

>
-6 45 Co C
C 7 U
a)
O
Q
0 y U `
i (n O? Z a) m (n
-0 Q M
LL -0
Q w (7 O FQ- C

' U c° U)

C 7 ?- O LM

O
47
c U Q E o) d
a) F- C m
a) a
m
a) Cu 4
a)
0 0 '0 L)
w d ..+ "O a) Z Q) a
C Z' Y a) a) cn Z :a U
H .?+
m E m ac)

-0 a V)

a) a) m O)
10
U = L o
a) c

a) c

a) m
L 3
-> U
Q a a) a
v o
'0 a L
Q)
a) c
Co E E .r
- U rn Co
Co
CD
Cf) Q
L) C) a)
Z
o
U) 0 o
Cu
C
c
w C En
a)
a
a)
°
a) Fn o a.
°
'
o E
:, r N p C a)
d o
a)
Lv) U O FL-
of
2
m - c_
o
9 CD a) O- CO m

a0i
a°)
E
-
2 m H g
O O
a)
a) C-
a) m i m °c
°
c (M Co L) E

0
14 o C)
M
N
Q O
CU
o
3
CD
a
i
d i
a
c N H m c m
O o
° m a)
'O E C
.
_ 'a c °
° -
C io c c c a w 7
O N
tp M
N
Q .
LO
? Q CO
M is O N a) in
O > -p
-p C u) a)
E a)
E c
O
m
C C m` m
l
E Q p p = N cn
2 U L to H U a) a) -o c6 Q' -p p O a
`°
= adi Z t- °v N °
2 E- 12 2
C m °) p o Y O o °) O E E
o
rn
°O °
N
E O
?- U)
. O
2 E E a)
2 a U Co r°
Z°3: o 3 2J
H U U o
U o
U i _
0U p)v a)
Q Z E m m w
= 4) 3
O m Om
U
?
0
O
O
U
? m
a ? y p
v O^ ?
?dLa N
CD L
U)
3 w C O N
g w
m
0
.. ry
0 -IL
IL LM w

m m
0
m
C
d

0 4) L. d d
)
C
N
c
) EL
z
N_> c
cn (n J
CL ) m U)
N m m
7 p d v
U E 0 2 E c c
rn 32 c p Cv) U U 2 0 U O N
O
0 LL > a) n m >, C N O C -
N y C "6 E C _0) _ 0 O a) N
d V
a) C
t5 0
E2 F
a)
m m O
47
Q: w
O 7
`o m
c e
o m C
O J cn cn
U) m c >> f
a) 3
a) c o C°
a) 0
lA V Lm. O °
° w m
2 (, 0 U c
in o o a)
'0 CD o rn =3 E a, m o a
"?5 F
n
C
M CL
n
E
-0
w
r L)
0) 0)

c

wo 3
0
Q
o
-o in
-
L
Cn
O m
O

d U

o d C

w 'a .n

c a)

2
L
CO
m U m o
E
v
O

O E

O °
U U ° m

-0
? m

U
o _ a)

C
a)
C w o p p) '.
C N
L
' C _
0 'O -
O? M C 0
+
-
a)
E Q) E
a
E F O
in O U _ a)
H L ?' o
m °
3 o
a
aci
E
i N
°
=
g
°
C °
w m
a) a
Z 3 a
E -a 0 5: c 'a a) 7 Z
3 L
w a) o) (D
m m` in O 0) a) L 3 L L
H
E U d (D V N C y_ C C O
O
= a
m 3 o
co N
m a
a) )
3
V a 3 E
-
O a) v, v >
L)
0 O .a (n
U
O
> V

(D 0
'2
n
m ° a)
E
3
'D L
o umi O E m

n U m Z U a 2
LL a m ) 0) M
co Co r a Cn
F

P,
1

1

1
r

O O Co y N O
w
M
U
3 L m
H 3 L C
O C U
V OO m C C 0
15 L:) C) -0
t 3 i
0 oo

Z U o p n C.
a)
-
C C N -O Cl) d E
E
O m a)
(n
CU
> C a °

° c
O o
0
CN
? U
a`
a)
u
>
Q> L
o
O
a
)
p d v)
- p
CL O
L
U
(D Fn -c
Cu
2 2 -0 CL 0)
O
Q
N w M 0 0
°
CL ` c y
n
,n C
m n U)
>,
N ?2 O C N`?Q a)?
(n Cu a) U- m P m o c o
N n o O d 7 a f- Z (n c c
N O C w O U O O O U m c 0
E
Im L 3p c c
o
o` U -a) a)
£
E
3 H m
Q =
a) _ Z-0
-0 CD

O
O C- U
3: 0
-0 (n
?
3 U) = Q -O Z
a) ca a
O a
)
Q -O c ?= 0
a)
U)
7 O Z 0)O >
a) c L
V) >
O m~
= m
(
Q 6
Cu
u 15 U- C') Cn
C .?+
a)
CL ?a)
=
L-

LL O C a O O L_ m a)

-
U
y m Y
a) x a) 3 Q Co
a c m
.0
Q R c d. co E
Co c
a) O. n- T O
o N U
0
U) o
L 1: .0 Cn CU

=3 0
7 o N _° 3 CO

y
to
Q
Q
Cu
3 c Q 0
Q
c
(D
c c w c c Q) v) _
t .?

m
Co a

)

L) Q?
$ 3 E o o
°
E
° `
N
`
01 c
i> LL L., -
a)
N 'O a) U M Q a

N m

O '7 m a)

L (n 0)

75 rn m c O 0)
m 4?
y a) cn 'o ?t > O rn

O O M
0 F- a)
` a L? C
"O C Co U) LL CD
>Q 3 m x >Q C E
U) 3 C) 4 0
0 N a) U c E m C C' O) c > O U C
O -N -q? m m a a C)
a Q ac) o
2
7

E
LL?
30.'?O O
2 Q E
N
5
Q) Co
(n c E Q 05 -?o a Z
d O M O Z
Z ..
E ?0 : R U d C ? O m N to y
Vi 2 U

d q) 75
U 0) CL
oaa
o° N CL U
w m m a) ? o
m m
?
Lm Q L
C
0 3
S mw a °)H N
° L O a
i
3 C° o a m o° `g
a)
m a) v c U

a
N .?. N
N m U) c o U
Z0 a) n .. n CO
oNz
p
Qmcm? L O O v) 7
aoN

a m
a

C (n c
o
C 1
c:
n a)
? v c 3 v) a)
a m LL o

Ew S ? 2 U
O o m
= m C ?
~ Z a)
Q -- a a) c C5
o $ °
a) co ?
c°) > Cu
is
-c?
N N a
i
iz: c
a) C O '° N CL 'O
to
o o
.
c C 0 "-
°
°
ti c _c 3
U c=
° o o a c
a v)
a) E o
m
C ) a?
(°)) -mi a
O
m U) CO
a)
r O
•- ..
p
c- m
I- U
a) a)
CD C 3 LLl
N -C Cu c V; c a) ?
c
rn x 2
N-
L
Q: p m= ac) ° v, coi L 0) c M m m ° o- c
i
,o
Co a) c U
N 'a = 3 a
3 E a) o
m U c -O a M O
c 3 m
c- -°
w
- _ a) m
rn
A o c Q w
m O
4) °
o o m
E
> a) a p
o
°
v,
O
O m m
m
EL :° c
v
o o Q E
N
U a)
c
o a 9)
o u, o c
a? a)
V
o a
i
E -
_ rn c= x= c E c m
Q V- m m o 0
n m c= c U) aU) E 0 a o U) Z U
E m'° o m ° o
a ° mwN - o m a)cM- mo
a a
C D) U -p "° Cu 'O )
N :3 Co O L N Q E a) C a)
c .? N
LL
V y O
y` c U O) C
Cu C to m m in w n Q o r °
u C O -O m E p w Q N U E
p) L Q c L OD
3 L L

a)
n . N 0
0 O C T 6.0 >
v> +0+ 7 c-
? ? N m

C L

C ~ .
.

0)
O
L

)
)
c m N O m
>

m
O
0
F- a)
m U) O
U)
O C
Co
N
0 -r-
m c- n m Q) N O (
0 N co
N U 3 'C L
U)
ca CD
w
v c N
L w L
..
w v vi E 3 g °p in a) m m" w N m E- a)
c c Z- c 3 c o" Q c a) o c u- 0 m
LL
a
m m e a) 0 3: E m m y m? n 3
° m
o
Q c io c o 0
U 0- 3
w =? aOp a) -
Co O 0 a) N= 0
a)
cn .. - m c m
O -)-2) E O to O
_
E j Cu
a N 0
-0 m w Co
O '
L
a
0 -m
a) 'c O a) a) C p
N

S co O
p
) p O
LL
y
U a)
a) >
m
c
O
V = fa a) p x c
°) ? co c= o y w m c m
Co -
a w
0 (n
w
c a)
c
> °c) L a O m
E ° a o a o)
c o
o a o w
o c O o a)
m
o
U E
E
4)
n m :3
-t) cn
L) L C _
-6 E Z5 u)
L U)
a) ° T 7
_ a)
x O
't
en S 75 0 ?
CD
4)
N
L O O a O)
U nT

5
a 'a
C
a
.
a) O m
L L c
L >+ L O) C
m a) m` W 2 j
O
a) p_ to
(n
. c
-
n O
C
(? ca m e O L C
1- U 0 0 c
Q 3 a m m U Co u c
p j>
c '
c4 m w S to Q m w
LO

L

O

x
.: N a)
o
L N
?+ C O w O
w O c6
° °

c

c
°°
>,
p 'D
a) ? a)
3
0
7 a) •- -'c a a)

in
(
o i
m a o0 v
' Y c
o
C cco ,?-? ° ? ? 15 3
T° c d
Q C
:
C N C
N
L U ) L C w C 'L' fO N
>
0 0
3 ca
0 o n5
O T ~ o
O U O
n C- O LL
W
0 _O o
f- m '?- 0 N Y y
a)
LL V) `
o) N 7 U y (6 > w
2-t O n co a)
U O 4) a) C >p y c" cu
2 'a) w °> 70 > 'o
0)

~ w
Y co
N f6 C_ a)
° LL a a U U_ a) a)
-E m O U w R C U c 0>
O a) >
E
Z - C
CD
C >
> Q a) L.L L
Ca 0 '0
U CL O
C ? L
a° L.. E
:? w L
N (O
c a, O co i
° X cccoo c Z E a c> o aU'i 3 L) a)
co
- 4
N N
Z.°. C> aam C 7 00 a)
5
cu E u- 7 V 0 0? O
U) ° I E Q¢ cn U 2
U E
> o
3:
h N 4? o` J (D co o o n
C c
0 u O -_O a) (n LO
_
L
H
3
Q O j 0 L > N
co C C f6 C N C U O >
O C
cD [2
0) a)
0) C >
co 00 Co 0 M 0 o n -= o? a) O
3 C O U U o L C C C
° = 0 O C Y ` Y (?
C
(/) f0
C
U c O
b o
C> >+ 7
U N
C 0 a) m m°
L
- 0)
0 y o cu - =3 T C C U L°? w N Y 0>
?
Q = E- aa)) >, 3 -N° 3` 0 0 F. 2 C o 6
3 3 m o a
a) d U Q
3: "° U -C Y
m a) "O C L L Y CD U CL Z T
a) 'C
N d
-C
..
a)
O
L Y ? N 75
a) -
Ca Co - - > L 0
L 2 10 3: _0 L)
°

n
Q .a CC 0
F- d
U) (n M (D CD L) U

a3 O
t c T
0 U)
co O O
c
O 'O
3 Q M,
4)
a)
W m
>
p
C p U C
O
r 0
° co C O
a)
(D L
>
-O
-0 c co
c in 3 a)
c U as m >, o m(n
°
d R a a) 0
Q) ui N° m
o o a) 0 o Co
3 c6 c 0) co
o= as
n
to N CD > L O E cu 4? _ m O a) a) C
E c w Y L 30 a) a)
O d a) a) d L C C m a) 'p c o C A- ~ f-
to L
:E
0)
co w=
w .,
.
c »-
0 0 a) o a) c
L
0 0
H U O
m o 0 n
i
o 3
_0
(7 >,W
R N w
4 0 °
a)
C c .
0 2 N
-0
O a) O w 0 N
Y
C C CU
-
F- 3:
O E "
Y N
w
4)
3
Z
awN
CD
"C C
O 72 cn N °c) C O
d
C 3
O O
C
n
E '
° d
C
d
E O
LL S U) ?p
0
' O (n
p
E U O C°
U U C
U v 1 a, in co
Q 'O 0 a) d 7 O (A L co d U d C C
Q N m> m 0) LL O O a)
0
fn
ILI Y.? S
.
Om OZ .
E m L) Z.•

O c O u

Z d cn

a3 >
c

+
d -
d O d
a) ,
c p
t
L= Y r N
o
N N
.
a) y
U) o a a C o 76 =
O> M O ?
> o
>
N i>+ Y> (n co U Y -C N "O (!1 -° a)
p d« lL :: H w z M° 0) CU C a) y 0-m C.0 ~ z C C 0
o c h
rn o ?

a
E to
w
cn ?-
(n 0
m a) 0
(n C 0°->
O as
o
L U o a) o C O U m o o n
U

v
'O
c C
o m
O 1- o °°
o O cZY o O
o? O N E L
L > Z o nnnc
O L O c0 ° Z aD c o co Y (O ? co ti a Q
i -0 O U
1 0 C co m 0 a3 m
M 0 0
m
m N
r-- V
m
CD o m>
c cu L
a)
° n a) ° a
-
m° N o 4 _n C Y c'i
3

i D1 m m C C U T L N Y i>-' W O U
C :3 F 0 Ca co
v
i z
v ° o
U (D aci 0
n° m 0 3 (6 E 0 0 Z
o
U a
° o
..
(o O L o
0 0 c? C
0 c? 5 7 0 _
a,
H> cn

Lo 0 T
n C
m
w C a) o U _>
Ie z w U a) O> C C) p -0
W
fo
0
N
N

V
d N
E C
3 0 T
a) 2 m
C
° C
E
U
-
o I
m E z °
>

°
te a)
0
0 c
U c
o
c s `)
° m o Y
E E C )
a a) 0 a
C
O I- CO

U.
° 3
-o f- O) M
° 3
a) LL > a) a)
0 M 0 CO 3°
(D U
Co C 0
m
L (Ln m > tl
0
o a) a)
0
0 n
U N u s m co W rn
> L
L) 0 a)
M C-) ` 0, r
M
H C a) O O O C O p N t G 7 0 0( 0

++ a3 L (O U>

a) N m t L T ,p

>
p J C N U U C to w U
cm a)
c

W E a)
> C U T (D
C
>= (o a)
a) U o 0 0
m d a? Q O

E
N u) 6 a)
2 w C
N"
_3 a) m> a) w N U a U
o a) rn 0 n V- a)
in r y w n of )) - o
< a o m m °> w a`ni
E o? ?a) o3
c?m? ooo?
V N C 3- U p ?c Z C(D N
p n 0. o O U n a) U n
u C d
m O H o
O N=
i0 C C
>
5
5 m m o 6 O- c p _ C W
° 000 3 0-
g
> C
3 c 0
o)
c? ,
,
3 o U a) E
m u U E a) (D M y o c °)' H m a)
m °; 3 2 O
w o
m aD o Z uui , c
0
a? as m c
0 0
y j
'0
° a U E E n
LL co
m a) 2 (o
a) rn
m m` O m 3 m
(D
-
U m o° aZ a2 n

N
r cf)
r

1
r

J

1
1

1

1

1
1

a)

L j U) 0
L a) 'a L >.
- CL
? a)
c p a) CO p
In
-
' -o u, O E
a) O N° M E
L
3
m° a
a) E 0
)
w U
U c N
o
> ?' ?' a) tm o a
0) 8 `° Z c 3 >_ a o m
CU
? c o
a)
°) C m
0 o
o
U) ?0 o
m
c m a
)
c
LLL - a)? E a)
h N u) N e
a) m a) 'D d 0 a O U)

O
O F- E E 3:
CL
E N O
:5
O m E a ) O m
N C
C C p a) U
V LL ? C to c° (7 N O
m M "- O p
N -- a) N O m a) m m m a vi
C E I- O
C: (D a) L)
O
a) o Q
v
,
U)

c U(n O CD m N
a) a
° E v L w
a
z _
c= _
t5 a
a) L)
o
Q a m
°

0 c
a) _
a)
c
-0 CD t-
c O a)
c cya a)
ti c
O U)
° 2?>
O L m c O 2 c c ° c
O C N.0 o m
> w 0 U o
-C
-o m S m o m E E a

r+
?
a)
C O C LL
L a C a)
C °
M
. C
. ° C
a)
E
u a) :3 O cn O U
m of w a) a °

r-
0
? c c
a)
o Q a
0
) c
c° c
o a f
c nE ccu? E ac a) v
m > o f
o
fl)
M m
LL
'O a)

4) °
m
0 =
r
C LO
Q N 2 Y j 3 U Q.

mi

m

cn a) -C -0 .
N

w
o s

m
p
(6 N
H
m m
O
U E a o
a) Q °
)
= y
co o E°
E c
rn c
_
`
Z o c
U
-
C)

y
z
m
0)
V D
C
°

-a
ch :3 >,

O u) :: C
a
) w c c) cn
:3 o
L O a)
"a
p Z _

3
U)
4)
m
'0 F- (D C
0 T
CU
L) C a) m
7
Ln O O U)
f0 M c
F- c 0 p m
p _
is C 0 LL :3
>, O O ui a)

E
fA 3 C) 4 N
(
IL a) c a) CD
C
N U a?i s _
C O m a) U U 7
Y
L
70 E
D
Z o
r+ w
`
-p L 0 Z`` ^. a) a) O m
a) C
O E - Y -?c CL
E LL? tO O CL m 3 m a 5 5 a)
U U G F- 3 3: 3:

Y'o Om oZ o U
Z ..
E YZ m >, mU c m
C m •' O
m? a°i oa
u : O
= c Z
?? o m cn C a 0
Q -
E o
w
;
CL
m
t L- > m o
-a L .° m
c °
3
o io
a)
4.
0
N
m e
U
L
o
CL o
a)
a m 3 m
w m
L U
N
m
U)
o
IL R o
-
Z p
m L U)
m
m>2 o O (n
?
En C O
c,?a ai o a
mL c E
y
U) d m
w O 2 ou)W ?
o? ° a)L f6ra
?a ELm > c
o
V 'o c L c
o
= i
.
3 v) ? E ° u' E
u) o
m

y U.
C
io F,
w
)
U a
-a a vi t o io
> - m c m CO Y
L
° w
_

R
(°) m
3 c m In
-U = c o
o m 3
c o U ap
c 3 E °) °
m
F- p o m .a? m m Z E C
o
E 3 a) E 3 0> o a)
O a) w- - a) YO U)
o -a LL c C fc a) 04 C C -° c N c
Q m LO w cu
y .o a)
=
c a ? 0 >, Q? °) cn 3 0 a c m v g (n
o 2) o a3)
m p ci 0 E
C X a c) m 3; n O C w 3
c n L LL o
Lo
O 'a a) a) CU Z
N C
7 L C m m fn t: d a Q' ?
CD (D u) a)

c
C 0
m E o_ _
°' m 3 00 0) p m N w -_
= w w
V
Z
= 0)
LL
° o
N= 0 a°°"
`? a) o Z` °' o" 3 -a -0 M E 3 m
m r m
- m a) C '7
co o 0

E O
c?Na
0 O
m
E
(n
wa)
a u)-o cn
a)
L _-M
3: Lr i
-
E
,
o) D)
LL d m?
C - -0 N U- - O N p
a) LL 7 1? -

'o ?p
E= L)
M E w
0
a) (n > o) m L Y n. w E°

M
c m m
:3 r-
v a) (5 M o y? m
'a o m 0 m e 3 vi c o) -le
-C m u) `
O: 5 O E c o 3 w L p8 N 3 (n o m cn a o o M c
m C 7
a) C a) L 0 N
N a) cn
C C a) U 7C V M L L) a C '0
L M N V a)
C
o u)
U 0
d L E o 0 j °
_3
o m Y
f
p 0 0 m m
4 c~ O T
E C .
.. a)
i
a n C
c o o) `
m
O
m m c (D a? m V a M m N c
m a m
= s
a o U) 0 _
° a) m m v?
O o o a) Y Q) a m ?, m V° m M a) a
w
0
E m o cn
E m u, g a)
0?
> c a, m
c
°
c -
S a) 'a a a)
o= a o m
m
o
0
° ?

V i w
a c
o
° -0
C 3 a m
° _
o
m m m o c o c a
E N c a) 7 F- ? Q) c N 3 ?O ui >,
i a) C NLO a> U
3 m a
a) v
m cfl - C4
Z m 0 -O V m c
?
p
c
°)
a E
a
) I
6
O
E
o
U a) E i>,
U 3
o
> 2
Q m> O >, ? U) C U
a)
p p a) ?-
p
c E a
C)
a c a a m
? > 0 CO 3 C m C m a U
a)
p O L°
C
Z (n - M E m m m Lo 3.
F- a 0 W U 9 .?.. m a U E LL L Z LL Z

r U)
r O
? I,-
?

6 1
? o
i
N N c a)
° Y m O

a) m
N
O> m p
>+ p
C
O
c 'a c N U m O
a
U
> a) M
O?
3 U
>
V m = ?
3 7
N
(
q c m> c
C 0
i U 0-0
Co
p o a)
0
ti wt
r. a) c >, U >
C)
N a) o=
w N > o.0 Q a
-o 'p LU Z m
C °
d

C U
a) 4) Q U m 'o A
ti
N O Q
c U U rn m
a a M w c 0
g) O
a 0
m U LL.
CD - -Oo E? ° m U CD
:3
3
U E m m a) to U)
C
Q
U) Q

n ° E -
m
°

c

Z, E

n
d O _
C 3 42 C O - -
p O a) C
7
c N
m V a) -o U c
m
3 m a) -
3 o O j N
a) a' co
a)
Q U) of 0
a O
a) m a) cn ?- O a Z O
m
0 _o
C
O

C w
+?+ C 4) U to O
`` U ?
O p
C Q m
>
o d

O w
O m 0 o p
M C
O Q
0 O
c
H 'O a? m 0° N CD.
N
V
Q
C o 3 w c a) a) m 0 3
O U
CD
M . c c E c Q )
a
a a
)
a m
to 3 m
° U Z

d M O U to w E J .fl O in Z
U C
m

N m
to
~ m a) a) cn

m m (D

r
co a)
a)
z = =
U C m
pm
a)
Q E-
o 3 =3 C14 U o m

`
c

c - 9 c

a) c

a)
C c
a) U W
o
c U
c
o
L- c c Ln
?
Ln
m M x w E E a) >, V m z io
C? C?
w dZ a0N
°U' E E
E
E
c? m 3 u)
am)

U)
(
L-
CD ? E a o
E
E
° a)
°) m
En-CL ? a
O
0
a
i
E LL H c
S U a
i
iU
L
w 0 Q)
a 0
U
o
Y 'a -O LO o Z UQ U L
I
- .6
E '
V
?
O
O
d
V E -a `0 i C
3 m O
0 ' m
y b;. O d 0
m co N C o) -o
d
p m a` a.+) F= m
a°i z c 3 m
> m = a`ni
;g to
d y EN
w° a) `e a) a o
c ° E c m a) m
E x m a
U c
rn m v c E N? a) o m -o
Lm m
o a)°) m o ? m
a)
d IL O E a>
m .
m a) c a)
c C m c O E m w
m ° 0 3
= a)
C4 rn
° o 3 oZw o > c
2 m C
a) -0 °
0 o cn°
E . °a) oc mm

U
_ -
v 3= c m
o c
`
CD L
?
n

in
in
n?c
m
m
rn ?

°'
X -

a?
En c
c ) u) p a) = L
c a) 3: a s
cn a
o O m m y m ° 3 = o -o 3
1n 0 N a)
LL m m? s '- C OL O 7 Q C Z' U

L)
(D CD c U) -0
Z L c - O 'o U c m m
- ? •= O? 7 m O p
E
5 -a
a) m 0 a) a-
3
m-0 Laa) 0 O
ms O
U o d
L w c
c
O
LL
V N o)
a) O rm O N E Q
'o m U c° m c
0
a) >?
7 C
O X
a) '-
a)
X E L o p U c_ o a

? m e n m a)
ai ° ° c -o c o °)
a)
U C a) a
i ° w °
an d
c Q C m
m o m c ?j w y
0 m
£ m c
w o
F
o °
o w ° ° ° o 3 m 3 0 3 m
rn
m n
U c L
a
a) (D y 0 r o m a ?° m Z m p
C y 3
c d N U Z p y 15 E
C (n
c
0
~ 7 m° C C O -2 '2 7
O
E

) (D

oI U) c U m 0
O ) O
N
cn
O
C p

`
c
E ° c o) ° m
c°
i
a`n -
U o
U o
U w
o w a)
-
?Q?
m
mrn c? ? 2 =- 0:3
V
o m?°
c 2 v
i
°
0 0 0° Q m i
3a
H w ?
H a) H e

cn
o
O 0)

O c O o

m

O c in a o 0
? ca 3
c
L m
U E
QU -° o)
QU
O
a p
U 8 p
O
p
° c
° Z a) Z Z L 3
U U
v
)
O Q
c t a) c a) Q m a)
Z O 2 ) -a o d
cn m a C7 3 H v H 2 H 29
00 O O N Cl)
?- N N N N

J

F-I

L

1

Cl

r

1

1

a)

(n o a o

Coll
> '0 Y Q M
U)
C) M a)

3 0) C.
N E U
0) CD lo
N 'O
` C CD
cu
C - Z O
t` E
w C: EL N 0 a)
c w cu
O
O -
C
? a '?' O
0

p >>
M U c a N

O N
U c4 Q>
d i C O
o 5
c > S rn c c o o
r
N yL,,, M N
C3: O ?? 0) - O 7
a) c N U O X E
a) t° E
N cc (D
-
d a) F¢
M N
En '0
M
a C O
Q U
N LL' Z Y U N 3 C O M
Q 0 m
° M m.0 N c 3
y
O ->
70 -0 0 o cn
H a)
3 N a) a)
- C
U C Q) c a
`
C n
ca
0
a) c 0'
C M - .. C
,.
Q
w
3 o a > a o N X
C
w ;a
0 >
Y> o
M ?O U N 7 - c
0) `p U 2 o 3 0_
"O cCp Q
a) C (D N Y
Q
O
N
E o N a)
c
-
0 X
y
M 3
p
M .
a
E>
o ) 2
U
)
o - C c
3 M ac)
c
a) 3
d 0 U
U a
o a
L) = > C t
fn 0 0 N N
Y P E O
C 1 3 C
p 2 _a) ?. w 'O > y ?'k
E C C O
N
C
W U) H
40 to c O ?. >0 d a) = y C
a) c a)
>,
m N O o
M E 7 0 m
F >, N E c 0)
a) Z o
CL G N E U M 3 C aa) E O
N 7
d d
O w cn et U)
p O N
o E
`
C
D
p
y 'n
E U- O 0
U U a p
"
-0 LL :51 2 c U
Q -o Li
: 0 O m O Z
Z ..
E 0: Y Z u ai S o w C 0 i c
V ` .C M V 0 0 ? 0) a) CD
0
o O O
w d? m a a

0 CL U)
Q m o CD c
Y a) -
A
C
L) C
(D
O c C
a p) a) a,
"0
C a) d: H N S a) M
a) c' C N `
> j 3 y C 0 C
IL E ? ?o to

o oo 0 m w U o> c° >
CD )
w

o cn c

cu a)
o 0

c g c
co E t
a) o ? 3 `o M D M
N U 3 c
M C rn >
M p

t5 u a) N

O M
r C _
a 0 Y w
` >, L 2 O N CL O "0 cn
U
d N .a
U a 0
O U. A --
L Y a p r CD
C C U)
O o N >
N>
? V F cn
u
)
V .
O) (n (n a) a
L
U D)- (
N 2
i d) -
.
u! 'o m
?
G
O Q
- L
O ` N M
C 0 U N O w
- ` n
aD a? p
m N O
w O
'0 U E a) N M O > C p >
> >
3 0)

O M c
O
0) N

a) E 0 `
>>
-r, O O E 0 O N

a) M E M N a)

C CL N >
_ C
N N O N a

U) C M

c6 > r CU Co CL
R LL
V C '? O co -
3 c6 w V) 'O ca
3 > + a)
a)
0 O
N C
O Y O M U
E
an a) -
15 d
H n >, >
>, a) :3
0 C 76 -
:s 3 C w
V M =
()
-p N cn
V
Z 'L M
p 0 cn O p
Q M a) -0 C a)
M a)
a) c? O) Y O
C N 0
M- C c
M ca p
E ?' (0 M O U N a) ? 7 (D "0 a) a) a' 5 s °c) C a) C Y
O` E M Y 0)
` Z
o _lz
O` M E L
3 O 0 d
E 0
D
v O U
M M m
N 3
LL - c
~ w m
L
a a) o N
E n v
E M Co m` U
o a)
co
U) o U
0
cn 0) (D Q>
U L cn > n
a) d
3 C
U
U O u
i
T cn
N O
N
U
U U O 3 N
:3
O N a
) j?
o u)
d
Q N O
s m S M
M3: > N
>,
E o M c
O C N
0 2 0 -
-
i '
0 O N
M a o c
N o n a)
a
?- a) a) N co LL M
M M Co m w= co M M M c
c
N a a) m
Y LL 3: c m a) a) a) o o C `
0
0 0
j Y M O () a) `
CD F- O
N
16 O
- E U Cca)
7 E a "o a) a) N

0.
U
0) Cc
M CD
-0 >, a) = cn - LL c
p
w p
E U D) O c>
C 3 N U
Y
>
a) y
N Q N O >,
?
.
LL c a)
_ Y M N U
t
0 3 c a) 3 (>i aa)) r E c? .
.
3 m m o, 0 3
U c co M
g F- aa)) - ` w c 2 U
` 3 L T
~ M c:3
? H c o •. c o
N o O a) 0 c a m a
) N a)
N
O °- -
-
O N o
1
C E E Q a)
U a Q >' a) > aL-. U

c
cc :3 CY)
-0 >, w Y
M Q C U >,

U m :3
Q N w 0-
U M O •-

c s 3
c
- 0) 0
Z
w
3
Z c
c
M
3
a)
Z '
l
a) U
Z
N M
"E p
j
u
a? >
Ulm FE ow ?? ° Hd ow H 8LL HwU3 Uw 0
v ?n co
N N N
rn
Lo

o
° w
w c m 3
-0
c 0
c
c°

o o U)
c
cn 0
-° g
a) g o

-
o mi o
a 0 c m CD

° Of ?
O o
' 0 a c
0
_
rn c
CL c o) c U w e

O N
C _
0 c O
c Y

o
?CD
0?
N
a c

N 0
` 0 m
(? O c? O C ° O
0
N N O T cp -C >, 75
U) O O
-
E C
0) 0

a) CD
-a o

U)
C tOp
U)
'00 d
7 to w-
° 0
U
0 C 0 0 O U O
V)

O
-0 O O
m O
0 E 0 '2 LD
0 m
3 U) O c 0) U (n O 0) U
c ° 0
i C: U o °
) 42
i
a W o c n
a) N c C
o
m C C cu CO 0 m O
p
N fn
w L
0 0
'C 'O co 0
U
L C a)
C a)
C (1) cu N O
Q c 3 cco c 3 E E 0 0 c 0 3 (n
CL
0

E a) CD m s a

Q H ° c

0
to -0 M
o
c c
°
E
°
E
- m 3
0 3 U
°? of
o m c L)
-
te U
c
a
i
L (n U)
cu X Y E
O p
(n
p
U ?
(1)
-0 a)
.fl o
a
) o
5' M C >
z m O

c
m cn
Y Q C)
0
3 m
3
m
?°,
3° a)
a) d
c m- •?
3°° r- C
o
c m
> y U) O
m C C O_
O
C7 u
i
?Ln o to
°
°
10 N 0
m 0 i
a
E W
E m
ci o z 0
H
U) o
o
. 00 s a E E u, a
Q c a?
-
c O
y 4) !7p
w
i IL CD N
N?? =
° m o
O° E E Q 2
a H a
0 -0 0
E O
LL ?- 3 0
c o ° E c

t
Y O O
m oz (n U - U U Z
Z U c
o Z
'm c Z v
E ?
Y O
Z V d Y >
) O

U W
E'O
V p
m
N
> i a
p w L
.
o
N
u - d?
y - IL
a L) 0 U a)
° Y
°
?
°?
S i t
a
.. L- d
IL 2H c E
° E Y
m° Y
0 ?
c
a a
i
CL o o to m O c n > cn E c
t t
d1 u
a) U .• 0 C J 7 0 0 0
'C
O 'G
0) C
O m
J 'a .c N
m O
d O
N C) N c0 m
0
°
U) w.. 7 0 O a) N Q' > 0
n
m
~ ti 0) N(n
N Q) ..tr CO U
Z (n in
T
Y m v LO
° >
0 o C
m-
Q'
N O -C
U a) L 0
v N CG w -0p -0 cn 70
c
U c o a? Q) m
N
° 3
> 3 E
LO m a)
c m °
° U
C_ U
m a)
C m
a U)
'0 °
s
(1) d m
U
Z t co
N
? N N Lo m >, U 0

O O ?
0
Co
0 CL 0
C
m
N

L E
'C 0 Z
O 0 '
0 L
O U)
O -
>, Q' E m
j m ? C
0 7 0
L d Y U (n U E
3 0

c

r-
C
a)
a)
C

:3
C

N
O
E >

0
°

O E :3

in cn =
a)
E a C N C U C .
..
CD N
L CO
p X
-
U)
O
O
f) 0
)
d
n 0 L) E
cn n
c `°
C 3 c 3 m
d 3 c
n
a) L
= c - r`
o w 6
m
0 x
a) c
-0 x
a) o
a) c'6
U ?.- c
O N c
p) ^ N
3 Q M U m Q 3' 3 0 m m

m CL 75 v? w L)
o ?
3 Y w
3 c
3 v
o _
o (D
°-
E o v
U
J-
4a) cc O N
O M"
O fn
-0
C
O C
:5 C
E A 0
3
U = E 0 N
c
N

a)
` C O C

m E co
_

E
0
U
0
>
E m
C

a
m
°
a °>
0 ° s ° m
o a)
m ° m E 3
o a) a) C
d c a)
a O m O O U>
ri
i W- U) cn
m ? L
°
0c Um UW i
Q u) LL L
(
) E
rl- co rn C)
.-
N 04 N Cl) M
C) '

11
1

t
I7
J

1

u

I

1
1

co T co 0 a) r'
a) -° c i C- m
O C

r_ a)
O 0 C m m O O
O m in m cu
-O

a)
-Z
o c
a rn
0)
cD C O o 3
o
° o
o f
c c m
a a )
n-o
m?-
a) o c o °o
m
E x
a) a)
E2 a)
~ (n ?"(_? m m U ?-
n0Cj
.r
O U
O O) CL
Q O- 0 M N p
0 Z- LO
Q a) m N
o m

` C C O O O

C Q
U?
N
U
a)
O O a)
'
t
O O co
U m m
a) c
3 L)
a) O nj N 3
Z
a) - O
m a)
O) N 7
C
N 2 U O O E m
a
C o a x c: cn U

N m Z
m H U
a) -0 a) __ - m U)
p o w m
o U) =° 0) 0 c
'0
U O 3
a 3
a) a u
m O
c c
O c
a
i c p
n w m o L

_
m E
`
c) c

o
-0 -0 o
m
U 0 F-
w
M o U
Z c c Ch o s
m>> c m c
c X 0
d O - m =
s a)
m D E -o -a a) cn ' m o
d y ° 3 x c c m o cn °' Y o
Q 3 a) a) a o m ° M " c= w a) U o

m E
n m a) a
c
o a a) a) a) a _c
m 5
'? Z
U) °'
E
a) E c)
-0 a u
i o m
U c
Y
0)
Q R E co O

m U o o
E c
a)
E m
m
o
U)
Y> m
a)
M 3
a)
a) 0 a) U)
E 3 ?- o
- o o 3 E -o o co 0) a) o o a o
CD
(D
t
., a) o
cna a)
? > o
E o a) a)
a o c c c c
m °m ° co 2 a)
m o a E
N
m a) -
3
u ami
m
o m _
3
z 0 cn a o z
o 0 >-o
c
aOi
to H
c
a sT
m
o 0 m m
rn m
> c °

C7
>` Ln
o ° o 'n a
)
E
cn c
a
m

r
i n
'0
a)
E
c
o o m
o
c o
0
c
i
R u Qow C, _
E a
m _
rn -
a
i
O Z cn W a o o
.'?. dZ aaN O O =3
o a
E a
) m m o ti ?; o R
c m
a
to
E O
?- 3Q' U Z o z C E m U O m Q m z Z J CO in m
O m O Z
Y m
R U Z..?
m
Y Z O
O

V
p d
` 'd R V
?, m
N
O
], C
O m
°
a C C E a) .
4) a
y 0) «`- cn cn
c
o i
a
a w f=
? L m E c
in a) Q o
a` E Rye E o° 3 c o
(D a)
o
c
s
m
m
o) M
O c
O O t
O 3: m
x o _
m
d x c
C
d LL
7A
t
c m
> R
E
(
Q O
R
f- C1
0 U
N
C
30 m O w V5
p 0 O
O
S ?
O c
M m

O
c

3
o-

U
c

Z
a o °
E u

O a) 0) !L-

a

O

m o

a
. Y
U) T O :3 cn U a m r 7 C cn m

R
V L)
L
C
O 0
7 C
U?
"O
'n 3 U m e a) a) E -' U)
U
Z
t tm
5 m m
E y m
? °
°)
) - a
o° a)
Y >, o
c
o
CU a)
_
CD
a o m
-
c
m CD
> a)
w o
= g

.O
72
Z
m a
c a n
c o
0) o :2 5
LL 00 O (n U
U o
CL C c : c - ° C
7 U U
CL >, a) O m
C M (i m m
U) a) m
c m O
O
c
y 3 ° U c "= 0) °c ? d
w

m
m
ti
a
o
'O O
m

a)
L x

a)

U
C 7 N? a) - N
a m C a 2 a
V5
d
E o
a) a)
a o
in m N
? o U)
a) :3 o E Q
c m I
m
0 m
°
c y O
c
r-
N m o c

a) c a)

c

°
E
E
in c - m
- c T a) m
m c rn
T O
3: F o r

O ca
_ o
3 m
cn m
°? m ac) c
N a n
? M a a
5 U)
L) O c O U U m c r-4 E c N a cn C >,
E a O) L E O- o 7 a) O
m a) o o
U E O O C m a) M U c c=
a m cy)
Z C,
a)
cn
m C
O) U
O
a)
H m
E m a)
H -o vii
>
¦ 0 0
Z 0 s 7
a
H 0 O
N M "t cn
co co co M
L6

a)
E
E
E °)
C
U
O
?
C
.C O
a) D
a) ax)
0 0 a
-p Q
CD o a o
'
ti

N a ° c
C
O
y _
? H
:3
i cu 0 1
L

Q + X
y .
Q cu
...
O R 'S c
Q
c m 0
Q +3' 0 N 0 a N d
Z a)
Z
G N p ac) ao L aa)i ac)
H 0 cu
3 c
aEi
aEi
CL a)
E 0.
E 0 2 LW
a) E E

CD
V
)
2
E
U a)
cc

-0

a
E 0 L Z
cu 0) a)
70 °
.-

O

p c

N
o
a) aU) a) a
c
N
C
a)
y of ?
d C U) H
c E E c t ° CD
a) co c E E

Ln a co N
a)
E o
E c?o
E
E
O
y
v dcO N
E
U a C
0 ca U)
o?

?

?
0) m I a)
4) 0-CO,
E ? 3 R Q O O
U
Z s COL O 7
H U -co U U
Z a
)
Z
d O m O Z
U
l9 p
O? V
E ?mYZ 0 m =
3
m >,
cn
°
c o c c
as

!F,
U 00 c
rnc?? ?
m m?
°-) ?Y-p a
?m
°
m L. a 0 a) a° o C° o o - c
cn S m
O a)
? 3 v o 0 E U
a) a c

X a
CD
L
a)
3 U
w d °
F=
m
E a) U U)
O
L c a
E E o
a) 0 o a)
E m
?
CL
v) `
'
U c 4 in ° y
m 3
° 3 c CO
c
a
d
m
:3 m g p 0
Co I 5
O a) aa)
a) (7 o a) m
O ti

a , o o r

a;

a)
c -
w O

o L O c
a) a)

p CU c Oa
V

c
N a)
?v n 0 O
0 c v °n 1 o 5 >,
N
m > 3 E
D o CD E L
. >
0 21, _. a
° o°° m £ ° a .;
o f F - o° N rn E >as
U) a)
`_ p a)
0) C
>, O c0 a) 7
n
O O M N L Q U>
to v CL
0)
a) a) C m °? > o a) a)) E
_ a) CO
V d C p 7 i .«7+ a) .L.+ o U a) C X O °
Z
?. a) E c c? m c ?U- > ° r 04

a

p
0 C
U O (0 Q?
° O a) m
U
U
c
p) .L.. V C a)
„ (a a)
-p U p

U
U '6 U C a a 0
N m 3 2 8 m
" O m m
3 w CU
-°'o g m° a)
EL - -0 a) L 0 C0) -6
05 c c o ui a) m c
V C E cu p a 0
C a) c
N c

E (n a)
i ' C C
a) Q C t0 C
Y a) - in `6
a) a
L 0-
CD N L O
L C p
c

ly6 t
n
L
-O L O
p ? a
E -O O- N a) X 0
mo - L N> - L a3
Q)
w O C c O a) L
?? (n

c )
c
c c)
cn (D
0
°

c0
c U

L
o O N

E a)
y c
))
Co
ai
o
CO
E

? N
' cn
O
c
C
U> a)
7 O
p m
E
L a) C
O
o
N I> o L U-
-- = 0 0 0
3
C m m C
` a3 =
2 O
? L a)
N
E
E n
co ` cn c cn
u cn ui m
a)
c o ) N a) ,
'
:3 L w
° i
c c°) a
O cn o L 3 m p$ m a) X a) £ co O Y
° p p m -° W
V 0 a) :3 m L CD C U(
te U 'O H L O _
w c F a) 'o p -p N
a
O
cn O
o O O a
) C
° d a3 a) a) >, a7 >, N

a o> as L C a) E U

E c a
o a)
(
6
a V
Z 7 LO. y q O
C 0 N N I N° O O a
v

a)
° X p
°
)
°
c
s
m u) ° U )
)
c c>
a)
N c o -
i c
a
Q c cu m a
i c
H° N? ° S m c`no o c°)n a O° O
(0 ti co rn o
M Cl) Cl) Cl) 'It

w

f
1

1
r
L

1
r- ?

6 Permits
As noted in the FEIS, the proposed construction of the Western Wake Freeway would
require several environmental regulatory permits from various state and federal
agencies A list of anticipated required permits is provided below NCTA would obtain
1 all permits prior to construction
1 6 1 North Carolina Division of Water Quality
6 1 1 Section 401 Water Quality Certification
For an activity that would result in a discharge to Waters of the United States and
require a federal permit, a certification must be obtained that the discharge would
comply with state water quality standards A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is
required in conjunction with a U S Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit
Authority North Carolina General Statute 143, Article 21, Part 1 The implementing
regulations are provided in 15A NCAC 2H and 2B NCDOT, in coordination with
NCTA, is in the process of developing the Section 401/404 permit application The
permit application was submitted to NCDWQ and USACE on August 27, 2007
r 6 1 2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
' A permit is required for protects involving sewer systems, treatment works, disposal
systems and stormwater runoff resulting in a discharge to surface waters The State of
North Carolina administers the NPDES program within the state Authority North
Carolina General Statute 143, Article 21, Part 1 The implementing regulations are
provided in 15A NCAC 2H 0100
6 2 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
6 2 1 Section 404 Permit
A permit issued by the USACE is required for any discharge of dredged or fill material
into Waters of the United States, including wetlands Issuance of a permit first requires
that impacts to wetlands be avoided or minimized through a sequential process, which
refers to avoidance, minimization and compensatory actions, as stipulated in the MCA
between the EPA and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of
Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (February 1990)
Authority Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and Section 404 of the Clean
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 6-1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway ,
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Water Act of 1977 Implementing regulations are provided in 33 CFR Part 323 and 40
CFR 230 As noted previously, NCDOT, in coordination with NCTA, is in the process
of developing the Section 401/404 permit application The permit application was
submitted to USACE and NCDWQ on August 27, 2007
6 3 United States Fish and Wildlife Service
6 3 1 Section 404 Permit Review
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for administering the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and is also required to provide
comments on other agencies' permitting decisions under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended The Service's responsibility under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act includes review of all Section 404 permit applications to determine a
project's impact on fish and wildlife resources, including federally-protected species
The USFWS provides recommendations to the USACE on how the project could avoid
or minimize impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitat The USFWS would review

the permit application as part of the point NCDWQ and USACE review process ,
f
J

September 7, 2007 6-2

FJ
1 7 Coordination and Public Involvement
As noted in the FEIS, a Public Involvement Plan was developed for the Western Wake
Freeway planning and environmental study to ensure that every reasonable
I opportunity is available to interested citizens, civic groups and state and federal
resource agencies to participate in the planning process
7 1 Agency Coordination
One component of the Public Involvement Plan, noted in the FEIS, involves
coordination with a number of federal and state regulatory and resource agencies The
FEIS includes information regarding the following coordination Notice of Intent,
Scoping Letters and Meetings, Steering Committee, and Interagency Coordination
including Merger Team meetings The ROD includes agency comments on the FEIS
and responses from NCDOT
After completion of the ROD, but prior to NCTA's involvement in the protect, NCDOT
held the Concurrence Point 4B Merger Team Meeting on June 15, 2005 for Sections B
and C The meeting minutes are included in Appendix G
F

F1
1

NCTA is supplementing this previous agency coordination with ongoing coordination
through Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings to address
concerns arising from the implementation of the project as a toll facility Agencies
invited to these meetings include FHWA, NCDOT, USACE, EPA, NCDWQ, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), USFWS, HPO and CAMPO The minutes from the TEAC
meetings are included in Appendix G In addition, NCTA held a one-day meeting -
known as Turnpike 101 - to introduce the agencies to issues associated with turnpike
projects The Turnpike 101 and TEAC meetings are summarized below
November 21, 2006 Turnpike 101 - NCTA conducted a day-long workshop for
NCDOT, FHWA, resource and regulatory agencies and selected consultants assisting
with NCTA projects The focus of the workshop was to provide an information base on
the policies, procedures and issues unique to NCTA, such as tolling The information
presented covered the NCTA/NCDOT agreement, project selection process, the
environmental review process and guidance from FHWA, traffic forecasting and
analysis, NEPA issues for toll roads, general tolling information, toll options and
recommendations, toll traffic and revenue forecasts, toll road financing, project delivery
process, and a general Frequently Asked Questions
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
1 September 7, 2007 7-1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

December 15, 2006 TEAC - The meeting included a presentation by NCTA to provide
background, current project status, general information and projected schedules
related to the implementation of Western Wake Freeway as a toll facility Questions
and comments by the agencies covered the following toll collection payment methods,
how collecting of tolls would affect traffic flow, acceleration weave/merge conditions -
especially in regard to the need for additional or lengthened ramps/lanes, the non-toll
alternate route, the Indirect and Cumulative Impact analysis, and the PLOAD model (a
nutrient overland-flow model used for larger scale quantitative water quality modeling),
the project schedule, especially in regards to Section 401/404 permitting, the merger
'
process Concurrence Point 4C16 meeting planned for April 2007, and based on the
updated jurisdictional delineation, the potential need to bridge some wetlands because
of hydraulic constraints instead of the previously agreed to culverts It was noted, for
this final item, that the potential bridges may not span the entire wetland No
objections were voiced to this approach
January 17, 2007 TEAC - The agenda included discussion of the toll facility traffic
forecast, the planned Citizens Informational Workshop (CIW) (February 8, 2007), the
planned Feltsonville Community small group meeting (February 15, 2007), the project
schedule, protected species, the details regarding natural resource avoidance and
minimization efforts in selection of proposed toll plaza locations, the redelineation of
jurisdictional waters and updated pond, stream and wetland impacts, and requests for
early identification of any outstanding issues and/or concerns from the resource
agencies Questions and comments by the agencies covered the following the public '
notice required for the permitting process and that the CIW may be used to satisfy the
public outreach portion of this requirement, the USFWS support for the "No Effects"
determinations proposed for the protected species listed for Wake County, the parking
provisions at the toll plazas and layout at the toll plazas, the proposed new bridge sites
at Jack Branch and Panther Creek, and the ongoing coordination with the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) to provide off-site mitigation for the project I
February 14, 2007 TEAC - The agenda included the stream, pond, and wetland
impact methodology and calculations, the "No Effects" determinations for protected
species, the date and location of the Concurrence Point 4C Meeting for Section C, the
use of EEP for off-site mitigation, the status of the Feltonsville Park improvements, the
Local Officials Meeting highlights, and the CIW highlights Questions and comments
16 See Footnote 8 in Section 3 12 for a discussion of the merger process and milestone concurrence points

September 7, 2007 7-2 1

by the agencies covered the following the quantity of reduction of wetland impacts
due to the proposed new bridges, noted to be roughly 10 acres, and the need to
review avoidance and minimization during the upcoming 4C meeting
(Coordination was held on February 20, 2007 with the HPO to review the
Determination of Effect and status of the MOA for the Green Level Historic District
This coordination is discussed in Section 3 4 7 and the meeting minutes are included in
1 Appendix G )
April 18, 2007 The merger process Concurrence Point 4C meeting, review of permit
drawings, for Section C of the Western Wake Freeway was conducted at this time
The meeting minutes from the Concurrence Point 4C meeting are included in Appendix
G
7 2 Public Involvement
The exchange of information about a proposed protect is integral to the environmental
analysis process During the development of the FEIS and ROD, a variety of
communication techniques were deployed to ensure the citizens had ample
opportunities to comment on the protect The techniques included maintaining a
protect mailing list, mailing periodic protect newsletters, a telephone "hot-line," protect
website, CIWs, small group meetings, public officials meetings and a corridor public
hearing Details on these activities are included in the FEIS (2004) A Design Public
Hearing was held in May 2005, after publication of the ROD
The following techniques are being employed to update the public about the potential
change in protect concept from a non-toll facility to a toll facility and to provide
opportunities to comment on the protect continued maintenance of the mailing list,
protect website, CIW, small group meetings, and public officials meetings These
activities are discussed below
1 7 2 1 Mailing List
A mailing list has been maintained since the beginning of the planning study The list
was originally formed with the names of interested citizens that participated in public
meetings and provided written comments during the corridor preservation process in
1992 and 1993 The mailing list is continually updated with the names and addresses
of individuals who telephone, write letters, or e-mail about the protect and those who
sign-in at the CIWs and small group meetings The Western Wake Freeway mailing
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 7-3
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Protect No R-2635
list was updated with current study area property owner information and merged with
the list developed for the Triangle Parkway prior to mailing notices for the CIW, which
was held on February 8, 2007 The list currently includes approximately 16,500
names
7 2 2 Protect Website '
NCTA established a protect website to provide citizens with an information resource
concerning the project (www ncturnpike org/projects/Western_Wake/)
7 2 3 Citizens Informational Workshop
A CIW was held on February 8, 2007, at Apex High School in Apex from 5 00 to 8 00
p m to provide area residents and other interested parties an opportunity to discuss
the protect with NCTA and NCDOT officials Maps of the project area were available
for review and a slide presentation describing the workshop format, the Western Wake
Freeway protect, the NCTA, a general overview of toll roads, and the public ,
involvement process was presented A handout was distributed that provided
information about the protect A copy of the handout is provided in Appendix J
Approximately 400 citizens attended the meeting Citizens discussed the protect with ,
representatives from NCTA and NCDOT and 84 written comments about the protect
were submitted at the meeting An additional 81 comments were received prior to or
during the comment period that followed the meeting The following is a summary of '
the citizens' written comments
General Comments
¦ 56 people noted support for Western Wake Freeway as a toll road (31 of
these are business leaders providing comments as a form letter/e-mail),
¦ 107 people noted opposition to Western Wake Freeway as a toll road Of
these 107, the majority felt if there is a toll road then all of 1-540 should be a ,
toll road,
¦ 8 people requested maps or information,
¦ 2 people wanted the project to be subject to a public vote,

September 7, 2007 7-4 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• 6 people noted concern with construction and environmental impacts along
with impacts of cost,
¦ 6 people questioned traffic issues related to intersections at NC 55 and US 64
(Kelly Road and Green Level Church Road), and
¦ 3 people made suggestions or expressed concern over location of the toll
road and tolling exits
Right-of-way, Access, and Community Impacts
¦ 2 people expressed concern over right-of-way acquisition,
¦ 1 person noted concern regarding access to his property,
¦ 2 people noted concern for noise pollution,
¦ 5 people expressed concern over the number and placement of sound
barriers, and
¦ 1 person expressed concern over the material to be used for construction of
the sound barrier
General Toll Funding Concerns
¦ 2 people wanted to know the proposed date by which the road will be paid for
Toll Rates
¦ 1 person was concerned with the toll rate for large vehicles and heavy
equipment, and
¦ 2 people expressed concern over the cost of the toll, one would like to see it
be $1 (for the whole length) and another would like to see the costs reduced
for daily users
Transponder System
¦ 1 person expressed concern over privacy and use of the EZ Pass system
September 7, 2007
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
7-5

Reevaluation Report

Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

The Scotts Mill Homeowners Association has concerns about noise barriers,
particularly along the boundary between Scotts Mill subdivision and the freeway, the
bridge over Beaver Creek, and a continuation of the noise barrier along Apex
Barbeque Road They also have concerns over access next to the wall for
maintenance, as well as the proposed pedestrian path identified in the Apex
Pedestrian Plan There is also a concern about the anticipated noise levels that '
could affect a proposed elementary school near the Western Wake Freeway and
Scotts Mill for which the Wake County Public School System has already purchased
land
,

The following is a summary of verbal comments made to NCTA and other staff during
the CIW
General Comments
¦ The road is very much needed, so please build it even if it has to be a toll
road,
¦ Most people supported the road but questioned why tolls, why us, why not toll
all of 1-540 Several people asked about other funding options, ,
¦ Several questioned whether the US 64 and Kelly Road Interchange would
function properly Beaver Creek Commons is causing major traffic problems
and some remembered a flyover being promised to facilitate access to the
shopping center,
'
ll
d
y en
up
t accidenta
¦ Make sure the signing is adequate, so that people don
on the toll road, and
?
"
"
occur on the project becoming a toll road
¦ When will a
vote
Right-of-way, Access, and Community Impacts
¦ When will the R/W acquisition begin?
¦ How does the appraisal/acquisition process work? ,
¦ Many asked about placement of noise walls,
I
September 7, 2007 7-6 1
11

¦ Several asked about the elevation of the roadway relative to surrounding
properties,
¦ Several property owners asked how their access would change (e g , at Old
' US 1 and Tingen Road) and whether it would be possible to provide service
roads rather than have their property purchased
,
' What is the schedule for implementing the protect and when will right-of-way
in?
ac
uisition be
q
g
¦ People were wondering when they should move as they wanted to sell to us
(NCTA/NCDOT) and a developer, and
1 ¦ Several were concerned about the proximity of the road to their property
General Toll Funding Concerns
¦ Perceived inequity between the "free" section of 1-540 and the toll road,
' There was considerable skepticism that the toll plazas would ever be
removed,
¦ The State should refund the money it "borrowed" from the trust fund so that
Western Wake would not have to be tolled,
¦ Make the developers pay for the road in the form of impact fees, etc,
¦ Toll the entire loop to help pay for the Southern and Western Loops Change
the legislation to allow for tolling of existing this was done for the section of
1-540 under construction now, and

¦ Tolls should be placed on 1-95 and the revenue used to fund Western Wake
Freeway This would put the burden of paying for road construction on out-of-
state users of our roadways (who pay no North Carolina taxes) rather than on
the local community
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 7-7

Reevaluation Report

Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

Toll Rates
¦ Some people were confused over the toll rate One person discussed with
one of the TV anchors that they misrepresented the toll as $2 00 for a short
section,
¦ Some people said that they would never use the road One gentleman stated
that even though it would save him approximately 20 minutes each way that it
was not worth the toll The same gentleman said that the rate was much too ,
high compared to other toll roads He quoted the Pennsylvania turnpike rate
at $0 02 per mile,
¦ The gas tax needs to be raised enough to eliminate the need for toll roads,
even if that means $4 00/gallon,
¦ How much are the tolls going to cost? and
e was some confusion about the toll rate structure (car vs truck)
¦ Th
er
Other Toll Concerns
¦ Several expressed concern that traffic waiting to pay in the cash lanes would
back up into the through (i e , ETC) lanes and cause congestion for all, and
¦ Many people have the impression of traffic queuing endlessly at toll booths
Consequently, they had difficulty understanding how a toll road would ease ,
congestion and reduce travel time
Transponder System
¦ E-ZPass was the preferred transponder as many people were transplants
from E-ZPass states,
¦ Everyone wanted an "open road system" but no one thought that we could
eliminate cash, and '
¦ Will I have to slow down to pay the toll?

September 7, 2007 7-8
IF

1

1
L

It should be noted that among those commenting who voiced support or opposition to
tolling the project, approximately two-thirds of them voiced opposition to tolling the
project Among those commenting that opposed the tolls on the project, the majority
indicated that the other portions of the Outer Wake Expressway should also be tolled if
this project is implemented as a toll road Additionally, it was noted that there was very
limited opposition voiced to constructing the road and only one suggestion that the
location of the road be moved (to better accommodate the needs of southern Wake
County communities)
7 2 4 Small Group Meeting
A small group meeting with the Feltonsvdle Community was held February 15, 2007, at
6 00 p m , at 5836 Old Smithfield Road The meeting discussion included the
community's interests and how to best plan for the proposed improvements to
Feltonsvdle Community Park, to discuss proposed improvements to Old Smithfield
Road, to collect comments and to solicit feedback on tolling Western Wake Freeway
Over 160 invitation letters were mailed to property owners, residents and local
government representatives from Apex, Holly Springs and Wake County to notify them
of the meeting Additionally, fliers were distributed to each residence in the community
and posted in public locations Feltonsvdle Community leaders were also contacted to
solicit their assistance in notifying the community of the small group meeting
Approximately 33 citizens attended the meeting
A presentation by NCTA included an overview and update of the Western Wake
Freeway project, potential enhancements for the Feltonsville Community Park, and
proposed improvements to Old Smithfield Road Old Smithfield Road improvements
include
• provide an exclusive right-in/right-out access at the intersection of Old
Smithfield Road and NC 55 Bypass,
¦ widen Old Smithfield Road to three lanes with curb and gutter, and
¦ provide a left-turn at the intersection of Old Smithfield Road and NC 55
(The planned improvements to Feltonsvdle Community Park and to Old Smithfield
Road are the result of project commitments made by NCDOT in the FEIS and adopted
by NCTA These commitments were made by NCDOT to mitigate for cumulative
impacts to the Feltonsville community ) Maps of the project area were available for
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 7-9
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
,
review The handout provided for the CIW was distributed, along with a community
specific comment sheet and a preliminary design of the proposed park improvements
A copy of the handouts is provided in Appendix J The comments and concerns
discussed at the meeting primarily focused on the Feltonsvdle Community Park and
Old Smithfield Road as noted below
'
7 2 4 1 Feltonswlle Community Park
¦ Additional park features mentioned included restrooms, outside showers, and ,
an area for younger children,
¦ A majority of those attending the meeting expressed support for improving the
park,
¦ Safety/law enforcement and maintenance are the primary concerns related to ,
the park,
¦ A citizen stated that he currently maintains the park by picking up trash and
making repairs, however, maintenance is an ongoing concern for the future,
and ,
¦ People primarily ride their bicycles or walk to the park Participants expressed
the desire for a sidewalk and bicycle racks '
7 2 4 2 Old Smithfield Road

• The request was made to maintain full access at the intersection of Old
Smithfield Road and NC 55 Bypass and to make it a signalized intersection
In response to the request for a traffic light, it was noted that a light would not
make the intersection safer since the intersection is too close to the ramps
from Western Wake Freeway and thus would create a traffic hazard by
increasing the likelihood of rear-end collisions It would also tend to increase
the volume of cut-through traffic on Old Smithfield Road and it would cause
traffic to back up on NC 55 Bypass from the light to the proposed Western
Wake Freeway ramps, '
¦ Traffic volumes for the right-in/right-out scenario, including cut-through traffic
on Old Smithfield Road, were requested by community members,
,
September 7, 2007 7-10

1

11

I

L

1
¦ A majority of those present did not want cut-through traffic on Old Smithfield
Road,
¦ The original proposal from NCDOT was to dead end Old Smithfield Road
when NC 55 Bypass opened and it was clearly not what the community
wanted,
¦ Some community members voiced opposition to the access restrictions
proposed at Old Smithfield Road and NC 55 Bypass (right-in/right-out
scenario) Specifically, they desired direct access to the landfill across NC 55
Bypass and opposed the 7-mile long route to and from the landfill, created if
access across NC 55 Bypass is restricted In response, the project team
restated the safety issues and traffic management concerns related to full-
access at this intersection, and
¦ Children getting on or off school buses on Old Smithfield Road were a safety
concern
7 2 4 3 Western Wake Freeway (Toll Facility)
• The change of Western Wake Freeway to a toll facility would not affect the
NC 55 Bypass because there are no toll plazas planned for this area
¦ It is anticipated that the toll collection would be removed in 30 to 35 years
At the meeting, no one expressed any concern with Western Wake Freeway being
proposed as a toll road
Two comment sheets were submitted at the meeting and no additional comments were
received through the deadline of March 12, 2007 The primary issues raised are
outlined below
¦ Traffic on Old Smithfield Road has increased a lot since NC 55 Bypass
opened and Old Smithfield Road is more dangerous,
¦ Why will only this section of Outer Wake Expressway be a toll road?
¦ The park needs to have a restroom (both comment sheets),
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 7-11
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
,
¦ The park needs benches, chairs, picnic shelter, water fountain, basketball,
horse shoes, tennis, swings, toys for kids, landscaping, walking path around
the park, and lighting, and
¦ The president of the Feltonsvdle Community Organization indicated that the
organization will do their part in maintaining the park into the future ,
7 2 5 Local Officials Meeting
'
A Local Officials Meeting was held at 10 00 a m at Apex Town Hall-Council Chambers
on February 8, 2007 The meeting was held to provide a briefing on the protect,
preview the CIW presentation and displays, and answer any questions Over 100
invitation letters were distributed to representatives of the North Carolina General
Assembly, FHWA, NCDOT, environmental agencies and the local governments of
Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Vanna, Garner, Holly Springs, Morrisville and Wake County A
presentation was made by NCTA and FHWA NCTA reviewed the budget shortfall and
lack of funding for the Western Wake Freeway through conventional means, detailed
the current public involvement activities, provided an overview of the project, the
NCTA, and discussed toll technology FHWA discussed their review of and interest in
congestion management, alleviating critical roadway bottlenecks, increasing '
transportation network capacity, and their interest in alternative ways to fund
transportation projects
f
l
f
Th
our peop
e
or review
irty-
Current design plans of the protect were available
signed-in at the meeting, including approximately 21 local officials The following is a
brief summary of questions and answers discussed at the meeting ,
¦ Is there a Southeastern consortium of agenaes/states related to continuity of
toll collect?ons9 Texas, Florida, and Georgia are using the same transponder
and they are coordinating about continuity With existing toll facilities, an
unresolved issue is how to process transactions across state lines

¦ How will information privacy be managed for the data gathered dunng the
electronic toll collection process9 It was noted that a common policy among
toll agencies, about privacy, is that a court order is required to obtain
information captured from toll collection data
• What are the anticipated toll rates and will toll collections include financing the '
future capacity2 A preliminary traffic and revenue study is complete and a

September 7, 2007 7-12
' Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
detailed financial feasibility study is underway Toll rates have not been
determined, but are likely to be roughly 12 cents per mile and do not cover
' future capacity improvements
¦ Explain the need for tolls on Western Wake Freeway when other parts of
' Outer Wake Expressway were built without tolls2 The cost of construction and
materials has risen 45 percent in 3 years and continues to rise Traditional
' funds are not available for construction and the project would not be built in the
foreseeable future without innovative financing, such as tolling
¦ What is the current NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
budget? This year NCDOT has a budget of approximately $3 8 billion
However, they have a projected $65 billion budget shortfall over the next 25
years More NCDOT funds are currently allocated to maintenance than new
construction
' What Is the response to the public noting that motonsts on the Expressway
travel without tolls'2 Tolls are needed to build Western Wake Freeway
Existing roads provide non-toll options for drivers not interested in toll roads
l
h
•
2
Cou
d t
e entire Outer Wake Expressway be tolled
Current legislation
prohibits tolling of existing facilities
?
¦ Will NC TA develop a long-range plan related to future toll projects
The NCTA
has strategically identified six specific projects as candidate toll projects with
the support of local governments As a relatively new agency, NCTA is
educating the public and will not advocate specific projects to be implemented
as toll roads The public will need to understand and absorb the tolling
concept while NCTA proves itself as an organization that can deliver
transportation projects in a timely fashion using innovative financing

September 7, 2007 7-13
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
d
?
The NCTA understan
s
¦ What Is the status of the Southern Wake Freeway
the importance of that section of the Outer Wake Expressway, but the project
is currently not included as one of the candidate toll projects"
• Is there potential to modify legislation and add tolls to the existing parts of the
Outer Wake Expressway9 Yes, but it is unlikely that the public will accept tolls '
for existing facilities (Editor's note Legislation can be modified by the North
Carolina General Assembly At this time, legislation to authorize tolling ?s not
under consideration and there has been no indication that such legislation is
'
likely to be considered m the future )
¦ Is there adequate capacity at the US 64 interchange with Western Wake ,
Freeway? Studies regarding US 64 Improvements are underway by NCDOT
to evaluate the needed capacity
¦ What is the potential time travel savings with Western Wake Freeway? A trip
from Holly Springs to 1-40 may be reduced by roughly 20 minutes each way ,
• What is the potential gasoline savmgs9 NCTA does not currently have
information regarding gasoline savings '
¦ Would drivers' gasoline cost savings virtually match the toll cost? It is not
likely However, there is a potential for employers to assist employees/ ,
commuters with the cost of toll transponders
Three comment sheets were submitted at the meeting and the primary issues raised I
are outlined below
¦ Support for Western Wake Freeway as a toll road, ,
¦ Preference for the section between NC 55 Bypass and US 1 to be built first,
F1
17 The response documented here is the response provided to this question at the Local Officials Meeting
The combined Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway consists of STIP Protect Nos R-2721, R-2828 and ,
R-2829 NCDOT is currently conducting initial planning and environmental studies for these projects With
the exception of these initial studies, the projects are unfunded in the 2007-2013 STIP
r1
L
September 7, 2007 7-14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• Benefits of Western Wake Freeway were noted (decreased travel time and
reduced congestion), and
¦ Request for a separate/additional ramp at the NC 55 Bypass interchange with
Western Wake Freeway for truck traffic traveling to the Southwest Wake
Landfill, noting that the ramp would improve safety, cleanliness, congestion,
noise and aesthetics in the vicinity of the interchange
In addition to the Local Officials Meeting, coordination is ongoing with local
governments as needed This coordination takes many forms including formal and
informal meetings, telephone conversations, letters and a-mails Some local
organizations have adopted resolutions supporting the project Copies of letters or
resolutions from the organizations are provided in Appendix K

September 7, 2007
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
7-15

8 References and List of Preparers
81 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2004
' A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Washington, D C
' Cervero, R 2003 Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel A Path
Analysis Journal of the American Planning Association
Environmental Laboratory 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1 US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS 100 pp + appendices
a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2006 Interim Guidance on Air Toxic
Analysis in NEPA Documents U S Department of Transportation
Memorandum February 3, 2006
FHWA 2001 NEPA and Transportation Decision Making - Project Development and
' Documentation Overview U S Department of Transportation
Martin, W A, and N A McGuckin Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning
' Transportation Research Board Barton-Aschman Associates, Incorporated
NCHRP Report 365 TRB, 1998
' North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2007 Indirect and
Cumulative Impact Report, Overland Pollutant Loading Analysis - Western Wake
Freeway Prepared by EcoScience Corporation, May 2007
NCDOT 2006 Jurisdictional Waters Revenfication Report - Western Wake
Freeway Prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc, Dec 2006
NCDOT 2004a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Western Wake
Freeway, from NC 55 at SR 1172 (Old Smithfield Road) to NC 55 near SR 1630
(Alston Avenue), approximately 20 kilometers (12 4 miles), in Wake County,
North Carolina US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway
Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation, Jan 2004

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 8-1
?I
Reevaluation Report

Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
NCDOT 2004b Record of Decision (ROD), Western Wake Freeway From NC 55 at
SR 1172 (Old Smithfield Road) To NC 55 Near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue), Wake
County, North Carolina US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway
Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation, April 2004
NCDOT 2004c Addendum to the Natural Systems Report of 1997 Prepared by ,
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc, May 2004
NCDOT 2004d Design Noise Report Addendum - Western Wake Freeway '
Prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc, May 2004
NCDOT 2003a Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment - TIP No R-2635 '
Prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc, July 2003
NCDOT 2003b Community Impact Assessment - Western Wake Freeway '
Prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc, January 2003
NCDOT 2002a Roadway Design Manual - 2002 Revision Design Services Unit, ,
North Carolina Department of Transportation Raleigh, NC
,
NCDOT 2002b Design Noise Report - Western Wake Freeway Prepared by
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc, November 2002
'
NCDOT 1999 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Western Wake
Freeway, from NC 55 at SR 1172 (Old Smithfield Road) to NC 55 near SR 1630
(Alston Avenue), approximately 20 kilometers (12 4 miles), in Wake County, '
North Carolina US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway
Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation, Oct 1999

NCDOT 1998 Protected Species Report - Western Wake Freeway Environmental
Impact Statement Prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc
,
NCDOT 1997 Natural Systems Report - Western Wake Freeway Prepared by
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc

NCDOT and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) 2001 Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of

Transportation Projects in North Carolina Prepared by the Louis Berger Group, ,
Inc

September 7, 2007 8-2

' North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2006a Final North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report) Approved November, 2006 North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC
NCDWQ 2006b North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List
(2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) Public Review Draft - February
' 2006 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC
' NCDWQ 2005 Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial
Streams Version 3 1 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC
NCDWQ 2004 Basinwide Assessment Report Cape Fear River Basin, August 2004
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC
' NCDWQ 1995 Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina - 4th
Version North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) 2006 Element Occurrence List
' for Wake County, North Carolina North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC World Wide Web
www ncsparks net/nhp/elements2 fm (Accessed January 31, 2007)
North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) 2007a Traffic Forecasts for the Toll
Scenarios for TIP No R-2635, Western Wake Parkway, Wake County, North
Carolina Prepared by Martin Alexiou Bryson, March 2007
NCTA 2007b Capacity Analysis for Western Wake Freeway 2030 Build Toll
' Alternative Prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc, May 2007
' NCTA, 2007c Air Quality Analysis Technical Report - Western Wake Freeway
Prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc, May 2007
' NCTA 2007d Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum for Western Wake
Freeway Prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc, June 2007

Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
September 7, 2007 8-3

Reevaluation Report

Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
NCTA 2007e Traffic Noise Report - Western Wake Freeway Prepared by
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc, June 2007
NCTA 2007f Land Use Analysis - TIP Project No R-2635 Prepared by HNTB North '
Carolina, P C, August 2007
NCTA 2006a A Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study - Proposed Western and '
Southern Wake Parkways Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, June 2006
NCTA 2006b Turnpike 101 -Project Selection Process World Wide Web ,
www ncturnpike org/pdf/TP101_Project-Selection_Process pdf (Accessed
February 15, 2007)
Radford, Bruce 2007 Personal communications between B Radford, Apex Town '
Manager, and T Roberts, HNTB, March 19
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2007 Wake County Endangered ,
Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern United States
Department of Interior World Wide Web www fws gov/nc-es/cntylist/wake html
(Accessed January 31, 2007) '
USFWS 2003 Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides boreabs) Recovery Plan
Second Revision US Department of the Interior
8 2 List of Preparers
Federal Highway Administration
George Hoops, P E M S in Transportation Engineering, B S in Civil
Major Projects Engineer Engineering with 16 years of experience in all aspects of
roadway design and planning
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
Steve DeWitt, P E B S in Civil Engineering with 23 years of experience in '
Chief Engineer project development including environmental
evaluations/processes, design-build program and project
development, contract procurement and administration, ,
and construction processes
September 7, 2007 8-4
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
' Jennifer Harris P E B S in Civil Engineering and a B S in Environmental
Staff Engineer Engineering with 7 years experience in transportation,
' project development, impact analysis, public
involvement, and NEPA analysis
HNTB/NCTA General Engineering Consultant
Whit Webb, P E M S in Civil Engineering and B S in Civil Engineering
' Associate Vice President with 34 years experience in transportation engineering,
Principal in Charge planning, funding and programming
Anne Lenart Redmond, E I B S in Civil Engineering with 14 years of experience in
' NEPA Manager NEPA studies, highway and transit planning and
roadway design
' Tracy Roberts, AICP M S in Public Administration and B S in Urban and
Senior Transportation Planner Regional Planning with 12 years experience in NEPA
studies and municipal planning
' Spencer Franklin, P E B S in Civil Engineering with 11 years of experience in
Traffic Engineering Project Manager signal design, ITS design, traffic analysis, access
management and traffic control design
' Susan Fisher, AICP M C R P in City and Regional Planning and B S in
Senior Planner Natural Sciences and Mathematics with 7 years
experience in NEPA related studies and municipal
planning
Nathan Phillips, P E Master of Science in Civil Engineering, B S in Civil
Traffic Engineering Protect Manager Engineering, 12 years experience in traffic analysis,
access management, signal design, corridor studies,
sign design and unconventional structures concept
analysis
Donna Keener, P E B S in Civil Engineering with 19 years of experience in
Senior Design Engineer transportation engineering, including roadway and
drainage design, highway capacity analysis, and traffic
' control design
John Jaeckel, P E BS in Applied Science and Engineering - Energy
Principal Engineer Environmental Quality Conversion, 34 years of experience in air quality and
noise analysis for NEPA documents

September 7, 2007 8-5
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway '
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635

ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina
,
Len Hill, P E Master of Science in Civil Engineering, B S in Civil
Roadway Design Senior Program Manager Engineering, over 32 years of experience in all aspects
Project Director of roadway design and planning '
Kristina S Miller, P E B S in Civil Engineering with 13 years of experience in
Project Manager transportation, project development, impact analysis,
public involvement, and NEPA analysis '
Tyson A Graves, P E Master of Business Administration, B S in Civil
Transportation Business Practice Manager Engineering, over 17 years of experience in all aspects
of traffic engineering, including planning, traffic impact ,
analyses, and traffic design plans
Martha M Register Master of Science in Botany, over 12 years of
Environmental Planner/Biologist experience in natural resources surveys and analysis, '
environmental planning/assessment and NEPA
compliance
Andy Archer, E I B S in Civil Engineering, assists in the development of '
Traffic Designer signing, pavement marking, and traffic control plans,
levels of service analysis and noise analysis, and
roadway design and traffic impact studies

Justin Beard, P E
B S in Civil Engineering and Environmental Studies, '
Traffic Engineer over 7 years experience in all aspects of traffic
engineering

Paige Cureton
B A in Communications, 8 years of communication '
Public Involvement Specialist strategies experience with over 4 years developing and
implementing public participation programs related to

NEPA studies '
Keven Duerr B S in Biology, over 5 years experience in GIS analysis
Biologist and field investigations, including wetland/stream, plant

community and wildlife identification ,
Xeujun Fan, P E Master of Science in Civil Engineering with 12 years
Traffic Engineer experience in traffic engineering analysis and design,

traffic impact study, and transportation planning '
Byron J O'Quinn, P E Professional Degree in Transportation Engineering and
Senior Technical Advisor B S in Civil Engineering with more than 40 years of

experience in transportation and environmental '
planning
Robin Pugh, AICP Master of City and Regional Planning, B A in Design, 18

Senior Community Planner
years of experience in local government planning and '
over 3 years experience in environmental assessment
and NEPA compliance

September 7, 2007 8-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Reevaluation Report
Western Wake Freeway
Wake County
STIP Project No R-2635
Lindsey Riddick Master of Business Administration, B S in Natural
Senior Scientist Resources, over 10 years experience as environmental
professional with a thorough knowledge of both state
and federal environmental regulations
Kevin Scott, P E B S in Civil Engineering, over 14 years of experience
Project Engineer providing air quality consulting services including
industrial source air permitting, regulatory compliance
assistance, and periodic compliance reporting
Roy Shelton B S in Civil Engineering with over 42 years experience
Senior Technical Advisor in transportation and environmental planning, design
and construction
Steve Smallwood, P E B S in Civil Engineering with 15 years experience in
Senior Roadway Design Engineer roadway design
Ann Steedly, P E Master of Business Administration, B S in Civil
Senior Planner Engineering, over 10 years of experience in
socioeconomic impact analyses, environmental
assessment and NEPA compliance
September 7, 2007
8-7
T
I
O 1 2 *13
c4 ;/ 0
'
Z? l l(/ i
- r'
End
Project
T01v,q 20
%Gj ss -
TER FIRE STATION RD
O -
x _J
J Q
/ LU Q
W J } I
J
II Z
Ld
W
1 O
O RD
O C,R: I
`? ?? SGN 1
PROPOSED WESTERN
WAKE FREEWAY
h \
t
FzE?N V????RD M
G z
ROBERTS RD?
m
T_
n
2
C
o r
i
1 5?0
U? -
Z
¦
WESTERN WAKE
f RLC'd^J?`+
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
OF NORTH Cqq
?4 O?
NORTH CAROLINA. ;y y'.
Turnpike Authority
94 lP "
e
?FNT of raPHSPo
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
N
W E
S
Wi
Legend
Roads
Streams
Project Footprint
Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
Apex
Cary
Holly Springs
Municipal Boundary
r ---' Apex
Cary
Holly SnrincAs

OLIVE CHAPEL RD
4
AP.
\PPEX - BARSECUERO
SALEM S I
d; v
02
Q
0-
PLEASANT
PLAINS RD/
7

N ?n\
a
Q
R
Alz
C)
O
OLD SMITHFIELD RD

Begin
Project

C
Jo
D
i'
1D
?a_
z
D
cn
z io 0
c) ??

C7
r
D
O
z
z
O
cn
^n
1
m
O
r
r
Cn
z
G)
Cn
Ul
0
0
0

m m cn
m z
CD

0)
1

CD

Z
Z
CL CD
D 77, a 0
rn
CD
w o
I C
0
00 Cn ()I
? aS Cn -Phl I
C/) O
0 c C/)
D z :3 --1
-0 0 CD
X N V1
O
O ? N
0 O
0 C)
`J 0 O O
DT
< V/J
r
U r
m
z
? o
N
J
N
cri
O

z
0
N
00
N
Co

D
O r
m
D
z _
m

CD
ca

rn z z m cn cn
o v
U n n v
(f) o
c o
c m
CL
< ol
(D
(D
CD cn cn _ CD =3
o z z m m

v
" P o -n 0
m CD
„ v
-,
c
N N ? lD
(D (D
(D C/)
-{ ?
o O
O O
O
rn v v v

o g C
-4
W
W z

Cl)
? _ -

n
?'

m
z
o 0

Z a

Z

-4

o
K O O W
N W N.
NN ONo v ?
W
Co N
OD N
- Cr
a)
40,
o D
7" CC
C
C)
0
?m
o z 0 ?
Dz -j C/)z
cD
C Z
Z m
t.e -n
?O-n
m
TC7 '`' Sm
oN UW
??da ST a
l D
Z
\\9r n
q-D
?J I
T
m D
w
m
D
O r
m
I
C/)
0

m m = m = = ¦s ? m M ? m m > m m m ?
EEwz:ng:1Vo:t =Scale
4000 WettChase
Raleigh, NVorth CamAna 27607
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Transportation Planning - Traffic Engineering
LEGEND
### VPD--# of vehicles pcr da)
### i•,IUCH LESS THAN ### VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
?'1? ONEWAYMOVI?h11iNT
DHV- rM ID
(d,q
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUJllS (N.1 = K30
K30 = 30th HIGH-ST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
D DIREMONAL SPLIT
-10 INDICATES DIRHCTION OFD
RIiVF.RSE FOR AM PEAK
(c,:) DUA1S• TT-STS -/,.)

MATCHLINE A
MATCHLINE A NC 55 Western Wake Freeway
MATCHLINE A
Green Level Church Road
c O
O
O
0
0

o?
0
0
N
O
l
cF 009
/ m
00
QZ
'
/ O
O =
CU O
C J
vt
N
CD
0
=r CD QOa
0 CD
O :0
N S
O O
a0 X_ ?O
N
CD =
i/ N Cn
.O <
O C CD
4
o ?N
009 1 l;'1
m
S O Oa
O
O 3
O
OOg' L L
lt'Z ? o't
!? °t t^S .Z7 O
c 000'ti N 0 (T
CD G)
CL : O
to ;0 CD
O
'' m r
CL CD
°o O Nti sy <
W o R O e10 CD
A L ?
o - °
0
O N
N ? ? O O
O co
O p
?, OQ90t s9
N °o l,?til
r
Yk N
O
O
N ^
0D °o CD
a O O
Z
N u?.? OQa'4' a l / U_'
o= $ ltiZ) = CD
7
0 CD
CD
° °o i? 009 4l Q
0
o q a °o
0.
° -,°, 004 ?l 5q °o
0
o Y"a <
N °t
O
d)
W W d. ? CD N d?
O
Ooj L4' ? o°o
0 °o ° 0p3 N 3
o rn Q4 ?' O' Oj ?L
°e o 0 0
N? CY
0
O
m
0 O N
CO
No A
O O
O
O t`tl O a •0
° °t yaa c ? >
0
W 0
N p OND
O
V ?J
O 7
"9L`p sf0
O ?
m ?
°'
o
O W J
n
m /
CD O

O -?_,
CD Cn 1;6?' SS

OQ "w
O CD °
m
a
o. v
QQp6 5h o °?
n G)
C O Qs
pM
C7 CL
S = /QZ? ez N QQ9
0 -0 _0
.? O 4s °o
%
m
W CD
Q. O ? O O ? N
O O O
??pp O
Qyr?? O O
O`? ?? GS
? M
O m ° a C? \
rQ?
m -n rn °0 6g I2
CL v m .400
-o
oa
O ? ?b
WESTERN WAKE
FREEWAY

FIGURE 4A: 2030 BUILD
ALTERNATIVE A
REEVALUATED WITH TOLLS
DAILY FORECAST VOLUMES
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
j Turnpike Authority

F NORTH 6
?1F.0 ?O
i, o z
WESTERN WAKE
;REEWAY
Drawing 1Vot to Scale
4000 EYWe.rtCha e
Smile
Raleigh, North Grok'na 2;
Phone: [phone]
Fax: 919-829--C
Transportation Planning - Traffic Engineering
LEGEND
### \'PD---# 4 vehicles Per day
tt#i: - MUCH LESS THAN ### VPD
X MOVEMI-NT PROHIBITED
ONE 1xAYMOVEWNT
DHV pMt) 1D
ld,
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME: ^%) = K30
K30 = 30th HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
D DIRE CTIONAL SPLIT CA)
-. INDICATES DIRECTION OF D
REVIIRSI: FOR AM PEAK
(d,t) DUAV-S, TT-STS Pi 1
1 Quo
JwIC, ?Q g
°°
m `n a
IV
O?
O z
°
to
a
0 ID Co 0
tiQ
? o (Q _
co
In Q
° O co
C. ' C
I
ca
O)
o
co
o O
w
O C a0
m

FIGURE 4B: 2030 BUILD
ALTERNATIVE A
REEVALUATED WITH TOLLS
DAILY FORECAST VOLUMES
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STI P NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
OF OORTH Cq
?P~cb Np
. NORTH CAROLINA y w'
Turnpike Authority
9
??-??OFTP?N ?,
6'r ?a °???
62.800 67,400: ------ d
s? ° • .a
O ? ° b
Z^ oo °o ;;
F) V' N
m
U, W m
Ut W O ° Nt
V O r
° o os
4,
N
?p °? t?
0:
CC
,
o
O c / o N
N
41
c `a5 °o ,
O
w O O
o C
O Cn ' o J O
°
5 0-
?
c c
I ,
o o-tv
CL
`ya o 8
b
OOP
y i
Z 0 0-0 CD O
a?CD
??(D
N 5n (D ?D
o ° vti p
O
O
N
O
0
0 0°? ? 55 i? A
°? oo / tiZ\ 6 0
e? Wd o
N O O °
OOn' 6 ? °o o o
00t L4
0 ° 00909
w 3 $ t?3 t ? ' ' -' 16 5E o'r ,,,
o ??jt? rn
m o
0 0 0
u, C OOZ
a
(J) WS) 09
o Z.
't N
O00 £5 0 ° °
'l??- 09 w
o tp
Ol yid O
C
O
O
? v
O
MATCHLINE A MATCHUNE A
MATCHLINE A NC 55 Western Wake Freeway Green Level Church Road

NC 55
FUTURE
E-W
COLLECTOR
(TOWN OF
CARY)
McCRIMMON
PARKWAY-/
CARPENTER '!'
FIRE STATION---_
ROAD
FUTURE
MORRISVILLE
PARKWAY
(TOWN OF GREEN
CARY) HOPE
SCHOOL
ROAD
RAMP PLAZA RAMP PLAZA
GREEN
LEVEL
ROAD
ROBERTS
ROAD/
OLD
JENKS MAINLINE
ROAD _ PLAZA
KELLY
ROAD.
US 64---
FUTURE ?I`JBEAVER CREEK
' DRIVE EXTENSION
OLIVE (TOWN OF APEX)
CHAPEL RAMP PLAZAS
ROAD
APEX -
BARBECUE
ROAD
RAMP PLAZA
RAMP PLAZA
OLD US 1
RAMP PLAZA
RAMP PLAZA i
RAMP
PLAZA
us 1 RAMP PLAZA
OLD HOLLY
SPRINGS -
APEX ROAD
NORTHERN WAKE
EXPRESSWAY
J
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NC 55
BYPASS
1. w-j-
I P-
WESTERN WAKE

FIGURE 2: TOLL PLAZA SITES
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
C4'OF NOFiTM "'
NORTH CAROLINA
APO:
Turnpike Authority !,a ?;
TOLL COLLECTION SITE(RAMP PLAZA)
TOLL COLLECTION SITE(MAINLINE 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
PRELIMINARY
-NOT TO SCALE-
s m m m m m m m
M M? MM M a M?1=1 M moo M? M i

O j J2
Q
Jai , Q
Q ff AMBER,
f'
/ WELDON RIDGE
f O
COPPERLEA?
1.-.

?: BROOKFII
?i su
ILIE T 8
AN W NJ '%;
.5
RD
M
I Z
U
z
ORES I
tr
O
OLD JEN
i
D \`
RECKEN
WESTERN WAKE JIE --
FRE
HE PAR
JRT AT ¦ ii
7- _ `-
_XFOR
'ItFIGURE 7: EXISTING AND
TER VIL
M PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS
n "7
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
VILLAG WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
^MA
OWNH
TO
NGTON
OF NORTh C4
"' 9
I O? ,
NORTH CAROLINA iy i'2EST0 Turnpike Authority ;;qI
?Fti7 OAF 7Aew
G Legend
RI N
Roads
w+E
1 R S Streams

0 0.5 1 Existing Subdivisions

11 Miles
Proposed Subdivisions
'RMS
1 inch equals 4,000 feet Parcels
* Ramp Plaza
ARK, Source: North Carolina
w Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis * Mainline Plaza
ON (2006.2007):
MES Wake County GIS
Department (2007)
0
Project Footprint

SUBDIVISIONS LABELED BY LETTER ONLY
A-TOWNS OF CARRIAGE DOWNS S = WINSLOWE
B = CARRIAGE DOWNS T = PERRY VILLAGE
C = JOHN W PEARSON U = THE TOWNES AT SUGARLAND
D = L'HERMITAGE AT BEAVER CREEK V = BUNGALOW PARK AT SCOTTS MILL
E = ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE W = RUSSELL G BOOTH
F = HADDON HALL - PHASE 6 X = TREYLAND ESTATES
G = FAIRVIEW ROAD Y = THE ENCLAVE AT WINDEMERE
H = DOGWOOD ACRES Z = EDWARDS
I = JOSEPH IANNONE AA- SAPONI HILLS
J = HELTON BB = ALLENDALE ACRES
t K = COURTYARD AT SALEM OAKS CC = GREENWOOD ACRES
J. L = BLADESTONE DD = SUNSET POINTE
H M = SARA P PEARSON EE = WRENNS NEST
N = DAVID F RAYMER FF = HOLLY RUN
O = JOSEPH & FRANCES MILLS GG = HAZEL HINTON
P = CARLYLE FRANKLIN HH = DEWAYNE & JILL GAFFIN
Q = SUNNY SIDE II = SUMMERCREST II
R = ROSE GARDEN
n
P X-BARSECD R
0

'Q HOLLAND
o
- -
a FARM CO
3 C
P

J
V
` : IRON GATE
2
,
SCOTT WOO DGATE Q
JOHN H
\
EVAN FARMS J
/
'
WINCH
HARRIS
/ V
-
JFRANK K

3U

\\

Z? ??
GOLDSTON& WIFE
--- ' ?\ J?? Begin

-- - FRIENDSHIP
ACRES
VS 1
PLEASANT
1
Project
Q\_Q
CHARLES C & KI WOOD
Q

o TANNER
EDITH BTAN -- - co C
- ;Z
PLEASANT \
2
1Z

CREEKS - CREEKS PLAINS RD \ /h

J
BEND BEND
FARMS WINDING
WAY \ o

ESTATES J ?

BENNETT
WORKMAN?& OAKS __
KING FAMILY

OLD SMITHFIELD R

DD

:En P
ct
20
ss

CRY
TROY M
?? HOWARD
PE TER FIRE STATION RD

CAMERON POND

F

j

0
LLI I

"LL-
RD Q

_-
W
J
Z
LL >}
LU
U'

o PROPOSED

WESTERN WAKE
' FREEWAY
ROBERT W
JOCK
S rn I

GLENW
J (j

3 JAN
E
JOHN
N m

Z
ROBERT
BECK WITH FARMS C
S
M
AMITY FIELDS
- - I
- C7
2 _ THE VIL
C -
CREEP
GREEN
--- LEVELS LCRO:
FARMS` _

>,r r ?r r ?l r r r? r r ?r r r 1r ?? r r
Iro
WESTERN WAKE
=nEEWAY
PROPOSED WESTERN NC 54 '
WAKE FREEWAY
x.44 FIGURE 8: FELTONSVILLE
COMMUNITY
140 WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
64
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FELTONSVILLE
1??F ,011T1,
Cq,90
COMMUNITY
NORTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authority ;o =1
0
lP
dP.
1CJ ? ??Fh'r OF TR PNye
N
Y oY+l :u uja4J^P *H7:t„^ra '? `+`9y ..... ' :..t. •*a? `r ?"} W E
\w e??ti a1?, ?l?'?al r A n r,} ?... n t S
1 t t :,ry Y >'.'pt H y '? 5 v"'
i y.{
0 500 1,000
-td 1 y t`Y r ?n1r M r ?, X01 .?, Feet
rK 1 i .t?"?.h.ti' , ' r y, ?' {. ^rtr4y{ Y'`Y;, ar ?Y . E t' M-A r +
Jae
} ?? ?? ?, o ?,'{?? w3"?* >??; ,a 1 inch equals 800 feet
•, '„A., ry, Ti?.? r u ? ,1, ! tp r ryr..• „air
?y?9? r 'S ? ?., t .' ? 1 ti M'?t "?""'a rY ? h { . t`ti ?A ?.t' ? Z ! ? • ? ? G+ - t ? ,i w.
? «,,? ? :• 4§+ F 1"f H -?{„ "? c? ^ t r a ? ? .a ?,r Sources: North Carolina
t ?,? r r 5 ?: - $ r err .3 Y5 Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis
o-c 44w, try ?1,4? f k * s M t n ?y c (2006, 2007), Wake County
t ?1a +4 a' a w", i, ?h, ' ?J n• _ i2 `.a GIS Department (2007);
;, #A,.. , ter- r ?
T , .. ,' xc•
- 4A,
a?.:.? _a" , .?• t..;y " ^ r Wake County Aerial
y. , ... Y?Y+4• Yc+l'?,'+.C +IF t+ . r.._ Photography (2005)
1 ,
?r

????` r}?` ? y ?'•` `??. ?• ' ??kr ?? ri Previous Location of Feltons ?'ri= Y r?,•,? +? ?, , , ±. _ ?` ai c ,
16.
i + •??IPA.* _ Grove Baptist Church; now ? 1,
?lorp,
-{ I / - , y7 y °' - Calvary Deliverance Church i? =;, .'? "'' apyw?S{ •'
11 .vT?
Church of God
of Prophecy

e?3 MwC? C
RITTE?

?
xa h 51 M
`.
40.
3d!

Legend
Roads
Streams
Feltonsville
Landfill
Project Footprint
m m m man s m Man mm ? M m? mm m MI
WESTERN WAKE -
RE
tFIGURE 6: 2030 BUILD
ALTERNATIVE A
REEVALUATED WITH TOLLS
AM AND PM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT TIP NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
440RTHC4,
NORTH CAROLINA N v\I
MATCH LINEA ?m ?m Turnpike Authority Zi
m n Km Om
O Hf1j pP,
z CA
n n m' x? lz FM OF7BN"SQ.
- 2D xD
Om Om
z DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE
0 0
on mW
W m5
i0J cn ?
S
US 64 CO
Z
m m?
F.Nll- \Yl
?(D W I ? mn ?
n$ T
o? -
oQ ?
C? O 0
i?
m
0

n \ I I / n
O>
f
mn ?n
T m? m0
z ?
n ?
US 64 W n
i 00
? -" m ^ n
R
o C7
nco
in mW
Us l
W ? 6 a? m n
m 0
I8
?g W
00 IUD
0
a W
1
=D
r
m
z
z T
m
x n
- m

N m
m
x m Z
z 0
C7
n O ?
?^
0 x
O x
O OLD US 1

z
c
c O n
.b
m x
O z
O n O
A
m c

z n m 0 0 w
'W O
m ?
NC 55
-zm OX 0 m (? O
z c
Sy =D
0m Om
c c
z z
0 0
MATCH LINE A

m

m
m =
r m
m

? m m

m
mm M mom I
? End
Project w
2 > Nqk- 20 WESTERN WAK -- -
V 0? J / r ;
Q
2, FIGURE 10: UTILITIES
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
-? ` CARPENTER FIRE STATION RD_ 6= - NCDOT STI P NO. R-2635
° WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1Q D
OF NORTHCq
%? JJJ m ? 90
f O NORTH CAROLINA ?9',
Turnpike Authority _,
> 1 Q 20' ° '9AA
' J } - C?1/? y??OF TRANS
Z
A D 16"
C 70 - N
% 16" 0 0 0.5 1
w+E Miles
O N OpE.
N
Q? EE
??? SGNpOLR , s 1 inch equals 4,000 feet
24" Sources: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (2006, 2007);
J 5 12" Town of Cary (2007): Town of Apex (2007); PSNC (2001); Progress Energy (2001)
PROPOSED WESTERN
WAKE FREEWAY
i
q?'
Z
ROBERTS Ur36„
M RD z.
12"
0
OLD JENKS RD
?7r O 30" `
US 64
a°
OLIVE CHAPEL RD
S
10"
12,' 12"
? \? 10-? " 1 11 -, -I--
p 12„ \ PprcX - BARBECV
l 12"
y ; SALEM ST
i
02 1?
Q
Y PLEASANT
PLAINS RD )
J ?
?V O
23? Z
O
O ?? -
OLD SMITHFIE
Legend
Substations
Progress Energy, Inc. Transmission Lines
Natural Gas Transmission Lines
Pumping Stations
o Wastewater Treatment Facility
a Water Treatment Facility
Water Tank
Sewer Line - 10-inch diameter or greater
Water Line - 10-inch diameter or greater
Streams
Roads
- Feltonsville Landfill
Project Footprint
* Ramp Plaza
* Mainline Plaza
1
1 -- 12"
18"
CO16" 16"
ss
Begin
Project
ct
?Q
h?
?
I

m ?
m m
a = r r

End ¦
Project
WESTERN WAKE „y
J ss
? ? J2 =REEV,'4y i ?
O ¦ ?.
2 / 441
J? ? Q
° FIGURE 12: HAZARDOUS
ION RD MATERIAL AND WASTE SITES
CARPENTER FIRE STAT ¦
O
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
m WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
o
[ O m
C)
F µOpTH C
W af
> ¢ ¦ n 'pro 4yo4.
U-1 l } S NORTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authority
W j ?w C)
1 9
?FNT OF TRPN?O -.
/' ?OQ?O O?Rp
0 0.5 1
1 inch equals 4,000 feet
GR? Miles
PROPOSED WESTERN N Legend
WAKE FREEWAY w+E
S Roads
ti
Streams
? Hazardous Waste Site
? Source: North Carolina
NEE m Center for Geographic ® Superfund Site
GR?? Z Information and
Analysis (2006, 2007)
ROBERTS Underground Storage Tank
RD v
?Z
?k Ramp Plaza
Mainline Plaza
Project Footprint
OLD JENKS RD
?C-)
1
US 64 +- (is 6,
s
s
OLIVE CHAPEL RD
¦

APEX T

/
PPEX - BARBEC?F_
Rp ¦
SALEM ST
_ A

1 = / O
0
cl 1 ??

O`-

Begin

PLEA
SANT
?
2
® Project
PLAINS RD \
h
V .
} J=
[)
r
o ?
0
OLD SMITHFIELD RD
0

' -- / 1
I
r- ] YI
mm m w man= mm mmmmmwommmm
m = = m m m = = = r = m m m = m

?? V ? V ? • M 4 i l ? 1 T M1 ??. r-?v ..?Y? rL 1?:: 1' Y I ?•. ?? ? .1' r V-
T
`HOMESTD PAr2K CREEKSIDE hI NOISE WALL #S
- Y (RECOMMENDE
Meter LocaUon'9? _
?.' ? ? ? ? r Y4.h mot,
' - ^ ASHLEY DOWNS
?R z
Streams
w NOISE WALL #7 - PEARSON FnRMS
• Noise Receptors DGE (RECOMMENDED)' v?
h'OODR DE
? DOG,
z
Meter Locations NOISE WALL #5 ;?.<? NOISE WALL #6
(RECOMMENDED) ?y,,' - - (RECOMMENDED) CAMERON PARK
CI Subdivisions
- '' GRECNBRIC-R'
Project Footprint
Meter Location 8 S
- Y . i

m = r m m m ? m== r m= m i m

} I f? > f I ?? ?io? taw
?G?\
ti
?-?? 1 ? lf-"+ mil' '? J •ir .,`` L? _ I .?n
--k T
WESTERN WAKE
i
FIGURE 14A: JURISDICTIONAL
?yNl,l'44 ?` r ?-
_ I WATERS AND PONDS
7?` WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
;?; ?` _ •! 4\?;? i ;;a`=,\ i ?`" 1 ,_? NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
??_ , _? ;%?? `''? y;•' ?`-= WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
9.71&? r 51 NORTH CAROLINA
_r, dhope Turnpike Authority
T_ de
T' St? .., ?F'I?o?rwnNe
r a ?R I``I ?
t ._?r ?J= Vii.. i11 •!"" • -7 55 ??ry:390
w E Legend
r'• _ '}?
""rb r ? i??/ I ?? ,;??i '??? -' q.. ?' ' %? ? v •C1st'penter
?? ''`• ?'?yII i Jurisdictional Wetlands
0 1,000 2,000 Ponds
Feet
Streams
Scale 1:24,000
Ramp Plaza
52 1 , i•.
Source: U. S. G. S. 7.5-Minute
%
I Topographic Quadrangle Maps: * Mainline Plaza
III - (f
tt 1 T ` Apex. Cary. Green Level, and
New Hill, North Carolina
Project Footprint
1 ?'l`._ _ \l \ (I t?? \111
i; emr
ma
_r
786
\` ;? ? ? ?? a ???? / Yd t, ?? '' )?' ? e ? 1 ?) •, ?--- tl-; ? ??? - ' ?.
k"N
'--'r -1
i
<z<
?P
Br -V
396

_Ce m

i I
i
,r 161 ? i._ \? \

WESTERN WAKE -
FRtL,
FIGURE 1413: JURISDICTIONAL
WATERS AND PONDS
y'. WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
J i ,4 OF NORTHC'q
4 0<.
NORTH CAROLINA % v'.
Turnpike Authority Co
OQ'
N
W+E
Legend

c
a S
Jurisdictional Wetlands
,
0 1,000 2,000
Ponds
Feet
Streams
Scale 1:24,000 * Ramp Plaza
Source: U. S. G.S. 7.5-Minute
Topographic Quadrangle Maps:
* Mainline Plaza
Apex, Cary. Green Level, and

- New Hill, North Carolina
? Project Footprint

55 r-i`T ' -.7
h 22
~-. 'N:?-
s 1

46
L-

it
1? !
C116

m m m m m m m m m m = m m m m m m m m

L r
:,: YA r arZ?QN,SE AEL -i:• ' s ZONE ?
WESTERN WAKE .r
•
- - ??
m-v A'
-\.CN?
FIGURE 15B: FLOODPLAINS MAP
a?Ce -c-,Un L -
.+' t' a i •??.. .1R ry n• y
- r
jratcei BEAVER CREEK &
Uni corp;
x .P •?"'?,?? r ZONE X ^! ?'?
REEDY BRANCH TRIBUTARY
Y't WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
1'f ' ?r ,R = ?'= °~'' ; ?. °'t •?r NCDOT STI P NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SI j',
of ?• n 1 (1T) -? 117" j fit` NOR1N
? . rs y i,r: i'Y•, re0 ?:? '• Ertr,«crri Lori NORTH CAROLINA a i
t%ae?? ?? ' t 3 1 Ar_
-ij L" T?- Turnpike Authority
w ? .rr .}i? ?iai? ?? 1 AcZl
•?.j•1'"'}l)7 =•?• it 000 •.,V 241 f?OFTP
j 3
;.? Wake Count JYS718 2` 92,?1
0 500 1,000
- Unincorporated Ail."', Feet
:.4 , RJR `'ti•?t?'l+' ?'7 f7: i - '?"?`? t Y '9,. ?i
1 inch equals 500 feet

-er
N

rfltsti,31U 1PE?'
Sy

-s nr r '?? •..

ZONE X
E

t

S
? aERm-,arerritor =E
0NE
A:
elm

,:
7
_-3*46% 5 Sources: North Carolina Floodplain
1,
• Mapping Program (2006):
? ZON ? ': -?
?`? ?? ti ?. .,?. ?•? Wake County GIS
F jT Department (2006)

'
` s"
tL„
111
is3 .
ZON AE1,Y "'. s 't; r y `;
?? •_•d :., •-!d 1 'Vow 1'•i, y -311

M M M M M M M M M M M M M I11111= 11111110 M M 11111110
t
5: -
?• TJR_E,^ ,p?, r
T
>
S i Y+r p
s.
3718320030924132
41
?.oJ ?,.'° R? .;il?.Y • Tom' qty k ???_ a?? ..
AIr
t: 3L
J ,
T T
4l
f:` r
dio-
• ?- ..,
r_ Jn
•,
-w r ?. ac
4 q'
,
„
-,WHITE E OAK CREEK
?3 18
16 L 371820030924157 .. - ?e
N, IL_ Ara
AIR
. pt
LT
]lie V?r-6.
.
ir r'
,
.•
?xR
14
w
1 inch equals 500 feet
N
W+E
S
Sources: North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program (2006):
Wake County GIS
Department (2006)
Legend
Roads
Streams
Zone AE
Zone X (future)
0 Project Footprint

WESTERN WAKE --
I Rf_C'v`Jsl i
FIGURE 15C: FLOODPLAINS MAP -
JACK BRANCH &
WHITE OAK CREEK
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
P?OF NORTH C"
NORTH CAROLINA ti v,
Turnpike Authority
3 0-0
0
OF TIt-P=
0 500 1,000
Feet
P
N ..
1? .. y eT
r Ic C'11LC)j'i?11
M = = = M M = = M = M = M M M M M '
s aye. -?,:.?
``r7 s, r w JG?" _ rdT WESTERN WAKE
tam ?i 'r ?' ?,S•_ .i 7 J ,l .,? ?? C _v" H ? ¢
•?• .`"f `Y' ;M r• _ ?? "„?r.? .. tM` ,?L."Jri? •rr n _ t -
ti
s• ,w' • _ Extraterrit
?JuFIGURE 15D: FLOODPLAINS MAP -
,7`023 BACHELOR BRANCH
- WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
` NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
?.? _# { r'M WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
w ? w, _ ,IL ,?,tv O- NORTH Cq9
+}I'?-' "?e ;_'ry • f t •_ µ 4Y?r • "?'. ! NORTH CAROLINA ?yP
Turnpike Authority Ia
ZONE ?Q°
OFTRpN,.
m, N I?? aa1. ,° `
ZONE' X
?,OF"t"?r i j ? •?
f • y?y * 0 500 1,000
r. ; 74] ,.
twl
Feet
1?7 -.-{• 1 inch equals 500 feet
-? Legend
r `? y ? !'' ( BACHELOR BRANCH ,:ra ZONE AE`
Roads
.,F:' • 1 4•JI'???+++ zu E h ( ,^„*!+ ?1' _ ,.?• Streams
V18320030 1 Zone AE
. ..z X 718'320,03 01 Sources: North Carolina Floodplain
°'- Mapping Program (2006),
Wake County G1S
Zone X (future)
- Department (2006)
rs a
? F
t - T Project Footprint
"
417
_.,,•-- `._M,`rf _?+, :' • t.. 'v K dl. of • ?"n ?i. ,"k' .r.
` ..; 4,f.?,r?.?.?,_ •- ?; -?. N .ate, ?.r: f r:
fff"??4
.; r
i• rb ? (ZONE X .;' y•' - - r.^ ..r
+ • 7 ?y1
•
1^ .` ?t r1r L?LL. I1Trlsclc-tton != f [mss'
t %d,
.y •• ? "t
'•I? s. ?'y s y .t? i
s'1
?0',
G • y?1 n J
• , ? i 4 ; ,,,, ?•E"# ? ice' • ' - ?'
' • a f _ ? . ' ? _ -? 'dpi ?. _
may,. `: ' ? •> _Z 'f ` t ? ? ^ ?S i
Me%
"V`,a-kc count
T Inl?n co orw ed A r'eas ' ,.
37036 ?,='`•`- .±,?? `
' .'i r ELF ?? -- -1--4 k. _ -•
- -- ----
,. r
'`? '' .• -- ? i ate' :. .. •_•? ?;.
ga.,r P ' y 1 Gi? •o~ - f ? Y?
?? a ` Co ll • • . •. d" . 3
K.
JuTrIwc?i?i???n
??.
41. ti 1'riinorporatci; .?-
38
{ .. v - 7 832003092,41'57 ' r ..3i (}368' y %
3718320030924157
<?`r• .? y ZONE `X\ ;t:
Ak Gr it ,? ?d' 4.? ,may • .,; '•„? pr Vii,
?.'_•. "G" . q _.1,+41 •?'rT?' f,. _'' i ?-' ,G. '?,• r?/'..'
T i.
rr rr r ?r r ?r rr r rr r r r r rr Ir ra rr r r
r -All
OOF
,
WESTERN
WAKE
.
' L ?Af 1 ht;
FIGURE 15E: FLOODPLAINS MAP
PANTHER CREEK AND 4ZV_ 29-
MORRIS BRANCH
04. ? ~
` -41 4?.?,?,? WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
MCCRIMMON PKWY
WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
- . . ^? ' d+V'r . y. ? Z= t•- ''r S= Y 414 y?.?'_ aF NORTH C.4
NORTH CAROLINA iy~ v,1
.j 01111111111111111
Turnpike Authority
14
_ o
g'* 8 r gip` r O E' A E
'` a• ZONE X_ j ZONE X Tr,:
m?;E, ?? ?... =?rJ 0
zoniE•,AE 500 1,000
r
!ZONE X Feet
r •fo . i?
` iuiuc? r t ?r.l? T t. '
•?` \ `-?.-- 1 inch equals 500 feet
MQRRIS?BRANCH Legend
_;. ,.
ZONE-AE f
?. `-?c ZQNE X. N Roads
ZONE X ?' t7 xnt
\ZONE AE I tiFJi`F: w E
Streams
_i •: '_ r ;. 0 Zone AE
a Sources: North Carolina Floodplain
lZone X (future)
Mapping Program (2006);
Wake County GIS
Department (2006) Floodway
Project Footprint

RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT A STUDY OF TOLL FUNDING TO ACCELERATE
THE CONSTRUCTION OF I-540 IN SOUTHWESTERN WAKE COUNTY
WHEREAS the growth in western and southern Wake County and surrounding areas has already
overwhelmed the existing highway system in the southern Triangle, and
WHEREAS the proposed western and southern sections of the I-540 Wake freeway loop will
provide a high speed, signal-free travel option that will save time, money, and lives throughout
the region and preserve econorruc competitiveness in western and southern Wake County, and
WHEREAS increasing demands on scarce transportation funds is an unfortunate reality that has
delayed the western section of I-540 by years and the southern section of I-540 indefinitely, and
WHEREAS the North Carolina General Assembly created the NC Turnpike Authority in October
2002 in order to speed the implementation of needed transportation improvements and to help
meet more transportation needs than NCDOT could otherwise afford, and
WHEREAS the potential may exist to accelerate the opening of the entire western Wake freeway
' - to the US 1 freeway and the Holly Springs bypass - by several years, even with the additional
_$8 million devoted to the project in the recent federal highway legislation, and
WHEREAS the potential may also exist to accelerate the opening of the southern Wake freeway
- to I-40 and the Clayton freeway bypass - by 15 or more years, perhaps a generation faster, and
WHEREAS there needs to be consideration and study of the potential for toll user fees to
' leverage our existing Highway Trust Fund loop funding authorizations to gain more control over
our mobility future by reducing uncertainties in funding timetables for I-540,
' BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the undersigned members of the elected and business
community request that the NC Turnpike Authority conduct a detailed feasibility study to
determine the true viability of, and expected timesavings associated with, accelerating the
construction of both the western and southern portions of the I-540 Wake freeway loop as two
phases of a single potential Turnpike project in southwestern Wake County
' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the undersigned members of the elected and business
community will require assurances that this feasibility study include the following considerations
that the provisions of General Statute § 136-89 196 - which require the removal of tolls upon
fulfillment of the Turnpike's revenue bonds - are adhered to, and that toll revenue generated by
this toll road be used exclusively for pay down of the Turnpike's revenue bonds associated with
this Turnpike project

o n? of Cary
°VV L,
M yor John B S4 e
To of Fuquay-Varna
? ??" ? ?t b•..?""'+.'l-mot
ayor Keith Weatherly Mayor Dick Sears
Town of Apex Town of Holly Springs
Mayor Ronnie Williams Joe Freddoso, 2005-06 Chair
Town of Garner Regional Transportation Alliance

Appendix B
Air Quality Conformity Concurrence
The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have reviewed these documents
We have also coordinated our review with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 4 and have enclosed their comments to this letter
Based on our review and comments provided by the US EPA, we find that the following areas
conform to the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (or interim emissions tests, in areas
where no State Implementation Plan is approNed or found adequate by EPA) in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 93
© CAMPO 2030 LRTP amendments
? DCHC MPO 2030 LRTP amendments
u The FY 2007-2013 TIPS foi CAMPO, DCHC MPO and the BG MPO
? Projects from the 2007-2013 State TIP for the county donut areas of Chatham, Franklin,
Granville, Johnston, Orange and Person
Sincerely,
Yv e GRegional Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
Sincerely,
ral,k' John F Sullivan III, P E
North Carolina Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
NIA ; clOilCw
R " ,JU N 22 ` IZ,)ti-)q
??ti-ceo star _ _ _ .,?....,.a yenm:..y S€F?'°~mi9 `h j}?+aq
o SVY 1,
t Rni CENTER OR ., CP STREET
?gcPROlt ,ATIµN"A GE,-°,C-JA 3033-8 Q `_
?A
w2A .. ...» F Ana....-...., t
N 0 ,.D«D?
a?tr`" 1
L
Jahn.1 Sullivan 111. P E ` _ n k
Div ision Administrator
North Carolina, Division Office
Federal Highway Urninistration
310 New Bein Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 mMµ s
Dear Mr Sulliv an = r
1 hank you for your le t.-r requesting or..u` rovieti,, of the transportation conformity
determinations for the Amcrided 2030 Long Range Transportation Plans (1,R.TPs) for the Capital
and the DurhFin Chapel Hill and Carr oro areas and the Fiscal year (FY) 2007-2013
Trant,portation Improvement Programs CFIPs) for the Capital area. Durham Chapel Hill and
Carrbora area, the Burlington Graham, area., and the county donut areas of Chatham. Franklin,
Craziv:ll? , Johnston, Orwige, and Person -hour ozonc, nonattainment area These confarmity,
deterr inwaom, are for the -hour ozone and carbon monoxide standards. We have completed
our review _ and recommend a finding of conformity for both the 8-hour ozone and carbon
monoxide standards for the Axx nded 1,030 I,RTI's for the Capital and the Durham Chapel Hill
and C'arrboro areas, and the Ffir 2007-?x}13 TlPs for the Capital area., Durham Chapel Hill and
Carrboro area, the Burlington Cyraharn area, and the county donut areas of Cba6arxi, Franklin,
1 Granville, Johnbtoii., Oia ge, and Person 8-hour ozone iionattamment area,
Ora November 15, 1990, LIgust 1-;, 1997, and subbecluertly on Jul)' 1, 2004, U S
w,ironmental Protection Agency (EPA) published revisions related to the "Criteria and
Procedures for J)etermining Conformity to State or Federal Implememation Plans of
Transportation Plans, Program,, and Projects Funded or Approved tinder Title 23 Ca S C of the
Federal Transit Act,' or Transportation Conforinity Rule (0 Code of Federal Regulations Fart
93) These rei isions outline the criteria that must be met for the CO and -hour crone standards
FPs has ie-, iewcd the conformity determinations related To the CO and 8-hour ozone standards
for Line Amended 2030 LRTPs for the Capital and the Durham Chapel Ilill and Carrboro areas,
and the FY 2007-2013 1 IPs foi the Capital area, Durham Chapel Hill and Canboro aa°ea, the
Burlington Graham area and the county donut areas of Chatham, FranKlin, Granville, Johnston,
i, Oiange, and Person and has concluded that all of the criteria, including those outlined in the
Tuly L 20134, confoiinity rule nevisIOD entitled, "Tans ortatiaiz Conformity Rule AmeDdments
Conformity Amendments for ` eNv -hoar Ozone mi P M2 5 rational Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Response to March 1999. Court Decision and xk ditional Ruiw Changes, (69 F
40004), have been met
Internet Address (URL) a http llwww epa gov
RecycledtRacyclable . Printed with 4egetabee Oil Based Inks an Recycled Paper tMin m rn 30% Postconsumer)
1)
Thank you again for the opportunity to review the confoimity determinations for the
Amended 2030 LRTPs for the Capital and the Durham Chapel Hill and Carrboro areas, and the
FY 2007-2013 TIPS for the Capital area, Durham Chapel Hilt and Carrboro area, the Burlington
Graham area and the county donut areas of Chatham Franklin, Granville. Johnston, Orange, and
Person If -vou have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Amanetta Wood at (404)
562-9025 of the EPA Region 4 staff
Sincerely,
L
R Scott Davis
Chief
Air Quality Modeling
and Transportation Section
cc Eddie Dancausse, FHWA NC
Loretta Barren, FHIVA NC
Heather Hildebrandt, NC DAQ
Alex McNeil, FTA Region 4
US Department North Carolina Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
of Transportation Raleigh, NC 27601
' Federal Highway June 29, 2007
Administration
In Reply Refer To
Mr Lyndo Tippett, Secretary HDA-NC
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office BOX 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Secretary Tippett
We reviewed the Triangle Area Transportation Conformity Determination Report for the
u Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and the Durham Chapel Hill
Canboro (DCHC) MPO 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) amendments
u FY 2007-2013 Transportation ImproN ement Programs (TIPS) for CAMPO. DCHC MPO
and the Burlington Graham (BG) MPO
o FY 2007-2013 State TIP for the county donut areas of Chatham, Franklin, Granville,
Johnston, Orange and Person
The CAMPO and the DCHC MPO made conformity determinations on the 2030 LRTP
amendments The CAMPO, the DCHC MPO, the BG MPO and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) made conformity determinations on the FY 2007-
2013 TIPs on the following dates.
a CAMPO on May 16, 2007
• DCHC MPO on May 9, 2007
BG MPO on May 15, 2007
• The NCDOT (for the county donut areas of Chatham) on June 7 2007
The NCDOT (for the county donut areas of Franklin) on June 1, 2007
• The NCDo r (for the county donut areas of Granville) on June 1, 2007
• The NCDOT (for the county donut areas of Johnston) on June 1, 2007
• The NCDOT (for the county donut areas of Orange) on June 7, 2007
The NCDOT (for the county donut areas of Person) on June 1, 2007
i The CAMPO, the DCHC MPO, the BG MPO FY 2007-2013 TIPs are direct subsets of the
2030 LRTPs The county (Chatham. Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Orange and Person) donut
1 area projects from the FY 2007-2013 State TIP are consistent with the area projects from the
FY 2006-2012 State TIP protects found to conform by the USDOT on November 14, 2005

J, I;r~ VrrrG THE
w;?aERecAN
ECONOMY
The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have rev ie"ved these documents
We have also coordinated our review with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 4 and have enclosed their comments to this letter
Based on our review and comments provided by the US EPA, we find that the following areas
conform to the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (or interim emissions tests, in areas
?Nhere no State Implementation Plan is approved or found adequate by EPA) in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 93
• CAMPO 2030 LRTP amendments
® DCHC MPO 2030 LRTP amendments
u The FY 2007-2013 TIPS for C AMPO, DCHC MPO and the BG MPO
• Projects from the 2007-2013 State TIP for the county donut areas of Chatham, Franklin,
Granville, Johnston, Orange and Person
Sincerely.

YvVte G Taylor
Regional Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
Sincerely,
rtP-k John F Sullivan III, P E
North Carolina Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, dated May 16, 2007, is by and
between the NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, a public agency created
pursuant to Article 6H of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes of North Carolina (the
"Authority"), and the NORTH CAROLINA CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION, a public agency created pursuant to Article 3A of Chapter 136 of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and Section 134 of Chapter 23 of the United States
Code (the "MPO"). Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given
such terms in Article 6H of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
WHEREAS, Section 134(a) of Title 23 United States Code states:
"it is in the national interest to encourage and promote the development of
transportation systems embracing various modes of transportation in a manner which
will efficiently maximize mobility of people and goods within and through urbanized
areas and minimize transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution. To
accomplish this objective, metropolitan planning organizations, in cooperation with
the State, shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of
the State. Such plans and programs shall provide for the development of
transportation facilities (including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation
facilities) which will function as an intermodal transportation system for the State,
the metropolitan areas, and the Nation. The process for developing such plans and
programs shall provide for consideration of all modes of transportation and shall be
continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive to the degree appropriate, based on the
complexity of the transportation problems.'; and,
WHEREAS, Chapter 136, Article 3A, Section 136-66.2(a) of the General
Statutes of North Carolina require that:
"Each MPO, with cooperation of the Department of Transportation, shall
develop a comprehensive transportation plan in accordance with 23 U.S.C. § 134. in
addition, an MPO may include projects in its transportation plan that are not
included in a financially constrained plan or are anticipated to be needed beyond the
horizon year as required by 23 U.S.C. § 134. For municipalities located within an
MPO, the development of a comprehensive transportation plan will take place
through the metropolitan planning organization. For purposes of transportation
planning and programming, the MPO shall represent the municipality's interests to
the Department of Transportation. "; and,

WHEREAS, Chapter 136, Article 3A, Section 136.66.2(d) provides that:
"For MPOs, either the MPO or the Department of Transportation may propose changes
in the plan at any time by giving notice to the other party, but no change shall be
effective until it is adopted by both the Department of Transportation and the
MPO."; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority has been charged by the General Assembly (the
"General Assembly") of the State of North Carolina (the "State") to construct,
operate and maintain Turnpike Projects in the State;
WHEREAS, the Authority has indicated to the MPO its interest in constructing-
turnpike projects within the MPO's transportation planning jurisdiction, particularly
the proposed Triangle Parkway and the Western Wake Parkway (including the 1-540P
project now under construction by the N.C. Department of Transportation); and,
WHEREAS, the Authority and the MPO wish to enter into this Memorandum of
Understanding to memorialize the commitment being made between the two parties
to carry out the following principles as they relate to the above turnpike projects;
NOW THEREFORE, the following Memorandum of Understanding is made:
Section 1. Any funds raised as a result of tolls on the Western Wake Parkway
and the Triangle Parkway shall be used for those projects and not diverted to other
projects outside the corridor from which those revenues were generated or other
areas of the State.
Section 2. The tolls on these projects will end when all financing agreements
including the construction costs, both principal and interest, have been paid and, in
accordance with the Master Agreement between the Authority and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, these roads shall be returned to the North Carolina
Department of Transportation for operation and maintenance.
Section 3. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall be included
in all relevant discussions relating to any funding shortfalls in connection with the
Triangle Parkway and Western Wake Parkway. The solution to the gap funding shall
not adversely affect the MPO under the State's current highway funding distribution
"equity" formula, nor shall a new tax be imposed solely on the residents of Wake
County or the MPO's Region, other than by a uniformly applied statewide tax.
Section 4. The Triangle Parkway and Western Wake Parkway shall be designed
and constructed to meet or exceed all applicable North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards and shall include major design features as set forth in
2
NCDOT's Environmental Impact FHWA Record of Decision for the Western Wake
Freeway, including the following key design elements:
The turnpike projects will be constructed with three basic travel lanes in each
direction with full control of access throughout. A median of sufficient width
will be provided throughout to accommodate possible future improvements at
a later date that will include consideration of accommodations for transit and
high-occupancy vehicles.
Grade-separated interchanges for access will be provided at the following
locations:
Triangle Parkway: 1-40 (with ramp improvements to and from 1-40),
Hopson Road / Davis Drive, 1-540 (with overpass for Kit Creek Road)
Western Wake Parkway: NC 54, Triangle Parkway, NC 55, Morrisville
Parkway Extension, Green Level (High House) Road, US 64 (including
overpass with ramps for Kelly Road at US 64), South Salem Street (Old US
1), US 1, NC 55 Bypass.
Section 5. Any sale of this project after its construction, regardless of
whether tolls are still being collected, shall be subject to consultation with the MPO
and subject to the above four principles.
Section 6. Each of the Authority and the MPO acknowledge that the statement
of understandings set forth herein are not intended to create or constitute any legally
binding obligation between the Authority and the MPO, but are intended as a good
faith expression of present intentions of the parties based upon the facts and
circumstances at the time this memorandum is signed by the parties hereto. Neither
party shall have any liability or obligation to the other party with respect to the
provisions set forth herein, whether based upon breach of contract, damages arising
from the reliance upon the provisions hereof, or otherwise.
Any waiver, amendment, modification or supplement of or to any term or
condition of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective only if in writing
and signed by both parties; and the parties hereby waive the right to amend the
provisions of this Memorandum, particularly this Section, orally.
Section 7. This Memorandum of Understanding may be executed in multiple
counterparts.
Section 8. This Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective immediately
upon execution of the parties thereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree to this Memorandum of Understanding
by the execution hereof as set forth below.
NORTH CAROLINA CAPITAL AREA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION
By:
Joe
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE
AUTHORITY
By:
Lyndo ppett
Chairman, N.C. Capital Area
MPO Transportation Advisory
Committee
Date: 6? r ?© `7
Chairman, N.C. Turnpike Authority
Board of Directors
Date:
4
?C i \t ll't ) f' )i 1110 -11` 1(1diL

MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
1578 MAIL. SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N C 27699-1578
April 19, 2007
Mr Chris Snow, Director
Wake County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
337 S Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
DAVID W JOYNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Subject
Concurrence Request - De Mmrmis Section 4(f) Finding for the Feltonsville Community Park in
Wake County, North Carolina (Western Wake Freeway, TIP Project No R-2635, Federal Project
No BRSTP-OOOS(491))
Dear Mr Snow
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) is proposing to construct Western Wake Freeway, a
j 12 6 mile roadway on new location As part of the Western Wake Freeway project, NCTA is
¦ proposing improvements to Old Smithfield Road (SR 1172) The proposed improvements to Old
Smithfield Road will include exclusive right-in/right-out access at the NC 55 Bypass, resurfacing
along Old Smithfield Road from NC 55 (North Main Street) to the NC 55 Bypass, and providing a
left-turn lane at the intersection of Old Smithfield Road and NC 55 to northbound NC 55 The
proposed typical section for Old Smithfield Road includes widening from the existing two-lane
section (21 feet of pavement) to a three-lane section (33 feet of pavement) with curb and gutter and
variable width grass berms on each side These improvements are part of the project commitments for
Western Wake Freeway as documented in the April 2004 Record of Decision
The proposed Old Smithfield Road improvements would necessitate the conversion of approximately
0 084 acres of the Wake County property on which is located the Feltonsville Community Park to a
transportation use (right-of-way and easement), this is the area between the existing edge of pavement
of Old Smithfield Road and the portion of the Feltonsville Community Park's six foot chain link fence
that parallels the road (see attached figure) Previous project-related reviews of the area along Old
Smithfield Road, conducted for the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, had indicated
that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) owned 60 feet of right-of-way in
front of Feltonsville Community Park for Old Smithfield Road A survey of the park property was
recently conducted by NCTA to aid in designing improvements to Feltonsville Community Park
During this survey it was determined that 60 feet of right-of-way was never acquired along Old
Smithfield Road in front of Feltonsville Community Park and that the only right-of-way that could be
claimed was the existing maintained road corridor, usually determined to be the top of the roadside
ditch bank
As a facility owned by Wake County, Feltonsville Community Park is afforded special protections
under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (recodified in 49 U S C 303 and 23 U S C
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
M AY 1 82007
N.C. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
138) Under the provisions of Section 4(f), if the proposed transportation project would result in
adverse effects to the park or recreation facility, the transportation agency must conduct an evaluation
to demonstrate that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of the 4(f) property
Because this evaluation can be expensive and potentially result in protect delays, an exemption is
provided in cases where the official with jurisdiction over the park or recreation area concurs in a
determination that the impacts are not adverse This concurrence enables FHWA to make a de
minimis (minimal impact) finding, which satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f) and precludes the
need for a Section 4(f) Evaluation De minimis impacts on publicly owned parks, recreation areas,
and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not "adversely affect the activities,
features and attributes" of the Section 4(f) resource
The following example is provided for additional insight into the meaning of de mmimis impact
" the portions of the resource important to protect, such as playground equipment at a public
park, should be distinguished from areas such as parking facilities While a minor but adverse
effect on the use of playground equipment should not be considered a de minimis impact
under section 4(f), encroachment on the parking lot may be deemed de minimis, as long as the
public's ability to access and use the site is not reduced "
The above example helps to distinguish the activities, features, and attributes of a Section 4(f)
resource that are important to protect from those which can be used without resulting adverse effects
Playground equipment in a public park may be central to the recreational value of the park that
Section 4(f) is designed to protect A parking lot encroachment or other similar type of land use, on
the other hand, could result in a de minimis impact with minimal mitigation, as long as there are no
adverse effects on public access and the official(s) with jurisdiction agree " (From FHWA's
Questions and Answers on Application of the Section 4(0 De Minimis Impact Criteria,
http //www fhwa dot gov/hep/qasdeminimus htm)
The purpose of this letter is to request your concurrence that the proposed improvements to Old
Smithfield Road will not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes of the park, thus
allowing the FHWA to make the de minimus impact finding
A Summary of Project Impacts
As noted, the proposed project would require the use of approximately 0 084 acres of right-of-way
and easement from the grass frontage outside of the existing park fence and adjacent to Old
Smithfield Road (see attached figure) This area is outside of the active and useable recreation area of
the park and is primarily used for uncontrolled off-street parking None of the existing park
amenities, features or recreational values would be affected by this acquisition. Avoidance of the
park property would result in additional impacts to residential properties on the southside of Old
Smithfield Road, including loss of front yards and at least one relocation Efforts to minimize park
impacts include the use of variable grass berm widths, reduced centerline radius and other design
modifications
Concurrence with the No Adverse Effects Determination
If you agree that the acquisition of right-of-way and easement as shown on the attached figure would
not adversely affect the recreational activities, features, and attributes that qualify the Feltonsville
Community Park for protection under Section 4(f), the NCTA requests that you sign and date this
letter in the spaces below
2

As the official with jurisdiction over Feltonsville Community Park, I concur in a determination
that the proposed transportation project as described in this letter and shown on the
accompanying attachment would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that
qualify Feltonsville Community Park for protection under Section 4(f). I have also been
informed that, based on my concurrence, the FHWA intends to make a de minimis finding
regarding impacts to Feltonsville Community Park, thus satisfying the requirements of Section
4(f).
Signature:
Date: b 107
After signing and dating this letter, please return a copy to my attention within 30 days of the date of
this letter to the following address
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578
The NCTA is thankful for your assistance in making this transportation project possible Should you
have any questions or concerns, please contact me at [phone]/.jennifer harris@ncturnpike org
Sincerely,
90VMVA AVVAk/)d
Jennifer Harris, PE
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
cc
George Hoops, PE, FHWA
Steve DeWitt, PE, NCTA
Anne Redmond, EI, NCTA/GEC

J
W
OC
O
}
J
OC
W
O
ACUISITION AREA ¦ 0.064 ACRES (3652.65 SQ. FT.)
OLD SMlTHFj f?0
ROAO
` SR
FELTONSVILLE COMMUNITY PARK
PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
LEGEND
ROW AND EASEMENT
NORTH CAROLINA AOUISITION AREA
Turnpike Authority ° Z° 4 6 PROPERTY LINE R
SCALE 1"=40' CHAIN LINK FENCE -x-x-x-

f
L'
F `.
S -
E
WESTERN WAKE
FREEWAY
I mporta nt An nou ncement
about Feltonwille Community Park
About Western Wake Freeway
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) proposes to construct a six-lane, controlled access
roadway (Western Wake Freeway) on new location from NC 55 at SR 1172 (Old Smithfield Road) to NC
55 near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue) The protect is currently being evaluated as a possible toll road The
proposed protect will be approximately 12 6 miles in length, following the same route as the preserved
corridor and the Preferred Alternative, as identified in the April 2004 Record of Decision
Old Smithfield Road Improvements Require Additional Right-of-Way
As part of the Western Wake Freeway Protect, the NCTA is proposing to widen SR 1172 (Old Smithfield
Road) from the existing two-lanes to a three-lane roadway from NC 55 Bypass to NC 55 (North Main
Street) near Holly Springs The proposed improvements would require converting approximately 0 084
acres of property owned by Wake County, which includes Feltonsville Community Park, to a
transportation use (right-of-way and easement) The property to be converted is located between the
existing edge of pavement and the Feltonsville Community Park fence (see yellow "acquisition area" on
the attached map)
The proposed improvements to Old Smithfield Road would not affect the area within the existing
Feltonsville Community Park fence We do not believe the proposed improvements would adversely
affect the activities, features or attributes of the park Wake County, as the official with jurisdiction over
the park, has agreed that there would be no adverse effects The proposed property conversion does not
reduce the commitment made by NCTA to assist with enhancements to the park, as discussed during the
February 15th, 2007 Feltonsville Community Meeting However, since the park is publicly owned by Wake
County, it is required by Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act [recodified in 49 U S C
303 and 23 U S C 1381 that NCTA afford the public an opportunity to review and comment on the effects
of the protect on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the park
Your Input is Important
Your opinions are important to us Please use the attached comment sheet to provide your input
Or, please contact
George W Hoops, PE
Federal Highway Administration - NC Division Office
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1418
Fax [phone]
E-mail george hoops@fhwa dot gov
I Please provide your comments by June 15, 2007.
Map Showing Proposed Right-of-Way Location

II UkD

1 ?
?.
Y
J`
Existing Fencequisltlo
.3652' 084 *
85Sq::fit/1 cres
Pro e rte Lei n`& OId •_:.
ie
r cl
I
TP7

1

? S
I
It Felton5VIlle Community Park Right-of Way Acqul5ltion
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

for Old Smithfield [load
Contact Information
Name
Mailing Address
[-Please remember to include your zip code-]
Your opinion is important Please use this comment sheet to provide your input about the
proposed changes to the Feltonsville Community Park property line for the widening of Old
Smithfield Road
Please provide your comments by June 15, 2007.
Comments
[-Please Print-]
Please fold and mail to the address below The comment form may also be faxed to George
Hoops at 919 856 4353
(fold here)
--------------------------------------------
(fold here)
-------------------------------------
Place
Stamp
Here
George W Hoops, P E
Federal Highway Administration - NC Division Office
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1418
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

WESTERN WAKE
FREEWAY
Feltonsvllle Community Park Right-of-Way Acquisition
for Old Smithfield Road
Contact Information
Name
Mailing Address
[-Please Print-]
NO, L e fi-k
ACK ?w,, go 8
[-Please remember to include your zip
4

Your opinion is important. Please use this comment sheet to provide your input about the
proposed changes to the Feltonsville Community Park property line for the widening of Old
Smithfield Road.
Please provide your comments by June 95, 2007.
Comments -.I-
I/ 11 1 -

Please fold and mad to the address below The comment form may also be faxed to George
Hoops at 919 856 4353
RNA - NC DIVISION
RECD MAY 3® 2,00q
DIV ADMIN
ASST DIV ADMIN
SECRETARY
FIN MGR FIN SPEC
?--
COMP SPEC FIN ASS f
BRIDGE
RLTY OFC f`o5T LRIOr I
xCP, 5Gi S
TDENG

j TO&S-A __? 3 TnSr
P & °D ENG
FROG ASST Y P_,
EN

I A
PL C _
PL d?
1 40 CITY Si
OPS ENG
ADMIN ASST AAE / TR
A i A2
A 3 A-4
EN&COORD
L

P & M ENG
FILE TRASH

-~ Rev Eddie L McLean
PO Box 272
Holly Sprmgs, NC 27540
t
t

(fold here)
•------------------------ --------------------------------------- -- ---------

(fold here) V
-------------------------- 7---------------------------------------
---------------------
„? W
'` -
RES,c:.RCI"i TRIn(l(+zE Rcc:stOCd 2
, NC Z76 5 T e
29 NiAY 2007 PM

George W Hoops, P E
Federal Highway Administration - NC Division Office
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1418

f
7 { i {
y? t^-. - 1' i.-O? -,st -? „. ?. )111)lI IlllllI lil11111111'111111I I1111111/111i1t11

p
'100,.Z...' n
AV 2
TO
FROM
I DATE
t
RE
50101 Governor's Drive
Suite 250
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
9 19 a 30 is/1,46 i,iioiv
919 30 8525 FAX
wl+e w I Molutiotls (;01 [1
MEMORANDUM
Martha Register,/ASR-CADIS
Paul Webb F
25 April 2007
Western Wake Freeway - Exammation of Potential Cemetery Locations
As requested, TRC has conducted background research and fieldwork in an attempt to verify the locations
of two cemetenes that are mapped within or adjacent to the Western Wake Freeway (WWF) corridor
Background research was conducted on-line and using historic maps and other sources on file at TRC,
both reported locations were field-checked on April 25 by Paul Webb, accompamed by Brian Overton of
NCDOT
Cemetery #1 Cemetery #1 is located in the vicinity of Brooks Park in the Town of Cary Three different
locations for this cemetery are shown on available mapping The USGS quadrangle (Green Level, 2003)
shows the cemetery on the west side of Old Place Road, west of a triangular pond and the WWF corridor
A public hearing map shows the cemetery further to the east, however, just off the southwest corner of the
pond and dust outside the corridor Finally, GIS mapping utilizing data provided by NCDOT in 2001
shows the cemetery southeast of the pond, within the WWF corridor
Examination of lustoncal maps of the vicinity (Brinkley 1916, USGS 1951) did not provide any
information on cemetery locations in the area, and the on-line Wake County cemetery database
(http //cemeterycensus com/nc/wake/index htm) does not list a cemetery near this location The Wake
County GIS (http //imans co wake nc us/imapsn does show a cemetery in the vicinity, however The
Hurst/Yates cemetery (PIN 0734158150) is shown as a separate 0 05-acre parcel within the larger Brooks
Park, at the approximate location shown on the current USGS map, and well outside the WWF footprint
(see attached maps)
I visited the area with Brian Overton on April 25 We examined the GIS-mapped location southeast of the
pond as well as the immediately surrounding area, and found no evidence of a cemetery Furthermore,
much of that area is wet and/or sloping, and for those reasons is unlikely to have been used for a
cemetery We did not attempt to enter Brooks Park to search for the mapped Hurst/Yates cemetery, but it
is presumably still present within the Park boundaries
Based on tlus information, it seems evident that there is no cemetery present within the WWF corridor at
or near the mapped location The cemetery shown on the 2001 GIS data, and on the hearing map, is
believed to represent the Hurst/Yates cemetery, which was located approximately 450 feet to the west of
the WWF corridor, and is apparently represented by Parcel 330 as shown on the hearing map
Cemetery #2 Cemetery #2 is situated south of US 1 near Apex No cemeteries are shown at or near this
location on the current USGS quadrangle (Apex, 2002), on the available historic map (Brinkley 1916), in
the Wake County cemetery database (http //cemeteryicensus com/nc/wake/hndex htm), or on the Wake
County GIS (http /hmaps co wake nc us/imaps/) However, the 2001 GIS data show a cemetery within the
currently proposed WWF corridor, about 800 ft southeast of US 1 In addition, the archaeological survey
for the project (Millis and Pickett 2002) identified a cemetery approximately 900 feet further south, that
cemetery (the Barker-Collms Cemetery) was designated archaeological site 31WA1504, and is discussed
in that report (Millis and Pickett 2002 75-77)
I visited the area with Brian Overton on April 25 We walked into the area from the southeast, and
confirmed the mapped location of 31 WA1504, which is outside the WWF corridor as currently defined
(Tlus cemetery is visible as an isolated group of pine trees on the aerial photograph, approximately 300
feet outside the corridor, see attached map) We continued north to the potential cemetery location shown
on the 2001 data We found no indications of a cemetery at or near that location, which falls in a north-
south trending drainage between two ndges Due to the topograpluc situation and lack of visual evidence,
it is lughly unlikely that a cemetery was ever present at the mapped location
Based on tlus information, it seems evident that there is no cemetery present withm the WWF footprint at
or near the location shown on the 2001 GIS data The cemetery shown on the 2001 GIS data is
presumably the Barker-Collins Cemetery (31 WA1504), which is located to the south, outside the WWF
corridor Since the draft report for that project was submitted in 2001, it is possible that that report is the
ultimate source for the cemetery information shown in the GIS
In conclusion, there are no indications that any cemeteries are present within the WWF corridor at the two
locations examined, and no further investigations of those locations appear warranted
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project Please contact me at [phone], or
via email at pwebb(a)tresolutions com, if you have any questions or comments concerning this
information

C
I REFERENCES CITED
Brinkley, Lorin L
1916 Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina U S Department of Agriculture, Washington, D C
Millis, Heather, and Duane Pickett
2002 Ar chaeological Report Western Wake Expressway Corridor A, Wake County, TIP NO R-2635
TRC Garrow Associates, Durham Prepared for ARCADIS and the NCDOT Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, Raleigh
USGS
1951 Durham South Quadrangle 15-minute topographic map
r_?

1

t

L
d `.
egen
Cemetery v? ' i yr,1? ASS"
- Roads
+

Streams
70
Park 4 ?. - -
v
, f
Project Footprint l .,,
?

?. q
?
?
`?
,? g?p ? ? ? ?j/ TY i??f. ?? ?' 1 y • ? _ ? ?fr`
+
/1'
e
`?
r I?
1tY,L5;
C d ~Y
`
A?{? ?
b ?
f may ' '.
?
Z
Y
i ' ?,l

Y 1 `
J H f

'. =?s??';z ?•'?r' ?. :Y ? (?? ,•-=rr`1 : g y f? `,..><,?,{:r?.°'+ ? isi
Legend
,-, 4m
hl'
r 1w ?? t<' ?,1
Cemetery f Vag ?+,a
Roads ?'
Streams ,
Park
t
Project Footprint ra!! t i '?r'`
A t,
X
WK4
V
-wl
, 7k
Sr +
14.
+. r
I I A
` )mod a? ..
..ay "•n' ;? f; n ?i lime,, ,';,L ?,A
"OVA
. i,. ;j$rq?a,447L Qr?? ? c :: •+?- ? 3. y r F f -
r iQJ
71
E}??. T 1?., "v t 4 ter
71
/,• '. 01 + ? 31 WA1501 '?J€?r? S'Ypt :. ?J , , '',?},bs +!.s;
i "• ? ; ? t s ? y? ?' i'.it?fy.?rh[7Ca`1'?r + ? ?1rrlt
y{:.. ' 1 ' µ ° ,,,t, ?..,?t?' ; yyi° eJ ;?4# , y;(.'? Et 3a .s -i
600 300 µ 0 buu Feet !' ?. t 4 t
N
i
MAPS
1
jY
"
Q) ct
CT) owner
address ,
uu®u parcel num
' account num
intersechon
0 buffer
legend
' c t)
1 in = 841 ft
' Real Estate Data BIGEM
and Revenue
Department
LAI ER COO S ? R?FK
' Fuquay-Varina
ni
Raleigh nine
' Wake Forest Zoning SURVEY
Soils L Bend
' Flo-Odplain Data

1
n
SELECT A VIEW
Property
Environmental Features
Aerial Photography
County Zoning
Raleigh Zoning
Parcel Number 0734158150
Copyright 2007 City of Raleigh & Wake County
Page 1 of 1
WHAT'S NEW
http://lmaps co wake nc ushmaps/map asp?cmd=REFRESH&msize=525&too1=ZOOMOUT&pm 4/25/2007
1MAPS Page 1 of 1 ,

¢O
07341 h 7 •t21 P?
0734251 3E 5

- 462 0
v
U
1029

owner

) address
CO
.
-
?uu®u parcel num 3s
C#), account num
r ^? ?73415Q15?J
?-?-? InferSeChQt1 0734049520
75
(?#f? buffer
legend
( layers
'
1 in = 85 ft
ilea State Data
and evenue
Department
LAYER
Fugnu=Varlna
Zoning
RO- eiO Zon>ne
Wad For stZoning SURVEY WHAT'S NEW '
S ill- L_ega
Floodplalln_Data SELECT A VIEW
- - -
Property
Environmental Features
Aerial Photography
County Zoning
Raleigh Zoning

Copyright 2007 City of Raleigh & Wake County

http //unaps co wake nc us/imaps/map asp?cmd=REFRESH&msize=525&too1=ZOOMIN&pin=& 4/25/2007
Search Results

REID 0220574
OWNER1
ADDR1 CARY TOWN OF
PO BOX 8005
ADDR2 CARY NC 27512-8005
ADDR3
DEED BOOK 06812
DEED PAGE 0618
DEED DATE 1/12/1996
DEED ACRES 0 05
BLDG VAL 0
LAND VAL 750
BILLING CLASS EXEMPT
HURST/YATES
DESCRIPTION CEMETERY
MAP NAME 073401
PIN NUM 0734158150
PIN EXT 000
CITY CAR
PLAN JURIS CA
TOWNSHIP WHITE OAK
YEAR BUILT 0
SALEPRICE 0
SALEDATE
TYPE USE Vacant
DESIGN STYLE
UNITS 0
LAND CLASS EXEMPT
ZONING RR
OLD PARCEL NUMBER 513-
ADDRESS
ST NUM 250
ST MISC
DIR PREFIX
ST NAME BROOKS PARK
ST TYPE LN
DIR SUFFIX
QYEN YHOT®
Page 1 of 1
To download the Attribute Codes for the Parcel Data (Includes Townships, Billing Class, Land Class, Type/Use,
' Design/Style and City) right-click here and choose the save target option

1
http //imaps co wake nc us/imaps/txt_CAMA asp pm =0734158150&pmext= 4/25/2007

r.

Appendix F
f A
t
in
Memorandum o
greemen
Compliance with Section 106 of HPA
' and Associated Letters

1

0--
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L S Brook, Administrator
ichael F Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
effrey J Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 27, 2002
Division of Historical Resources
David J Olson, Director
Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: MOA for the Western Wake Expressway, Wake County, R-2635, ERO1-9740
' Dear Mr. Graf:
' Thank you for your letter of March 5, 2002, transmitting the Memorandum of Agreement for the
above referenced project from the North Carolina Department of Transportation The agreement
addresses our concerns for the historic properties affected by the undertaking I have signed the
agreement and am forwarding it to you for signature and transmittal to the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
' We look forward to working with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Town of
Cary, and the Wake County Historic Preservation Commission to implement the terms of the
agreement. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley at 733-4763. Thank you.
Sincerely,
' Jeffrey tJ.,w'
State Historic Preservation Officer v '
Enclosure \ x
l
cc: William Gilmore, NCDOT
Advisory Council ;
Donald Belk, Cary 006 C
Ellen Turco, HPC
?oH4rT OE
E1yTAL
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
,Administration 507 N Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 (919) 7334763 •733-8653 ,
Restoration 515 N Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mall Service Center, Ralcigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
C..rvov R Dl-i..n G 1 C M CiW-t c• 0..1.. -1. Mr AA1 R Unit Cv,v,rn (`-t- 0..1-h 771.00-A/,IR 10191 711-4761 *715-4801
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
lt* TIP No. R-2635
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
WAKE COUNTY, NC
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the
Western Wake Freeway from NC 55 at SR 1172 to NC 55 near SR 1630 in Wake County,
North Carolina (the undertaking) will have an effect upon the Green Level Historic District,
a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and has consulted with the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800,
regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U S C.
4700,and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Town of Cary
(Cary) and Wake County Historic Preservation Commission (Commission), participated in
the consultation and have been invited to concur in this :Memorandum of Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into
account the effect of the undertaking on the historic properties
STIPUL-XTION+s
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carved our
1. Historic District Signage Project- NCDOT will work with Cary, the
Commission, and the North Carolina SHPO to plan and develop highway
signage for and in the vicinity of the Green Level Historic District. The
purpose of the highway signage is to identify entry into the Green Level
Historic District. The signage project will also include small-scale
landscaping around each sign. This signage project will include at least four
(4) signs and is restricted to identifying the historic district proper. It will not
identify individual properties within the district.
' U. Funding of Historic District Signage Proiect: NCDOT will partner with
state and local government entities, and other contributing parties, to fund
the Historic District Signage Project. NCDOT funds should not exceed
80% of the total project cost. NCDOT will provide on-going maintenance
for the signs and landscaping.
III Assistance in Applying for TEA-21 Enhancement Funds for Viewshed
Protection: NCDOT will provide assistance in the application process for
TEA-21 Enhancement Funds to purchase land for the purpose of protecting
the viewshed of the Green Level Historic District. The next statewide call
for projects will be scheduled in 2002. Typically, funding is available for the
' purchase of sceruc viewsheds and historic sites. NCDOT cannot guarantee
that this viewshed protection project will be accepted. The intent is to
provide support for the TEA-21 Enhancement Funds application.
IV. Dispute Resolution- Should the North Carolina SHPO object within (30)
days to any plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this
agreement, FWHA shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO to resolve
the objection. If FHWA or the North Carolina SHPO determines that the
objection cannot be resolved, FHWA shall forward all documentation
relevant to the dispute to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Council). Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent
' documentation, the Council will either.
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into
' account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section
800.7(c) and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided
' in response to such a request will be taken into account by FHWA in
accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.7(c)(4) with reference to the
subject of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be
understood to pertain only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's
' responsib4 to car.;; out all the actions under this agreement that are not
the subject of the depute will remain unchanged
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO, its
subsequent filing with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and implementation
of its terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on
' the Western Wake Freeway from NC 55 at SR 1172 to NC 55 near SR 1630 in Wake
County, North Carolina and its effects on the Green Level Historic District, and that FHWA
has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on the historic district.

1 2
AGREE:
-vo-e.e
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NORTH
FILED BY:
VX ON OFFICER
coo
DATE
D iTE
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION DATE
CONCUR:
?l/j,a d'l?c o
fz/3 /Ej/
NORTH CAROLIN ? DEPARTMENT OF TR.-INSPORT ATION ? D.kTE
WAIM CU HISTO C PRESERVAMN COMMISSION D 3TE
i
TOWN OF C_kRY, NORTH C.?ROLLNA
3
t
r
i

? N
y

/
•
^'' M•rK? W
Y

n ? p 1?

C
?t
?.•10.rIR, ? 1 ?. 1 ? _4
ji'1 I ss ?
Y. t 9 ?
.L
rr p
r

? i ? -• '? AIM
1 I l ?' e

V
do
n

? n.
• lI' ' \ t , r,?

?
r ? t
r

o ?

r
I\
? ?\ ? Y r y

r \ ! K

d r- un
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
RaNPEE AUTHORITY
MICHAEL F EASLEY 1578 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N C 27699-1578 DAVID W 70YNER
GOVERNOR OMCUnTVE DIRECTOR
March 20, 2007
George Hoops, P.E.
Federal Highway Administration - NC Division Office
31o New Bern Avenue, Ste 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1418
Subject: Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the Green Level Historic District
Transfer of commitments from NCDOT to NCTA
Western Wake Parkway (NCDOT TIP No. R-2635), Wake County, NC
' Dear Mr. Hoops:
This letter is being sent to inform the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that North
Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) is accepting the responsibility from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for the implementation of the commitments
stipulated in the existing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Western Wake Parkway
(TIP No. R-2635) (attached). The MOA is between the FHWA and the North Carolina State
1 Historic Preservation Officer to mitigate effects to the Green Level Historic District. The
following measures are stipulated in the MOA:
• Development of Historic District Signage
• Funding of Historic District Signage
• Assistance in Applying for TEA-21 Enhancement Funds for Viewshed Protection
(completed)
• Dispute Resolution
Additionally, NCDOT has reviewed the expanded project construction footprint required for
toll collection plazas for the Western Wake Parkway for known archeological sites. They
have determined that the expanded footprint to accommodate the toll plazas will not impact
archaeological sites listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register (see attached
' letter).
We are requesting that FHWA acknowledge the transfer of responsibilities for the
commitments listed in the MOA from NCDOT to NCTA. Thank you for your assistance in
t this matter. Please contact me at [phone] or jennifer.harns(@ncturnpike.org if you
have any questions or would like to discuss.
' Sincerely, 4wy`? ' Jennifer Harris, P.E.
Staff Engineer
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
TELEPHONE [phone] FAX. [phone]
Attachments: MOA for Western Wake Expressway
Letter from NCDOT to NCTA regarding archaeological resources
cc w/attachment: Dr. Jeffery Crow, NC Historic Preservation Officer
Katry Harris, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Gregory Thorpe, PhD, North Carolina Department of Transportation
Ed Morris, Chair, Wake County Historic Preservation Commission
William Coleman, Jr., Town of Cary, North Carolina

1

1
nNTdd

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 6, 2007
Jennifer H Hams
NC Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578
Dear Ms Hams,
Subject: - Western Wake Expressway (Toll Version), TIP
Archaeological Survey
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
a D E C EM E
MAR - 9 2007
ru r.. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
Staff from the NCDOT Human Environment Unit's Archaeology Section has reviewed current
mapping of the Western Wake Expressway with the Toll variant The design now includes toll plazas,
which, at some locations, bump out the construction easements an estimated 100-125 feet
As part of the original planning, an intensive archaeological survey was conducted of the project
corridor (12 6 nu.) and interchanges during 2001 The pedestrian survey and over 1450 subsurface testing
pits identified 14 new archaeological sites and 11 isolated finds The walkover inspection likely included
the toll plaza locations In 2003, two sites were revisited and assessed by staff archaeologists All studies
concluded that no sites within the construction easements of the project were considered eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places
The existing archaeological survey adequately covered the project corridor It is unlikely that mirror
changes to the footprint of the project associated with the toll plazas would lead to the identification of
significant cultural resources The conclusions for archaeology, as currently presented in the
environmental documentation for the project, are accurate
It is out understanding that an EIS Reevaluation Report will be issued for this project After
reviewing new mapping and the results of previous archaeological studies, our staff recommends that no
additional archaeological investigations are warranted If the design changes substantially in the future, a
reassessment may be required at that time. The Office of State Archaeology has been informed of these
recommendations This letter is provided should you wish to include it in your Reevaluation Report, or
any correspondences with the State Historic Preservation Office and/or the Office of State Archaeology
If you have any questions or comments about the archaeological investigations or these
recommendations, please contact Brian Overton at 715-1556 or bpoverton@dotstate nc us
Sincerely,
Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
PD&EA, Human Environment Unit
cc George Hoops, P E, FHWA
MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE [phone]
NCDEPARTAnENTOFTRANSPORTATION FAX [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBsrrE WWW DOH DOT STATE NC US
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
LOCATION
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

U 5 Department
of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Ms Jennifer Harris, P E
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Dear Ms Harris
North Carolina Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
March 30, 2007
F p ECVE
APR - 2 2007
N.C. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
In Reply Refer To
HDA-NC
We have reviewed your letter, dated March 20, 2007, and acknowledge the transfer of
responsibilities for the commitments listed in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) from
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to North Carolina Turnpike Authority
(NCTA) We understand that NCTA is accepting the responsibility from the NCDOT for the
implementation of the commitments stipulated in the existing MOA for Western Wake
Parkway (TIP No. R-2635) The following measures are stipulated in the MOA: Development
of Historic District Signage, Funding of Historic District Signage, Assistance in Applying for
TEA-21 Enhancement Funds for View shed Protection (completed), and Dispute Resolution
Please contact George Hoops, Mayor Projects Engineer, at [phone] extension 104 or
george hoops@fhwa dot gov if you have any questions
Sincerely,
F hn v ,111,PE
D1 n Administrator
cc Dr Jeffery Crow, NC Historic Preservation Officer
Katry Harris, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Gregory Thorpe, PhD, North Carolina Department of Transportation
Ed Morns, Chair, Wake County Historic Preservation Comrrussion
William Coleman, Jr., Town of Cary, North Carolina
Ff0V N THE
AMERICAN
ECONOMY

t

i

I

w

11
I
L.,
I
t-

Appendix G
Agency Meeting Minutes
I
Sheet 18: There is an existing 6x6 box culvert under the -Y4- line The slope stake line shown
on the plans proposes filling in approximately 230 feet of the stream Grant Ginn
discussed the use of a retaining wall or steepening the side slopes to 1 5 1 on the
upstream end to avoid any impacts The slope stake line on the downstream end of
the box will be modified to tie to existing
Sheet 22: There is a wetland area under the -Y4RPD- line that will be approximately 50%
impacted Chris Milrtscher noted not to discharge storm water directly to wetlands
Marshall Clawson noted to ensure non-erosive velocities for the Q2 and Qio design
flows to all wetland areas
Sheet 23: Wetlands at -Y4- Sta 90 Lt will be impacted by the cross pipe extension Impacts to
wetlands on the upstream end may be avoided by a steeper (15 1) side slope
Sheet 24: The stream that is impacted on the left side from Sta 20+00 to 108+00 is non-
jurisdictional
Sheet 6: The pond at the top of cut is to be drained, and will require a cross pipe in its place
There is a 50% take on the wetlands near -L- Sta 167 A 2-70 box culvert on a JD
stream is proposed The box is continued on Sheet 7
Sheet 7: Rochelle Beauregard asked which streams shown on Sheet 7 are jurisdictional Grant
Ginn replied that they both are One channel is proposed to be realigned to the
location of the second channel where it will enter the 2-7x7 box culvert
(approximately 200' channel work) Grant Ginn also noted that the drop inlet
proposed to enter the box culvert will only discharge treated storm water Chris
Militscher noted that we were realigning the main channel, however both channels
are combined by the end of the box culvert Grant Ginn stated reasons for realigning
the main channel included that it provided for a shorter box, and to realign the
secondary channel would mean going against the grade of the existing topography
Marshall Clawson suggested that Rochelle Beauregard visit this site to evaluate the
possibility of a natural channel design, and to investigate a questionable wetland
boundary near -L- Sta 175 Chris Militscher stated to use toe protection on fill slopes
at wetlands
Sheet 8: There is a junsdictional stream near the intersection of the -L- and -Y5- lines that will
require approximately a 60" cross pipe Two ponds are proposed to be drained, and
one pond retained inside quadrant D to be used for stormwater treatment
Sheet 9: A 60"-72" cross pipe is proposed on the -L- line, which will result in a small wetlands
impact Grant Ginn noted that the hydraulic design assumes urbanized flows for the
final build out Chris Milrtscher asked if the slope stake lines could be steepened up
near the wetlands to avoid impacts Marshall Clawson stated that a 15 1 side slope
would still impact the wetlands
2
FJ
Sheet 10: Marshall Clawson questioned the location of a wetlands area with a small impact, and
stated that it needed to be field verified
Sheet 11: A 7x7 box culvert is proposed at -L- Sta 237 Chris Milrtscher stated that the
associated wetlands on the west side of the culvert will be a total take Rochelle
Beauregard stated that another wetlands area exists around -L- Sta 242 (which is not
located on plans and will need verified) that will be partially filled
Sheet 13: A jurisdictional stream exists on the -L- alignment and will be a total take Chris
Militscher stated that the location of the noise wall will result in a total take of the
wetlands Marshall Clawson questioned whether or not the wetlands being discussed
exists since the plans show the location on residential properties that may have been
built some time after the delineation Wetlands will have to be field verified
Attendants discussed moving the location of the noise wall inside the right of way
The drainage in the vicinity of the noise wall is to be collected in a large system and
discharged into a basin prior to entering the wetlands on Sheet 14
Sheet 14: A large basin is proposed in the lower left quadrant of Sheet 14 to handle storm water
from the system on Sheets 12 and 13 A 1000'+ bridge is proposed to span the
wetland associated with Beaver Creek Chris Murray stated that the wetlands should
be verified to see whether or not the bridge length could be shortened Eric Alsmeyer
stated that the wetland boundary needed to be verified before the project went to right
of way Chris Milrtscher noted that half of the wetlands being spanned are on the
other side of a sewer easement, and brought up the need to check the quality of the
wetlands Eric Alsmeyer suggested that the minutes from the 4A meeting be revisited
1 to understand the reasoning behind the bndge size and selection The bridge layout
will be revisited
Sheet 15: A wetland area will be cut at station 298 This will be a total take
Sheet 26: Two jurisdictional streams with a drainage area of about 1 5 sq mi are to be
combined in a 2-7x6 box culvert Some channel relocation will be required There
are wetlands impacts associated with this culvert
Sheet 27: Cross pipe will outlet to a jurisdictional stream, with an alignment to avoid
compromising the channel banks Chris Murray noted that nprap should be used at
the tie-in
Meeting adjourned

FJ
l
1

w
11

,1

O,

4

A

if

?I
Lii?
i1

Subject:
Team Members:
Minutes from Interagency 4B Hydraulic Design Review Meeting
on June 15, 2005 for R-2635C in Wake County
Eric Alsmeyer-USACE (present)
Christina Breen-NCDWQ (present)
Travis Wilson-NCWRC (present)
Gary Jordan-USFWS (absent)
Chris Mihtscher-EPA (present)
Ron Lucas-FHWA (present)
Rachelle Beauregard-ONE (present)
Bnan Yamamoto-PDEA (present)
Chris Murray-NCDOT DEO (present)
Terry Wyatt-NCDOT/Admen (present)
A general comment was made to eliminate any np rap in stream beds
A number of ponds will be impacted Need to make sure soundings have been done at
these sites to ensure accurate fill/cut limits Also, consider ponds as locations for basins
A number of wetland boundaries are located along steep topo ONE will investigate
Sheet 5:
Discussed options of box culvert w/ stream relocation design versus a bridge Box culvert
is estimated as a 4 barrel and the stream relocation would be approximately 400' Bridge
will need to be approximately 900' long
Sheet 7:
It was discussed that the wetland below the pond dam may be impacted in order to breach
the dam There was discussion on whether to show as "total take"
Sheet 8:
Need additional coverage/plotting of jurisdictional stream around Sta 377+50 -L-
Investigate improving the outlet angle of pipe Sta 379+50 -L- Lt Possibly using a JB
Sheet 10:
It was stated pipe culverts are proposed for the two jurisdictional stream crossings
1 -?
Page 9 of 12
parallel route, even if it is not the same type of facility as the proposed toll road NCDWQ requested clarification
whether an ICI (Indirect and Cumulative Impacts) analysis would be prepared for the project prior to permitting An
ICI is underway for the project
P-Load model is a nutrient overland-flow model (sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus) and not the more commonly
seen in-stream flow model The PLOAD model looks at larger scale modeling which is more suited to this project
NCDWQ also noted that the project schedule which provides three months to process the wetland permit was very
optimistic The public notice, published by the USACE, is followed by a 30-day public comment period After the
comment period is closed and the USACE has responsed to the comments, NCDWQ has a 60-day clock to
process the permit NCDWQ requested the NCTA look at their schedule in light of these regulatory response
windows and consider allowing more time for permitting
NCDOT noted a 4C meeting for Section C of the project is planned for April 2007 Additionally, final plans for
Section C and preliminary plans for Sections A and B are in preparation
The Western Wake Parkway project is located entirely within the Cape Fear River basin
NCDOT noted that the jurisdictional wetland re-verification for the project has identified some wetlands that have
increased in size due to beaver activity NCDOT is proceeding from the hydraulics standpoint with decisions made
during the project 4B meeting regarding the use of culverts and bridges In particular, one wetland has expanded
from 250 feet to 400 feet in width and would now likely require a 4-barrel culvert and not a 3-barrel culvert
However, if culverts are not feasible hydraulically, NCDOT will likely bridge the system, but only as wide as
necessary to provide for appropriate hydraulic opening No objections were voiced to this approach
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting (12/15/06)
Date January 17, 2007
900 am to 1200 pm
NC Turnpike Authority Board Room
Projects Cape Fear Skyway -TIP No U-4738, FA No STP-0017(53)
Mid-Currtuck Bridge -TIP No R-2576, FA No BRNHF-OOOS(419)
Triangle Parkway -TIP No U-4763, FA No NHS-54(7)
Western Wake Freeway -TIP NO R-2635, FA No NONE
I Attendees
Donnie Brew, FHWA Gary Jordan, USFWS
George Hoops, FHWA
Cathy Brittingham, NCDENR-DCM Gail Grimes, NCTA
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Stephen Lane, NCDENR-DCM Jerry McCrain, EcoScience
Steve Sollod, NCDENR-DCM Elizabeth Scherrer, EcoScience
Rob Ridings, NCDENR-DWQ Jeff Dayton, HNTB
David Wainwright, NCDENR-DWQ Craig Deal, HNTB
`- Wally Bowman, NCDOT-Division 5 Adin McCann, HNTB
Tony Houser, NCDOT-Roadway Design Anne Redmond, HNTB
Dewayne Sykes, NCDOT-Roadway Design Tracy Roberts, HNTB
Lonnie Brooks, NCDOT-Structure Design Christy Shumate, HNTB
Travis Wilson, NCDENR-WRC Chris Lloyd, PB
Bill Biddlecome, USACE (via conference call) John Page, PB
' Eric Alsmeyer, USACE David Griffin, URS
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC website)
December 15, 2006 Draft TEAC meeting minutes
• Revised Draft Section 6002 Coordination Plan Template
¦ Draft Section 6002 Coordination Plan for Cape Fear Skyway
¦ Draft Section 6002 Coordination Plan for Mid-Curntuck Bridge
Cape Fear Skyway Status Report
¦ Mid-Currtuck Bridge Status Report
General Topics
• Minutes - December 2006 TEAC meeting minutes scheduled for approval at February 14, 2007 meeting
¦ Draft Section 6002 Coordination Plan Template - The revised draft template includes the suggested
changes from the December 2006 TEAC meeting Detailed discussion will occur at the February TEAC
-' meeting The template is scheduled for adoption at the March TEAC meetings
¦ Draft Section 6002 Coordination Plans for NCTA Candidate Projects -The revised draft plans for Cape
Fear Skyway and Mid-Curntuck Bridge include the revisions suggested at December 2006 TEAC meeting
t?
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - East (1/17/07)
Page 6 of 6
Q&A
Do the plans include parking provisions at the toll plazas9
Parking plans are at a conceptual stage However, the design will address this need and will avoid and
minimize impacts on natural resources to fullest extent practicable
Are there any on-site mitigation opportunities for this project
Since most streams are in wooded settings and follow the alignment in a perpendicular fashion, and due to the
amount of development encroachment, no on-site opportunities are available
Are there any on-site mitigation opportunities?
Most streams were in wooded settings and follow the alignment in a perpendicular fashion--and due to the
amount of development encroachment--that no on-site opportunities were available
Action Items for TEAC Members
¦ Provide any comments on the wetland and stream impacts by the February TEAC meeting
• Coordinate with the USACE to identify public notice requirements for Western Wake Parkway
• Provide a copy of the protected species survey report, especially as it relates to Michaux's Sumac, to the
USFWS would like to receive a copy of the survey report
¦ Incorporate the latest delineation base mapping onto the functional/preliminary design
• Explain the reason for the large difference between the wetland and stream impacts presented in the FEIS
and the findings from the resurvey
Resolutions
• The USFWS verbally supported a "no effect" call for Bald Eagle
¦ The agencies agreed that the differences between the wetland and stream impacts for the toll and the non-
toll alternatives are not significant
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - East (1/17/07)
Date February 14, 2007
900 am to 315 pm
NC Turnpike Authority Board Room

Project TIP U-3321 Gaston E-W Connector- STP-1213(6)
TIP R-3329 Monroe Connector- NHF-74(21)
TIP R-2559 Monroe Bypass - NHF-74(8)
TIP U-4738 Cape Fear Skyway - FA No STP-0017(53)
TIP R-2576 Mid-Curntuck Bridge - FA No BRNHF-OOOS(419)
TIP U-4763 Triangle Parkway- FA No NHS-54(7)
TIP R-2635 Western Wake Parkway - FA No BRSTP-OOOS(491)
Attendees
Donnie Brew, FHWA
t? Clarence Coleman, FHWA
Eddie Dancausse, FHWA
George Hoops, FHWA
` J Sarah McBride, NCDCR-SHPO
Renee Gledhill-Early, NCDCR-SHPO
Cathy Brittingham, NCDENR-DCM
Stephen Lane, NCDENR-DCM (via telephone)
L Steve Sollod, NCDENR-DCM
John Hennessy, NCDENR-DWQ
I, Polly Lespinasse, NCDENR-DWQ
Rob Ridings, NCDENR-DWQ
David Wainwright, NCDENR-DWQ
Marla Chambers, NCDENR-WRC
Travis Wilson, NCDENR-WRC
L? John Conforti, NCDOT- PDEA
Dewayne Sykes, NCDOT-Roadway Design
Scott McLendon, USACE
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Steve Lund, USACE
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS (via telephone)
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Bill Malley, Akin Gump (via telephone)
Steve DeWitt, NCTA
Gail Grimes, NCTA
Craig Deal, HNTB
Anne Redmond, HNTB
Adin McCann, HNTB
Tracy Roberts, HNTB
Christy Shumate, HNTB
Jeff Dayton, HNTB
David Griffin, URS
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC website)
¦ TEAC Alternative Meeting Location Dates
TEAC Meeting Minutes format
¦ December 15, 2006 TEAC meeting minutes
January 17, 2007 Draft TEAC meeting minutes
January 25, 2007 Draft TEAC meeting minutes
FHWA Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (Feb 3, 2006)
¦ USEPA Comments on Draft Section 6002 Coordination Plan
USACE Comments on Draft Section 6002 Coordination Plan
t . NCTA responses to USACE comments on Draft Section 6002 Coordination Plan
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 2/14/07
t?
Page 9 of 10
What are the requirements under NEPA regarding the change in affected environment from the FEIS to
now Is the change considered to be significant?
This will be addressed in the Reevaluation Report However, the selection of the project's corridor
remains valid The selected corridor did not have the least number of wetland impacts, other
evaluation criteria such as the reduced number of relocations factored into the selection process It is
not surprising that the area of wetlands and associated impacts increased since the FEIS A public
notice is planned by USACE that will include the updated wetland and stream impacts It should be
noted that-as stated during the January TEAC meeting and as agreed to by the agencies-the
difference in impacts to wetlands and streams between the non-toll and toll alternatives is minor
Are there any outstanding regulatory comments, Issues, or concerns regarding the wetland and stream
impacts shown in the handout?
No As such, discussion of wetland & stream impacts is concluded, and this information will be used in
the Re-evaluation Report
What is the status of protected species issues9
NCDOT proposes a "No Effect" call for the bald eagle, Dwarf Wedge Mussel, red-cockaded
woodpecker and Michaux's sumac The USFWS said that they would support the "No Effect" calls
during the January TEAC meeting The 2003 Recovery Plan was referenced regarding the red-
cockaded woodpecker and the use of the "No Effect" call when there is no presence of cavity trees
When will we receive information on updated bridging?
Details will be reviewed during the April 18, 2007 Concurrence Point 4C meeting
What is the status of mrnimization 9
Details will be reviewed during the April 18, 2007 Concurrence Point 4C meeting
What is the rationale behind the phased permit9
All three sections will be bonded at the same time and scheduled for the same opening year The level
of design is more advanced for Section C than Sections A and B One permit to cover all three
sections as well as three individual permits (one for each section) were both noted as not being an
option Therefore, a phased permit was the only remaining approach
How will NCTA process mitigation with EEP when the Memorandum of Agreement ?s between NCDOT
and EEP?
The mitigation needs for the project have been programmed by EEP for a long time The project is
progressing in coordination with NCDOT and mitigation will be implemented via the "In-lieu-Fee"
Program Meeting attendees had no issues, comments, or concerns with satisfying mitigation via ESP's
In-lieu Fee Program It was noted that a condition of the 401 permit will be that construction cannot
begin until proof of payment has been shown for the In-lieu Fee Program The proof would be a copy
of the receipt
Previous Action Items
• Conclude agency discussions on wetland and stream impact methodology and results
¦ E-mail confirmation of the upcoming public and local officials meeting dates, locations, and start
times
¦ Provide USFWS with protected species survey information and document coordination among
NCTA, FHWA, and USFWS regarding concurrence (if needed) for the Re-evaluation Report
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 2/14/07

Page 10 of 10
New Action Items
¦ No new action items were identified
Resolutions
¦ There are no regulatory issues, comments, or concerns regarding wetland, pond, and stream
impact methodology and calculations
¦ Confirmation was received from the agencies that satisfying the project's mitigation needs via the
EEP "In-lieu Fee" program would be acceptable

IJ
11

[1

I
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 2/14/07

ARCADIS ARCADIS G&M of NC Inc
' 801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27607-5073
MEETING SUMMARY - FINAL Tel [phone]
Subject ARCADES Project No
Western Wake Parkway NC606010
TIP No. R-2635
Federal Aid Protect No BRSTP-OOOS(491)
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Coordination
Place/Date of Meeting
Parker Lincoln Building, 10 00 am
February 20, 2007
Meeting Summary by Issue Date
Martha Register 03/26/07
Participants Copies
Renee Gledhill-Earley, NC-HPO All Participants
Sarah McBride, NC-HPO George Hoops, FHWA
Rob Ayres, FHWA Anne Lenart-Redmond, HNTB/NCTA GEC
Donnie Brew, FHWA Martha Register, ARCADIS
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT-HEU Len Hill, ARCADIS
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Tracy Roberts, HNTB/NCTA GEC
Roy Shelton, ARCADIS
Meeting Purpose:
The purpose of the meeting was to consult with representatives of the NC Historic Preservation Office
(NC-HPO) to discuss Western Wake Parkway as a toll facility and potential effects under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act
The following items were distributed at the meeting and are attached to this meeting summary Citizens
Informational Workshop (CIW) handout, preliminary designs in the area of the Green Level Road
interchange (as of February 8, 2007), an example toll plaza gantry, and a copy of the Memorandum of
' Agreement (MOA) pertaining to the Green Level Historic District
Discussion Highlights (action ;Items are noted with a leading asterisk).
After brief introductions, a general overview of the project was provided including a review of the potential
methods of toll collection and a description of toll collection sites The Green Level Historic District is the
only study area site on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places The proposed Green Level
Road interchange with Western Wake Parkway was the primary focus point of the meeting, especially the
addition of the toll collection plazas on the interchange ramps It was noted that NCTA intends to design
more aesthetically pleasing toll collection sites as compared to that of the example gantry photograph
Page
1/2

ARCADIS
?JI
provided In addition, the photograph depicted a mainline collection plaza, which has more lanes than that
of the ramp collection plazas proposed for Green Level Road The toll collection sites may include small
buildings to house such items as maintenance equipment, back up power generators and lighting Toll
collection sites would be serviced by buried fiber optic cable rather than overhead powerlmes or cell towers
In general discussion it was noted that the Green Level Historic District is not included in the expanded
footprint needed for the toll plaza at Green Level Road Additionally, the expanded footprint is included
within the study corridor The toll alternative will not increase traffic in the Historic District (compared to
that of the non-toll alternative) as NC 55 is available for travelers who choose not to pay a toll
NCTA, FHWA and NCDOT in consultation with the NC-HPO determined the following regarding the
existing MOA for the Green Level Historic District
It was confirmed that there are no additional adverse effects to the Green Level Historic District
beyond those already identified and accounted for in the MOA
* NCTA, by letter to FHWA, will state that they are assuming the responsibilities for the
commitments in the MOA Copies of the letter will be provided to all MOA signatories FHWA
should respond to the letter accepting the transfer of responsibility
The letter to FHWA should include the finding by NCTA addressing archaeology sites, stating that
the expanded footprint to accommodate the toll plazas will not impact archaeology sites on or
eligible for the National Register This finding will be prepared by NCDOT ,

Page '
2/2
i
i

9 x
E

44
' I

i

r ?Y .. V-1 . ? I M
`_. "4uYrrt '1 l
' t

Y A »-P?,.
F'
JL
A
fN
-t ?
- X. o
F
h.
G
S r r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L S Brook, Administrator
nchael F Easley, Governor
isbeth C. Evans, Secretary
effrey J Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 27, 2002
Division of Historical Resources
David J Olson, Director
Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: MOA for the Western Wake Expressway, Wake County, R-2635, ERO1-9740
Dear Mr. Graf:
' Thank you for your letter of March 5, 2002, transmitting the Memorandum of Agreement for the
above referenced project from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The agreement
addresses our concerns for the historic properties affected by the undertaking I have signed the
agreement and am forwarding it to you for signature and transmittal to the Advisory Council on
Histonc Preservation.
We look forward to working with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Town of
Cary, and the Wake County Historic Preservation Commission to implement the terms of the
agreement. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley at 733-4763. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey tJ.,w
State Historic Preservation Officer
??`;°
Enclosure
x
{
' cc: William Gilmore, NCDOT
Advisory Council Donald Belk, Cary ,r 040 14
Ellen Turco, HPC tiGi ?? > -.
pHM?M A L ANr?y?
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax s`
Administration 507 N Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mall Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653 ,
Restoration 515 N Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801 I
G.rvav Rr Vlenninn CI F. N n1-'w• C• D.,I.....1. Wr AA iR Ma.l Cvra..rr!`~- 0..1....6 17f.00-A/.IR to 191711-4761 *715-4801
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
11 TIP No. R-2635
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
WAKE COUNTY, NC
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the
Western Wake Freeway from NC 55 at SR 1172 to NC 55 near SR 1630 in Wake County,
North Carolina (the undertaking) will have an effect upon the Green Level Historic Distract,
a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and has consulted with the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800,
regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U S C.
4700,and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Town of Cary
(Cary) and Wake County Historic Preservation Commission (Commission), participated in
the consultation and have been invited to concur in this ;Memorandum of Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into
account the effect of the undertaking on the historic properties
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carved out:
Historic District Sngnage Project- NCDOT will work with Cary, the
Commission, and the North Carolina SHPO to plan and develop highway
sngnage for and in the vicinity of the Green Level Historic District. The
purpose of the highway sngnage is to identify entry into the Green Level
Historic District. The sngnage protect will also mdude small-scale
landscaping around each sign. This signage protect will include at least four
(4) signs and is restricted to identifying the historic district proper. It will not
ndentnfy individual properties within the district.

II. Funding of Historic District Sigrnage Project: NCDOT will partner with
state and local government entities, and other contributing parties, to fund
the Historic District Signage Project. NCDOT funds should not exceed
80% of the total project cost. NCDOT will provide on-going maintenance
for the signs and landscaping.
' III. Assistance in Applying for TEA-21 Enhancement Funds for Viewshed
Protection: NCDOT will provide assistance in the application process for
' TEA-21 Enhancement Funds to purchase land for the purpose of protecting
the vewshed of the Green Level Historic District. The next statewide call
for projects will be scheduled in 2002. Typically, funding is available for the
' purchase of scenic viewsheds and historic sites. NCDOT cannot guarantee
that this vewshed protection project will be accepted. The intent is to
' provide support for the TEA-21 Enhancement Funds application.
IV. Dispute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO object within (30)
' days to any plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this
agreement, FWHA shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO to resolve
the objection If FHWA or the North Carolina SHPO determines that the
objection cannot be resolved, FHWA shall forward all documentation
relevant to the dispute to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Coiuncil). Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent
documentation, the Council will either.
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into
account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section
800.7(c) and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided
in response to such a request will be taken into account by FHWA in
accordance with 36 CFR Section 800 7(c)(4) with reference to the
subject of the dispute.
' Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be
understood to pertain only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's
responsibility to car.---out all the actions under this agreement that are not
the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO, its
subsequent filing with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and implementation
of its terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on
the Western Wake Freeway from NC 55 at SR 1172 to NC 55 near SR 1630 in Wake
County, North Carolina and its effects on the Green Level Historic District, and that FHWA
' has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on the historic district.

1 2
AGREE:
? voeQ-&
FEDERAL HIGHW iY ADMINISTR MON
NORTH
FILED BY:
V .VTION OFFICER
lsfoz.
D,iTE
DATE
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HIJ.TORIC PRESERVATION
DATE
CONCUR:
6, R I
NORTH CAROLIN,, DEP.kRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION D,? rE

WAIM COT -W6 C PRESERVAMON CO:\C\IISSION D3TE
i
TOWN OF CARP, NORTH CAROLLVA DATE

3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r

i

r
t
J

J
r-y

1
s K• ; , d,..
+
01
yvr?- n ! l?. c
yJ4
i i ? ! /
-
r
(

J P o

1T7? •
t l

t y'
IS
M
ty (
? V
2 / n

• o n

?'
lc ! 1
? (
/ yam
? /
?
J

?r
t - -??
i

w
1•r ?

l
l
l
i
r 1
' V \ l

v
R
d
Y
b ?
o h
4 $
?. Y
p111
O
rI r K!

Subject:
Meeting Minutes from Interagency 4C Hydraulic Permit Review
on April 18, 2007 for R-2635C in Wake County

Team Members:
Eric Alsmeyer-USACE
Rob Ridings-NCDWQ
Travis Wilson-NCWRC
Gary Jordan-USFWS
Chris Militscher-EPA
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Galen Cail, NCDOT Hydraulics
Josh Dalton, Sungate Design Group
Brenda Moore, NCDOT Roadway
Thad Duncan, NCDOT Roadway
Lonnie Brooks, NCDOT Structure Design
Mark Staley, NCDOT Roadside Env
Timothy McFadden, NCDOT Alt Delivery
Nilesh Surti, NCDOT Alt Delivery
Kathy Matthews-EPA
George Hoops-FHWA
Jennifer Harris-NCTA
Shannon Sweitzer-NCTA
Elizabeth Lusk-NEU
Rachelle Beauregard-NEU
Greg Price-NEU
Brian Yamamoto-PDEA
Chris Murray-NCDOT DEO

Jim Cooper, EcoScience
Anne Redmond, HNTB / NCTA GEC
Craig Deal, HNTB / NCTA GEC
Donna Keener, HNTB / NCTA GEC
Tracy Roberts, HNTB / HNTB GEC
Martha Register, Arcadis
Denise Cauley, NCTA
Introduction Jennifer Hams of the NC Turnpike Authority opened the meeting by stating
that issues related to the toll plazas would be discussed prior to turning the meeting over
to NCDOT for review of the permit drawings
Schedule Ms Hams stated that the permit application (being prepared by NCDOT)
would be submitted by NCTA in July and NCTA hopes permits will be issued by
November The Design-Build contracts would be awarded in January 2008 for Section C
and June 2008 for Sections A&B Construction would begin on all sections in August
2008 The project is expected to be open to traffic by Fall 2011

?J

Reevaluation Report Ms Harris stated that the EIS Reevaluation Report is scheduled to
be completed in July Chris Milrtscher asked whether the Reevaluation Report would be
circulated for agency review Ms Hams stated that it would not be circulated for agency
review but copies of the Reevaluation Report will be available
Toll plazas Donna Keener stated that toll plaza locations have been located to optimize
traffic and toll operations and with consideration to avoid and minimize environmental
impacts Small parking areas will be provided adjacent to the cash collection facilities and
are expected to be needed only temporarily
Stream/wetland impacts Mr Militscher asked about wetland and stream impacts
resulting from the footprint of the toll plazas Ms Harris responded that there are
May 3, 2007 Page 1/6
approximately 180 feet of stream impacts and'/4 acre of wetland impacts due to the toll
plazas
CLOMR Ms Harris stated that five CLOMRs would be needed for Section C
Utility relocations Shannon Sweitzer stated that assessment of utility relocations was
underway Permitting issues associated with utility relocations would be handled as
permit modifications by the Design-Build team Eric Alsmeyer clarified that permit
modifications would be needed for impacts attributed to utilities not accounted for in the
initial Individual Permit
Triangle Parkway Mr Alsmeyer asked when the public hearing would be held for
Triangle Parkway Ms Harass stated that it would be held in June or July
Following discussion of the toll plazas, Ms Harris turned the meeting over to NCDOT
for a review of the permit drawings
PERMIT DRAWING REVIEW
General Comments:
Provide a more legible vicinity map Possibly break up into 2 or 3 sheets at larger scale
using county maps instead of USGS Quad Map Include site map(s) of larger scale on
8 5"x11" paper Increase the size of the site identification labels
Provide hydraulics detail sheet(s), BSR profiles and Natural Stream Design info in final
permit
Note on plans BEGIN JD, where applicable Chris Murray requested to label the non-
jurisdictional "stream" sections It was determined that it would be better to dust turn off
the plammetnc lines instead, so the only stream lines on the plans are those verified and
located as jurisdictional streams
Where ponds are to be breached, show approximate breach location and details Make
sure enough easement is provided
Sheet 4:
Look at adding a berm downstream of the cut slope to eliminate the need to drain the
pond downstream If the pond is drained, make sure to show impact to the JS downstream
if necessary
It was noted that the wetland right of -L- is a total take due to draining by the proposed
roadway cut slope
May 3, 2007 Page 2/6

fl

u

Sheet 5:
Eric Alsmeyer asked if both streams right of station 320+00 were JD and it was stated
that only the one hatched was JD He stated the section that conveys stormwater would
not count as stream restoration
There was discussion of the agencies and NCDOT reviewing the NSD site
It was noted that a wetland impact was missed at the begimmng of the stream restoration
NEU will provide additional wetland delineation coverage
Chris Murray stated if it is a wetland then consideration should be given to extending the
riprap ditch to the confluence with the jurisdictional stream Check velocities
Eric did not prefer the alignment of the culvert outlet to the outlet channel
Sheet 6:
Need table showing isolated ponds/wetlands included with permit application - (NEU
will provide )
Add PDE around energy dissipator located right of -Y8- Energy dissipater will be
checked for accurate scale Ensure energy dissipater is kept within the r/w fence
Make site labels larger Possibly cut sheet into 4 larger sheets
Sheet 7:
A wetland is located at the outlet of the pond NEU will provide delineation coverage
Add "Breach Dam" note
Sheet 8:
Add riprap ditch to outlet of 15" pipe through pond
A JS is located downstream of the pond NEU will provide delineation coverage
Sheet 10:
Add PDE at outlet of 60" pipe and around berm Add TDE around channel block
Investigate removal of PFSH at outlet of 18" pipe left of station 403+00
I May 3, 2007 Page 3/6
It was discussed whether wetland Sta 406+00 RT should be total take Since it will still
receive hydrology, it will not be shown as total take
Sheets 12 and 13:
At the ditch in wetland, check on the limits of the ditch excavation and mechanized
clearing
Mechanized clearing is shown outside the wetlands
Remove "remove beaver dam" notes
Remove TDE's
Sheet 14:
It was asked if the line near the pond was a JS Greg stated that is was not
Add mechanized clearing at bridge spill through abutment if within 10 feet of wetlands
Check stability at 30" outlet Sta 461+50 RT
Sheet 15:
Show site larger Make "Site 15" larger
Chris Murray - Extend riprap at outlet of culvert to limits of channel change
Extend JS impacts further upstream and label "begin JS" Check wetland impact limits
Sheet 17:
Look at adding riprap to channel banks upstream of the culvert to limits of temporary
diversion channel
Label stream as Bachelor Branch
Add mechanized clearing at matchlme between fill slope and stream to be filled to
provide access
Sheet 18:
Investigate using an energy dissipator at outlet of 30" right of 527+00 -1-
Add mechanized clearing at outlet of culvert right of channel
May 3, 2007 Page 4/6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Y
1
It was stated no JD at pond
Sheet 20:
Remove skimmer basin and easement JD at this site
Sheet 21:
Is TDE needed around pond to be drained? Marshall stated that it was already NCDOT
property
Sheet 22 and 23:
Need to extend mechanized clearing on SE and NE quadrants of bridge Also,
mechanized clearing is shown outside the wetlands at the SW quadrant of bridge
Greg stated a JS is located right of station 592+00 Label on permits
Show bridge on profile
Sheet 24:
No comments
Sheet 25:
Greg stated that only one JD stream is at this site so other piece needs to be removed
Sheet 26:
Chris Murray requested adding nprap at inlet of culvert
Sheet 27:
No comments

Sheet 28:
Beaver pond will not be drained Revise drainage to eliminate ditch into wetlands
Remove riprap and impacts to stream and wetlands and investigate need for energy
dissipater
Discussion on the Town of Cary's East-West Connector project It was stated there is no
detailed design at this time
May 3, 2007
Page 5/6

Sheet 29:
Make SITE labels larger
Sheet 30:
No comments
Sheet 31:
Chris Murray requested adding nprap at inlet of culvert
,
Eric Alsmeyer stated that the impacts to the inlet of the culvert might not be considered
permanent
'
Meeting Adjourned.

May 3, 2007 Page 6/6 '

1
1

u
z
c
O
U
N
A
l0
(6 LL
Y
7 j
!n >
c
l0 ?
i o
to
N d
M
y W

=
o
p o 0
d N

O N

N N

0 N

N

0 N

O N

O Z

O NU 0 N

0 Z O O

_? 0 N

0 N

0 N

0 0 0 O N O N
O N
U
O

Z
O

Z
O

Z
O

Z

N
O
m O } } } } Z } } v Z } } Z v z Z _ Z } } } Z Z } Z } } }
r p'
?L
CD
aa)
} }
? N N N d N N d N N _
? N N N > N N N tti N
d 3
Z m m
N m 3 m m 3 m
0 3
N m m
N m
N ,
ar
N 3 m
N m
d m
d
N m
N
N %
N %
N %
N m
N
O
O
O

0 p m
d LL 2
N
0
N
0
N
0
c
0
o
0
N
O
_O
N
N
0
CD
0
"
O
J
p
N
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
(n _
N _
N
p 0
E 0
E 0
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

LO M co 7 co M M co co N N co N to CD co N t0 M -e co co N N "t N
?
Q U `cn

m m

o I?

to

o C?

m

o

N

v

n

'

D
co
m

.

o

v

O

O

')

N

N

o

o

D

v

'

v

N

2
0 m d N t
O N N .
N M M O N M M O o v M N N N

L
C O m to M 2 aA O m m m co M Ch rn co
T
O
('?
O)
O)
O
D)
?2
T
M
(h
L D ._. N M (D M M CD N (O M M (`? M M r M N M M M M M M N M
Q V

d

N

N

l)

D

N

O

N

T

N

N

N

N

>

N

N

m

m

m

m

N

>

C

>
f6
N

A
N

tp
N

N
O T
N
.
.. >
(6 >
N >
O >
O >
m >
& >
c?9 t9
U 'O
c V > "O >
N >
(? >
(0 Y
(d >
f6 >
c6 U
'ZZl U
z-. U
? > (0
U N j > CD Q)
>
y

d 86

'O m

'O 01 01 01 0f ?
(0 2,

"0
N
?
m
-2,
-2)
0

O
-!R,

'0
y

-O

N

'0

=

U

m

'O

Q7

'O

.?

c

m

)

2

N

)

1
fn W N O f0 (6 Co (0 (n O N co N m (c m (p (0 m (0 N U O C c c - C C
(n (n U U (n (n U U) (n (n fn N (n CO (n (n (n (n (n (n m co m m
(n U U) ( fn
Q N I-
0 I-
0 h
0 t--
0 f-
0 r`
0 r`
0 h
0 ?
0 P-
0 r--
0 h
0 r`
0 I--
0 r`
0 h
O to
0 LO
0 to
0 to
0 Lo
0 LO
0 to
0 LO
0 to
0 LO
0 to
Cl to
0 to
0 to
O LO
O
G? (O
O (0
O CD
O co
O (D
O to
0 m
0 tD
0 w
0 (D
0 (D
0 (D
0 w
0 m
0 (D
0 co
O CO
0 m
0 to
0 (D
0 (D
0 (D
0 co
0 w
0 (D
0 (D
0 CD
0 (D
0 (D
0 (D
0 (D
0
V L
Z 0 co
O M
O M
O M
O co
O M
0 M
0 M
0 M
0 M
0 M
0 M
0 M
0 M
0 Cl)
0 Cl)
O Cl)
0 M
0 M
0 Cl)
0 Cl)
0 Cl)
0 M
0 M
0 Cl)
0 Cl)
0 M
0 M
0 M
0 co
O M
O
Cl)
c
r
0
11)
LO
tb
O
W
?
N
T
W
?
m
co
-e
N
t(7
O
t(7
?
cD
LO
M
?
OD
?
N
N
O
O
N
co

L LO
r-
N O V _
O
t0
M
t?) N
'7 W V co sT
O N cD co M
O M (D
I` m m O
tD O
t(7 m
O O O
O to
O) f`
(D
0) p N 00 N (D Lo 7 O C N m t(7 to O co N r- M N m (O
c U
d
J
CY «
3
c
(D
LO
D1
O
O Ln
O
O
N
O
r`
N
7 to to
N
(O
f`
t0
to
co
(O
O
O
0
? N M N 'cY It M C co V M M N M co N a' co N M N M M N M N N
0 U
U

co (n U (n (n (n U U U (n w (n U (n
z (n
z
N
pI Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
y y A U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U (J > > > ? > > > > > > > > ?
m U U U (
n t
o U (
n U U U U (
n 6o (o 05o U
> > > >

0 T a a- - a - a a - - - - - - - - IL - a d - - - ICL - a - - H - 1 I
-
t
y

CY o
Z
O M
(O
X
o
19

0
v
d
Z c 00 00 0 v m
M

L
U _
L
L
U

L

V
U

U

L

U

C

L
Y
N Y
N
Y O

U
Y
N Y
N
9)
V L
U
C L
U
C L
C
(d
U
L L
U
L
U
_
L
L
U U
c
m c

12 U
c
m c

m

U U

c C `

co C

( U

c C .
U
C U

C L

U

U

U Y
N
N

y

U c
(0

o

o

m c
(T1 c
T

m C U

C
m m m m 0 p 2 [2 ca U
v U
` c c M
m

co
o
4.
? 2
OI 0
0) m 0°
0) m m m > >
(D m
> > a?i v ?
N
m CO
j w
J _ m 0)
m
m
m 0)
co
m _01
co m
m m © N
m O
m O m O
( N
m d y N O N N
) (O
U Y
m
9
aI ? J
F- ~ l
~ J
~ 0)
m F- ? ? ~ ? ~ ~ m d
L ~ F- m F-
? m ~ F- F- m ? U

LL
Z)
Z)
n
CO
v
-
2
D
(n F
-
?
-
F-
?
F-
F-
?

W
m Q
m
U W Q QQ
Q U
ca U
Q m a
m U
- W
- v
O m
co m
to
O m
Q m Q
m
Y
J o
N m W
W
M
W I w
W co
(n W W m w W W W W
W ¢ 2 W m Q LL a 10 N N
W W
W
W W W W to W W W W W W U
W
p
Z ?- M 7 t0 Of
t0 O f` O m O e- N M T
•-
t0 (D
N N
N co
N
N (O
LO O
(O n
N CO
N O)
N O
M r`
It rn O

to
1
1

M N

M
r C
o a z
m O
z r O
} U)
} (n
} °
z N
} O
z 0
E (n
(1) V)
a) O

z N
CD O

z
j
? m

}
a
m _
m
m
a)
m
m
a)
m
Z 3 m 3 3 m
a 3 3 m
Q is
` 3 m
` m
Q 3 m
` m
a
m o ; o o o o m o a
) _o m ?

O
0
1CL
_
` C a
(D M
(y
M
O
t
M
(n
Cl)
N
co
t
m
O
O
? v
Q U
m
?Y L
C 2) c1 N (O N o0 N Lo O O CO O
> m m
= N a N a O t co It N m
Q
m m .

l`0 C a C
O)
E
O)
?2
O?
O)
O)
O
t
N
N _
N
Q)
- co (p M M fh O (O (O (p M
Q U
m

m
m
d
m
m N co
N
r 5 _
- a m a (D
a (`
D1
j
>,
j
d
N m 't' m (n (n m m ?
? O co
' m
a o cn a
m a to to ' _rn U - a
m
b) m
U) T
u) (n m
(n m
v) °
m c
m °
m °
m U)

C
ll7 ?: to Ln (!) l() In In N u) (n lf) (n Lo
0 O = C. O O O c o o O O O c c
m O ,L (O (O (O co (O (O (O (O M (O (O (O

U O
Cl) C C. Cl O O 0 0 0
M 0
M 0
(D C)
m O
M O
M

Z
- O CD C) 0 O O O J C) C) O O

C

?O
L O
N (O
O (-
O 00 Lo
O -
O) Cl) It
(O 00 0 M O

CY)
Cl)
M CO N N (n CO O
O t (LO (O ° N O O M Cl) (O h t
C V
m
J
rn d
O C O
N
n
M
t LO

c
N
p _
N

r-
N

Lo
t cn

N

m
N

t

M

U N
Z Cl) )
M (V
t

O U) U) (n (n (n co (n (o
` co (o (n (n (n
y z
Z z z z z z z z z z z z z
m?U > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
(n u. (n (n (n co (n (n co (n (n (n (n (n

d T - - a a - - - - a a - CL -

N
N N M M
d O
Z
N
r-
p x -
r
U m
Z C v v
(D co

_
Q

L
L
C Y
Y
t
L C d N U Y U
co m U co m U U cu ` U c
(D m t ( m Co

m co co en T

J
l9
Y O
L
O H U
C O
L m
a
C
C
o
o
U
C
o U m m m m H a a ;,, o g T
a) Co m m m :D
Z
U. Z) H m
co
F-
N
`?

Z)

j

0 Li
.1
O
Q
c
< Q
[m m
Ur Q
?
Q
Q
O w w t CO CO A

W
O M = 1? 00 a) t N M N N ?n
Z M
s M M M (n t (n O) t (A O) <t
M
C
0

`o
C
m
N
O
N
O O) M N
O r
O (n u) m
7
?2 ?2
Cl) m

U E
C m
m N
a b
? m
? O
c
c O
d
0
c °
n
a
t
N ?
? II
C C
O O
o E U m
-o o = p
O
`O N
C n
U o II o
- U
> U
a > t E o
to U d o
(D
? 3 m C
1' 3
c
C N >
N > O
rn
E mLm. a O
U Iv
(2m= (L z
65 2 y
C (n E
a) (? m
L
E o N

N Q
5 a ..
O O O
t L «
5 C
J J J
U)
wa .. a)
° ° 10- Z

U
' Z
A
c

O
V
d
Y

(6
d
(0 d1
' E w
Y
3
cf)
' C C
c L
d y
d
1 NCD
d M
? N
F
n
m
r- d V O
O 07
T LO
r co
? U7
N h
O N
r (D
M M
0 M
0 m
0 00
0
0
(0 a0
O O
N CJ
M d'
O V
O '
r IT
0 N
r a0
r N
O r
Ih N
r
N (f)
0 (0
0 (0
(V
y
Q O O O N O O O O O r O O O O O Cl O O O O O r O O r N O O O O T

d
d C
C

` Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z z
C
12 o
z
4) E E E E E E E E
? 3 3 3 8 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ?: 3 3: 2
a 3 3 2
-0 ?
'0 3 2
'a 0
-0 3
0 2
a
- o
- 0
- 0
- a> 0
- 0
- 0
- o
- a
0 o
- 0
- o
- 0
- o
- o
- o
- o
- o
- o
- o
- o
- 0
- 0
ay?? E E E E E E E E
E E E
o

3

0
6

3

>
2
0
a
3:
3:
R 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
LL

W C O
M O
M M
T N
U') O N
M N
M M
Cl) fl- CO
M O r
M In
M ?-
t1' r r CO
rf (n
M O I-
M N
In M

Lo O

(n N

In

r,-
- O

IT M

(D N

O O N
Q

C
C O
'a W
Q
Q
Q
U
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
r
Q
T
Q
T
L
M U r
0 T
0 r
0 T
0
6
0 r
0 T
T
0
T
0
T
0
r
0
T
0
r
0
r
0
T
0
r
0
r
0
r
6
T
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
T
0
r
0
0
0
0
L
LL LL LL LL iy vn () LL LL LL LL LL LL w w LL LL U LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
o LL
a LL
a L
a
0 y a o_ a CL a m m d a a a a a a a a a a a a a LL a a a a
?o
v
C7 5 r-
0 ?
0 I,-
0 r-
0 I-
0 r-_
0 r-_
0 f-
0 ti
0 ?
0 I-
0 P-
0 r-
0 ti
0 r-
0 ti
0 ?
0 ?
0 ?
0 ti
0 ?
0 ?
0 ti
0 ?
0 ti
0 r-
0 ti
0 LO
0 lf)
0 (f)
0
0
O
C.
co
0
O
0
c0
0
O
0
O
0
(0
0
(0
0
O
0
O
0
c0
0
O
0
(0
0
O
Cl
(0
0
c0
0
co
0
O
0
co
0
(0
0
(0
0
(0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
(0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
co
0
co co co co co co M m co m co M m m M M M M M co M co M co co m co M M M
Z N

.?
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
t
U
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
t
L
L
L
L
L
L Y
? Y
? Y
?

C
C
C
C
C
C
C U U U U U U U U
C U
C U
c U
c U
C U
C U
C U
C U
C U
c U
c U
C U
C d a N
=
to f6
` c0
` N - N a3
` (? C
N C
N c
c6 C
(`4 C
f6
` C
aS C
a3
` a5 c`9 (6
` aS a3
` c` (`6 N
` N
` (0 (` (6
` c6 U U U
L m m m m m m m m m m m m co m co m m m m co m m m m m m m

cC
m a)
- O
- o
- a) T
-
O
01
O
O
D
1 0I
m
O
O
O)
O
O _
O _
O _
O _
O
_ co in _
co m co m m co m m m co co m co m CO m m m a) a) o
J J J J J J J l i l co m m

d
U
p N
?
LL
(D
(3)
00
m
U
p
W (0
C7
2
-
d
2
Y
J
g
Z r
?
CJ
L
?
p
N
m
=
2
2
LL J 4 4 W 4 d 3 X 4 4 4 4 LL 4 d d d d 4 4 0 4 4 4 4 a d 4 4
a a
a
O T N M 't LO M N co ? co O >>
> O
r r
r N
T M
r
r t!7
r ( q--
r W
r O
N r
N N
N N
O f--
N O
M r
co M
co
Z
1

i -a m
O N
O (D
O M
00 O
-
- -,t
Lf) O CD O M O M M N M M
r- O
l Cl) ? N c- Lr)
' N LO Cl)
r O . O 00 - M N 00 O O C
) me - O O tt
j Q O O - O O C> O O O - O O o O .- O O O o O O CD O Cl) O N O O
>
N
C_
C L
L'
N
I
L
LL
LL
/y
LL
w
LL
cr,
N
LL
of

I
L
of
w
i
L
OL,
w
w
w
N
1
L
I.L
LL
LL
LL
LL N
I.L
LL
I.L
NL
I
LL
Ll
LL
X
I
L
L . z z z z z z . . z z z z . z z z z z z z . z z z
.

d' 0
Z
N
t 7 M M 7 7
3
3
3 7 7

- 3
3
3
3 7
3
-
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 7 3 7
s o 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 o a 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 o (D o
o o
0
E E E E E E E E . aa)
E E

> o E E E E E E E E

M r- 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2
- 3 3 3 3 3 2
- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2
-C 0 0 d O N O (D 0 00 0 0
- 0
- 0
- 2 0 0 0
- 0
- 0
- 0 0
- 0
- 0
- N O
- N O N
? LL
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
'
2 rn
w C O M 00 N O f- M 00 lq3l O CO co co 00 00 co n ? N N r- LO N O N O O N IT
M O LO I- N O N (0 - r O N M M M M N r` LO ? 'IT (0 'T * f- M (D CO M
M
* .fl
a
C
0
= r
'
- a a a a a ? a a a a a a a a a a a Q a a a a a Q a ° a a a a
M V
o
o
o
o
-)
o
o
-)
c rn
or
ro
o
wr
-w
Po
o
w r
co
o
o
o
u)
5 r
0 a r
cn r
o
U)
o
3 =
M LL
a LL
a LL
a LL
D 0
a LL
a tL
a 0
a w
a LL
n LL
a LL
a m
a m
a LL
a LL
a fn
D cn
a LL
a LL
a LL
a U)
a w LL
a U)
a M
LL m
a LL (n
a LL
v _ . . _ - a a a
g
v w
a
O E '
(n LO LO (n LO LO Lo LO M LO (n LO LO LO LO LO W) Ln Ln U
) LO (n (n LO Lo LO U') a
M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p 0
O (D
Co CD
O 0
CD CD
CD (o
CD w
CD CD
CD to
0 (D
0 (0
0 (o
0 (D
0 0
0 co
0 (D
0 0
0
0 0
0 co
0 (D
0 0
0 0
O
l 0
O (o
O (o
O w
o to
0
' 0
0 (o
0
Z N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M c0 C
) M O7 CO M C'
) M c9

Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
d
Y
N
.L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
-C
U
L
U
.L
U
L
U
L
U Y

U

U

U

U

L

L

L L
U
C C
U
C C
(.1
C L
U
c
y N N O d 0 N
0 N N C C C C C C C C C U U U U M M M M
L
U
U
U
U L
U L
U
U
U M M

L (6 M M M M M M

- U C

M C

M C

M C

a (`
c
c
M
M
m
m
co
co
H in co co co co co co m m co co
m co m co co co
d N
> N
> N
> N
> N
> N
> N
> N
> T T T T
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y O
D _O
(U 0
N 0
N
> M M M M M
Q) M
CD M
0 M
Q) N
(D N
0 N
0 N
0 N
Q) N
Q) N
a) N
a) CD
a) d? N (p (Q f6 U
M U
M U
M U
M L L L L
co m m m co m co m w ? af X w X X of ? U
U
U
U
-
)
n M M M M
I 1 I I 1 1 co m m co
m ?
d
? < 0 0
' ? O C) -
d Q U LL -
LL a
CO Q
? a
J ?
U v
? Q ? ('1 m CO
J f- ? w X m O
d? N
m ?
d
LL J U
4 C7
4 C
) L C7
4 N
4 >
> LL
4 LL
4 LL
4 a d d 4 - W W
4 W
4 W
, >
> W
4 W
4 d W
4 p W 0

4 4 4
0 M M M ^ ? ^ v o) co O M LO M 0 N M V.

Z M M 0
0 I I I Nr ? o)
l N ( In ( L In 0
I (
0 CD (
D co W

1

I'

1

1

a

? m n co
C LO CO r-

Q •...
t0
O
O D
0
O
O
O

2 z z z z z

E-
1% 0
z
mD E
°
0
0
0
0 E
m?
7 a
-
_ a
3 > E E
> o
E
E
E
0 0 0 0

_
_
_ a
? = E E E
Lu
LL) w
00
M
N
N
N
?
?
G m

c
c 0
a A
U
Q
Q
Q
Q
U
a
Q

0 M d
y d d d d d
lD
V
d S
N LO LO LO U') U') U?l LO
co to (D ?
°
C)
CD
L) 7 M CM M C
n M M Cl)
z U)

° (D
N L
U L
U L
U L
U L
U
0

r N
U C
m C
m C
m C
m C
m C
m
m
m m co co m
C
ca C
(D o C C c
Z c
Z
z Z Z
w
Ud?
ce)
Q
Q
m
U
m
?C,
CL m 4
4 4 4 4 Q ?j
a a

° w C', o q, Lo

z i

l

I
0

>
L

>
0
)
r"
? U
a
a>

C O ? a ?
_0 0
'12
L

O ° 0
Z
L C?- LL
>,
O 0 0 00 0
C
0 L
U LL LL -
>, c-`p U)
° c = _ c `o m
-ia a)

m m
m O O °
o O
o
?aU- L? a OnN E °

S a o m N (D (n w
F- F- U)
E 2 _
°
0
o
a o
LL LL C C mri mri of mri mD 7 7
N ?, ), m m 7 7 7 7 ? a ?p

M L C E E O O O O 0 V
N (0 M 7 7 7
m >

N v-
C mll d a a a a LL.
p
O Q 0 a d 0 0 0 U >
N
L

Cl) ,
N my a? 0 p p p m my
`0 .
-.
°?
.
my
F-cn(nma-oaa 0 mma m

mn
m > > > > m '
S c c c c
N d U: 2 0 Co CO CU M N d OCD m p
!n f/] v) N i i i i O
cc c0 m m m m -° m

` 0 my my my - ° 0 0 0

°
c
o _aaammcom0
p c c c c 70 o o o L
°
0 a N 0 0 d tll my 0 0 0 U)
2) 2m 2D OF z -v; U'
V
0
m my
0 0 0
w
m -
-
mn E E E E O O O O O U m
'0 -0 W W W W LL LL LL LL LL U) :3
mll (ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl)
- c c c c c c C c c
d
?
-
'

+S+
D U1
?5
= N N N V; to to
?_ 7 7 7 7 m 7 7 _7 7
= O m m m m m m m m m m
daama.mcLmcL a
0

m c
o
- c
o
m
QUWL?LQQU0wQ cn
>
C N- C) o o L" -
0 0 U)
w 0 0 0
LL LL LL
m w w w U
ro U a a m a n a a a. a d z
3

0 0
F- z

0

Table 3. Surface Water (Pond) Summary
R-2635 Western Wake Freeway, Wake County, NC
No Field
Label Watershed Area NCDWQ
(ac) Subbasin Pond
Type
3 ACD Panther Creek 0 32 30605 UE
4 ACA Panther Creek 1 03 30605 UE
5 ADH Bachelor Branch 0 38 30605 UE
6 ADB Bachelor Branch 0 67 30605 UE
8 AEO Clark Branch 0 37 30605 UE
10 AFKA Reedy Branch 0 01 30605 UE
11 AFAA Reedy Branch 1 34 30605 UE
14 AHC Beaver Creek 1 03 30605 DI
22 AFD Reedy Branch 0 002 30605 UE
25 AIAAA Beaver Creek 013 30607 UE
26 AHA Beaver Creek 0 78 30605 UE
31 AM Big Branch 0 52 30607 UE
34 AIF Big Branch 3 48 30607 DI
35 AIA Big Branch 213 30607 UE
36 AIP Big Branch 0 45 30607 DI
37 AJB Little Branch 2 62 30607 UE
38 ------ Reedy Branch 0 02 30605 DI
I Total Area of Surface Waters in the Study Corridor 15 82 acres
I Pond Type Descriptions

11

UE Upland Excavation
DI Dammed Intermittent Channel

,,
S
i,
I I
i

I

i

I
Appendix I
Local Government Correspondence
,I

t

r
PEAK OF 0000
THE LIVING
February 26, 2007
i;1'rSFX

The Honorable Lyndo Tippett
Secretary
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 1501
Raleigh, NC 27699-1501
r? Subject Connectivity of Beaver Creek Drive Extension to
SR 1163 (Kelly Road), Wake County
I Dear Secretary Tippett,
P O BOX 250
APEX, NORTH CAROLINA 27502
RECEIVED
MAR 1 2 2007
DEP f Of ?R4' 0GRTA 10N
In 2004 the Department agreed to add, a grade separation at Beaver Creek Drive
Extension (formerly Zeno Road) as part of the Western Wake Parkway Project The
concept discussed with your Division 5 staff contemplated that Beaver Creek Drive
Extension would be built to the approximate elevation of the future grade separation in
order to streamline right of way acquisition, environmental permitting and eventual
construction of the bridge as part of the Western Wake Parkway contract
To date engineering drawings for the Beaver Creek Drive Extension have been completed
and approved by NCDOT staff with the exception of a couple of minor plan revisions
that are in process now The environmental permitting is complete including the permit
modifications to reflect the elevated roadway section We are prepared to begun bidding
and construction pending resolution of a significant utility conflict with Colonial Pipeline
Company
Please contact our Town Manager, Bruce Radford, at 919-249-3301 to discuss
coordination with the NCTA proposed Western Wake Parkway Project
Sincerel
K ith H Wei
ayor

P X •
o'A?ti F??v
CA

11

1

r

fl
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
March 2, 2007 a E C E 6
Jennifer Harris, P E
NC Turnpike Authority MAR - 6 2007
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578 N _ T11R111P1VE: AIITUnDITV
Subject Western Wake Parkway - Town of Cary Agreement Issues with NCTA
Dear Ms Harris
Thank you for meeting with the Town on January 5, 2007, to discuss the potential Town
of Cary roadway and greenway crossings along Western Wake Parkway (WWP) within
the Town limits As described in the emails exchanged since that meeting the Town
has reviewed your spreadsheet regarding the Town's greenway and roadway
accommodations and associated costs along WWP and has the following
comments/recommendations
1 White Oak Please proceed with "bench in" option at estimated cost to the Town of
$760,424 (Recently revised from $660,200 since our last correspondence ) There
may need to be a follow-up discussion on this option once actual costs are known
2 Bachelor Branch Please proceed with 12'x12' culvert at estimated cost to the Town
of $213,728
3 Morrisville Parkway Please proceed with 2-lane bridge over WWP with no additional
cost to the Town (NCDOT has been directed to proceed with preliminary design of
northern most bridge section which would ultimately become the 2 westbound lanes
after the bridge is widened in the future to accomadate 4-lanes of traffic )
4 Panther Creek Please proceed with boardwalk option, crediting the difference of
$102,457 to the Town for the difference in costs between the cost share of the
culvert compared to the proposed boardwalk
5 Morris Branch via bridge with McCrimmon Parkway over WWP Please provide
additional cost for extra bridge width for 10' wide multi-use/sidewalk but otherwise
proceed with this option as previously discussed
6 Nancy Branch No costs
This brings the total (revised) costs to the Town of ±$871,695 ($760,424+$213,728-
$102,457) + cost of extra McCrimmon bridge width
Regarding the ±15 69 acres of right-of-way and other associated easements needed
from the Town for WWP, the Town would be willing to discuss "donating" this land to
offset all associated costs to the Town as listed above This would be roughly $56,000
per acre and is reasonably lower than current market value for land in that area The
Town understands the NCTA may wish to have to properties appraised before finalizing
an agreement The Town understands that this is a preliminary right-of-way and/or
TOWN Of CARY
316 North Academy Street -Cary, NC 27513-PO Box 8005-Cary, NC 27512-8005
te1919-469-4030 - fax [phone]- www.townofcary.org
easement area and that revised acreage amounts will not be known until final design
work is completed but the Town will work with NCTA regarding the final acreage as well
As discussed in emails please prepare a municipal agreement for the above
work/requests as soon as possible and forward it to my attention for review and
execution Keep in mind that any and all agreements between NCTA and the Town will
have to go before and be approved by our Town Council We can take this before
Town Council as soon as an agreement is drafted Hopefully this clarifies the Town's
position on all issues with NCTA
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information If you
have any questions or need any additional information, feel free to contact me at (919)
469-4036
Sincerely,
qw,? ??
Russ Overton, P E
Senior Engineer
attachments
cc Tim Bailey, P E , Town of Cary - Engineering Director
Doug McRainey, Town of Cary - Parks Planning Manager
r
u

L

11

e
t

RECORD OF TELEPHONE CALL
Project Western Wake Parkway Date 3/19/07

Call From Tracv Roberts Of NCTA GEC / 14NTB

Call To Bruce Radford Of Town of Apex [phone]
BY TER
Subject Discussed Action to be Taken
Western Wake Parkway Feltonsville water meter Inform NCTA of Apex's position and determine any
reading responsibility follow up action required (if any)
I spoke with Bruce Radford, Apex Town Manager,
regarding Commitment #18 in the Western Wake
EIS Commitment #18 states that NCDOT will
facilitate discussions between the Feltonsville
Community Organization and the Town of Apex
regarding the transfer of water meter reading
responsibility to the town
When asked whether Apex would be interested in
assuming water meter reading responsibility in
Feltonsville, Mr Radford stated that the current
arrangement works fine (Feltonsville reads it own
meters and submits payment to Apex) and saw no
reason to change it The current arrangement is
based on previous agreements and Mr Radford
stated that such agreements should continue to be
honored
G \TRA\606010 WWP Reevaluation\ENV\Reevaluation Report\Subnuttal 6\Final\Appendixes\Appendix I - local
gov letters\B Radford phone log 031907 doc

r

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

e
J

I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY 1501 MAIL. SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N C 27699-1501
GOVERNOR
` April
D
The Honorable Keith H Weatherly
Mayor, Town of Apex
Post Office Box 250 APP; 1 1 2007
Apex, North Carolina 27502
Dear Mayor Weatherly
N C TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Western Wake Parkway project and the
Town's desire for the construction of a grade separation at Beaver Creek Drive
extension (formerly Zeno Road extension) in this project
I understand that a meeting was held on February 7, 2007, with the Town of Apex staff,
Wally Bowman and other employees with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), Steve DeWitt, Chief Engineer of the North Carolina Turnpike
Authority (NCTA), and other NCTA staff members to discuss this matter along with other
roadway and greenway crossings of the Western Wake Parkway in Apex
During this meeting, the group discussed a,commitment that was made by the
Department in correspondence dated January 8, 2004 This commitment stated that
"the Department will consider adding a grade separation at Zeno Road extension within
the Western Wake Freeway project if Zeno Road extension has been constructed on
each side of the Western Wake Freeway The Zeno Road extension construction would
have to be completed or underway by the time the Western Wake Freeway right-of-way
acquisition begins in March 2006 "
It is the understanding of the NCDOT staff that the Beaver Creek Drive Extension work
may not be completed on a schedule to support the consideration of a grade separation
for the Western Wake Freeway project if you or the Town of Apex staff have
questions, please let me know
Sincerely,
ndo Ti pett
cc David Joyner, Executive Director, NCTA
Steve DeWitt, P E, Chief Engineer, NCTA
..d"ennifer Harris, P E , Environmental Engineer, NCTA
Wally Bowman, P E, Division Engineer
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
A
VIP

OZ

tfjdt?
cp(i/p? d
-1 e ? °c°P p?1, tea ?gyp
'we r ?0\ r n/y sPQ
Vv ? to\°a? ??NL? ?hP ?Sd,??,d?fs
a'? N°?rCa?°?a?o ?hesNC?0
Q ? ; ire t?ta? 99Sd0pr0 d?eSR aPl`
ot?Sro?ert? t add?eet ?? tp r/d t`e, pd a
OrtS? apePa ?tolec Se. deb°odocoR` S?6PSbe;0°btdp?p0
c2P ?oQdS a\.Q\ea aoo ?2P ea Se4uP 9(p,2s pub/.
o° ?o??r trek K\ ?a°ut,?a?\eat a\r?\?S Y by?h Thspr??y d?aPrP?
?reOatdt?0? e?da 5 `ta?a?ta?to\ec?? ab\eN° Pep PSP'v OIf
dr P O
c o?\or?5 a dL°a?e\?e t a cute N°??SroP a\S aye a?a\ OptPV/00 ?pf rd ?p pria0 01
??r ?° ire 0
CCI SF r?dri
V. oed S aSe 5? a?°? ec?' o\ec? 7 ?d ,V?C
-99
® C.o?`? ??al e\e °e\p ?a??P eQt°ret P? p?P?rd
i 6 rhP ?fdt1 0h
,loot c?. ?o a?? ?O °a\cP °.????`arao ?o\ec? to a? o?PC? pd Nco %
?? atdto Qto\e tae\e X00 q cp c?Sta TbP
?t° r\SOd??e?t?e? ?earec?d`SPaDoo? a?ea?a ?dssi9 ey?do r?iaOr?P9dnprP
?e\OO at`°? ?reS? ?5 co \eaSe Quo \Qat\ NO ?be?s tolec?. ?Pdb ?d?? pOb?c ?FIS) f ?
ca\\ est`O \ ??a??o° Spa\yeea0 oPose r. yNco 004 t hPdr? or?h?
0 0 "'
T e 9
o P ec? e Pt ?? 0 d ?d prpl? fi
ti??e ce??S `\t\c?° Qt°\ o??r v??rp ache theF ctsF
coy` Spe ? a?° ltll , %7i

?o\ec? otr°?\
dot P?acN• Q? \we P
co° atr?s, ,\o mo
?\to ago),\O \ceL ?c,1$ Qotg
\6oc?a?a? IZ) O
N(P ratt?5o?
O\O,
of
ra?e??5 Ceo?et?
a? \S ?e 0 3 0?
? LPO ota S ? 05 ?
?a \ 3p (-ti e?6@a?cad?s
\
u
k
\ \ae? \t e ?teSeN ?_ 'Weea??r

?a\e ? a te? 'Lai'
a? c?D' ?N P tr0
C?1cl? Q,a
r?

`*e
t

re'IA- 0 cr as SNQIP c - 'C\ e
1 be?•S ire po ?yob
t ?ra? t e ?\?`a?o e\?`S Sao\\???.
a?`a tirete\ Socr a
t\?a?
I
m
WQ'
Z
..?_...-.?;. _ W
I ?
' V
?. W
z

? O

? E
n
W

W

? N
O •
}I
4? i`
V O

O

m mm m
= r m m m w
L
L
0 S
o a a) -0
C Q v u
ro Q C
N O v C
d Q O O
? E ? L C
r0 N
C L 2 0 H
C V S1 C W
w O v C
E O
m U? v
w Lf1 .C C
? U O QJ ra
O Z v
a
i?
y
Q
N
C Q1
O L ? H
i
O Ql 4J
LC C Y Ol
? C
ro .-- L ? ro
` C
-0 V1 ? T `
Ql ?
0 C N N
CL L !
O y Ln `o
d L ro
0 v o
cc?
O c v
v >
N ID J
? C O a
O
O ? N C C
L v
C V U O
`n C C ? O
Q ? O ~
N
a a O
? Q1
aj CU V
ro ? C 4J
o-°=o
Q ? L U L
? V
C
v N ? l0 C
> ra U in '
o L Z D
C m . N
0 Y ai D ~
0 T a
? Y O 0
v r>o '^
O > v
fl_ C N
O C o J
2 N U C
ru a)
N >? Q d 41
Qz
J
wd°oa
O S O
? x v ¢
y
7
Z ?
J G
W W <
6 W O
CpJ¢
.z.. <
z?
i
H
r o
mo
o¢
I
w I
i <
t
i
c
s
d
? <

J¢
Y Y
m ?

d
W Y 2 w
W ¢i¢ Y
mUC70 Q
w o ?
¢
x
OG
i Q
H
W

3
x v o
<
m ry
7 i
B
O
O
H a?3?

3 J o
o ? °c
x?
J 6 d
O ?/l <

-o E
E L o
O
O v v
O
C _0 N
p >
T
c
Q)
a ti
>
a C
O
>
N
>
O N
O C ^ C
Q

v O
v p O

N
N o
7 E

;
E
m
ro
vi
a C
0 0 D_ ? v ro ? C
o
? > p O
C
E v N C

C C >_ O Q
a cj O_ ?G T
o
?+ a c r o a

`o w C:
L rc E
0 CL
C
>
Q
V y? 1
E 2 C .
o
v c `°
E :? > o
o Q o
:. E Q v
3
O
c
m o
m c a, v v } E o
L _
rn 2 0_
N V
-F Q ti
C V QJ 7y z _
V
c ) 0 -O
C
Ti
u
r
3 L
fpm C
Y '
v
5, O

>
o

I? 7
N Q- B o_
J E T
Q d z
a H?
Y
<
?a
z
0 G _
j 3 O Z Y
WWjs`
O v
Z U
U < ? U
w o
H
y H O
¢
? W
U

W J Y p? p
O
?Z
y
¢
O
w7 y
4
U
'
Y
Z
m u
?

7 QQ
''
v
Ji
]? a
W
O
L
CL

L
O
C ?
o E
rO o
C
=o
O L
V
C C
O
T
Q N
V -O
Z O
CL
L
Q ?
O
Y ?
U
E Z
C
O
C !O
O
0
ru Q
U `^
C
O ~
Z o
E C V
v v
a E 0-
rho n
0
v v
c o
?n - !1
L
U s
C
O Y O
C
m O 0
C Z
=3 v Q
.f N
n
O
O
N
r
c s
E
O LT
O
T Y
? E
o0
s v
C L
O
N C
v
c E
E E
E
O N
? c
O p
?v
M
rD ?
C
v O
T
v > E
N
o E n O

O v
O Q Q C
L ro 'O .O
.....
w Qi N "6
C, a

p o
O
E
C V 4
E
0 p
0 Q C C

> O O p
ro L ? Q 5
-0 E v Q ° o
N C N
v
o -o ?
a
O o'
v v o
u N v N d
O ` 0

m Q
Q
-
-
0
-
cu -0
T Y
O vi ? C ?
O
p
ra
O
n p U N C
C
O ?
V Ln Y LD
O .
a U v c
w
o
E
C
N O
N ? O
?
o
-O
E
u o
O
.4- Q C1 QJ
c o o 0 ?
o 0
O Q O O NO 'O
O
Z. C O 6 - i
s `o
'Q
O
N -0
v °
o O
C v N
S o D C r
Q 3 o
C
?--r Y
v
Q C

-, Ln Y
Q Qj
- ? Z - O
O C
O V
0
in d
C L -?6
N O . a
o O p
0 c
N C O_ Q1 C
o v .C E
C d
15
o ro E >
Q _ E 'v
a ?
0 o v Q E
C C
O p O C
0 O
L
L c O '
m O i Q
> O
N Y p
O O c 0 0 q
CE),
Q
0 -0 r,
O_ -p in ? O N
4J C N ?
L y ? c ^ O
O aNU O
.T O C N
rp (p Q LD N .?
Q 3 p ._ y O
c Q E c v
v Ln ' u
O L N ?QJ i
p v ? n -O in
Q L ? by c C
C C U C Q
m ro Z o OC -C
N -0 _ O
T _
C ° E T
V
Y ? O? O
? p U d9 O_
p Z C O
r% L
y
j ?^ v ? O vi
N
v U v C
N ? ? ? L v
C
N
C
L p Y C C
H > m rD '

>
N E T o L
C
C o
m

,5 Q

0

S

0
E E y

Q v

' 3
_
E
0J
D 00 -?c
Ln
z

C:) -0 Q
c
d N N rp W
A
-2 w ILL" SO =Ll
ii
.
C ? d i C a) N O N N O W =
,
O O 6
Y r L'
v r D O U t O
= r`o m z s U r v
v n O Z v L
- 3
o p- `p E
' ..
o a U2-c vr,
' ro0 0°s a n F..
v v
O
aj
?c
E O_ rp
c
` } C m-?
00
-o C: Q U L

a .
°
o O
vz?2 m
:5<CD r Ern
r? r r ?r i ? ?r r r¦ rr ?i r rr r
?r rr ?r r? r ? rr r r? •r r r r r
- ? < <
< ~ t- N
N U = _ <
_ < Z• 1-
< 6 Z
N < p0 V v
< W
.z. z z z O
a o 0 0 0
J < H
U
: V V U ? a
v i lq (A tlJ , H m
< a < w o 0
z < i < s a
0 o a a a o
w W Y Y Y < _
J Z H tl
O O 2
U U ¢ 6
? W W ? ¢
C ?
J J W N U1 ? ?
O O ; ; = V

VVESTERN WAKE
PARKWX'
February 8, 2007

eR6 ffim0 mmzis3f 49mm &.@@mz»-FS vffiNdffi ml ad em Cmm&m ae axa SmSm Rma £6mma» cmmzEmbmG s8affia sf Sfrmo YH mmeffimw from Contact Information [-Please Print-]
Name
Mailing Address
[-Please remember to include your zip code-]
Do you represent a group or organization? If so, please check your affiliation below
w
? Homeowner's Association ? Business ? Developer ? Local Official ? Interest Group
? Other Name of Group or Organization
If you would prefer to receive project updates electronically instead of by mail please
provide your e-mail address.
E-mail Address
How did you hear about the meeting?
Y ? Postcard ? Newspaper ? Friend/Family ? Other
Comments me,mmumm<m...aamm.ffmm.mmmmmmmm®emmmmmmm-mmmmmmmmm®mmmmm®mYour opinions are important to this project Please use the space below to write your
questions or comments If you need additional room to write, please use additional paper or
take additional comment sheets
Do you have any comments regarding the project as currently proposed?

Comments continued
Please return your comments tonight or mail to
either of the following addresses by March 12, 2007
Ms Jennifer Harris, PE -or- Ms Martha Register
North Carolina Turnpike Authority ARCADIS
1578 Mad Service Center 801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578 Raleigh, NC 27607
jenmfer hams@ncturnp?ke org martha register@arcadis-us com
Ph 919-571-3004 Ph 919-854-1282
WESTERN
February 15, 2007
..............................................................................................................
' Contact Information [-Please Print-]
Name
. Mailing Address-
[-Please remember to include your zip code-]
Do you represent a group or organization? If so, please check your affiliation below:
? Feltonsville Resident ? Homeowner's Association ? Business ? Developer
? Other Name of Group or Organization
: If you would prefer to receive project updates electronically instead of by mail please :
provide your e-mail address.
E-mail Address
How did you hear about the meeting?
? Letter ? Flyer ? Friend/Family ? Other
..................................................................................................................
Comments
Your opinions are important to this project In writing your comments, please consider
answering the questions noted below If you need additional room to write, please use
additional paper or take additional comment sheets
On a typical weekday (Monday through Friday), where do you drive or take the bus to?
Please check the box that best descnbes your average weekday travel
I ? I am normally at home during the week.

? School: Please include address/location of school
? Work: Please include address/location of employer
I ? Other: Please include address/location of destination

1) Do you have any comments regarding the project as currently proposed?
2) Have you noticed traffic changes along Old Smithfield Road since the opening of NC 55 Bypass?
If so, please list what changes you have seen
3) What are the ages and interests of the people most likely to use the Feltonsville Community Park?
4) What do you think would be most useful to area residents at the Feltonsville Community Park?
Additional Comments
Please return your comments tonight or mail to
either of the following addresses by March 12, 2007
Ms Jennifer Harris, PE -or- Ms Martha Register
North Carolina Turnpike Authority ARCADIS
1578 Mail Service Center 801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578 Raleigh, NC 27607
[e-mail] martha register@arcadis-us com
Ph. 919-571-3004 Ph 919-854-1282
m= m m w= m r m r m m r= m= m m?
Acad Versbn : R17.03 (WS Tech) Ogle\Tme :Thu, 15 Feb 2007 - 1. Cumrd
user Nmne : kwdean Path\Name : r\,LN 1\606010 WWP FMA1wnON\CAD\Cabr EeMdeq Layan Tatr: C.yad. °r°'
C C
HORIZONTAL-NC GRID (NAD 83/2001)
D (FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS)
c D f ~? -
rtL
1 ;,/ -

A,
- Y

e
r
Z
?yyy
TT
N ;o
TTQ?
N
n \ m
n
rn 3r

o
3r m=

m
-

?2
O
co
o

M?a

T

z
= 7
T
*1 m? r.
o
r^
A D
Z

August 31, 2006

Mr. David Joyner, Chairman
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Malt Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578
Dear Mr. Joyner:
The members of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's Transportation
Advisory Committee would like to express our appreciation to the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority (NCTA) for its efforts to date. The efforts put forth in exploring
the feasibility of constructing the 1-540 Western Wake Freeway, including the Triangle
Parkway, as a toll road are greatly appreciated. Based on the findings of the
Preliminary traffic and revenue studies, the Capital Area MPO is hereby requesting
that the NCTA proceed further by undertaking the investment-grade financial
feasibility study for the Triangle Parkway and Western Wake Freeway.
Additionally, the Capital Area MPO requests that the NCTA undertake the necessary
environmental documentation and additional design work to ensure that both projects
wilt be prepared to proceed to construction expeditiously should the findings of the
d
l
d
1 eve
ope
.
investment grade study be favorable and a sound financial plan
The Capital Area MPO also requests that the NCTA initiate environmental studies and a
study of all feasible financing options on the Southern Wake Freeway to allow for its
construction as a toll road at the earliest possible future date. The MPO also urges the
NCTA Board to work with the NC General Assembly to identify potential sources of new
revenue, which could be used to fill the financing "gap" needed to complete this
project and the remainder of the entire 1-540 system.
The MPO is requesting that the Authority study the feasibility of totting that portion of
1-540 currently under construction between NC 54 and NC 55. The purpose of this
feasibility study would be to determine if tolling this portion of the roadway would
significantly reduce the funding gap and lower the toll rate required on the Western
Wake Freeway and Triangle Parkway.
The MPO members understand and appreciate that the NCTA recognizes the
importance of working closely together with the MPO on potential turnpike projects in
our planning region. They took forward to continuing to be closely involved in
upcoming work associated with implementing this important turnpike project including
updates that will be needed to the Long-Range Transportation Plan and the

NC Turnpike Authority
Triangle, Western and Southern Wake Parkways Page 2
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program both of which require MPO
approval.
The information presented at the Transportation Advisory Committee of the MPO on
August 16, 2006 was well-received and provided answers to many of the questions
from member agencies. Members present at that meeting requested that the NCTA
and MPO staff work together to formulate a Memorandum of Understanding to clearly
define and clarify issues including, but not limited to:
1) Any funds raised as a result of tolls on this project be used on this project
and not diverted to other projects or areas of the state;
2) A sunset of tolls when improvement costs are satisfied;
3) NCDOT be included in the discussions relating to any funding shortfall; and
4) The road must be designed and constructed to meet or exceed NCDOT
standards.
The TAC appreciates the efforts of the NC Turnpike Authority, fully supports the
emerging MPO/NCTA partnership and looks forward to working closely with the
Authority to develop the Memorandum of Understanding.
Sincerely,
oe Bryan, air
Transportation Advisory Committee
Capital Area MPO
cc: Mr. Perry Safran
Capital Area MPO TAC Members
Ed Johnson, Director, Capital Area MPO Lead Planning Agency

goRBORO
PGRTH CARUJ,?N

Alan Hicks
Member
' Steve Joyner
Mayor,
City of Roxboro
Merilyn Newell
Member
W.A. "Winkie"
Wilkins, Jr.
NC House of
Representatives
Leigh Woodall
Chairman
Joint Thoroughfare Committee
City of Roxboro • Person County
304 S Morgan Street • Room 212 a Roxboro, NC 27573
February 22, 2007
Ms. Jennifer Hams, PE
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578
I? FEB 2 7 2007
N,C. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
Oa`GUI God
?yyc S?uH'
NCO
Larry U~Yarborough Dear Jennifer
' Person County
Commissioner
I am enclosing a resolution approved by the Board of Directors of the Roxboro Area
' Chamber of Commerce in support of tolls as a financing mechanism for new
sections of I-540 In addition, our Chamber also favors the authorization of
approximately $12 million in "gap funding" in order to expedite the I-540 project.
' Sincerely,
Leigh C. Woodall, Jr, PE
' Chairman
copies to Representative W A Wffl ns, Jr.
Joe M lazzo II, PE t"

Roxboro Area Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
211 North Main Street Roxboro, North Carohna 27573
Phone [phone] a Fax [phone]
RESOLUTION BY THE ROXPORO AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE IN SUPPORT OF A RECURRING STATE GAP
FUNDING COMMITMENT FOR TRUNPIKES TO ACCELERATE
FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION IN THE TRIANGLE
• WHEREAS, Tolls do not pay for the entire cost of a new turnpike freeway, although they
will pay upwards of 70 % of the cost of I-540 / Western Wake and Triangle Parkway
proposed freeways in the Triangle, and
• WHEREAS, the completion of our freeway system is essential for ensuring the long-term
' viability of the econonuc and fobs engine that is Research Triangle Park and the Triangle
region, and
• WHEREAS, the Triangle has demonstrated its commitment to gap funding in 2006 by
supporting Senate Bill 13 81 which will provide more than $100 nullion in gap funding
for I-540 / Triangle Parkway, and
• WHEREAS, the Research Triangle Foundation has been planning for the Triangle
Parkway for more than half a century, and has reserved the bulk of the needed right-of-
way for this freeway inside Research Triangle Park, and
' WHEREAS the State would receive a new $800 million freeway network in the heart of
the Triangle for a State gap funding commitment of around $12 million per year
• BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the ROXBORO AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE urges the State to provide a recurring State gap funding commitment
of around $12 million per year to support the construction of both I-540 / Western
Wake and Triangle Parkway as proposed turnpikes.

• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ROXBORO AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE urges the State to expedite that commitment to the Turnpike
Authority as soon as possible in order to accelerate the delivery of the project by
several months to a year and minimize inflation-related costs and uncertainty.
This the twenty-first day of February two thousand and seven
*4'4? Q. P&IL
1'Re5IPaN</eeo
l7?
1/3W,.fCNktRMA 1
/
WORKING FOR PRIDE AND PROGRESS IN ROXBORO AND PERSON COUNTY