20071470_Reports_20071203

e,aAA7Fo?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
TURNPIKE AvTHOM Y
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1578 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578
GOVERNOR
November 27, 2007
Heinz J. Mueller
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, NEPA Program Office
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
'r r . 1 01
V f
.4
k.?yrh
DAVID W. JOYNER
EXECUTIVE DMCTOR
RE: Response to USEPA letter dated November 8, 2007 regarding the Western Wake Freeway
Reevaluation Report; STIP Project Number R-2635.
Dear Mr. Mueller:
I am in receipt of your November 8, 2007 letter regarding the Reevaluation Report of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Western Wake Freeway, Wake County, North Carolina
(STIP Project No. R-2635). As noted in your letter, the Western Wake Freeway is a 12.6-mile long, 6-
lane, fully access-controlled, new location roadway. The project is currently proposed for construction as
a toll facility. This project includes a 78-foot median to accommodate potential future High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
In your letter, you raised two concerns: (1) impacts to forested natural systems and jurisdictional waters
have increased in comparison to the impact estimates provided in the FEIS, and (2) impact estimates to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams in the Reevaluation Report differ from the impact estimates given in
the Section 404 Permit Application. You requested a full analysis of the reasons for the apparent increase
in impacts since the FEIS, and also recommended re-checking the Section 404 Permit Application for
accuracy. We have addressed each of these comments below. We also have summarized coordination
that has occurred with USEPA and other agencies while the Reevaluation Report was prepared. Finally,
we address the issue of whether these increased impacts warrant any further NEPA study.
1. Changes in Impact Estimates between the FEIS and the Reevaluation Report
As your letter points out, the impact estimates in the Reevaluation Report are higher than in the FEIS.
These changes result from (1) changes in the affected environment and (2) changes in the project
footprint.
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
TELEPHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Chances in the Affected Environment
The first issue that contributes to the apparent increase in impacts involves a change in the natural
environment - specifically, an increase in the acreage of jurisdictional waters in the project area. As
discussed at the January 17, 2007 Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) meeting,
jurisdictional waters were originally delineated for the project in 2001. Minor areas required additional
surveys in 2002 and 2004, due to design modifications. The compilation of this data was presented in the
Record of Decision (ROD), which was issued in April 2004.
Due to the age of the original delineations and the rate of development in western Wake County, the
jurisdictional waters in the project area were re-surveyed in November 2006 as part of the Reevaluation
Report for this project. This re-survey was consistent with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers policy. The
updated fieldwork in November 2006 found that approximately 25 percent of the wetlands, ponds and
streams previously delineated, within the re-survey area, have been altered.
The primary reason for the on-the-ground increases was change in hydrology; specifically, increases in
impervious surface altering flow patterns which change the location of wetlands and create new ones, and
cause stream channels to lengthen due to a phenomenon termed "head-cutting." Additionally, beavers
have been very active in the area and have increased the size of older ponds and impounded new areas,
resulting in an increase in wetlands in the project area.
The increase in jurisdictional waters in the project area, documented in the re-survey, contributed to the
increase in impact acreages for jurisdictional waters for the project. This "increase" is not the result of
any change in the footprint of the project itself, but rather a reflection of the fact that jurisdictional waters
have expanded since the FEIS was issued. We estimate that the increase in jurisdictional waters in the
natural environment resulted in an increase of up to approximately 4.0 acres (19.9 percent) in the
project's impacts on wetlands; and in an increase of up to approximately 2,377 feet (16.4 percent) in the
project's impacts on streams.
Because of the changes to wetlands and streams and an assessment of hydraulic constraints, two bridges,
in addition to those included in the FEIS/ROD, were incorporated into the project design. The bridges
will span Jack Branch and Panther Creek; each bridge will be 270 feet long. A commitment to construct
these bridges was added as commitment number 39 of the Project Commitments (Green Sheets) in the
Reevaluation Report. These bridges will reduce wetland impacts from those reported in the FEIS at these
locations by 1.36 acres. If these two bridges were not included in the project design, the wetland impacts
would have increased by an estimated 3.0 acres due to the increases in wetland boundaries identified in
the 2006 redelineation. These two bridges will also reduce impacts to floodplains along Jack Branch and
Panther Creek.
Changes in the Project Footprint
The total difference between the project footprint as calculated in the FEIS (614.5 acres) and the
Reevaluation Report (925.0 acres) is 310.5 acres. As explained below, this change results from several
different factors. These include: updating impacts to reflect the previously approved 78-foot median
width; including a portion of an interchange from the adjacent STIP R-2000 project as part of the Western
Wake Freeway project; using flatter slopes because of the instability of soils in the project area; including
toll plazas for cash collection; and making intersecting roadway modifications. These factors are
explained below.
Page 2 of 7
Updating Impacts to Reflect 78-Foot Median Adopted in FEIS
In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), all impact calculations were based on a "functional
design," which included a 46-foot median. Between the DEIS and the FEIS, the "preliminary design"
was developed, and it included a 78-foot median. This change was explained in Section 2 of the
FEIS, p. II-17:
"The design criteria for the proposed freeway included in the DEIS stated that the median
would be 14 meters (46 feet) wide. Since the I-40 HOV Congestion Management Study
concludes the installation of HOV lanes are feasible along the Western Wake Freeway by
2025, the median width was increased to 24 meters (78 feet), to provide adequate space
for the future construction of these lanes within the median. The increased median width
was discussed with the Section 404/NEPA Merger Team on November 8, 2001 and
February 20, 2002."
In the FEIS, the impact calculations continued to be based on the 46-foot median for some resources,
including forest systems, but were updated to reflect the 78-foot median for other resources, such as
wetlands, streams and ponds. This distinction is explained in notes # 1 and #2 to Summary Table S-1 in
the FEIS. Note #1 states that "Impacts are based on functional designs (including a 14-meter (46-foot)
median) unless otherwise noted." Note # 2 states that "Impacts in parenthesis are based on preliminary
designs (including a 24-meter (78-foot) median and wetland and stream delineations performed for
Alternative A." Summary Table S-1 from the FEIS included updated information - based on the 78-foot
median - for only these items: cost; residential relocations; noise; wetlands; stream relocations; and
ponds. Summary Table S-1 did not re-calculate the acreage of impacts on "upland natural systems" and
"man-dominated systems" using the 78-foot median. See Western Wake Freeway FEIS, pp. S-22 - S-23.
By our calculation, the use of the 78-foot median increased the project's direct impacts on "upland natural
systems" and "man-dominated systems" by 48.9 acres. This impact was assumed in the FEIS, but it was
not specifically calculated in Summary Table S-1 of the FEIS.
In its comment letter on the FEI S, dated March 24, 2004, the USEPA acknowledged the inclusion of a 78-
foot median to the Western Wake Freeway. This March 24, 2004 letter notes...
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the subject
document, and is commenting... The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to construct a
new four-lane freeway with a 78-foot median from NC 55 at SR 1172 to NC 55 near SR
1630 in Wake County for an approximate distance of 12.4 miles."
In the Record of Decision, signed in April 2004, FHWA noted that the Merger Team had concurred in the
78-foot median:
"The Section 404/NEPA Merger Team selected Alternative A as the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) in August 2000 and
continues to support Alternative A. The team concurred on the avoidance and
minimization of impacts (including the median width increase from 14 meters (46 feet) to
24 meters (78 feet)) in February 2002."
As this information shows, the use of the 78-foot median was disclosed in the FEIS and the Merger Team
members concurred in that decision. In addition, the 78-foot median was approved in the ROD.
Page 3 of 7
Therefore, the additional impacts associated with a 78-foot median are not the result of any new
information or changed circumstance since the time of the FEIS and ROD.
Inclusion of NC 55 Interchange from STIP R-2000 Project
The apparent increase in the project footprint also results from the inclusion of portions of the NC 55
interchange as part of the Western Wake Freeway project.
The northern terminus of the Western Wake Freeway - for the FEIS and this Reevaluation Report - is the
Northern Wake Expressway (STIP Project No. R-2000) at the NC 55 interchange near Alston Avenue.
Construction of STIP R-2000 was completed in July 2007. However, portions of the NC 55 interchange
(i.e., the ramps and roadway necessary to connect to the Western Wake Freeway) were not constructed as
part of the STIP R-2000 project. The portions of the NC 55 interchange that were not completed as part
of the STIP R-2000 project will be completed as part of the Western Wake Freeway project. Therefore,
the impacts of those improvements to the NC 55 interchange were included in the Reevaluation Report as
part of the impacts of the Western Wake Freeway project.
The construction of the NC 55 interchange does not result in "new" impacts, since the impacts were
previously approved as part of the STIP R-2000 project. Nor is there a change in the termini of the
Western Wake Freeway project, since this project's northern terminus has always been defined generally
as the NC 55 interchange near Alston Avenue. The only change is that certain construction activities at
the NC 55 interchange have been shifted from the STIP R-2000 project to the Western Wake Freeway
project. The inclusion of the NC 55 interchange improvements as part of the Western Wake Freeway
project results in an estimated 21.3 acres of additional impacts.
Use of 3:1 Cut Slopes
During the preparation of the Reevaluation Report, FHWA and NCTA decided to adopt 3:1 cut-slopes as
a standard design requirement for the project. These slopes are less steep than the slopes that were
assumed in the FEIS. The 3:1 cut-slope requirement was adopted because of known instability issues
associated with Triassic Basin soils. By our estimate, the use of 3:1 cut slopes resulted in approximately
30 additional acres of impacts along the project (20 feet along 12.6 miles is 30.5 acres).
Toll Plazas
The Western Wake Freeway project has been modified since the FEIS to include toll plazas for both
electronic and cash collection. The locations of the proposed toll plazas are disclosed in the Reevaluation
Report. The inclusion of the toll plazas resulted in an estimated 37.8 acres of additional impacts!
Intersecting Roadway Modifications
The project will intersect eight existing secondary roads which will be realigned and elevated over the
freeway; improve Old Smithfield Road; realign CSX railroad; and modify the Kelly Road at-grade
intersection with US 64 (move the crossing to the west and create a small grade-separated interchange).
The area needed for these modifications was not included in the FEIS as part of the project footprint.
The NCTA Board adopted a resolution on November 14, 2007 stating its intentions to eliminate toll plazas for
cash collection altogether from the Western Wake Freeway and Triangle Parkway projects and to collect tolls
entirely with electronic toll collection equipment, provided there are no adverse effects on revenue projections.
This decision, if accepted by FHWA, would reduce project impacts as compared to the impacts disclosed in the
Reevaluation Report, without causing any new impacts that were not previously considered.
Page 4 of 7
These modifications to the existing infrastructure would be necessary for project implementation even if
the project was implemented as a non-toll roadway. These modifications will cover an estimated 135.1
acres.
Summary of Changes in Project Footprint
The additions discussed above add approximately 273.6 acres to the total area covered by the project from
that reported in the DEIS/FEIS. The total difference between the impacts calculated in the FEIS (614.5
acres) and in the Reevaluation Report (925 acres) is 310.5 acres. The remaining 36.9 acres of difference
between the impacts reported in the FEIS and the Reevaluation Report can be accounted for as inaccuracy
in the original measurements (the original measurements were calculated by hand using an aerial
photograph, ruler and map wheel) (5 % variation would be + 30.8 acres). These factors are summarized in
Table 1:
Table 1: Project Footprint Change s in acres
Change Additional Acreage
Updating Impacts to Reflect 78-Foot Median 48.9
Inclusion of NC 55 Interchange from STIP R-2000 Project 21.3
Use of 3:1 Cut Slopes 30.5
Toll Plazas cash collection 37.8
Intersecting Roadway Modifications 135.1
Other Factors Precision Variations in FEIS Calculations 30.8
TOTAL 304.4
For additional information, please see the attached Figure 1, which illustrates the project footprint, and
Table 2, which shows the acreage impacted by each component of the facility.
2. Differences in Impacts between Reevaluation Report and Section 404 Permit Application
In addition to requesting an explanation of the change in impacts between the FEIS and ROD, your letter
also noted a discrepancy in impact calculations between the Reevaluation Report and the Section 404
Permit Application for the project. We acknowledge that there are differences between impact estimates
in the Reevaluation Report and the Section 404 Permit Application. These differences reflect the
different purposes for which these documents were prepared.
The Reevaluation Report and the Section 404 Permit Application were developed concurrently, but in
separate processes for different purposes. The Reevaluation Report is an FHWA decision-making tool to
assist in determining whether or not a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is necessary.
A reevaluation focuses on the changes in the project, its surroundings and impacts, and any new issues
identified since the FEIS approval. The Reevaluation Report for this project focused on the changes in
impacts resulting from tolling and other design changes that have been made to the project since the ROD
was issued in April 2004, as well as any other relevant changes in, or new information about, the existing
environment. The impact calculations in the Reevaluation Report were based on January 2007 design
files and were calculated utilizing ARCView software. In addition, to be conservative in reporting
impacts, the impact calculations in the Reevaluation Report included "off-set assumptions" - that is, the
project footprint was defined (for purposes of impact calculations) to include an additional area,
extending between 10 feet and 20 feet beyond the slope-stake line. The exact width of the off-set
assumption depended on the stage of project design at a given location.
The Section 404 Permit Application is intended to detail impacts to jurisdictional waters for the purposes
of issuing an individual permit by the USACE. The Section 404 Permit Application was developed
Page 5 of 7
utilizing August 2007 design files (including hydraulic design) and impacts were calculated utilizing
Microstation software. As a result, the impacts in the Section 404 Permit Application are more up-to-date
and more precise than those reported in the Reevaluation Report. Since the Reevaluation Report was
intended as an internal FHWA decision-making document, it was felt that as long as the impacts in the
report were greater than or equal to those in the Section 404 Permit Application then FHWA had a worst-
case scenario on which to base its decision. This type of project-linked worst-case scenario reporting is a
standard practice when completing NEPA documents.
3. Agency Coordination Regarding Increased Impact Estimates
NCTA, in coordination with FHWA, has made substantial efforts over the past year to continue to involve
resource and regulatory agencies in considering this project as a toll facility and in the reevaluation of the
FEIS. Agency input and comments have been requested throughout the process. It should be noted that
the USEPA was present at the following meetings regarding the project, in addition to those mentioned in
the November 8, 2007 letter:
• Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meeting on December 15, 2006;
• TEAC meeting on January 17, 2007;
• TEAC meeting on February 14, 2007;
• NEPA/Section 404 Merger Concurrence Point 4C meeting held on April 18, 2007.
The January and February 2007 TEAC meetings and the April Merger Team meeting each specifically
included information regarding the increases in wetland and stream impacts for the project. Minimal
comments or concerns were voiced at these meetings regarding the increases in wetland and stream
impacts for the project and no written comments were received after the meetings. The January17,
2007 TEAC meeting handout and the February 14, 2007 TEAC meeting handout both disclosed estimated
wetland, stream and pond impacts very similar to those impacts ultimately reported in the Reevaluation
Report.
Additionally, USEPA was invited to attend the October 17, 2007 TEAC meeting to review the findings
detailed in the Reevaluation Report; however, USEPA was not present at that meeting (meeting handout
and minutes attached). Meeting summaries and handouts for TEAC meetings are available on the NCTA
website for review at any time by all TEAC members.
4. Potential Significance of Changes in Impact Estimates
FHWA signed the Reevaluation Report of the FEIS for Western Wake Freeway on September 7, 2007. In
the Reevaluation Report, FHWA stated that:
The FEIS has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771.129 and the FHWA has
concluded:
• Changes to the proposed action will not result in significant environmental
impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS;
• No new information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the
proposed action or it's impacts would result in significant environmental impacts
not evaluated in the EIS;
Page 6 of 7
• No updated information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on
the proposed action or it's impacts would result in significant environmental
impacts not evaluated in the EIS;
• A Supplemental EIS is not necessary; and
• The findings of the previous environmental document remain valid.
This determination took into account the changes in impact calculations, including the increase in the
acreage of impacts on both upland forests and the aquatic environment.
Thank you for your comments on the Reevaluation Report. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me at [phone] [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jennifer Harris, P.E.
Staff Engineer
Attachments:
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Table 2: Component Area Summary
October 2007 TEAC Handout and Draft Meeting Minutes
cc w/ attachments:
Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCD WQ
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Clarence Coleman, P.E., FHWA
Ms. Missy Dickens, P.E., NCDOT
Mr. Greg Price, NCDOT
Ms. Kristina Miller, P.E., ARCADIS
Mr. Chris Militscher, USEPA
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE
Mr. Pete Benjamin, USFWS
Mr. Rob Ridings, NCDWQ
Mr. George Hoops, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Greg Thorpe, PhD., NCDOT
Mr. Shannon Lasater, P.E., NCDOT
Mr. Tracy Roberts, AICP, NCTA GEC
Page 7 of 7
_ End
?"? ? ? Project ,?
/ ?OQop
SON00\ RO
GR
PROPOSED WESTERN
WAKE FREEWAY
EEN??????o m c_ -
GR z
M ROBERTS RD U
z c

WESTERN WAKE
FREEVVAv =
.w i. ... L. `"Pv.. .
EP-1
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
OF p10RT/{ C,q
A
a? O?y
NORTH CAROLINA y
Turnpike Authority ?; al
4
0
9????OF ?PNS? ?P
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
Legend
Roads
Streams
Interchange
Y -line
t° Previously R-2000
Remainder of Footprint
o
OLD
? JENKS
;_ f. 7
RD
ytl-
f'
o r a
7t
BARBECDFRO 77?
o
SALEM ST a
ti; r' z
d
?
N -16
O\-0 US 1
W ?
Q Begin
l ?? Project
A PLEASANT Z ?
PLAINS RD a
co
J
J
OLD SMITHFIELD R
i-
Table 2: Component Area Summary for Western Wake Freeway (STIP No. R-2635)
Area (acres)
Interchanges (green')
Green Level Road2 68.4
US 642 81.3
Old US 12 37.1
US 12 135.7
NC 55 Bypass 78.4
Interchange Total 400.9
Y-Lines (pink') Carpenter Fire Station Road 4.1
Green Hope School Road 3.0
Green Level Road 7.2
Roberts Road 4.0
Jenks Road/Green Level Church Road 9.4
US 64/Kelly Road 31.8
Olive Chapel Road 3.3
Apex Barbeque Road 3.8
Old US 1 8.8
CSX Railroad 12.4
US 1 34.3
NC 55 Bypass/Old Smithfield Road 12.9
Y-Line Total 135.1
Remaining L-Line (purple) 383.4
STIP No. R-2000 (yellow) 21.3
TOTAL 940.7
1 - Corresponding map legend color for attached Figure 1.
2 - Additional footprint area for toll plazas (covering approximately 37.8 acres) is included within these
totals. Toll plazas are planned for five locations: the mainline plaza to the north of the US 64 interchange;
and ramp plazas at the Green Level Road interchange, the US 64 interchange, the Old US 1 interchange,
and the US 1 interchange.
3 - The total area covered by project footprint as reported in the Reevaluation Report is 925.0 acres. The
estimated area underneath bridge structures is 15.7 acres. The sum of these two areas equals 940.7 acres.
[Footnote number 3 of Table 17 in the Reevaluation Report is incorrect. The correct footnote should read -
- Upland natural systems describes all areas that are not human-dominated (i.e. residential lawns and/or
agricultural lands), this includes bottomland hardwood forests. To be consistent with the information as
presented in the FEIS, upland natural systems also includes wetland communities which are primarily
associated with the bottomland hardwood forests. -- Therefore, the areas for upland natural systems and
man-dominated systems, and the areas for wetland natural systems and ponds, as reported in the FEIS and
Reevaluation Report, are duplicative and not additive.]
WESTERN

Project Description
Western Wake Freeway is a new location roadway (12.6 miles long), proposed from NC 55 at SR 1172 (Old
Smithfield Road) to NC 55 near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue).
Purpose of the Reevaluation Report
In accordance with 23 CFR 771.129, a reevaluation is conducted to assure that the environmental documentation
(FEIS) for the proposed action is still valid prior to proceeding with major project approvals or authorizations. The
reevaluation report is a decision-making tool developed to assist the FHWA in determining whether or not a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is necessary. The reevaluation focuses on the changes in
the project, its surroundings and impacts, and any new issues identified since the FEIS approval. To assist
FHWA in determining whether an SEIS is needed, the Reevaluation considered the following issues:
¦ relevant changes in, or new information about, the existing environment;
¦ the changes in impacts resulting from tolling; and
¦ other design changes that have been made to the project since the April 2004 ROD was issued.
Changes Con5i4ered in the Reevaluation Report
The 2004 FEIS and ROD approved Alternative A for the Western Wake Freeway project. The Reevaluation
Report summarizes the impacts of Alternative A as they were presented in the FEIS. Using Alternative A from the
FEIS as a baseline for comparison, the Reevaluation Report documents the impacts of a Reevaluated Alternative
A, both as a toll and a non-toll facility.
¦ Alternative A Reevaluated (Non-Toll Facility) The "Alternative A Reevaluated" corresponds to Alternative
A from the 2004 FEIS and ROD with impacts updated, as necessary, to reflect changes in the affected
environment and/or continued progression of the project's design. Preliminary design has been
completed for Alternative A Reevaluated.
¦ Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls (Toll Facility) The "Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls" is the
same as the Alternative A Reevaluated, except that it has been modified to include toll collection. NCTA
is evaluating two potential toll collection methods at each toll plaza: electronic collection and temporary
on-site payment. Preliminary design has been completed for Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting
STIP Project No. R-2635; State Project No. 6.408006T
October 17, 2007
New information or Changes in Project impacts
There are no significant new impacts resulting from the addition of the toll plazas. The following table details changes
that will occur if the Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls is implemented. The numeration of section headings
corresponds to the sections in the Reevaluation Report.
Project Change in (T
ll Pl N
I
f
i
o
azas)
3.4.1 Socio-Economic or
ow
n
ormat
on
The toll facility would require users to Population and income levels continue to No. The toll facility may reduce the benefits of the
pay a toll to use the facility, where the increase in the project study area. project for some users, but even with tolling, the
FEIS assumed the facility would be project provides a benefit to users of all income
free. levels by reducing congestion on NC 55 and
providing a new transportation option.
3.4.2 Land Use
The addition of toll plazas slightly Several land use plans have been updated. No. Project continues to be consistent with local
increases the project footprint. Western Wake Freeway continues to be land use plans.
consistent with all updated plans.
3.4.3 Relocations
Two additional relocations are No new residential or business construction No. Relocations due to the project have increased
necessary due to the additional has occurred within the project footprint. from 46 to 48.
footprint needed for the toll plazas.
No other additional relocations were
identified.
There potentially will be two land-
locked parcels due to the additional
footprint needed for the toll plazas.
3.4.4 Environmental Justice
The toll facility would require users to Two additional "pockets" of minority No. The toll facility may reduce the benefits of
pay a toll to use the facility, where the populations have been identified, but they project for some users, but even with tolling, the
FEIS assumed the facility would be are not close to the project corridor and they project provides a benefit to users of all income
free. This could reduce usage by low- would be affected equally by the non-toll or levels by reducing congestion on INC 55 and
income users. toll facilities. providing a new transportation option.
3.4.5.1 Schools
The additional footprint needed for the Two schools (in addition to the 12 identified No. The two new schools are not impacted by the
toll plazas does not impact any in the FEIS) have opened within 1/2 mile of project.
schools. the corridor. None of these schools are
within the project footprint.
3.4.5.2 Parks and Greenways
The additional footprint needed for the No additional parks or greenways, beyond No. This 0.084 acres of land needed for Old
toll plazas does not impact parks or those that were identified in the FEIS and Smithfield Road improvements from one property is
greenways. ROD, have been opened or planned in the not a significant change in the project's impacts. A
project vicinity. finding of "de minimis" impacts has been made by
A new survey of the Feltonsville Community FHWA for this area of parkland, and the official with
Park found that a small amount of land - jurisdiction has concurred.
previously believed to have been acquired
for highway right-of-way - was still parkland.
This sliver of land is needed for
improvements to Old Smithfield Road.
2
Change in Project
(Toll Plazas)
N
I
f
ti

3.4.5.3 Churches and Cemeteries or
ow
n
orma
on
The additional footprint needed for the Two additional churches have been identified No. Traffic noise impacts would not disrupt church
toll plazas does not impact churches or in the Feltonsville area. Traffic noise levels activities. The newly identified cemetery is outside
cemeteries. are not expected to approach or exceed the of the project footprint.
thresholds inside the churches.
One new cemetery has been identified in
addition to the 17 cemeteries identified in the
FEIS.
3.4.5.4 Other Facilities
The additional footprint needed for the One new library and one new fire station No. These facilities are not impacted by the project.
toll plazas does not impact libraries, have opened. These facilities are not
fire stations, or other community impacted by the project.
facilities.
3.4.6 Utilities
The additional footprint needed for the In addition to the utilities noted in the FEIS, No. NCTA and NCDOT will coordinate utility
toll plazas does not impact utilities that there are two more natural gas transmission relocations with local governments and utility
would not otherwise be impacted. lines, five more water lines and three more providers. The new landfill is not impacted.
sewer lines that would be crossed by the
project.
A new landfill is being developed (South
Wake Landfill).
3.4.7 Historic Architecture
The additional footprint needed for the No new historic architectural resources have No. Impacts are unchanged. All existing mitigation
toll plazas does not impact known been identified. requirements will be met by NCTA.
historic architectural resources.
NCTA is now the project sponsor and
has agreed to meet NCDOT's
commitments (under an existing
Section 106 MOA) for mitigating
effects on the Green Level Historic
District.
3.4.8 Archaeological Resources
The additional footprint needed for the NCDOT archeologists concur that no No. Impacts are unchanged.
toll plazas does not impact known additional investigations are needed for the
archaeological sites, according to project.
NCDOT archeologists.
3.4.9.1 Section 4(f)
The addition of toll plazas does not A new survey of Feltonsville Community No. The "de minimis" impact for one property is not
directly or indirectly use any Section Park found that a small amount of land - a significant change in the project's impacts.
4(f) resources. previously believed to have been acquired
for highway right-of-way - was still parkland.
A finding of "de minimis" impacts has been
made by FHWA for this area of parkland,
and the official with jurisdiction has
concurred.
3.4.9.2 Section 6(f)
No Section 6(f) resources are present. No new information. No. Impacts are unchanged.
3.4. 10 Aesthetic and Visual Resources
Toll plazas slightly increase visual No new information. No. Increased visual impacts from toll plazas are
impacts. minor.
Change in Project
T
ll Pl
N
I
f
i
(
o
azas)
3.5.1 Hazardous Material and Waste or
ew
n
ormat
on
The additional footprint needed for the No new information. No. Impacts are unchanged.
toll plazas does not impact any known
hazardous material or waste sites.
3.5.2 Air Quality
Tolling may affect traffic volumes and There has been a regional change in air No. New CO hotspot analysis and regional
flow, which may affect air emissions. quality status; the area was designated as emissions analysis found project conforms to air
A new CO hotspot analysis has been non-attainment for 8-hour ozone standard in quality standards.
done to assess impacts; no violations June 2004. The Reevaluation Report includes qualitative MAT
were found. New FHWA guidance on MSATs was issued analysis as required by new FHWA guidance.
New regional emissions analysis was in 2006.
done for ozone; project conforms to
the intent of the SIP.
3.5.3 Noise
Tolling may affect traffic volumes and There has been additional development No. Tolling does not increase noise impacts and
flow, which may affect noise levels. A outside the corridor since 2005, resulting in may reduce them. Additional development in the
new noise analysis was done following additional homes that may be impacted by vicinity of the project may result in additional noise
current NCDOT and FHWA policies. traffic noise. As a result, there would be impacts compared to the 2004 FEIS, but mitigation
more noise-impacted homes than estimated is not required because development occurred after
in the FEIS. the date of public knowledge.
However, under NCDOT policy, noise All existing NCDOT noise mitigation commitments
mitigation is not provided for development are being retained. One additional noise barrier is
after the "date of public knowledge" which is recommended based on the current analysis which
the date of the ROD. is consistent with the revised NCDOT Traffic Noise
Policy and not due to increased impacts.
3.5.4 Farmland
Project is in an urban area so analysis No change. No. Impacts are unchanged.
of prime and unique farmlands is not
required.
3.6.1 Biotic Communities
The additional footprint needed for the Acreage estimates for each biotic community No. These communities are common in Wake
toll plazas increased impacts to biotic were updated using GIS mapping and aerial County. Impacts to biotic communities are higher
communities by an additional 37.8 imagery from 2005. Habitat impacts were re- than in the FEIS, due to a range of factors, such as,
acres. This is an additional 4.26 computed. Overall habitat impacts increased increased median width, lengthened cut slopes, and
percent increase in area beyond the from that reported in the FEIS. The increase other factors related to the progression of design.
area needed for the non-toll facility. is primarily due to progression in the project Differences between the non-toll facility and the toll
design such as the inclusion of increased facility are minor.
median width, the recommended 3:1 cut-
slopes and development of the hydraulic
design, and the inclusion of area previously
associated with STIP Project No. R-2000
due to changes in construction limits.
3.6.2.1 Federally Protected Species
No change. Additional surveys were performed in 2006 No. USFWS has concurred in finding of "no effect"
to update protected species information. to federally listed species.
USFWS concurred in 2007 finding of "no
effect" for federally listed species.
Bald eagle has been de-listed as a
threatened species.
3.6.2.2 Federal Species of Concern
No change. Federal protections do not Three new species of concem have been No. Federal protections do not apply to species of
apply to species of concern. identified for Wake County since the FEIS concern.
was issued.
3.6.3 Water Resources
The additional footprint needed for the
toll plazas slightly increases water
resource impacts as compared to the
non-toll facility.
New delineations were done in 2006 to
determine waters subject to federal
jurisdiction. USACE has accepted the
reverification report.
No. Water resource impacts are higher than in the
FEIS, due to a range of factors, such as newly
formed wetlands, increased offset assumptions, and
the progression of design. Differences between the
non-toll facility and the toll facility are minor.
Project design has advanced, resulting
in more refined impact estimates.
Additional bridges have been added in
two locations to minimize impacts on
wetlands.
3.6.4 Floodplains and Floodways
The additional footprint needed for the
toll plazas has not encroached on
floodplains or floodways.
Flood maps were updated in 2006. Base
flood elevations and/or the estimated 100-
year floodplain encroachment widths have
changed since the FEIS.
No. Four Conditional Letters of Map Revision
(CLOMRs) have been prepared for the
encroachments at Jack Branch, Bachelor Branch,
Panther Creek, and Moms Branch. Based on the
current level of design for Sections A and B, two
additional CLOMRs are likely to be needed.
Additional CLOMRs and/or Letters of Map Revisions
(LOMRs) would be prepared by the Design-Build
team, as needed.
Summary of Impacts
The following table provides a comparison of quantifiable impacts of Alternative A Reevaluated (Preferred Alternative
from FEIS) with Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls for resources within the project footprint.

Factors

Length in miles Alternative A
(Preferred Alternative
from FEIS)
12.4 Alternative A
ReevalUated with Tolls

12.6
Change

+0.2
Number of interchanges 5 5 0
Number of railroad crossings 1 1 0
Number of toll plazas - 11 +11
Total costs - Please refer to page 7 of this handout
for additional information regarding cost estimates. $252 million $540 to $965 million +$288 to $713 million
Residential relocations 46 48 +2
Business relocations 0 0 0
Schools impacted 0 0 0
Parks impacted 0 1 +1
Churches impacted 0 0 0
Cemeteries impacted 1 1 0
Electric transmission lines crossed 1 1 0
Gas lines crossed 3 5 +2
Water lines crossed 5 10 +5
Sewer lines crossed 8 11 +3
National Register districts adversely affected 1 1 0
Archaeology sites adversely affected 0 0 0

Factors Alternative A
(Preferred Alternative
f
FEIS Alternative A
ReevalLiated with Tolls
Change

Hazardous materials sites in the footprint rom
)
0
0
0
Number of receivers (residential and 389 451 +62
commercial) negatively impacted by noise
Number of receivers (residential and
commercial) negatively impacted by noise after 279 262 -17
the installation of noise barriers
Prime and unique farmland in acres impacted 0 0 0
Upland natural systems in acres impacted 327.7 645.7 +318
Wetland natural systems in acres impacted 14.50 20.14 +5.64
Man-dominated systems in acres impacted 286.8 279.3 -7.5
Stream crossings 28 29 +1
Stream impacts in linear feet 10,637 15,113 +4,476
Pond impacts in acres 11.09 12.07 +0.98
Reevaluation Report - Conclusions
The FEIS has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771.129 and the FHWA has concluded:
¦ Changes to the proposed action will not result in significant environmental impacts that were not
evaluated in the FEIS;
¦ No new information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the FEIS;
• No updated information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or
its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the FEIS;
¦ A SEIS is not necessary; and
¦ The findings of the previous environmental document (FEIS) remain valid.
Public Involvement
The NCTA in coordination with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) held a Citizens
Informational Workshop (CIW) on February 8, 2007. Maps of the project area were available for review, a handout
was distributed, and a slide presentation describing the workshop format, the Western Wake Freeway project, the
NCTA, a general overview of toll roads, and the public involvement process was presented. There were
approximately 404 people in attendance at the workshop and 205 written comments have been received. Limited
opposition was voiced to constructing the road. Among those who commented on tolling the project, approximately
one-third voiced support for tolling the project.
A Small Group Meeting for the Feltonsville Community was held on February 15, 2007 in Apex, North Carolina. A
presentation by NCTA included an overview and update of the Western Wake Freeway project; potential
enhancements for the Feltonsville Community Park; and proposed improvements to Old Smithfield Road.
Additionally, a handout was distributed. Approximately 33 citizens attended the meeting; and two written comment
sheets were received at the meeting. No additional comments from the Feltonsville community have been received
since the meeting. Comments and concerns voiced at the meeting revolved around the proposed park improvements,
Old Smithfield Road and tolling of Western Wake Freeway.
6
Please refer to Section 7.2.3 and 7.2.4 of the Reevaluation Report for additional details regarding public comments on
the project.
Costs
The Western Wake Freeway has estimated project costs that range between $540 million to $965 million
(September 2007 dollars). The change in cost, from that reported in the FEIS and ROD, is primarily due to
increases related to construction inflation, escalating right-of-way and utility relocation costs, and the inclusion
of toll plaza infrastructure (equipment, signing, fiber optics, structures, etc). With the exception of tolling, most
of the factors contributing to cost increases for Alternative A Reevaluated with Tolls would also apply to
Alternative A (FEIS).
Sche4ule
¦ Air Quality Conformity Determination (completed June 2007)
¦ 404/401 Permit Application (application submitted August 27, 2007)
• Signed EIS Reevaluation Report (completed September 7, 2007)
¦ 404 Permit Public Notice Comment Period - September 14, 2007 through October 15, 2007
¦ Design-Build Construction Contract Award (estimated July 2008)"
¦ Open to Traffic (estimated fall 2011)*
* - Subject to the availability of funding.
Contact Information
Please contact Ms. Jennifer Harris at NCTA or Ms. Martha Register at ARCADIS if you have any questions or would
like to request additional information.
Ms. Jennifer Harris, PE
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
or Ms. Martha Register
ARCADIS
801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27607-5073
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Thank you for your participation in the Western Wake Freeway project.
NC 55
FUTURE
E•W
COLLECTOR
(TOWN OF
CARY)
NcCRINYON
PARKWAY °F{
?f
CARPENTER {{FIRE STATION }-
ROAD VIII
=UTURE
MORRISVILLE
FARKWAY
(TOWN OF GREEN
CARY) HOPE
p SCHOOL
F, ROAD
Rur r.w iuv .uu
GREEN
ROAD
LEVEL
ROAD
,l
ROBERTS
ROAD y'
OLD r MAINLINE
JENKS ROAD .< PLAZA
ROAD --
KELLY
US
Pi' FUTURE BEAVER CREEK
DRIVE EXTENSION
OLIVE (TOWN OF APEX)
CHAPEL """'"' WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
ROAD
APEX
BARBECUE
ROAD
RIP rl/fr
lap ";,r , i
OLD US 1
R.Wr naR
`
..P k 9l
ur
ruu
us 1 'UP r• z NC 55
BYPASS
OLD HOLLY
SPRINGS .
APEX ROAD
WESTERN WAKE
NORTHERN WAKE v+Eeva r
EXPRESSWAY ;
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
NCDOT STIP NO. R-2635
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0 Turnpike Authority
TOLL COLLECTION SITE(RANP PLAZA)
TOLL COLLECTION SITE(NAINLINE PLAZA)
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY SECTION A (NCTA)
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY SECTION B (NCTA)
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY SECTION C (WA)
NORTHERN WAKE EXPRESSWAY NC-540 (NCTA)
(NCTA) = NCTA proposed project
PAf tlflYr P•
-RO' '0 ICAItg

NORTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authority
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL)
Meeting
MEETING MINUTES
Date: October 17, 2007
9:00 am to 10:30 am
NC Turnpike Authority Office Building Ground Floor Conference Room;(GL 3)
al,t?i, t?!# R+f
Project: STIP U-4763B Triangle Parkway ; l it Triangle Parkway Spotlight:
Attendees:

Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
George Hoops, FHWA
Donnie Brew, FHWA
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Wally Bowman, NCDOT-Division 5
Tim McFadden, NCDOT Alt.,Delve
Nicole Hackler, NCDOT-Rltilbb ? e'
Nilesh Surti, NCDOT AltiI Delivery!;
Tony Houser, NCDOT?Roadway Di
Anne Redmond, HNTB
is Nathan F.hil ps HNTB
Adin McCanR,?iNTB
:iii
j, Elizabeth Schrer, EcoScience
i'Ii1jt?Jay.Bissett, Mulkey
Fariick;`Mulka
.,,4t[it Y
Cin?jriC?, Mulkey
i!Johnnitf#anks, Mulkey
Michelle Fishburne, Mulkey
Rob Riding -,iii C'DENR; DWQ 'i!i#'!t Jill! IN11,1f ?;
John Henn 5k"N&MI R-DWQ-4iilh "
• ?li '°i4 iitl? `"iil?ts
?j?,jl
;entar?1 Materials: (All maenals except; draft public hearing maps have been posted on the TEAC website
• Me8in'giAgenda .S'!i! )
• Full si21e'a`nd half-size draft pbblic hearing maps
• Handout?1;;?tNetland and Qream Impact Table
• Handout 2 '1.Fr1ures - Preliiminary Design Wetland and Stream Impacts
• Handout 3 - NG1540 Stream and Wetland Impact Table
• Handout 4 - NC 96'',?F pure - Streams and Wetland Impact
• Handout 5 - Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Summary
Purpose:
The purpose of this meeting was to provide a project status update, discuss avoidance and minimization (i.e.,
Merger Concurrence Point 4A) based on the preliminary design, discuss the impacts associated with the widening
of eastbound NC 540 between NC 55 and Triangle Parkway, and review the qualitative indirect and cumulative
effects (ICE) report.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 2of14
General Discussion:
The following information was discussed during the meeting:
• Project Status Update - An update on the project status was provided to the meeting attendees. This
update Included the following information on the current project schedule, as well as the evolution of the
Purpose and Need Statement through the project development process.
o Project Schedule - The NCTA is currently finalizing the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for
review by FHWA and NCDOT. The NCTA plans to publish/distribute the EA in December 2007. It
is anticipated the public hearing will be held in February 2008. If appropriate, the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) will be signed and distributed in May 20% The preliminary designs are
under review by NCTA and NCDOT. Comments on the designs are'due;in the next few weeks.
o Purpose and Need -The Purpose and Need statement for the piaject has evolved over the project
development process. The primary components of the Purposeland Need currently include the
following: '.
¦ Improve commuter mobility, accessibility, andtconnectivity to Research Triangle Park
(RTP) employment centers;
¦ Reduce congestion on existing north-sodtfi routes that serve the Triri?le region, primarily
NC 55 and NC 54. ait`7, `'ji!
An additional benefit from the project includes the; ubstantiajl?eduction in traffic vol'.umes on 1-40
east of NC 147.
3'Iti I
FHWA / NCDOT Coordination - During,the past several Mont. 'siNiCTA has coordinated closely and
extensively with FHWA and NCDOT congeimipg design year (2030)i t affic operations and design
considerations for the project. Based on;e? Its of Highway Capa?ci?yiSoftware (HCS) analyses, both
1 ttE + . i'••it
FHWA and NCDOT expressed concern w1olf.u ref ra?e operations alsly; on, -Triangle Parkway, particularly
where the Triangle Parkway would tie to NC`01 f 7` a4'I=4.Oti ands=NC 540. In response to these concerns, NCTA
conducted supplemental traffic analyses using'., ORSI' ic(o?sim:ulation software to analyze the following
design considerations:
flkk?
o Flyover fror .
rllnorthbou? ntl4,,dangIe Parkwdy;;to westbound 1-40
ItF , r; _;
o Wideningloflvyestbound ?at id eastbound 1-401between NC 55 and NC 147/Triangle Parkway
o Widening alon?6northboy? NC 147 from 1-4bttotpast the Cornwallis Road interchange
o Number of lanesorl the ITnan?g eParkway mainline - 6 lanes versus 8 lanes
o Widening of NC 540 eastdun, #aidilwesthednd lanes between NC 55 and Triangle Parkway and
v(Wd pi hgpo flyoverfio }eastboun?tF4 ,4 to northbound Triangle Parkway
F? l illlK ?'C tekil ?d Conn` Sbr=-grade separation over Triangle Parkway
{ o Toll colledbop f lct•llty onR, 1540 between NC 55 and Triangle Parkway
IFtr-
%I , fl't
't BoCDOT and FH Al?onsider CO'?S?IM as an acceptable tool for analyzing system-level traffic
opflans. In contrast tb;lthle HCS software, CORSIM considers all locations on a network simultaneously.
Evaluate, he network facilities allows CORSIM to assess the effect of congestion building up at one
location, a. its resulting it pacts on capacity at other locations. Therefore, CORSIM is generally
considered bt a -suited to
Lt it ;t-ecognize and evaluate the impact from adjacent network locations and has the
t- ,tt..
ability to consrce the capaaty constraints - that is, congested conditions - that exist on other roadways in
the network. The.liicto='simulation analysis was intended to assist in determining the design year
interchange operations for the three freeway facilities (140, NC 1471Triangle Parkway, and 1-540/NC 540)
within the traffic shady area. The animated views of the CORSIM micro-simulation analysis were shown to
the meeting attendees. The following points were discussed during this presentation of the animated
views:
o The CORSIM micro-simulation analysis used the same 2030 traffic projections as the HCS
analysis.
o The heaviest traffic volumes during the AM peak hour were likely a reflection of trips leaving
Raleigh and traveling toward RTP.
o The CORSIM analysis focused on the study area interchange operations, particularly in the area of
the Triangle Parkway. The CORSIM analysis indicated the Triangle Parkway interchange
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 3 of 14
connections would work better than indicated with HCS analyses. The NCTA noted the difference
in the results of the HCS and CORSIM analyses was because the network is so over-saturated in
2030 that the projected traffic volumes can't make it to their intended destinations during the
analyzed peak hour.
o NCDOT commented that it was currently evaluating a project to add an additional lane on the exit
ramp from 1-540 southbound to 1-40 westbound. This lane would then extend along 1-40
westbound to the Page Road interchange. NCDOT was working to identify funding for this project.
o Traffic on 1-40 east of NC 147 is reduced in the year 2030 with the construction of Triangle
Parkway. Traffic on 1-40 west of NC 147 increases in the year 2030.
o In the year 2030, traffic at the NC 55/NC 540 interchange is not getting to Triangle Parkway
because of the capacity constraints on NC 540. The two-lane entraticelrtamp to eastbound NC 540
from NC 55 has heavy traffic also. The lane reduction from the NC155 entry ramp to eastbound NC
540 causes conflicts; in addition, more traffic wants to exit to ndhhbound Triangle Parkway than
wants to remain on eastbound NC 540. IiIJIi JMJi c
o NCTA evaluated alternatives to extend the outside lane of; the NC'55ibntrance ramp to eastbound
tz;;..
NC 540. The additional lane length improved operations tnithe year 20. however, no matter
where the lane reduction occurred, it slowed traffic Ah'the same resui0il I taining the outside
lane as an auxiliary lane between NC 55 and Try}' Odle Parkway proved to 15 a best design year
-i'Y rI I1r.
operational solution: Consequently, as part oftth, a Preferred Alternative, the N?lf? proposes to
widen existing eastbound NC 540 by one-lines; ?d widen flap, existing flyover rai ?lfy rri eastbound
NC 540 to northbound Triangle Parkway by ones I he. This would result in a 3-lae?;flyover ramp.
it1;;ll. !
o Based on the CORSIM analysis, it was conclude ? 1.. httr tfc operations at the exf ?ing interchange
confi uration at NC 147 and 1-40 will be acce tabldit,t4fy' ear 2030 with the construction of the
Triangle Parkway project. Consequently, the flyover retapifrom northbound Triangle Parkway to
westbound 1-40 and the widenin'g' of 1-40 between NC 55 ?an'd Triangle Parkway were not
determined necessary to providet2gge `uta£te traffic operation`s Ithe 2030 design year.
fit i1{1i??i=;' iIl!'
• Preferred Altemath?e -Based on the resultsl lof the GORSIII(I micro-sirrl I Lion and the coordination
i = t tat! sc.
process with FHWA and NCDOT, the followingidesigr,,,1 ts)derations,h`ave been identified as part of the
Preferred Alternative for tfh,lproject t ; r (?! f1i11?I
'f :!'
o Widening alol?g northbound NC 147 past 61 Comwallis"Road interchange - Functional designs for
the exten$?on of a lane vtVti Fin the median oh; northbound NC 147 toward Comwallis Road were
shownZI 4he,0' ncies aht 'e last TEAC me4tin?g, in February 2007. In order to preserve the
integrity of trafFic;oerations,,,the NCTA is proposing to extend the median widening on northbound
NC 147 beyond'tf)er, rnwa1ljs(Rdad,exlt ramp
t(lifilift as,part of the Preferred Alternative. The widening
f ! !' r 'Ii lllnrt
f(idtibound NC 14f;(takes placeNVi{Itn:#he right of way and does not have any stream or wetland
(:.'r r, : ?tl i. f?: h rte
l pacs:,l aa!as notedlt?!a?at,the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO Long Range Transportation Plan
Y Y t . i.ls
l l (LRTP) inc n t& a project:, to;improve NC 147 from I-40 to Alston Avenue to a 6-lane facility by
2030. }viii l t ;!_ + ?.,iltt?
l?Wonstruct Triangle rarkway.;as a 6-lane facility - The CORSIM micro-simulation traffic analysis
o lE Alrtealed 8-lanes I not needed initially. However, once STIP Project U-4763A (i.e.,
Icggmmon Connector") is constructed, 8-lanes will be needed on the Triangle Parkway. The
Mc?,, Tynj,,inton Conn?o?wor is included in the fiscally constrained Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organ 1 Aflan (CAN` 0) LRTP as part of the 2030 network. The widening of Triangle Parkway to 8-
lanes wolte,'ed to be studied as part of that project. The current design for Triangle Parkway has
a 46-foot et Ian that can accommodate widening into the median for an 8-lane section.
YN'
o Widening of NC 540 eastbound and westbound and widening of the flyover from eastbound
NC 540 to northbound Triangle Parkway - The CORSIM micro-simulation analysis showed that
widening eastbound NC 540 and the flyover ramp to northbound Triangle Parkway will have a
noticeable improvement on traffic operations in the design year. Consequently, the NCTA has
identified this component as part of the Preferred Alternative for Triangle Parkway. However,
because the need for this additional widening and interchange improvement is not until
approximately the- year 2024, this component of the project will not be part of the initial
construction. NCTA anticipates that new environmental documentation would need to be done in
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 4 of 14
the 2020 timeframe for the improvements to eastbound NC 540 and the interchange flyover ramp
to northbound Triangle Parkway.
The results of the preliminary noise analysis for the widening of eastbound NC 540 indicate there
are traffic noise impacts to adjacent receptors in the 2030 design year. However, based on the
NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, mitigation for these impacts is not considered reasonable.
o Kit Creek Road Connector - Kit Creek Road was a dirt road between Davis Drive and Church
Street prior to construction of NC 540. The connection was severed as a result of the NC 540
construction. Currently, the NC 540 interchange allows direct accessftto Davis Drive. This
configuration was constructed by NCDOT as an interim connectionlfittlithe Triangle Parkway was
constructed. As part of the EIS conducted by NCDOT for STIPii?:ro)ect R=2000, NCDOT
coordinated with the Town of Morrisville and agreed that Kit C`?eetRoad would be re-connected
when Triangle Parkway was constructed. This re-connectipiiiwo h 81be provided via a bridge over
Triangle Parkway. The Kit Creek Road bridge over Tria dig 'Parkwa' w uld re-connect Kit Creek
Road between Church Street (east) and Davis Drive (w s`t)land coul po e?ntially increase traffic
through several large tracts of land and an existing ,n'fth , .... 00 d. Baste on the raw output from
the Triangle Regional Travel Demand Model, it isliMm2d that approxima g'VF0,000 cars in 2030
would utilize the Kit Creek Connector. Since Kgtreek Road is a subdivision I•Dadland is not
ft . ,..
classified as a minor or major thoroughfare, 06%. is concern, over the feasibility-and -pg6tistency of
this connection with past planning efforts: i;;:,,ill
rf if;;. lit,
, t, r
NCTA met with the Town of Morrisville and Kit Cre&A"'?o'oo area residents to discuss ways to
,-t
minimize the potential impacts to the residents. Severalltrgcts of land in this area are owned by a
large African American family I,' whIgh ich has owned that P ; roP?""? •tsince the 1800's. A major subdivision
,i rtYt ,
called Kitts Creek is located adjaeent?tolihe project. Kit Cree?C Road would cross Triangle Parkway
and connect as a main road througiii htsslibdivision.
lli?}}#{;
i, Off?Is,jll'fit, e.,!
Kit Creek Road within the Kitts Creek;?stubdivislen ?talf wery? low capacity road. Through much of the
subdivision, it is a divided roadway witfl one-1. in ch;?ij?c6on. Located between the pair of
one-way roads;a eic?q;: irnunity facilities WI as a pool, clubhouse, and playground. One resident
would be reldcated as fr:.esuit of constructna the Kit Creek Connector.
In the T H0161r, arkway E ?; the Kit Creek Riiad tConnector will be identified as part of the Preferred
Alternative. ti. y? der, th'M ntent is to show t ts;:connection to the public for comment and to gather
more informatirhll#o ens'wro11:tPl,'e desi,ggn is apApriate. Including this connector as part of the
PFefe?: ?AltematS, ft iI tie r e a?lia?{13d pending public comments.
II}iI1fI111?1I"?i1t?i?fi?f, Illt,. ? ftitr
A recometdation was rpade by NCDOT to make sure the bridge at Kit Creek Road, if built,
fI I? include the adtllt{;bnal lengtl?lneeded to span all existing and future lanes required by the
tifii}?lf t ,. f`",6
ti i:f ff construction of'TIPProject U7,3A. One estimate for this length included an additional 20 feet on
< t;each side. It is a?ibcipated that this design modification would not change the impacts to the
glt'bman and naturdfAvironment
o Toflll""IlPction facil j yf along NC 540 - There will be a toll collection facility constructed to collect tolls
alonS540 between NC 55 and Triangle Parkway. NCTA will develop the appropriate
I ? tli; . fh•
docum8n '1b • n}to evaluate potential impacts to the human and natural environments. The NCTA is
analyzing ?44161ess" options along Western Wake Freeway, NC 540, and Triangle Parkway. A
final decision on the use of cash lanes may not be made before completion of Triangle Parkway
Fro. The Triangle Parkway EA currently reflects the preliminary designs with cash lanes at the
ramp toll plazas. Cash lanes are considered the worst case scenario from an impact standpoint for
toll facilities. The impacts will be reduced if NCTA decides to eliminate the cash collection facilities
and have only electronic toll collection.
• Avoidance and Minimization - Handout 2 shows the wetland and stream impact figures for the Triangle
Parkway project between NC 540 and 1-40. The impact figures have been revised since the last meeting
based on the completion of preliminary design. Because preliminary designs were now available, the
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 5 of 14
assumed clearing and grubbing limits beyond the slope stake line have been reduced from 40 feet to 25
feet.
Currently, there are 1.809 acres of wetlands impacted by the preliminary design versus the 1.94 acres
previously identified with the functional designs. Streams impacts are now approximately 3,852 linear feet
of perennial streams versus approximately 4,506 linear feet identified with the functional designs. NCTA
has worked to incorporate avoidance and minimization measures throughout the development of the
project, including both the functional and preliminary designs. The following avoidance and minimization
measures have been incorporated into the preliminary designs:
o Retaining Wall at EPA Property - There is a retaining wall proposed1siittie alignment could be
pushed as close as possible to EPA without getting on their propdi an 'r'equiring acquisition of
additional right-of-way. NCTA cannot condemn federal propetd EPA has already indicated
they are not a willing seller. If the retaining wall was not incoipiirat eo ?into the project designs in the
area of the EPA property, there would be an additional 0.5 tacres}ofiNetland impacts, plus
approximately 2,450 feet of impacts to the adjacent p; renhial streaW tT;he retaining wall facilitates
minimizing longitudinal impacts to the adjacent streZ;l ?;0'
Al ,
o Hopson Road/Davis Drive Interchange Configuretibb - I. e selection of thes1? diamond
interchange configuration as the preferred deysjig?r"option Instead of the half-c'' IrlInterchange
configuration reduced impacts to perennial st' elms by apar Arnately 198 line
atrf iltt'
teo Triangle Parkway Bridge over Burdens C treek 1IN ?Liidging Triangle Parkway over Ell 1 f ens Creek
reduced wetland impacts by approximately 0.22'acr's, - aj„I''`i:<< fi
o Retaining Wall at NC 540 Ramp Toll Plaza -The inc?soi of a retaining wall on the westbound NC
540 ramp to northbound Triangle Parkway in the area olf?ihse toll plaza reduced perennial stream
impacts by approximately 600 Abar,tfeet. # IIE??11
o After incorporation of all the abo?elre erenced avoidance am W. imization measures into the
preliminary designs, the total impacts No"41 riiia ale Parkway, in 'the improvements to NC 540
that will be shown in environmental'document I Ve ..917 acres." tlands, 3,993 linear feet of
perennial streams, and 3,876 feet of i? termitte illSt' rn.1h t'
c
o Based on the geotechnical recommeAtio sJ& this area 'ire ability to use steeper slopes is
limited. Due to. ,ooh` sb1i,conditions in thelpjo act are, thsefgeotechnical recommendations for the
project speci f 6d` f'o' N tq; one (4:1) or fiatter}:side slopes ini areas with cut heights in excess of 10 feet
to ensure1f'loipe stabilitq',i` 111
-tstl Ali?'1M.
Schedule Disc ussionsli? ,>,- ?rs
J l ermlt applications to the USACE and NCDENR-DWQ in
ajj ua!T7Uya 200 at sasu?ittalJ?PT '
ggq 14 Ejll?1 ?i 11
oj{f1Thet NOUn'Build (D i;.t'eam will be responsible for any required permit modifications. The D-B
tll 1.1 iilifl,
};l s project time(rieiwas discUssed, and date provided: (Note: The following dates were updated
following e" Ocl'oiber 17, 20t7TI • t AC meeting and are subject to change.)
AdvertiseB proje¢ -December 2007
tt Short-list I teams - January 2008
Select/Aw D-B team -May 2008
( I?
Permit and Ropy os Fore Discussions
o Mulkey isfpreparing the permit application based on the preliminary designs and 30% hydraulic
designs. life 30% hydraulic designs will be available for agency review at the next TEAC meeting
in November. The Design-Build Team will be responsible for any future permit modifications
needed for future design changes.
o The USACE noted the new regulation requiring Rapanos Forms for each impacted wetland site.
After USACE reviews the forms, USACE has to submit these forms to EPA who will require a 15-
day review period. The USACE noted that they can not issue the permit until the 15-day EPA
review period has passed.
o The USACE noted that they are currently working on establishing a process for contacting property
owners with jurisdictional wetlands on their property.
¦ Eastbound NC 540 Functional Design
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 6 of 14
o Wetland and stream delineations of two wetland sites were completed as part of STIP Project
R-2000 AA and AB. These prior wetland delineations were utilized to estimate impacts as a result
of widening eastbound NC 540 and adding the third lane to the flyover from eastbound NC 540 to
northbound Triangle Parkway. As stated previously, the NCTA has identified this component as
part of the Preferred Alternative for Triangle Parkway. However, because the need for this
additional widening and interchange improvement is not until approximately the year 2024, this
component of the project will not be part of the initial construction. Consequently, the impacts
associated with widening eastbound NC 540 and the flyover will not be included in the permit
applications.
o The designs along NC 540 are at a functional level. In keeping with the NCDOT protocol for impact
calculation, clearing and grubbing limits are estimated to extend 401fa$I4eyond the slope stakes to
calculate stream and wetland impacts. illy
o Handouts 3 and 4 were reviewed showing tables and maps of Wetland and stream impacts
associated with the NC 540 modifications. The impacts to,wet1aa ftl, ill be approximately 0.108
acres and the impacts to perennial streams will be appro#lHately 10119et. There are no
intermittent streams being impacted by the widening , T eastbound NON. 5ldb.
o Total impacts for Triangle Parkway, including the irm?lroents to NC?54 , Ithat will be shown in
environmental document, are 1.917 acres of wetlands, 3', 93 linear feet 03V 'Oe nial streams, and
3,876 feet of intermittent stream.
• Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects HCO UP.Qit. iih
o Handout 5 was discussed. The Community Impaclbsestsment'•(;CIA) and Quality ve Indirect and
Cumulative Effects (ICE) documents are still under revi3e?ini by NCDOT, FHWA, and NCTA. Once
they are finalized, they will be posted on the TEAC wsbsite;
o The Future Land Use Study Arelgl',FI,USA) was developed,,,1 'ng NCDOT and NCDENR guidance,
as well as the characteristics of th6l ?!e Parkway project?T a Triangle Parkway is proposed to
Triangl ,Pa r c?v14as been part of?th?+1FtTP master plan since its
have full control of access. ay
inception in the late 1950's. The mal rity o'f t?i;?pro ect alignme,'O& contained within a corridor
reserved by Research Triangle Founa?tion. r?;?'f?4?(?ilt; ?f
o In order to confirm the FLUSA bounda,?i defnition, several interviews were held with planners from
? 1 - r sham County kl an t',' he= owns of II€lo nsville and Cary. Additional meetings
the City of Dur I
: .` t.
were held h e i?Isei tch Triangle Fo4ndation which manages the Research Triangle Park.
Two field J s is were als conducted to confirm the boundary definition and characteristics of the
FLUSAOI
o The study area Eislrapidly ii banizing. There is;;&velopment occurring throughout the area. This
}N• ,{ i till,...
development ineles coe abproertiesl'as well as an upswing in residential development.
}; j} ?ll1k ?tll lip w
o it Ili ? ? ended, , ograp erg ltflere has been an approximate 117% growth in
(I? lOpt Pa cd 'etween 201Q and 2007. tNJ w businesses are moving into the area and existing
loll!! , +=?f •
businesses;arelexpandingll• xtensive planning to account for this tremendous growth has been
=l l done b RTP Ian `l the surr`o``di Jinunici alities.
ltfl'i ?" I There are deval ; ent rests etions assoc ai ted with the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed.
II Some of the regdlatit ns tha?,6 there restrict some development and oversee the existing
l a elopment. Oni ? 'amed 303(d) stream, Northeast Creek, is within the FLUSA boundary shown
iFii??andout 5. i?
o FlI !,ay and flog plain protection is in effect throughout the area. Sedimentation and Erosion
Contt 1 tdelinelare in place, as well as federal and state Section 401 and Section 404 permitting
requirem? s,.s10S?ACE noted there were also local buffer rules (e.g., Wake County, Town of
Morrisville;{itl Neuse River Basin) in effect within the FLUSA.
o A number,;of indirect and cumulative effects assessments have been conducted for this area. This
includes the Secondary and Cumulative Master Mitigation Plan prepared by the Town of Cary,
along with the ICI documents prepared for Western Wake Freeway and Northern Wake
Expressway. The Triangle Parkway project is identified and considered in all of these
assessments.
o NCTA stated that a quantitative ICE assessment was completed for the Western Wake project.
The assessment included a PLOAD water quality modeling analysis for two sensitive watersheds in
the southern portion of the FLUSA for STIP Project R-2635. The assessment found there was
minimal potential for indirect and cumulative effects to water quality within the study area.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 7 of 14
o The covenants within RTP in Durham require no more than 15% of the total area of the tract to be
covered with buildings. The Wake County portion of RTP allows up 30% coverage including
buildings, driveways, parking, loading, and storage areas.
o There are economic benefits to RTP with the improved transportation infrastructure provided by
Triangle Parkway.
o There is the potential for indirect and cumulative effects to occur as a result of the Kit Creek Road
Connector. STIP Project R-2000 acquired approximately 8 acres of land from an extended African-
American family that has been established in the Shiloh community since the 1800s. One member
of the family is very involved with the Town of Morrisville and is on the Town Council and Planning
Board. NCTA met with representatives of the family and they understand that the connection
improves east-west connectivity. The family is in support of the Try '`.gfe€Parkway and the Kit
Creek Road Connector. They have requested that NCTA look fo l ys toitry to minimize harm to
them and possibly avoid the residential relocation resulting from-, ?t p Kit Creek Road Connector.
o The service road between Hopson and Davis Drive does notl rNidte? new access to adjacent
properties. Most of the project is within the corridor reserved by R`t$IhOf the 168 acres needed for
tit
the construction of the project, approximately 112 acres are owned by,tlR!T1F. Most of the available
land is near interchanges. Some of them are under( ej?elopmant or in tie ocess of going
through the permitting. r '111, [III
o Growth is likely to occur with or without the co?tstruction of the Triangle Park
,if roject.
o NCTA and FHWA believe the qualitative andl is completed, is sufficient docum?t tjoh`'to satisfy
the ICE assessment for the Triangle Park*6y pro?elct.
o USACE and NCWRC believed the analysis was l p-opriatelgrid-:noted that the discussion would
need to be confirmed with NCDENR-DWQ. 11 ;<;t:;-
NCTA presented the same information tc
NCDWQ offered the following comments
morning at 9:00 am.
NCTA stated that it was considering 60 iirn
associated with candidate toll projects,
cashless tollin ( th,e,.' :' sh collection fact*i 1
noted that thl??proposed;retaining wall on t
included, fj,the project(( a cash collect6
NCDENi=D1NQ requesteto take the draft
t ;r
handouts for 1, NC = R-DWQ will p
November 9, 2004€. C??{iltt,,,,,_
n i5fithdIcash collection facilities to minimize impacts
_NR-dWQ!st9fed that if NCTA were to select
on the NC:,, 40 ramp could then be removed. It was
NC 540 interchange ramp would no longer be
facilities were removed.
i' lip; hearing map and the wetland and stream impact
comments on avoidance and minimization by
o c0 = DWQ
€?( ,??I state 'that remoVailtif "isti lanes in future could allow for impacted areas to be
f i??re oil 11151'r` urPosed of teceivin9 9 miti ion credits. This approach would need to be confirmed
Ip, _??
€€?; with the USM."E The mitigation credit resulting from this restoration could possibly be used for
lfl ; ; other NCTA Orojects or soR at
EEP. NCTA noted that the toll collection facilities on Triangle
1iil;Jf Parkway were locatedith thaant to avoid and/or minimize impacts to wetlands and streams.
li ,111;?VCDENR-DWQ stated that i, 6greed with findings of qualitative ICE assessment. NCDENR-DWQ
'ifsed that it wouic like an opportunity to review the Western Wake ICE assessments prior to
fi lizing its comm Xs. However, it is generally believed that the qualitative ICE assessment and
its gite4usions arsi€appropriate for the Triangle Parkway project and that no additional ICE
asses 'ants wiul a required for the project.
o NCDE(RIUaIQ?inoted that there were proposed changes in the Jordan Lake Reservoir rules that
could cha a way NCTA deals with stormwater and impacts on this and other NCTA projects.
o NCDENRTDWQ noted the earliest the rules could go in effect is May or June 2008. If permit
applications are completed by this time, then applicants will not have to follow new rules. However,
permit modifications requested after the new rules are passed would be required to include any
modifications needed to adhere to the new rules.
o If the Section 401 permit expires, the whole project would likely be subject to the new Jordan Lake
Reservoir rules. It was noted that the Triangle Parkway project will require an Individual Permit
(IP). Based on the current schedule, the receipt of the permit is anticipated to occur in May/June
2008. The typical duration of an IP is 5 years.
o Any modifications to the Triangle Parkway permit will need be coordinated with NCDENR-DWQ to
include any changes required by the new Jordan Lake Reservoir rules.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 8 of 14
• Next Steps
o NCTA requested comments on the avoidance and minimization, the NC 540 widening component
of the project and the qualitative ICE assessment by November 9th. NCTA provided the USACE
and NCDENR-DWQ with copies of the draft hearing maps to assist them in their review of the
avoidance and minimization efforts.
• New Action Items:
o Agencies will provide written comments on avoidance and minimization measures by November 9,
2007. tit
o NCTA will distribute the 30% hydraulic plans to the agencies priorito;;th'61November 14, 2007 TEAC
meeting. At the November 14, 2007 meeting, the NCTA will disepss the 3b% hydraulic plans with
agencies. The hydraulic design engineers will be present at th8lNovember meeting to review the
tri'tSjil?t,
plans and discuss comments with the agencies. The 30% hydraulidl plans will be sent to the
agencies for review prior to the meeting.
o Agencies will provide written comments on the findings ancilconclusio'r: slbf the Qualitative Indirect
and Cumulative Effects (ICE) assessment by Noverjnbe119, 2007.
o NCTA will provide draft permit drawings for agency revi4by the DecembeTjl6Ii2007 TEAC
meeting. (Follow-up after Meeting: NCTA antrcrpates submitting the permit appations in
February 2008.) 3Fr` c #! ???itt,
1,i #4'4iF '"?I
!, t it
Jill
f , ?I?I3E?;ifr,
} ?f
Hill'
fit ? `???s?!?I?{?fsrtr ?I?,;.
yft t ?,
1 ?lllt ii j ,l ?,,`f ?•
?tl? r Itf???Ef,•tl?. ???I??l
f'`ri'It?rf frrlfi r ?ii? lift
i? sl :l?l
`! Itii
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 9 of 14
Date: October 17, 2007
10:30 am to 11:00 am
NC Turnpike Authority Office Building Ground Floor Conference Room (G-13)
Project: STIP R-2635 Western Wake Freeway
Western Wake Freeway Spotlight:
Additional Attendees:
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Greg Price, NCDOT- Natural Environment Unit
Tracy Roberts, HNTB- NCTA/GEC
Ross Andrews, EcoScience Corporation 1110
Len Hill, ARCADIS ,+i s!i;tt `s N;;I# ,
Kristina Miller, ARCADIS lii+' `?4f t
Martha Register, ARCADIS fill
(i?? la
Presentation Materials: (posted on the TEAC website)'s? l;.
+
IJill,
ttttt ;>
• Meeting Agenda ?
• October 17, 2007 TEAC Handout
•l;ii31
• PowerPoint Presentation ijli3'i=t+
'?I?Ri3ffl?ti. ?}iZ!fil3 t3`
General Discussion: 'Al tl ,
Note: The meeting was held twice (on 10117 and Q118) to ette`r accommgdate environmental resource and
regulatory agency schedules. The discussion sec t n i sa ran?glei,115' date, as noted.
Purpose:
,,, t, Ills ' t!
The purpose of the meetin4g';was to review the Reevaluatiohl feport including its purpose; the change in
project concept due to tollii?gI*F, tes/chI vibes to the humanienvironment, cultural resources, physical
environment, natural resource; li 1 direct ad cumulative impel sand conclusions.
,? t I
Schedule: (?t
,311ii tit , . ???I'`' .
The current s?h 'edu1nil9ci'l?des awar?I, the Design!-Bull contract in July 2008 and opening the facility to
traffic in Fa10b11. (Both NI(tbnes are bject to the availability of funding.)
• 1Q017m.lt was noted that befohe U:S!my Corps of Engineers (USACE) can issue the 404 permit
C it i; + ; s t +I?
t6i thWe"U isdictional detern ,i(JD) i;'ust be finalized by completion of the Rapanos forms. Local
USACE [eJ.ew of the compleleseFiforms wIll take 5 days, followed by Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and:?1SACE headquartelrs, review which will take an additional 15 days. If there is no response
within the 151 a 1lReriod, the 4- , permit can be issued. ARCADIS is under contract with NCDOT to
have the Rapan+?fo(ms corr??pleted by October 31, 2007.
• 10/17 - The next stdos., icbmpleting the permitting process include forwarding the completed
Rapanos forms to 06..WQ, and the state issuing the 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC). Other
items needed prior to ,issuing the 404 permit include the EEP acceptance letter and the Section 106
Memorandum of Agreement, both of which have been received by USACE.
• 10/18 - It was noted that the WQC cannot be issued without a signed NEPA document. The Record
of Decision (ROD) was signed in 2004 and remains the final NEPA document. The Reevaluation
Report is a decision-making document for FHWA in determining whether a Supplemental EIS is
needed. The Reevaluation Report concludes that the FEIS is still valid and no additional NEPA
documentation is necessary.
• 10/18 - The noted change in median width to 78 feet may require additional review and avoidance
measures before NCDWQ will issue the WQC. NCTA reminded NCDWQ that the change in median
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 10 of 14
width was addressed in the FEIS and ROD. This additional width has been included and addressed
previously through the Merger Process and accepted by NCDWQ. NCDWQ agreed no additional
review is required.
• 10/18 - NCDWQ will need to review the Rapanos forms and receive confirmation that the USACE has
accepted them as complying with the new Rapanos guidelines prior to completing the WQC. NCDWQ
may need to put the permit on hold (though review of the permit would continue) as incomplete until
they receive these forms. Additionally, If USACE determines that any waters are not isolated and are
without a.significant nexus, NCDWQ may have to hold the WQC. There currently is no state
mechanism for permitting this category of wetlands, which are considered Waters of the State. The
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) is scheduled to issue a temporary, rule to permit
impacts to these Waters of the State in November. lilI;ltE`14i,a
• 10/18 - It was noted that the project will be implemented under a Design-B 'i?d contract. NCDWQ
cautioned NCTA that any changes to the hydraulic design during the tiesign;Biyild process would likely
trigger a permit modification. There is no guarantee that a modification will be {?,eiirriitted and that
NCTA is ultimately the party held responsible for the permit and q, the Design-Bui" )team.
• 10/18 - NCDWQ is waiting on information about the stream resto'iflOp north of OlivelC? el Road.
Specifically, there are questions about the suitability of the, reference reach - it is in a diept
watershed and it is a different type of stream from the sxrela'!iri proposedt for restoration. N 31'i ill J,
follow-up with NCDOT to obtain additional informatior?iandiclarifcation about the reference reaoh('
(UPDATE. Representatives of USACE, NCDWQ, NCDOT, NCT I s Ge S'ra(+aEngineering Consultant
(HNTB and EcoScience) and Sungate Design Group met on-stte,;1,0 20..07 to discuss the reference
ttr•l?f,:
reach. If NCDWQ is unable to locate a more suitable reference reacflE,within the Triassic Basin, it was
agreed that the proposed reference reach would be acceptable andlfhat a planting plan would be
a `i `' t} t i i` I
developed. The planting plan would likely bet cue a condition of the Additional coordination
pefm, .
between NCDWQ and NCDOT to occur]. ,lttl1???!#1?3 ill{i{i;i?f?
ia'
• 10/18 - NCDWQ suggested that NCTA hold moh'ihly oh-site}fineetings with t o regulatory agencies
once construction has started. NCDWQ has fouilq these fhJQ"lgs.to be peneficial in identifying
ti r CEP t 3 ....E
concerns quickly and in providing an opportunity qj is ArQ-activell,l?1a9b helps the agency in handling
ith they are aware of the issues and they are
ey. ttare able to state at
3 party complaints, becauselj
t:IEFEE it Si Ft. is
being addressed. The rneetings t ilid n-going coordination also minimize NOVs for projects. NCTA
agreed that on-site rr?eeiiings wouidtie
ii!' 't
• I'' t!?i<t'IIIt #?t?E i?ii'j'
?
• 90/17 - Did NCTA make Chang s toliiiihe pro ect design bgsed on comments as part of the public
involvementa ir IvEl ities? Itjijl yil''#}(IEj?if?j
EE Et Illar:. il?l I?I???i((if illi
No comrirliatrp'ts regeierlltrom theitp s I ?ablic resulted in Resign changes. Section 7 of the Reevaluation
Report(provides a sui4V. a. Of the` Wlp comments received.
EryE 'tiiFIll.
It
• 10/(It Is NCTA still plann/ng ,to use the; Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for its mitigation
Yes. TTh i ACE is clarifying riternallyfwhether NCTA would be handled the same as NCDOT with
respect to' - it pe of EEP. ;; ; I
• 90/18 -Who Wil?iovlm the right of way (ROIM for the project? NCTA or NCDOT? NCDWQ may have
to issue the pernW l to;the ROi. owner.
'?? a parcels and NCTA is buying the remainder. During construction there
NCDOT currently owns. a i so
will be dual ownershi ti Avi some point NCTA will transfer their ROW to NCDOT and lease the entire
corridor back for the duration of toll operations. NCDWQ stated that the permit could be issued to the
ROW owner or a public agency with condemnation authority. NCDWQ needs to discuss the
ownership issue internally. It is possible the WQC would be issued to both NCTA and NCDOT.
• 10118- Does NCTA have its own NPDES stormwater permit? This is a concern for the WQC
particularly regarding Operations and Maintenance (0&M) of the stormwater Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the facility.
NCTA has coordinated with NCDENR (Mike Randall) and is in the process of obtaining its own
NPDES stormwater permit that is similar to NCDOT's. NCTA expects to have it in the final review
stages/public comment period by the end of the year and anticipates the final permit will be issued
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page II of 14
prior to awarding the Design-Build contract. NCDWQ will require either the completed NPDES
stormwater permit, an MOA for NCTA to work under NCDOT's existing NPDES stormwater permit, or
a project specific Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement for the stormwater BMPs prior to
issuing the WQC. The WQC will be on hold pending the resolution of this issue.
• 10/18 - What is the status of a Sedimentation and Erosion Control permit?
NCTA is covered under NCDOT's Sedimentation and Erosion Control permit and this has been
accepted by the NC Division of Land Resources.
• 10/18 - Is the project located entirely within the Cape Fear River Basin? Does it all drain to the B.
Everett Jordan Reservoir?
The project is located entirely within the Cape Fear River Basin, but only the, P,q?tli66,half of the
project area drains into the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir. NCDWQ and the Ek are developing buffer
rules, similar to the Neuse River Rules, for streams draining into the B. S' ffi t•Jordan Reservoir. This
is likely to become an issue if the Design-Build team requires any 40E41,401 peftmitlmodifcations in the
northern half of the project area. If a modification is requested in a location thatdraips into B. Everett
Jordan Reservoir, then the site with the modification would beco,(?'?e si??ject to the1F E t rules and
retrofitting may be required. The proposed rules are likely to 1i?effect at the end oiler 2008.
Previous Action Items:
d?
fi;?#p, '?l, ? 1;1
• No action items were identified. :f,,,q } 1 r$EO?
New Action Items:
The Rapanos forms, once completed and aoc5p'ttedby USACE, will
WQC will be on hold pending completion of t9'e"'fG"&'stiI.,,.
•
NCTA will follow-up with NCDOT to obtain
reach for the proposed stream restoration.
about the reference reach.
NCDWQ will require fromlNCTAi
work under NCDOT's,66ting NF
Maintenance (O&N?)IAg Bement 1
i ?y.
on hold pending the resoid{len of
:1,111111
The
and
ed to NCDWQ. The

tion about the reference
( resolution of concerns
i1i1lj lit f!
r the completQ PDES storm ter permit, an MOA for NCTA to
}stormwater pert?',n, it, or a project specific Operations and
storrwater BNIFp prior to issuing the WQC. The WQC will be
issue. 1111 ifI,
(fIIII,
Resolutions: 1(}j(1Iiii1Hi#1111 ?,I!
?l }se :?i? #
• None{}i11[
Ji,li t`s, ! :
Next Sts6k.
No adds ?oh I TEAC meetingIle? anticipated. NCTA will continue to work with USACE and NCDWQ
through oOr b permitting proci??.
_111,1
f
I
ft
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 12 of 14
Date:
Project:
October 17, 2007
1:30 pm to 3:30 pm
NC Turnpike Authority Office Building Ground Floor Conference Room (G-13)
STIP R-3329 Monroe Connector- NHF-74(21)
STIP R-2559 Monroe Bypass - NHF-74(8)
Monroe Connector / Bypass Spotlight:
Attendees:
Donnie Brew, FHWA
George Hoops, FHWA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Steve Lund, USACE (by Phone)
Maria Chambers, NCWRC (by Phone)
Polly Lespinasse, NCDENR-DWQ (met on
Ryan White, NCD I T - PDEA
Jennifer Harrist1i - ?1
Christy Shurnat), 'TB
Michael Glgden, Ec' ciepce
Cad Gibilaro`iPBS&J 1111,:3
PBSW 3,111111
10/18/07) f
W ' l
JV 41
oil
11-H. III k .
Presentation Materials (Posted on the TEAC website): f{:3
.111!1 :slI {
• Meeting Agenda ??lrli
• Preliminary Corridor Segments for Quantitative Third Scre'" i 'lire `revised 10/11/07)1
i(i9F , 9
• Preliminary Study Alternatives Figure '{!
• Preliminary Recommended Detailed Steely Alternatives Figure" -11i J! .
Quantitative GIS Analysis Screening Res is able
• Preliminary Field Assessment of Corridor gI ehtl18A
,? ?{i{3,,11 , „ ?{
General Discussion: Iii til;i I til;
?1 ail ,?:
Note: The meeting was held twice (on 10!17 and 1018) toeerc3E freirliodate environmental resource and
onsolidated in the summary below.
regulatory agency schedules. The discussions wera,sifp)iar and grv
• Purpose: The pu,r;, se of the'cneeting was to discuss comments on the second qualitative screening and
present fndingslofithe,quantitativeithird screening. li
l.{Ii
• Second Qualitative Scf,eF ringlYfi {second qualitative screening results were presented at the
Septemb 2T 007 TEAL eeting. oi? Wimp i ha> it meeting, written comments were received from
,eirt ct l t l it ? ?u??t is
NCV?I;P, , gerally note?d`3that it seeme8 ?emature to eliminate some corridors without quantitative
da(a"I{particutarly'soirteof the u grede existing roadways options. General discussion regarding the second
There was disaUaion with ti'eidebision to eliminate Corridor Segment 13 (upgrading Secrest
11111111 Rofrofuhernalysis because there would be less impacts to natural resources with
?ap? improve exisung.`road way alignment than a new location roadway. Shifting Corridor Segment 13
Aeftward to minin'1A impacts to residences on the south side of the road would result in an
ali ent very similar to on Segment 30. NCWRC requested quantitative data for these segments.
NCTrh*.. ninded tholse present that in the NCDOT Merger 01 process, they would not be involved
to this ept in109hy alternatives screening. Agencies are accustomed to being provided
quantit ,ei8ala on all alternatives still under consideration at Concurrence Point 2; however, by
that point, ?{any alternatives have been considered and eliminated without agency coordination
and input: Also, the screening process for this project was discussed at several TEAC meetings
and the second screening was always intended to be a qualitative comparison of potential impacts.
o NCTA noted that a population of Schweinitz's sunflower had been located adjacent to Secrest
Shortcut Road (Corridor Segment 13) just north of Poplin Road.
o USEPA noted that SCDOT used a qualitative screening process for the 1-73/74 interstate project
that agencies generally liked and offered to provide a copy of this screening (CAT Tool) to FHWA
and NCTA. Although this project has progressed beyond the point of being able to implement this
tool, it can be considered for other future NCTA projects.
o Corridor Segments 5 and 6, which would include upgrading Old Monroe Road/Old Charlotte
Highway to a freeway with frontage roads, were also discussed. NCWRC commented that these
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 13 of 14
segments are similar to Corridor Segments 8 and 9, which are proposed for evaluation in the
quantitative third screening. NCTA explained that the Corridor Segments 8 and 9 follow existing US
74, which is an existing 6-lane facility, while Corridor Segments 5 and 6 would upgrade an existing
2-lane roadway, resulting in substantial impacts to adjacent properties. Additionally, Corridor
Segment 6 would pass through downtown Monroe. USEPA and NCWRC agreed that Corridor
Segment 6 was probably not reasonable to implement and noted that documentation for eliminating
Corridor Segment 5 qualitatively should be thorough.
o Agencies noted that the elimination of any corridor segments should be fully justified and
documented.
o USEPA and FHWA expressed concern that the number of alternatives to be studied in depth
should be kept to a reasonable number. si nl,
!1i - `t!1
,af!1
.fr1
NCTA pointed out that agency comments related to Relative Segm
been addressed. After further evaluation of the corridor segments i
not sufficient data to screen out some segments. Corridor Segme0
quantitative third screening. Corridor Segment 41 can be shifted to
industries on US 74, which had been a primary factor in thajA14 r
corridor.
I;il'
Corridor Segments 18/18A and 22122A - As discupsel.at the Se;
on public comment Corridor Segments 18 and 22,,,'G ,?,ii. gidor Se
minimize direct impacts to neighborhoods impacted by Corrii-td4otr Se
comment, NCTA requested the natural systems consultant fof,this'
assessment of the natural resources in Corridor Segment 18Ali;Th`E
was studied during previous NCDOT std es of the project and, the
reviews in the area of Corridor Segment Ill"?Pdill-not identify any lai
€rt ;NCTA asked if any of the agencies repress.?,NA adlconcems with
22 and retaining Corridor Segments 18A and)9-2A: T?;e,1?ger?cies re
and NCDWQ) had no concerns with eliminating, Corridprl$egrpents
Quantitative Third Seredol iF' . A table showirYgl1
Study Altematives (P#As) W111; esented for revf
segments not eli,l ted by the,; e , and qualitative
developed. Theaimpastrwere caldulated for the co
the impacts, NCTA re., r(trend9!1e`Eminating nine
of existing US 74 and Id ' 9
laiza ''tg numbe
1111. 1! ,eel;11!1 i tl
I
stream'Iha t° s materitals?s11tes, i dlccrast1?'cftu
PSAWNCTIA 10 WA reco;: ml end the remainin
Impoct Statement 1i1R,, ,i; (± ;1
imparison Areas 3 and 4 have
6Areas, NCTA felt that there was
taiad 41 will be retained for the
Iai '
direGs??pacts to two agricultural
nendatio eliminate this
er 27, 2007 TImeeting, based
is 18A and 22A v??il added to
s 18 and 22. Based on agency
t to conduct a cursory field
included in Corridor Segment 22A
, resources are known. Field
high quality wetlands in the area.
a,tpdCorridor Segments 18 and
lted (USAGE, NCWRC, USEPA,
d 22.
preliminarjijimpacts associated with the Preliminary
The 25 PSAs are combinations of the corridor
preening. Conceptual alignments for each PSA were
..Optual alignments using GIS and field data. Based on
tt?' hd PSAs. These PSAs use all or a substantial length
f'businesses along the route. In addition, impacts to
i costs were substantially higher for each of these
16 PSAs for detailed study in the Draft Environmental
,itemadves Development anallAna/ys/s Report- A report documenting the alternatives
de lo..ant and screening ?rocessps being prepared and will be distributed to agencies on November 5,
2007.?i ila newsletter w fl, tie distributed and the report will be available for public review and comment.
Agencie?wl?libe asked to eview and provide written comments on the draft report by December 5, 2007
for discuss'1 1 6.Ithe TEAd-l meeting that day. A summary of public comments will also be provided at the
TEAC meetingl{?T?rere wil!11not be a TEAC meeting in November for this project in order to allow the
agencies time tolydjirgw?his report.
Previous Action Items: ,91'
• Agencies to review presentation of second qualitative screening of preliminary study corridors and provide
comments by October 17, 2007.
[Written comments were received via email from NCWRC on October 11, 2007.]
• NCTA to prepare and distribute a summary of the qualitative screening results.
[A written summary of the first and second qualitative screenings was distributed and posted to the TEAC
website on October 2, 2007.]
• NCTA will post relevant impact information from the Monroe Bypass EA/FONSI and the Monroe Connector
DEIS to the TEAC website.
[These documents were posted to the TEAC website.]
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 14 of 14
New Action Items:
• Agencies to review the Draft Alternatives Development and Analysis Report when it is made available
on November 5, 2007, provide written comments, and be prepared to discuss at the December 5, 2007
TEAC meeting.
Resolutions:
• Corridor Segment 18 and 22 will be eliminated from further consideration.
Next Steps:
• There will not be a November TEAC meeting to facilitate the agencies' revid'(1
f{tPe Draft Alternatives
Wi.o
Development and Analysis Report. The December TEAC meeting willfbesa spoi:light update and the
findings and comments received on the Draft Alternatives Developmktand Analysis Report will be
discussed. r i
c'
?tf}?I?i?tE4}%I }i??!==51,3 f }??Iy?Si
lit i?,lls ,. "l+.

Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07