20181192_Complete File_19990310

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
LT.N?VA
DEN R
February 24, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator"
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #98-0457; WQS# 11931
Proposed Southern Wake Freeway Corridor Study,
TIP # R-2721, Wake and Johnston Counties
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. The following wetlands information should be included in the EIS, as appropriate:
1. Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. If no wetlands are found, the EIS should still include information
on how this determination was made, including the methods used in
surveying for their presence and the qualifications of the survey staff in
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If wetlands are to be impacted by the project, have they been avoided as
much as possible? (Please ensure that sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands).
3. Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
98-0457 DOT Scoping
February 24, 1998
Page 2
5. Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
6. Quality of wetlands impacted.
7. Total wetland impacts.
8. List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
G. If wetlands are anticipated to be impacted by the project, the following measures
should be taken to reduce the impacts -
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including placement of sediment and
erosion control structures / measures outside of wetlands). If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required if impacts are greater
than one acre.
2. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
3. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan, if appropriate, to help
the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
a. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible.
b. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-
kind mitigation within the same watershed.is preferred over out-of-
kind mitigation.
C. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly preservation.
H . The EIS should discuss (in detail) project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road construction or mitigate significant water quality impacts from
secondary development, such as mass-transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
I. The National Environmental Policy Act and the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) require that the EIS for this project evaluate all direct, indirect
and cumulative impacts on the environment. It is the relationship between
transportation projects and their impacts to changes in land uses that the
environmental document should focus its indirect impacts section. This section of
the document should discuss the known relationship between new or widened
roads, highways and interchanges and resulting inducements for urban
development along the project right-of-way, at interchanges and along connecting
arterials. The EIS must further address the long-term environmental impacts of this
road project, including the potential indirect impacts of the induced urban
development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EIS should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, at
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use figures were used in this estimate)?
98-0457 DOT Scoping
February 24, 1998
Page 3
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, such as turn lanes
and traffic signs and signals?
iii) How will traffic patterns and traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along this proposed road and all secondary
roads be influenced by the access or increased traffic flow provided by this
project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?
vi) Will these parcels become more likely to develop into urban uses with the
provision of public road access, adequate road frontage or traffic safety and
control features from the project?
vii) Will this new road serve as an inducement to additional urban development
on the adjacent parcels, given the provision of additional traffic handling
capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in the future), of
other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g. sewer, water and
electricity) in the area? To what degree will this new road encourage and
facilitate urbanization of this corridor?
viii) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
.improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
way, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EIS should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the road project and this
additional urban development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that are applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In addition to reporting on the types and significance of each
direct and indirect impact of the project, the document should define how
DOT (with their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(with land use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
For Environmental Impact Statements, the SEPA rules and statutes require that any
identified significant environmental impacts must be avoided, minimized or
mitigated to a level less than significant as much as practicable. Therefore, an EIS
for this project should show how the indirect effects of the project, including those
98-0457 DOT Scoping
February 24, 1998
Page 4
effects of urban development, are not going to significantly impact the environment,
including water quality.
The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc.
An indirect impact analysis of a transportation project should evaluate increases in
development in the vicinity of the road project if the project will be providing new
or improved access to future growth areas that are currently undeveloped. Indirect
water quality impacts of induced development might include: increases in ground
and surface water withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in
wastewater collection and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in
surface water discharges; and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater in the
project service area and along connector streets that experience increases in land
development due to the project. Land-disturbing activities associated with road
construction and land development may also result in increased stream
sedimentation and secondary wetland impacts. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and streams, loss of
aquatic habitat and wetlands and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as
fertilizers, pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters.
These impacts could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with
state and federally endangered species or if the waters are high quality, nutrient
sensitive, or used for public water supply.
K. Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department. Please be aware that 401 Certification may
be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
rpU_.-\98045ZD0T Scoping- new road - EIS
cc: Cyndi Bel - WQ - Non-Discharge Branch, Wetlands / 401 Unit

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 6, 1998
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
i .
try r??.l;p
Subject: Southern Wake Freeway, TIP Nos. R-2721 and R-2828,
Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of January 20, 1998, requesting information' from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the above-
referenced project. This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also
serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
Your letter indicates that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is initiating
study of the subject project which would form a link between the proposed NC 55 Bypass north of
Holly Springs (western terminus) and US 70 east of I-40 between Garner and Clayton (eastern
terminus). This project would be a component of the Raleigh Outer Loop and is currently part of
the Thoroughfare Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations, we are
unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time. However, the following
recommendations should-help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service'recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
Regarding avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur on
structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural
water flows and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should
be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland areas.
Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control
devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur
outside the seasons of fish spawning and migratory bird nesting.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time of public notice
issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in the planning process to resolve land
use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following (the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of the
project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action and an analysis of the alternatives for the proposed
project that were considered, including the upgrading of existing roads, if applicable, and a
"no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action area of the proposed
project which may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact acreages should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Cows
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in Wake and Johnston Counties. Habitat requirements for the federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat within the study corridor.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the species
should be performed. Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and
results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should be included in the
environmental document regarding protected species. The level of detail should be commensurate
with the degree of environmental impacts:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat which
includes consideration of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative effects area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably
certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and depend
on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions (those that
have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration); and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or associated
habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct mortality,
injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all ways in
which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measurement of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the
ESA, federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed critical
habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore, it
would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
of the progress made in the planning process, including your official determination of the impacts
of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 919-
856-4520, ext. 27.
Sincerely,
Howard F. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Attachments
cc:
Frank McBride, NCWRC, Northside, NC
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USA Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Raleigh, NC
F WS/R4:HHall:3/6/98: WP:A.j ohr2721
Federally-Listed, Candidate and Federal Species of Concern
(revised May 1,199')
JOHNSTON COUNTY
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vertebrates
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel 41asmidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC
Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis FSC
Vascular Plants
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered*
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC*
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
to support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing.).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) - species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section7 consultation.
EXP A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental, non-
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
* Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
** Obscure record, the date and/or location of the specis observation is uncertain.
*** Incidental/migrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
**** Historic, obsure and incidental record.

Federally-Listed, Candidate and Federal Species of Concern
(revised May 1, 1997)
WAKE COUNTY
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS-
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow . Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southern hopose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Southeastern myotis J Myotis austroriparius FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC*
Vascular Plants
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
to support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing.).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) - species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section7 consultation.
EXP A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental, non-
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
* Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
** Obscure record, the date and/or location of the specis observation is uncertain.
** * Incidentalimigrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
**** Historic, obsure and incidental record.
r
4 '
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SOUTHERN WAKE FREEWAY CORRIDOR STUDY
NCDOT Project No.: 6.401078/ 6.401079 (R-2721 & R-2828)
KICKOFF/SCOPING MEETING AGENDA
March 17, 1998
1. Introduction of Meeting Participants (Cindy Sharer, NCDOT)
2. Project Overview and Scoping (Roy Bruce and Tom McCloskey, H.W. Lochner, Inc.)
Project limits and study area
Scoping Comments from Agencies
Constraints mapping (please provide additional information)
Roadway Corridor Official Map Act Alignment
Identification of other alignments
3. Study Process and Schedule (Bryan Kluchar, H.W. Lochner, Inc.)
Environmental Impact Statement
1998-2004 T.I.P. schedule: R-2721 Post year right of way and construction
R-2828 Identified future need
4. Status Reports
Triangle Area Travel Flow Model (Scott Lane, NCDOT)
Clayton Bypass, R-2552 (Leigh Lane, NCDOT)
Western Wake Freeway, R-2635 (Cindy Sharer, NCDOT)
5. Public Involvement (Bryan Kluchar, H. W . Lochner, Inc.)
Project Hotline: [phone]
Mailing List: (please provide additional names and addresses)
Project Newsletters
Small Group Meetings
Citizens Informational Workshops
6. Additional Items of Business
r
add30 ' sr
co? v' 2'py?y 4lF G$
Con
ti T
y ? p
a
1y O ZQOHT4rl0N
no
be 5g
V Q :50 M..
O U? { A
220
Zr-
u7
so?
? a? uy
O
-tl
00 o
v r i m
0 C)
o y m$ Sv y't
A ?
oaE
_ m yp SUM
m \ ?F9y o
F
O c
to c
OG ?T
t
CL
0
a
0
3
70
O
t_
^m
l 1
C
0
D
rn
D
1
1
1
1
I
i
O O
rTl rrn
n n
rri
? n
-< p
o
z O
o ?
.10000
V
m
Z
u ;
1 j
i J

ff
A D
+ P
fJ
N i
i
1
> w o Zrn
LWA'
r
.TL .may-?-'?=mar
boo , _ ?^? T ,? -^w
c
-1 rf
••• ?`°a
Z :l
o rn > m
Do
f
r?
a ? x
?y
L/,5 Yo
SJO
r
U? L c?cep4
?.CJY)
CA 4p
T elan CO) [I ,IAA r
o'?-? O\ U
I? Q I. U
-e. G
2 C
3-/C) 0 ?t?1
ke-- Our Llep-?-, /0G lordi"- ? c /V v Yee/
L
Ale ew
cAco", Li u
H VA
1
1-c-, o
PI G ?a,\ 5

5-40 n ?

-40
a

i
Y)Qt
-54
-
IU eu) c i?ul (S
lp-
67 U ? a(

"Ar

''tom Jj

c',) ?/-S
G s l %v??

- 4'
SOUTHERN WAKE FREEWAY
PRE-SLOPING MEETING AGENDA
MARCH 169,1998
I. Avoidance and Minimization of Direct Impacts
A. Alternative alignments? ( v e A? ? J1 e-s
B. Construction methods
1. Bridges spanning entire floodplains; no weep holes above c el; spill
containment structures, etc. S-Afeo- ?,j) lod
2. Interchange design 11_ p
?0 C?5 ?- C.? of o (.04 (nbsS J? G? lS C uSJ e
C. BMP's 1
1. HQW Standards - - 6-1 0-, v?r? ?,?? e o SL-/ieS
2. Complian cg Monitoring
c'6 ?'3
II. Mitigation for Direct and Secondary Impacts
A. Use same standards set by Johnston County for floodplain protection and
stormwater management
1. Wake County involvement
B. Ecosystem Conservation Plan
1. Role of state resource agencies in providing input, particularly with
regard to protection of high quality ecosystems with multiple state-listed
species
C. Inclusion of draft mitigation plan in draft EIS
1. Review of EIS cannot be completed until mitigation issues are resolved

L -- f}
O? 1
I 5..
I
1 F '

g '
?- i
? a.. ,yam., ? O
i
\ 14.
I
3 1
?s \

' a
Y'
? C
I \YJ
U z ? °
n . d3 - -. 3A 1( 0
/ ¢° N m
l
\ a
51

Qi
CEO
0
3
N
L?
3
CK-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 kJW OLSON
GOVERNOR
January 20, 1998
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road . j
// j?
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manage
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Southern Wake Freeway Corridor Study, Wake and Johnston
Counties, State Project No. 6.401078 & 6.401079,
TIP Nos. R-2721 and R-2828
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has retained the private engineering
firm of H. W. Lochner, Inc. to prepare a Federal Environmental Impact Statement on the
proposed Southern Wake Freeway in Wake and Johnston Counties extending from the proposed
NC 55 Bypass north of Holly Springs to US 70 east of I-40 between Garner and Clayton. The
attached map identifies the location of the study area. The proposed improvements are identified
as a future need in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program and are programmed for
planning and environmental studies only. Right of way acquisition and construction are
scheduled after 2004.
The proposed Southern Wake Freeway is a component of the Raleigh Outer Loop and is
included in the currently adopted Thoroughfare Plan for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (CAMPO). The proposed Southern Wake Freeway, in conjunction with the
Western Wake Freeway, will provide an alternate route for I-40 traffic and for traffic traveling in
east/west directions on Ten Ten Road (SR 1010) and NC 42 in the southern portion of Wake
County. The proposed project will increase the overall system capacity of the existing traffic
network and will divert traffic from secondary roads in an area of Wake County that is
experiencing and is planning for substantial residential growth:
In accordance with the Roadway Corridor Official Map Act, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation has recorded a Roadway Corridor Official Map for the Southern
Wake Freeway from proposed NC 55 to just east of I740. The Roadway Corridor Official Map
Act applies to the issuance of building permits and requests for subdivisions of land within the
area of the protected corridor. The act serves to protect the right of way from development while
further study on the roadway location can be completed. The location of the protected corridor is
RE
2
t
shown on the attached map. Planning and environmental studies for the section of the Eastern
Wake Freeway extending from the eastern terminus of the protected corridor to US 70 are also
included in this study.
A decision with regard to a Preferred Alternative will not be made until the comments
received through the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Corridor
Public Hearing are fully evaluated.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project on
communities, air quality, traffic noise, water quality, streams and impoundments, wetlands,
natural resources including threatened and endangered species, natural landforms, wildlife
habitat, groundwater, prime and unique farmlands, land use and cultural resources in the study
area.
General Description of Proposed Improvements
The alternatives under consideration include the No-Build Alternative, the Improve
Existing Facilities Alternative, the Transportation Systems Management Alternative, the Mass
Transit Alternative, and various Build Alternatives. The preliminary Build Alternative will
consist of constructing a multi-lane freeway on new location.
The western terminus of the Southern Wake Freeway will connect to the proposed
Western Wake Freeway at the proposed NC 55 Bypass north of Holly Springs. Grade separated
interchanges will be incorporated at major intersecting roadways as the proposed facility passes
through southern Wake County and a small portion of western Johnston County. The eastern
terminus of the Southern Wake Freeway will connect the proposed Eastern Wake Freeway just
northeast of a proposed interchange along I-40 near Clayton. For planning purposes, the section
of the Eastern Wake Freeway from the terminus of the Southern Wake Freeway to US 70 is
included in this environmental study.
Description of the General Area
The project area is located in the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina. The
topography of the area is nearly level to slightly rolling with valleys incising the landscape.
These valleys generally confine the associated floodplain and wetlands to the stream channels.
Major water bodies in the project area include White Oak Creek, Swift Creek, Little Creek,
Juniper Branch, Panther Branch, Mills Branch, Middle Creek, Camp Branch, Rocky Branch,
Terrible Creek, and Guffy Branch. The major impoundments include Bass Lake and Sunset
Lake. These streams and impoundments lie within the Neuse River Basin. Little Branch,
located west of NC 55, is located within the Cape Fear River Basin.
The project study area is located in the southern portion of the greater Raleigh
metropolitan area in Wake and Johnston Counties. The study area is south of the cities and
towns of Apex, Cary, Raleigh, and Garner and north of Fuquay-Varina. Major radial routes
extending into the project area from these cities and towns include NC 55, Holly Springs Road
3
(SR 1152), US 401, Old Stage Road (SR 1006), NC 50,140, and US 70. Along these roadway
corridors is a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Open space,
residential, and agricultural land uses occur between these developed roadway corridors.
Generally, the southern and eastern portions of the study area contains less residential and
commercial development than areas closer to Apex, Cary, Raleigh, and Garner.
Comments and Coordination
In order to investigate all social, economic, and environmental factors which may be
involved with this project, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is distributing this
letter to obtain comments you may have relative to your area of expertise and concern. All input
received will be considered in conducting the study with particular reference to effects on the
natural and human environment.
1 'kickoff znd interagency scoping meeting for this project will be held on
Tuesday, March 17, 1998, starting at 10:00 a.m., in the Board Room of the Department of
Transportation. You are encouraged to. attend.
Please submit any written comments on this project by March 9, 1998. If you have
questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Cindy Sharer, P. E., Project
Planning Engineer, at [phone], extension 268.
HFV/plr
Attachment

COD S
40,
J '?011• M;o $ / un
40,
T W p v _ _
/V '1 lP N? ' I??^_111 \..A 01
I Ic, NLrl,.o ......
\ a\?j Jgp w
t,j
-- CSX
Oc G 70 /? /
b o . ?
00 % 400
-All
ti
ZZ:
O , ' ?" ? $ ?'\•?I 8 - ?.? '• _ V ? ?; s /'? is ???
O ,. ~ 25
tP .. V ..
O 211P
N
\ A
00 w
.01 m
/ v
V \ •? \ _ I f ? dim • ? ? W_
V - Ijf? W r
1 WWG J rri /
SHIM
m I x? Om0 "!? U I i ?,:
=nx
Mum
02. 1
rr,
<??\ a ; - ice.. \y / ` N
.20
m ?o ) ?/ - N ?? 2h \ o
c C \ G` - v ' ...
3
e V V
/ l
3 \ 1 ?.• ??
4 O
- 1 ' I a I
0
1 9
C
rn O Gi ''\ j N rn m?N g ?.
D W J \ cs.