20181192 Ver 1_C540_Pref_Alt_0416_20180122

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT
For
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
j \T�
': CO�P�E��
��:,.
--- �
Trfangle F�rpressway
�r•,R+��fi.h���fi Fx�P��1�i.�r
Wake and Johnston Counties
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829
State Project Nos. 6.401078, 6.401079, and 6.401080
Federal Aid Project Nos. STP-0540(19), STP-0540(20), and STP-0540(21)
WBS Nos. 37673.1.TA2, 35516.1.TA2, and 35517.1.TA1
Prepared for:
� NDRTH CAROLINA
; � Turnpike Autharity
Prepared By:
H.W. Lochner, Inc.
LOCHNER
April 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Preferred Alternative Report
NCDOT STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829
Wake and Johnston Counties
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................1
1.2. Project Purpose .......................................................................................1
1.3 Project Status ..........................................................................................1
1.4 Detailed Study Alternatives .........................................................................2
1.5 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................2
1.6 Additional Considerations ..........................................................................6
1.7 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................6
2 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................... 9
2.1 Public Meetings and Public Hearing .............................................................9
2.2 Public Comments .....................................................................................9
2.3 Previous Public Comments ....................................................................... 11
2.4 Public Comment Summary ....................................................................... 11
3 OVERVIEW OF OTHER LOCAL INVOLVEMENT .......................................... 12
3.1 Local Government Comments ................................................................... 12
3.2 Previous Local Government Comments ...................................................... 13
3.3 Comments from Other Organizations .......................................................... 14
4 OVERVIEW OF AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ................................................... 15
4.1 Agency Coordination Meetings .................................................................. 15
4.2 Agency Comments on Draft EIS ................................................................. 15
4.3 Agency Comments on the Draft Preferred Alternative Report ........................... 15
4.4 Previous Agency Comments ..................................................................... 16
5 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................... 17
6 MINIMIZATION EFFORTS AND IMPACT REDUCTION ............................... 19
6.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Ponds .................................................................. 19
6.2 Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area ........................................................... 20
6.3 Dwarf Wedgemussel ............................................................................... 21
7 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................21
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
LIST OF TABLES
Comparative Evaluation Matrix ................................................................... 4
Detailed Study Alternatives - Constraints and Benefits ................................. 7
Public Participation at Public Meetings and Public Hearing .............................. 9
Local Government Comments/Resolutions on DSAs .................................... 12
Previous Local Government Resolutions .................................................... 14
Summary of Resource and Regulatory Agency Meetings .............................. 15
Federal and State Agency Review Comments on DSAs ................................ 16
Federal and State Agency Review Comments on Draft Preferred Alternative
Report.................................................................................................. 17
Impact Reductions Associated with Bridging ............................................. 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Detailed Study Alternatives ....................................................................... 3
APPENDICES
Appendix A Individual Maps of the Detailed Study Alternatives
Appendix B Comparative Evaluation Matrix
Appendix C Correspondence
ii
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), proposes transportation improvements in the project study area and
surrounding region to address transportation needs as defined in the project's Purpose and Need
Statement (Lochner, 2011). The focus of these improvements is a potential extension of the Triangle
Expressway (NC 540) from its current terminus at the NC 55 Bypass in Apex to the US 64/US 264
Bypass in Knightdale. This action, known as the Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Extension project,
is designated as three projects in the NCDOT 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP): R- 2721, R-2828, and R-2829. Together, these STIl' projects would combine to complete the
540 Outer Loop around the Raleigh metropolitan area. NCDOT established a protected corridor for the
project (R-2721 and R-2828) between NC 55 Bypass and I-40 in 1996 and 1997, under the State's
Transportation Corridor Official Map Act (Map Act) (GS §136-44.50). The Map Act permits the
preservation of a highway corridor when specific conditions are met; however, it does not require the
selection of that corridor following the NEPA process. For purposes of ineeting the requirements of
NEPA, all three projects are being examined in the current study as a single and complete project. It is
likely that the Complete 540 project would be constructed in phases, depending on the availability of
funding.
1.2. PROJECT PURPOSE
Two primary purposes have been established for the Complete 540 project, based on general
transportation problems in the Raleigh area and specific, more localized needs. The first purpose is to
improve mobility within or through the study area during peak travel periods. The second purpose is to
reduce forecast congestion on the existing roadway network within the project study area.
A secondary purpose of the project is to improve system linkage in the regional roadway network by
completing the 540 outer loop around the greater Raleigh area—a goal sought by area planners for more
than 40 years. It is expected that construction of this remaining 5401ink would benefit local commuters
living south and east of Raleigh as well as motorists making longer trips through the Triangle Region to
and from points south and east.
1.3 PROJECT STATUS
In January 2014, NCDOT and FHWA selected the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSA) for the project.
This selection was made after extensive agency and local government coordination as well as much
public involvement. The development and selection of the DSAs is documented in the Alternatives
Development and Analysis Report (Lochner, 2014). A full range of alternatives was developed and
evaluated against the purpose and need for the proj ect. This included build options, widening of existing
routes options, hybrid options, and non-highway transportation options. Through a tiered evaluation
process the various options were screened and those that best met the project's purpose and need were
retained for detailed study. In conjunction with this screening process, agency and local government
coordination was instrumental in determining the alternatives that advanced to more detailed study.
Additionally, public opinion was received as the various options were considered.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Complete 540 proj ect, was signed on
November 2, 2015, and subsequently made available for public and agency review on the NCDOT
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 – April 2016

website on November 6, 2015. A notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on Friday,
November 20, 2015 (Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 224, Pg. 72719). Copies of the document were
distributed to public review locations and agencies between November 7 and 13, 2015. Public meetings
were held on December 7, 8 and 9, 2015, and a Public Hearing was held on December 9, 2015. The
public comment period for the Draft EIS ended on January 8, 2016.
A Draft Preferred Alternative Report, identifying DSA 2 as NCDOT's recommended Preferred
Alternative, was submitted to the environmental resource and regulatory agencies in February 2016.
Two Interagency Meetings were held to discuss the recommended Preferred Alternative, in February
and March 2016. No Issues of Concern, as defined in the project's Section 6002 Coordination Plan,
have been raised by any of the agencies on the recommended Preferred Alternative. DSA 2 is now the
Preferred Alternative for the Complete 540 project.
Next steps in the project process include:
• Design refinements to the Preferred Alternative
Publishing the Final EIS, including responses to comments on the Draft EIS
Publishing the Record of Decision
Award of Design-Build Contract
1.4 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
As shown in Figure 1, the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) for Complete 540 consist of 10 color-
coded corridors that can be combined in various ways to form 17 different end-to-end project
alternatives. Five of the color-coded corridor segments are generally located west of I-40 (Orange, Red,
Purple, Blue, and Lilac) and five corridors are east of I-40 (Green, Mint, Tan, Brown, and Teal). Each
of the DSAs would be a controlled-access toll facility on new location. An individual map of each DSA
is shown in Appendix A.
Each DSA would consist of six lanes, with three 12-foot lanes in each direction of travel, separated by
a 70-foot median. The proposed mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph). Proposed
interchange locations (depending on the DSA) include:
• NC 55 Bypass
• Holly Springs Road
• Bells Lake Road
• US 401
• Old Stage Road
• NC 50
• White Oak Road
1.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
• I-40
• US 70 Bypass
• Old Baucom Road
• Auburn Knightdale Road
• Poole Road
• US 64/US 264 Bypass
Appendix B includes a detailed impact summary table from the Draft EIS (pages 107-109). More
information about the potential impacts of each of the 17 DSAs is available in the Draft EIS (Chapter 5,
page 69). Table 1 highlights the potential impacts for each of the DSAs for several key impact
categories. While many other impact categories were examined and are addressed in the Draft EIS, the
categories listed in Table 1 are those categories where there was a notable difference in the relative
impacts among the different DSAs or that are rypically considered a key impact category. In addition
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

Corridor Segments
m
m 0
� �
� '�-
O R G
O R G
O Pu B� G
B� L G G
BL B G
O G
O G G'
a B G
,� 0_ B G
G h B G
LENGTH
DETAILED STUDY
ALTERNATIVE
miles
ALTERNATIVE 1 28.3
ALTERNATIVE 2 28.4
ALTERNATIVE 3 29.1
ALTERNATIVE 4 29.4
ALTERNATIVE 5 29.3
ALTERNATIVE 6 25.2
AITERNATIVE 7 Z5.3
ALTERNATIVE 8 30.9
ALTERNATIVE 9 31.0
ALTERNATIVE 10 31.6
ALTERNATIVE 11 32.0
ALTERNATIVE 12 31.9
ALTERNATIVE 13 27.6
ALTERNATIVE 14 27.7
ALTERNATIVE 15 28.3
ALTERNATIVE 16 28.7
ALTERNATIVE 17 28.6
Corridor Segment Key
� Orange � Purple
� Green � Blue
Table 1
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX
DSAs and Key Impact Categories
DEGREE OF VARIATION IN IMPACTS ACROSS THE ALTERNATIVES
Percent difference from lowest value in category, illustrated by color gradient
0% � 135%
ESTIMATED
PROJECT COSTS
$M
2,195
2 178
2,188
2,189
2 191
i 2,317
2,315
2,566
i 2,547
2,550
2,549
2,559
I 2,362
I 2,344
2,346
2,346
I 2,356
� Lilac
Q Red
%4 from
lowest
0.8
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.6
6.4
6.3 _
17.8
17.0
17.1
17.0
17.5
8.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
8.2
m Teal
Tan
LAND
ACQUISTION
acres
%4 from
lowest
1,830 4.5
1,823 4.1
1,802 2.8
1,818 3.8
1,843 5.2
1,753 0.1
1,752 0.0�
2,135 I 21.9
2,128 21.5
2,092 I 19.4_
2,108 �I 20.3
2,148 22.6
1,960 11.9 �
1,953 11.5
1,917 9.4
1,933 10.3
1,973 I 12.6
QBrown
Mint
PARCELS
number %4from
lowest
741 3.1
744 II 3.5
754 4.9
719 0.0
737 I 2.5
993 I 38.1
995 38.4
1,213 I 68J
1,216 69.1
1,230 71.1
1,195 I 66.2
' 1,209 I 68.2
984 36.9
987 37.3
1 1,001 39.2
966 34.4
I 980 I 36.3
RELOCATIONS I I STREAMS
number %� from linear feet �° 4 from
lowest lowest
278 14.4 67,967 31.8
281 15.6 II 65,810 27.6
265 9.1 68,130 32.1
243 I 0.0 61,322 18.9
272 11.9 65,180 26.4
449 84.8 53,014 2.8
451 85.6 51,582 0.0
566 77,724 50.7
569 i 75,566 46.5
556 78,087 51.4
534 I 71,278 38.2
560 ° I 74,936 453
481 I 97.9 68,604 33.0
484 991 � 66,447 28.8
471 93.8 68,967 33.7
449 84.8 I 62,159 20.5
47 5 I 95.5 I 65, 817 I 27.6
L";
WETLANDS
acres
% 4 from
lowest
I 75.6 47.1
I 74.3 44.6
�
73.5 43.0
71.6 39.3
74.2 44.3
52.0 1.1
51.4 0.0
I 57.5 11.9
56.2 9.4
63.0 22.6
I 61.1 18.9
56.1 9.2
66.7 29.9
65.5 27.4
� 72.3 40.6
70.4 36.9
65.3 27.1
"EITHER/OR" IMPACTS
Would the alternative affect the resource?
Yes � No ;
SWIFT CREEK
WATERSHED HISTORIC SECTION 4(f)
CRITICAL SITES RESOURCES
AREA (Non de minimis)
acres impact? acres impact? number impact?
0
0
0
0
0
6.7
6.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
no p no � p � no
no p no p no
no 5.9 �;, ,- 1 0, ,:;,
no p no p no
no � _ p no p � no
32.7 4
32.7 -�::: 4
no p no 1
no p no 1
no 5.9 � 2
no p no 1
no p no I 1 �;t,_,
no p � no � p �no �
no p no p no
no 5.9 1 �
no p no p no
no 0 I no II 0 II no
DETAILED STUDY
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTERNATIVE 4
ALTERNATIVE 5
ALTERNATIVE 6
ALTERNATIVE 7
ALTERNATIVE 8
ALTERNATIVE 9
ALTERNATIVE 10
ALTERNATIVE 11
ALTERNATIVE 12
ALTERNATIVE 13
ALTERNATIVE 14
ALTERNATIVE 15
ALTERNATIVE 16
ALTERNATIVE 17

to the quantified impacts shown in Table 1, there is an indicator of the degree in variation in impacts or
a yes/no indication of impact as appropriate. The green through yellow to red color scheme provides a
visual gradient to view relative impacts.
Some of the key conclusions from Table 1 include:
• There is a wide range in the potential relocation effects of the different DSAs.
o DSAs 1 through 5, which use the full Orange Corridor, would require substantially
fewer relocations than the other DSAs. DSAs 8 through 12, which use the Purple and
Blue Corridor, would require over twice as many relocations as DSAs 1 through 5.
o DSAs 6 and 7(Red Corridor) and 13 through 17 (Lilac Corridor) would all require
almost twice as many relocations as the DSA that would require the fewest relocations
(DSA 4).
o The corridor segments east of I-40 have relatively small differences in required
relocations. For this reason, there is a relatively small difference in relocation impacts
among the DSAs in each group using a particular corridor segment west of I-40
(Orange, Red, Purple/Blue or Lilac).
• The percent difference among the DSAs in potential effects on wetlands and streams is notably
smaller than the percent difference in relocations.
o DSAs 1 through 5 would affect the largest amount of wetlands, affecting an average of
43 percent more wetlands than DSAs 6 and 7, which would affect the smallest amount
of wetlands.
o DSAs 8 through 12 would affect the most linear feet of streams, averaging about 44
percent greater linear feet of stream impacts than DSAs 6 and 7, which would affect the
lowest amount.
o The corridor segments east of I-40 have relatively small differences in wetland and
stream impacts. For this reason, there are relatively small differences in wetland and
stream impacts among the DSAs in each group using a particular corridor segment west
of I-40.
• The estimated cost of the most expensive alternative (DSA 8) is about 17.8 percent greater than
the least expensive option (DSA 2).
• DSAs 6 and 7 are the only options that would affect the Swift Creek Critical Watershed Area.
• DSAs 6 and 7 would affect the largest total acreage of historic sites in the project area affecting
two separate sites. DSAs 3, 10, and 15, which use the Tan Corridor east of I-40, would each
also affect an historic site.
• DSAs 6 and 7(Red Corridor) would have greater than de minimis (minor) effects on four Section
4(fl resources (two historic sites and two planned parks). The Tan Corridor (DSAs 3, 10, and
15) and the Purple Corridor (DSAs 8 through 12) would each also affect a Section 4(� resource.
Tan impacts an historic site and Purple impacts a planned park.
• DSAs 8-12 (PurpleBlue Corridor) would likely shift development farther to the south into more
rural areas, possibly increasing the overall effects of the project on induced land development,
and leading to development patterns that would diverge more notably from those envisioned in
local plans. DSAs 1-5 (Orange Corridor) have the greatest potential to support growth and
development in accordance with local plans.
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

In addition to examining an impact matrix, it is also useful to review a qualitative summary of the
potential benefits and constraints of each option under consideration. Table 2 provides this summary,
breaking the description into the corridor groupings west and east of I-40.
1.6 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The following are impact areas that have been identiiied as potentially important for recommending a
Preferred Alternative. Each of these has been addressed in the Draft EIS and pertinent technical reports.
None of these impacts are primary differentiators in recommending a Preferred Alternative.
While there are two communities in the DSAs that qualify as environmental justice
communities, these would not be disproportionally impacted.
o All of the DSAs except those using the Purple/B1ue Corridor (DSAs 8-12) would
require 17 relocations from a mobile home park on Rhodes Road.
o All of the DSAs would require 6 relocations from a mobile home park on Knightdale
Estate Drive east of Hodge Road, near the eastern terminus of the project.
All 17 DSAs would provide nearly identical levels of service in the design year (2035). The
analysis conducted for interchanges and intersections shows that each would provide at least a
level of service of D or better. This suggests that the project would provide acceptable levels
of service on the study area's future roadway network during peak travel hours. Each of the
DSAs would meet the need for the project by improving mobility and providing better
connections between other transportation routes in and near the project study area.
Qualitative assessment of the project's potential indirect and cumulative impacts indicates that
each of the DSAs would likely lead to induced land development and higher concentrations of
high-density and more intense land uses in the vicinity of the DSAs, especially near interchange
areas. Planners interviewed for this analysis almost universally indicated they anticipate a
continued strong market for development, regardless of whether the Complete 540 project is
built. In other words, the area is expected to experience growth and land use change under
either the build or no-build scenarios. Compared to the no-build scenario, however, the build
scenarios could lead to more rapid growth and more intense development in some areas near
proposed interchanges. However, given that local land use plans anticipate that the Complete
540 project will help concentrate higher-density, mixed use development in key locations, it is
possible that the no-build scenario would promote future development patterns that differ from
those envisioned in local land use plans.
1.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based on the information available to date (including the Draft EIS and comments on the project from
agencies, local government, other organizations, and citizens), the FHWA, NCDOT, and NCTA
recommend DSA 2 as the Preferred Alternative for the Complete 540 project. This alternative
follows the Orange Corridor west of I-40, and then follows the Mint Corridor east of I-40 (using the
southern and northern ends of the Green Corridor to complete the end-to-end alignment). Factors that
influenced this decision are detailed in Sections 2-7 of this report.
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

Table 2: Detailed Study Alternatives — Constraints and Benefits
Corridor Constraints/Issues Benefits
Alternative
Corridors West of I-40
• Broad public support
• Formally supported by nearly all local governments
• Crosses Swift Creek downstream of Lake Benson dam (dwarf • Substantially fewer relocations than other options
Orange Wedgemussel habitat) • Limited development activity since corridor was protected
Corridor . Impacts more acres of wetlands than other options • Extensive public awareness
(DSAs 1-5) . Foundation of several local land use plans
• Higher stream impacts than DSAs 6-7 (Red Corridor) . Avoids non-de minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources
• Fewest involvements with potential hazardous material sites
• Least costl
. Nearly twice as many relocations as DSAs 1-5 (Orange Corridor)
• Crosses numerous established Garner subdivisions
Red • Impacts Greenfield South Business Park . Shortest option
• Only option that crosses Swift Creek Critical Watershed Area . Crosses Swift Creek upstream of Lake Benson dam, avoiding/minimizing
Corridor . Formally opposed by Raleigh, Wake County, Garner and CAMPO impacts to protected dwarf wedgemussel habitat
(DSAs 6 &
�� • Broad public opposition • Minimizes total wetlands impacts
. Impacts four Section 4(f)-applicable resources; more than other options • Minimizes total stream impacts
• Greatest impacts to historic sites
• Would limit the abilit of Garner to achieve its land use plannin ob'ectives
• Over twice as many relocations as DSAs 1-5 (Orange Corridor)
• Impacts more linear feet of streams than other options
• Requires the most land acquisition
• Crosses Swift Creek downstream of Lake Benson dam (dwarf
wedgemussel habitat)
Purple- • Greater potential for induced development
Blue-Lilac • Formally opposed by Wake County, Holly Springs, and Fuquay-Varina
Corridor . Broad public opposition • Potential to serve traffic in growing areas near Fuquay-Varina
(DSAs 8- . Is the most costly alternative
12) • Bisects planned Sunset Oaks Park, a Section 4(f) resource
• Has the potential to impact the Southeast Wake County Park
• Crosses water treatment facility sprayfield area and impacts a portion of
one 25 acre holding pond
• Would limit the ability of Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina to achieve their
land use lanning objectives
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

Table 2: Detailed Study Alternatives — Constraints and Benefits
Corridor Constraints/Issues Benefits
Alternative
• Crosses Swift Creek downstream of Lake Benson dam (dwarf
wedgemussel habitat) Impacts slightly fewer acres of wetlands than DSAs 1-5 (Orange
Lilac • Nearly twice as many relocations as DSAs 1-5 (Orange Corridor) • Corridor)
Corridor . Impacts 27% more linear feet of streams and 32% more acres of wetlands Crosses a narrower portion of Swift Creek and adjacent wetlands than
(DSAs 13- than DSAs 6& 7(Red Corridor) �
DSAs 1-5 (Orange Corridor)
� 7) • Crosses water treatment facility sprayfield area and impacts a portion of Avoids non-de minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources
one 25 acre holding pond �
• Formall opposed b Ralei h and Garner
Corridors East of I-40
• Bisects the Randleigh Farm planned development of Raleigh and Wake • Avoids Clemmons Educational State Forest
Green County • Avoids non-de minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources
Corridor . Formally opposed by Raleigh • Avoids wastewater treatment biosolids facility sprayfield area
(DSAs 1, 6, � Alignment is in close proximity to an anchor and guying wire for a • Avoids police training center on Battle Bridge Road
8, & 13)
communications tower . Formall supported b Wake Count
• Shifts impacts on Randleigh Farm property further to the east
. The least costly options
Mint • Impacts Randleigh Farm property but less than Green Corridor (DSAs 1, Formally supported by Raleigh
Corridor 6, 8, & 13) . Avoids Clemmons Educational State Forest
(DSAs 2, 7, . Alignment is in close proximity to an anchor and guying wire for a Avoids non-de minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources
9, & 14) communications tower �
• Avoids wastewater treatment biosolids facility sprayfield area
• Avoids police training center on Battle Bridge Road
Tan • Impacts Randleigh Farm property but less than Green Corridor (DSAs 1, . Shifts impact on Randleigh Farm property to east parcel area
6, 8, & 13)
Corridor Impacts a historic site, subject to Section 4(f) protection • Avoids communications tower anchor and guying wire
(DSAs 3, � Formally opposed by Raleigh, and Wake County and CAMPO • Avoids wastewater treatment biosolids facility sprayfield area
10, & 15) Im acts Clemmons Educational State Forest • Avoids police training center on Battle Bridge Road
• Impacts wastewater treatment biosolids facility sprayfield area
Brown • Impacts police training center on Battle Bridge Road • Avoids impacts to Randleigh Farm property
Corridor • Has the greatest impact on the Neuse River greenways trail • Avoids communications tower anchor
(DSAs 4, . Impacts Clemmons Educational State Forest • Fewer relocations than DSAs using other options east of I-40
11, & 16) . Impacts the Watershed Extension Loop Trail in Clemmons • Has the lowest impact on floodplains
• Formally opposed b Ralei h
Teal to • Alignment is in close proximity to an anchor and guying wire for a
Brown communications tower . Avoids impacts to Randleigh Farm property
Corridor • Impacts wastewater treatment biosolids facility sprayfield area Avoids Clemmons Educational State Forest
(DSAs 5, . Impacts police training center on Battle Bridge Road �
12, & 17) . Formall o osed b Ralei h
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

2 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
2.1 PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARING
NCDOT held three public meetings and a formal Public Hearing in December 2015 to present details
on the DSAs under consideration for the project and the findings of the Draft EIS and its associated
technical studies. The meetings and the Public Hearing served as opportunities for the public and other
project stakeholders to review the project DSAs and the iindings of the Draft EIS. Displays at these
meetings included maps showing the preliminary functional designs for each of the DSAs, information
summarizing the potential impacts of each DSA, an illustration of the proposed typical section, and
information on the project's purpose and need. A brief informational video providing an overview of
the study process and the project DSAs was shown on a continuous loop at each meeting. A handout
brochure with information about each of the DSAs, potential impacts, the study process, and the project
schedule, was distributed. All displays and meeting materials were, and continue to be, available on the
project website (www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete540). Table 3 summarizes public participation for
the meetings and Public Hearing.
2.2 PUBLIC COMMENTS
During the comment period for the Draft EIS, from early November 2015 through January 8, 2016,
comments addressing the DSAs, the Draft EIS, or other substantive project issues were received from
1,476 commenters. The comments included 255 individual written comment forms plus one completed
comment form photocopied and signed by 527 different individuals, 387 emails, 6letters, and a petition
with 239 signatures. The petition received was signed by residents of Holly Springs, Apex and Cary
expressing support for the Orange Corridor and opposition to the Purple and Blue Corridors. The
photocopied completed comment form supported DSA #1 (Orange Corridor/Green Corridor) and
opposed the Red Corridor and was individually signed by 527 area residents associated with Springiield
Baptist Church.
Table 3: Public Participation at Public Meetings and Public Hearing
Number of Number of
Type of Number of Written Oral
Date Meeting Location Time Attendees Comments Comments
Received Recorded
at Meeting at Meeting
Public Barwell Road
12/7/15 Meeting Elementary 6:00 — 8:00 pm 210 12
School, Ralei h 5
12/8/15 Public Holly Springs High 6:00 — 8:00 pm 264 37
Meeting School
Public 4:00 — 6:30 pm
Meeting Wake Technical
12/9/15 Community 532 85 34
Public College, Raleigh 7:00 — 9:30 pm
Hearing
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

There were also 34 people who gave oral comments during the Public Hearing and 5 people who gave
oral comments at the public meetings on the preceding days. There were also 23 people who submitted
comments via NCDOT's mySidewalk site. Most of the comments expressed support for and/or
opposition to various project alternatives or specific color-coded corridor segments.
The written comment forms included check boxes for commenters to indicate their preferred DSAs.
Commenters could indicate more than one preferred DSA. Most commenters did indicate preferred
DSAs; two comment forms indicated a preference for improving existing roadways instead of building
a new roadway. While selection of a Preferred Alternative is not by popular vote, it is notable that DSA
1(Orange Corridor/Green Corridor) was preferredby the most respondents (680 of 782 comments forms
indicated support for DSA 1). This includes 153 individual comment forms and the 527 identical,
photocopied comment forms.
Emailed comments, letters, and the petition generally cited only particular color-coded corridor
segments, rather than end-to-end DSAs, when indicating preferences and opposition. Some comments
indicated both opposed and preferred corridor segments, while others indicated only one or the other.
Many comments indicated more than one corridor segment that were preferred or opposed. Key
conclusions from a review of expressed preferences and opposition in all of the comments include the
following:
• There is overwhelming support for the Orange Corridor west of I-40. About 93 percent of
submitted comments (those stating support for a color corridor west of I-40) expressed a clear
preference for the Orange Corridor.
• Support for the Red, PurpleBlue, and Lilac Corridors was at 2 percent, 4 percent, and 2 percent,
respectively.
• There is widespread opposition to the Red (58 percent of those stating opposition to a color
corridar west of I-40) and Purple/Blue Corridars (34 percent of those stating opposition to a
color corridor west of I-40).
• There is also notable opposition to the Lilac Corridor, with 7 percent of those stating opposition
to a color corridor west of I-40.
• Only 1 percent of those stating opposition to a color corridor west of I-40 are opposed to the
Orange Corridor.
• There is less of a clear pattern of support and opposition to corridors east of I-40, with most
comments not specifically addressing these options. However, among comments that
specifically addressed the corridors east of I-40, the Green Corridor was most commonly
preferred. The Brown Corridor and the Tan Corridor were most commonly opposed.
While some of the written comments indicated only route preferences, without citing specific reasons
for those preferences, most of the comments that gave specific reasons cited concern about potential
effects on their neighborhoods, communities, and homes, in indicating support for the Orange Corridor
and opposition to other corridors. Many of these responders cited the fact that communities have
planned around the Orange Corridor and residents have made location decisions based on the Orange
Corridor since its protection in 1996 and 1997. Many responders also indicated an opinion that
minimizing impacts on homes, businesses, and neighborhoods should take precedence over minimizing
impacts on natural resources. For the smaller number of responders that specifically mentioned
considerations east of I-40, many also indicated that since a route similar to the Green Corridor has been
shown on planning maps for the past two decades, they have also made location decisions based on that
assumed location for completing the 540 outer loop.
10
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

Among the small number of respondents (4 percent) expressing support for the Purple and/or Blue
Corridors west of I-40, many typically mentioned that growth and traffic patterns have resulted in a
greater need for the project farther south than the Orange Corridor. Among the respondents who
expressed support for the Red Corridor (2 percent) and those who expressed support for the Li1ac
Corridor (2 percent), many typically cited potential environmental and/or neighborhood effects as their
reasons.
While the large majority of public comments dealt with preference for or opposition to certain DSAs or
color-coded corridor segments, other issues were cited in some of the public comments. Some of the
more common issues raised include:
• Questions about whether traffic/to11 revenue on the existing portions of NC 540 is meeting the
levels predicted by NCDOT.
• Concern about the perceived unfairness of tolling the extension of the 540 Outer Loop into
southern Wake County when the northern sections of the Outer Loop are not tolled.
• Statements citing the fact that, since the mid-1990s, the decisions local residents have been
making about where to live and local governments have been making about future land use
plans have been based on the belief that the project would be constructed along the protected
corridor (Orange Corridor).
• Questions about why the project has taken so long and why NCDOT didn't start the
environmental documentation process after the protected corridor was established.
• Questions about why NCDOT can't just widen existing roads (e.g., NC 55, NC 42, Ten Ten
Road) instead of building a new road.
• Questions about where noise barriers will be constructed and when a noise impact study will be
done.
2.3 PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENTS
There have been two previous series of public meetings held for the public to review potential routes
under consideration and other study materials. Large numbers of public comments were submitted
around the time each of those series of public meetings were held. The first series of ineetings was held
in September and December 2010; over 2,300 comments were received during or following those
meetings. Like the current public meetings and Public Hearing, most comments from 2010 addressed
route preferences or opposition, with about 90 percent of comments expressing support for the Orange
Corridor and large numbers expressing opposition to the Blue, Purple, Red, and Tan Corridors. The
second series of ineetings was held in October 2013; over 1,100 comments were received during or
following those meetings, with most expressing support for the Orange Corridor and opposition to the
Purple, Blue, Lilac, Red, and/or Tan Corridors.
In addition to comments submitted during comment periods following these public meetings, local
residents used many other methods to stress support for the Orange Corridor and opposition to the
Purple, Blue, Lilac, Red, and/or Tan Corridors. These included submitting e-mails to
[e-mail], calling the project's toll-free telephone hotline, and submitting organized
petitions. More detailed information about public comments generated prior to November 2015 can be
found in the project's Stakeholder Involvement Report (Lochner, 2015).
2.4 PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY
When considered together over the five years of soliciting public comments on potential routes under
consideration for the Complete 540 project, there is a clear pattern of overwhelming support for the
Orange Corridor west of I-40. There is also a clear pattern of opposition to the Purple, Blue, Lilac, Red
and Tan Corridors. Throughout this time, comments have continued to cite concern about potential
11
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

effects on neighborhoods and communities in indicating support for the Orange Corridor and opposition
to other corridors. Comments have continued to cite the fact that communities have planned around the
Orange Corridor and residents have made location decisions based on the Orange Corridor since its
protection in 1996 and 1997. Commenters have also often indicated an opinion that minimizing impacts
on homes, businesses, and neighborhoods should take precedence over minimizing impacts on natural
resources.
3 OVERVIEW OF OTHER LOCAL INVOLVEMENT
3.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS
Several local governments in the Complete 540 project area submitted formal comments and/or passed
official resolutions concerning the project. Copies of these comments are in Appendix C. Most of
these comments and resolutions specifically addressed the project's DSAs. Local government
comments and resolutions addressing the project's DSAs are noted in Table 4. Most of the comments
from the local governments expressed clear support for project overall and speciiic color-coded
corridors.
Table 4: Local Government Comments/Resolutions on DSAs
Local DSA/Corridor Opposed
Government Preference? DSAs/Corridors Other Information
Holly Springs Orange Corridor None noted . Purple and Blue Corridors would be
(Resolution — more disruptive to Holly Springs and
6/16/15) Fuquay-Varina and would eliminate
parkland.
• Town has utilized the Protected
Corridor (Orange) to plan for existing
and future development.
Fuquay-Varina Orange Corridor None noted . Purple and Blue Corridors would have
(Resolution — greater expense and human impact
6/16/15) on the residents of Fuquay-Varina.
• Town has utilized the Protected
Corridor (Orange) to plan for existing
and future development.
Garner Orange Corridor None noted . Town has utilized the Protected
(Resolution — Corridor (Orange) to plan for existing
7/7/15) and future development.
Wake County Orange Corridor Blue, Purple, Red, . County has utilized the Protected
Board of and Lilac Corridor (Orange) to plan for existing
Commissioners Corridors and future development.
(Resolution — • County landowners have relied upon
9/8/15) the protected Orange Corridor for
many years as they have made
investment decisions.
Wake County Orange Corridor None noted . Purple and Blue Corridors would
Mayors' appear to be more disruptive to
Association residents of Wake County and
(Resolution — eliminate parkland.
9/23/2015)
12
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

Table 4: Local Government Comments/Resolutions on DSAs
Local DSA/Corridor Opposed Other Information
Government Preference? DSAs/Corridors
Garner Orange Corridor Red and Lilac . Red Corridor would negatively impact
(Letter — Corridors a large number of neighborhoods and
12/16/15) residences in Garner.
• Red Corridor would negatively affect
town parks and other facilities.
• Red Corridor would negatively affect
existing and planned commercial
areas, thereby negatively affecting
the town's tax base.
• Lilac Corridor would cause a large
number of residential relocations in
Garner area and would affect the City
of Raleigh Wastewater Biosolids
facility.
Raleigh DSA #2 Red, Lilac, Green, . Red Corridor would directly affect the
(letter — 1/5/16) (Orange Corridor Brown, and Tan Swift Creek Watershed Area, a critical
and Mint Corridors water source.
Corridor) • Lilac Corridor would directly affect
water treatment sprayfields and an
associated holding pond.
• Green Corridor would affect the
proposed school sites in Randleigh
Farm and would affect more of
Randleigh Farm than other options.
• Brown Corridor would negatively
affect the Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant and a City/County
Law Enforcement Training Center
shooting range.
• City opposes Tan Corridor due to
communit impacts.
Benson Orange Corridor None noted . Orange Corridor would decrease
(letter— 1/7/16) commute times and would better
serve truck traffic heading west from
Benson than existing I-40.
Note: NCDOT also received e-mall correspondence from the Town of Cary on 1/7/16, but thls dld not specitically address
support for or opposition to project DSAs.
City of Raleigh staff inet with USACE representatives and members of the project team on March 3,
2016, to discuss the relative impacts of the Orange, Lilac, Teal, and Brown Corridors on city-owned
wastewater and water treatment infrastructure in the project area. During this meeting, City staff
provided detailed information on the potential for the Lilac, Teal, and Brown Corridors to jeopardize
the current and long-term ability of the Ciry to provide both potable water and domestic wastewater
treatment services. Following this meeting, the City of Raleigh submitted a letter to NCDOT on March
17, 2016, summarizing this information. A copy of the letter is in Appendix C.
3.2 PREVIOUS LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS
Local governments have provided comments relating to the project's DSAs at various points in the
project study. In particular, local governments provided comments throughout the project development
process and following release of the project's Draft Alternatives Development and Analysis Report
13
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

(Lochner, 2012). Local governments have passed numerous resolutions and sent numerous letters
addressing the project's DSAs throughout the study. Table 5 summarizes this local input during the
project development. Consistently there has been local government support for the Orange Corridor
and strong local government opposition to the Red, PurpleBlue, and Lilac Corridors. More detailed
information about the previous agency comments generated can be found in the project's Stakeholder
Involvement Report (Lochner, 2015).
Table 5: Previous Local Government Resolutions
Local Government DSA/Corridor Opposed
Preference? DSAs/Corridors
Holly Springs Orange Corridor None noted
(Resolution — 9/21/2010)
Garner Orange Corridor Red Corridor
(Resolution — 10/4/2010)
Wake County Board of Commissioners Orange Corridor Blue, Purple, and Red
(Resolution — 10/18/2010) Corridors
Fuquay-Varina Orange Corridor None noted
(Resolution — 10/19/2010)
Knightdale None noted
(Resolution — 10/20/2010) (general project None noted
support)
Capital Area MPO Orange Corridor None noted
(Resolution — 10/20/2010)
Capital Area MPO None noted Red and Tan Corridors
(Resolution — 3/16/2011)
Capital Area MPO None noted
(Resolution — 5/16/2012) (general project None noted
support)
Holly Springs
(Resolution — 10/1/2013) Orange Corridor None noted
Wake County Board of Commissioners Orange and Green None noted
(Resolution — 10/21/2013) Corridors
Garner Orange Corridor None noted
(Resolution — 10/22/2013)
Capital Area MPO Orange Corridor None noted
(Resolution — 11/20/2013)
3.3 COMMENTS FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
The Regional Transportation Alliance and the Morrisville Chamber of Commerce submitted comments
expressing clear support for project overalL The Garner Chamber of Commerce has stated its formal
opposition to the Red Corridor. The YMCA of Garner has stated its formal support for the Orange
Corridor and opposition to the Red Corridor.
The Southern Environmental Law Center submitted a letter detailing their concerns about the analyses
used in the project, indicating a clear opposition to a new location roadway alternative for the project,
14
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

and suggesting that NCDOT give greater consideration to other options, such as improving existing
roadways.
4 OVERVIEW OF AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
4.1 AGENCY COORDINATION MEETINGS
Agency coordination meetings have been held throughout the project development process to present
information about the proj ect, receive comments on proj ect studies, and solicit issues and concerns from
the federal, state, and 1oca1 resource and regulatory agencies participating in the Complete 540 study
process. Table 6 summarizes the resource and regulatory agency meetings that have been held for the
proj ect.
Table 6: Summary of Resource and Re ulato A ency Meetin s
Agency Meeting Date Purpose
December 8, 2009 Introduce project, draft project study area, Notice of Intent, and draft Section 6002
Coordination Plan
February 16, 2010 Scoping meeting — discussed project study area environmental features and
community characteristics and potential issues of concern
August 10, 2010 Discuss draft Purpose and Need Statement, alternatives screening process,
preliminary study alternatives, and draft Section 6002 Coordination Plan
September 8, 2010 Continue discussion on draft Purpose and Need Statement, alternatives
screening, and preliminary study alternatives
November 2, 2010 Continue discussion on alternatives screening and discuss results of Public
Informational Meetings, including public comments
January 20, 2011 Continue discussion of alternatives development and analysis
August 22, 2012 Discuss project advancement
December 12, 2012 Discuss project status
September 19, 2013 Discuss revised Draft Alternatives Development and Analysis Report and
recommended Detailed Study Alternatives
December 12, 2013 Finalize Detailed Study Alternatives
November 13, 2014 Discuss appropriate locations and lengths of bridges over natural resources along
the projecYs DSAs
December 2, 2014 Field review meeting to reach agreement on appropriate hydraulic conveyance
structure at four sites
August 19, 2015 Discuss project status and reader friendly format for Draft EIS
February 17, 2016 Discuss Draft Preferred Alternative Report
March 16, 2016 Informational meeting on development of functional preliminary plans for DSAs
4.2 AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS
Following publication of the Draft EIS, NCDOT received formal review comments from several federal
and state agencies. Table 7 lists each of the four agencies that submitted comments specifically
addressing the project's DSAs, notes whether the agency indicated any preference among the project's
15
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

DSAs, and indicates other key information the agency provided about its perspective on the DSAs.
Copies of all the comments received from federal and state agencies are in Appendix C.
Table 7: Federal and State Agency Review Comments on DSAs
Agency prefDe ence? Comments
• DSAs 6 and 7(Red Corridor) have lowest impacts on wetlands
& streams and the least direct and indirect effects on the dwarf
wedgemussel (DWM).
• USFWS understands the intense opposition to the Red
Corridor due to its disproportionate impacts on the human
environment.
• DSAs 1 through 5(Orange Corridor) greatly minimize impacts
US Fish & to human environment; however, they have great potential to
Wildlife None noted adversely affect the DWM. USFWS finds the Orange Corridor
Service very problematic.
(11/25/15) • DSAs 8 through 17 (Lilac Corridor) would have very similar,
albeit somewhat lesser adverse effects on the DWM.
• Ability to propagate DW M and augment the population in Swift
Creek will factor significantly in analysis to determine whether
the Complete 540 project will jeopardize the continued
existence of the species.
• USFWS would prefer that the Clemmons Educational State
Forest not be impacted.
US • Notes that DSAs 6 and 7"appear to most closely meet the
Environmental Complete 540's `Purpose and Need."
Protection None noted ' Environmentally prefers DSAs 6 and 7 as having least impacts
Agency to jurisdictional streams and wetlands.
(1/4/16) • Finds DSAs 8-17 problematic because they would have the
most potential to induce indirect effects.
National
Marine • Prefers DSAs 6 and 7 because they avoid impacts to shad
Fisheries DSAs 6& 7 and striped bass and their habitats in Swift Creek, would have
Service smaller impacts to the Neuse River, and would impact the
12/15/15 smallest amount of wetlands and streams.
• Indirect and cumulative effects of the project on induced land
NC Wildlife development will be a key aspect in selecting the Least
Resources Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).
Commission None noted . NCWRC has concerns about the effect of continued
(12/9/15) development in the lower Swift Creek watershed, below the
Lake Benson dam, on long-term viability of the DWM and
other sensitive aquatic species.
Note: NCDOT also received comment letters from the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Deparrinent of Agriculture,
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, and North Carolina Division of Waste Management. These comment letters
did not specifically address support far ar opposition to project DSAs but they are included in Appendix C
4.3 AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT
Following distribution of the Draft Preferred Alternative Report, NCDOT received written comments
from several federal and state agencies. Copies of these comments are in Appendix C. Table 8 lists
each of the agencies that submitted comments on the Draft Preferred Alternative Report and summarizes
those comments. None of the agencies identified any Issues of Concern relative to selection of DSA 2
16
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

as the Preferred Alternative for the Complete 540 project, either in written comments or in oral
comments at Interagency Meetings.
Table 8: Federal and State Agency Review Comments on Draft Preferred Alternative
Report
Agency Comments
NC Wildlife
Resources • Concerned that potential negative effects in area watersheds will continue
Commission to degrade aquatic habitat
2/23/16 • Concerned about high wetland, stream, and buffer impacts.
NC Division of . Avoidance of Water Supply Critical Area watersheds by DSA 2 is a
Water Resources positive.
2/25/16 • Concerned about high wetland, stream, and buffer impacts.
• Would like to see information on impacts to forested land, floodways, and
US Environmental 500-year floodplain.
Protection • Would like to see preliminary designs for DSA 2 and DSA 7.
Agency • Would like to see quantitative information on indirect and cumulative
(3/10/16)* effects.
• Would like to see information on predicted pollutant loading and
avoidance/minimization measures to reduce this effect.
US Army Corps
of Engineers • No objections to proceeding with DSA 2 as the Preferred Alternative.
3/18/16
* Preliminary designs were presented to the agencies at the March 16, 2016, informational Interagency Meeting. A quantitative
assessment of indirect and cumulative effects is being prepared to compare the build to the no-build scenario; the results will
be included in the Final EIS. Impacts to forested land, floodways, and the 500-year floodplain were not a notable factor in
comparing the project DSAs, these items, along with more information about minimization of pollutant loading, will be
included in the Final EIS.
4.4 PREVIOUS AGENCY COMMENTS
Agencies have provided comments relating to the project's DSAs at various points in the project study.
In particular, federal and state agencies provided comments following release of the project's Draft
Alternatives Development and Analysis Report (Lochner, 2012). More detailed information about the
previous agency comments generated can be found in the project's Stakeholder Involvement Report
(Lochner, 2015).
5 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
All comments were reviewed. The comments related to the recommendation of the Preferred
Alternative or include a request for additional information by a commenting agency are included below.
Other substantive comments that were received, including those related to purpose and need, alternatives
development, preliminary designs, construction, the study process, Draft EIS fortnat, project finance,
neighborhoods, natural resources, traffic, and interagency coordination will be addressed in the Final
EIS. There were also editorial comments received about the Draft EIS — these will also be addressed in
the Final EIS.
17
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

The following additional studies will be completed and discussed with the agencies prior to completing
the Final EIS:
• Updated traffic forecast and analysis for the Preferred Alternative.
• Findings of detailed archaeological iield surveys.
• Additional findings of dwarf wedgemussel viability studies and related research.
• Mainline and crossroad design refinements and associated changes in right-of-way and impacts
in response to comments on the Draft EIS, as well as addition and modification of service roads.
• Quantitative study of the indirect and cumulative effects of the Preferred Alternative on land
use and water quality.
Comment: Climate change/greenhouse gas emissions should be addressed, incorporating scenarios
from the National Climate Assessment.
Response: This topic will be investigated further for possible inclusion in the Final EIS. Based on
current understanding, this topic would not have a marked impact on the selection of a Preferred
Alternative as all DSAs would have comparable results.
Comment: Insu�cient information is provided about demographics, including presences of and effects
on environmental justice communities.
Response: Pages 74 and 75 in the Draft EIS report a summary of potential relocation effects to
communities meeting the criteria for environmental justice consideration. The Community Impact
Assessment (Lochner, 2015) fully documents the community demographics within the project study
area. FHWA and NCDOT consider the methodology used to identify potential environmental justice
communities to be sufficient. These standard study procedures have been used on all recent and current
studies of this nature. Two mobile home parks would have relocations impacts. One is located along
all corridors except the PurpleBlue Corridor and the other is located along the Green Corridor where it
is common the all DSAs. The relocation impacts are 17 and 6, respectively. These impacts have been
shown to not be disproportional with other communities along the DSAs.
Comment: Address impacts tofloodways, the S00-yearfloodplain, terrestrialforests, uniquefarmlands,
soils/minerals, and community cohesion.
Response: Floodplain impacts are described on pages 93 and 94 of the Draft EIS; potential impacts to
the 100-year floodplain are reported in the Comparative Evaluation Matrix on page 108. Impacts to the
floodway and the 500-year floodplain will be addressed in the Final EIS.
Pages 29 and 94 in the Draft EIS address terrestrial habitat, which is addressed in greater detail in the
Natural Resources Technical Report (Mulkey, 2014).
Pages 98 and 100 in the Draft EIS summarize potential impacts to farmlands and prime farmland soils
are included in the Comparative Evaluation Matrix on page 109. This topic is further discussed in the
Community Impact Assessment (Lochner, 2015); Appendix F of this report includes the farmland
conversion impact rating forms, developed in collaboration with the National Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). NRCS did not distinguish between prime and unique farmland soils.
Other than farmland soils, no other soils/minerals are included in any applicable Executive Order or
regulation, and these have not been raised as an issue that will affect project decision making by any
agency or the public. For this reason, it was not included in the Draft EIS.
18
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

Community cohesion effects are described on pages 80 and 91 of the Draft EIS, with greater detail in
the Community Impact Assessment (Lochner, 2015).
Comment: Address study area population's use and consuinption of environmental resources.
Response: Use and consumption of environmental resources is not included in any applicable Executive
Order or regulation, and has not been raised as an issue that will affect project decision making by any
agency or the public. For this reason, it was not included in the Draft EIS.
Comment: Address impacts to future land use and transportation plans, cominercial corridors and
nodes, emergency services, and relocations (ability to secure affordable housing), mobility, and access.
Response: All of these items are discussed in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS, with much greater detail
presented in the Community Impact Assessment (Lochner, 2015).
Comment: Impacts to planned Holly Springs Park should be considered Section 4(�.
Response: As described in the Draft EIS, impacts to the planned Sunset Oaks Park in Holly Springs are
indeed considered Section 4(� impacts.
Comment: Address impacts to Neuse River WWTPguardhouse and City ofRaleigh solar array (Brown
Corridor).
Response: These potential impacts will be verified and applicable information will be updated in the
Final EIS and on project maps. However, the current preliminary functional plans far the Brown
Corridor do not impact either of these resources.
6 MINIMIZATION EFFORTS AND IMPACT REDUCTION
All 17 DSAs already incorporate some measures to avoid and minimize impacts. As would be expected
with the placement of a six-lane divided, controlled-access highway in an urban or urbanizing setting,
complete avoidance of resources is not possible. However, alignments were adjusted for each color-
coded corridor segment to avoid or minimize impacts. Additionally, interchange configurations were
developed and reviewed to meet traffic needs as well as to avoid and minimize impacts. Further
measures to avoid and minimize impacts will be incorporated into the fmal design of the highway facility
to the maximum extent practicable. Measures to mitigate for unavoidable impacts will also be
incorporated into the project.
6.1 WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND PONDS
Initial alignments for the 17 DSAs were established to avoid known, mapped natural resources as much
as possible. As technical studies generated more detailed information for these resources, preliminary
functional designs were further adjusted and refined to minimize impacts to these resources.
Various configurations were considered for each planned interchange location. Avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands, streams, and ponds was a key factor in selecting which interchange
configuration to incorporate at each location along with traffic operational characteristics of the
interchange and its ability serve traffic needs.
19
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

There are a total of over 1,200 natural system sites, which include wetlands, streams and ponds, inside
the study corridors along the roughly 100 total miles of the DSAs. To further address avoidance and
minimization of impacts to the sites along the 17 DSAs, the study team met with environmental resource
and regulatory agencies at interagency meetings on November 13 and December 2, 2014, to discuss
bridging decisions and review alignments. The alignment modifications and bridging changes made to
the DSAs as a result of this coordination further minimized impacts to streams and wetlands beyond the
basic requirements for hydraulic conveyance. Table 9 shows the 17 locations along the various color-
coded corridor segments where bridging has been incorporated to avoid or minimize stream and wetland
impacts, along with the estimated impact reductions for each bridge.
The additional bridging along DSA 2(recommendation for the Preferred Alternative) reduces wetland
impacts by 24.5 acres and reduces stream impacts by 5,289 linear feet. Additional impact reductions
will be examined during final design of the proj ect. This effort will be coordinated with environmental
resource and regulatory agencies.
Table 9: Impact Reductions Associated with Bridging
Hydraulically Agreed Stream Wetland
Site Number and Corridor and Re uired u on Impact Impact
Stream Crossing DSA Structure Str cture Reduction Reduction
(linear feet) (acres)
1 Middle Creek Orange DSA 1-17 Culvert Bridge 136 —
1A Middle Creek Orange DSA 1-17 Culvert Bridge 164 —
8 Tributary to Middle Orange DSA 1-7 & Culvert Bridge — 2.3
Creek 13-17
16 Juniper Branch Orange DSA 1-5 & Culvert Bridge 451 1.8
13-17
21 Tributary to Swift Orange DSA 1-5 Culvert Bridge 2,411 6.4
Creek
24 Tributary to Swift Orange DSA 1-5 Culvert Culvert and 1,846 10.4
Creek Brid es
33 Tributary to Neuse Green DSA 1-17 Culvert Bridge 281 2.7
River
35 Yates Branch Red DSA 6-7 Bridge Longer _ 13.9
Brid e
41 Mahlers Creek Red DSA 6-7 Bridge Longer 387 2.1
Brid e
43 White Oak Creek Red DSA 6-7 Culvert Brid e 1,126 6.4
45 White Oak Creek Brown DSA 3-4, gridge Longer �22 2 4
10-11, & 15-16 Brid e
46 Little Creek Brown DSA 3-4, Culvert Bridge 147 4.2
10-11, & 15-16
49 Tributary to Neuse Brown DSA 4-5, Culvert Bridge 565 2.2
River 11-12, & 16-17
54 Swift Creek Lilac DSA 8-17 Bridge Longer 76 0.5
Brid e
63 Tributary to Swift Orange DSA 1-5 Bridge Longer _ � 9
Creek Bridge
68 Terrible Creek Purple DSA 8-12 Bridge Longer 106 2.0
Brid e
74 Little Creek Blue DSA 8-12 Culvert Brid e 434 0.1
TOTALS 8,853 58.4
6.2 SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA
DSAs 6 and 7(Red Corridor) impact the Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area. All other DSAs (1-5
and 8-17) avoid impacting this watershed critical area. EfForts have been made with the preliminary
20
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

functional plans for DSAs 6 and 7 to minimize this unavoidable impact. Bridges are proposed at Swift
Creek both for hydraulic conveyance as well as reducing impacts to the watershed critical area.
Lengthening these bridges has also reduced this impact. DSA 2, the recommendation for the Preferred
Alternative, has no impact on this critical watershed area.
Water quality impact minimization will be achieved through effective use of appropriate best
management practices during construction and operation of this highway. Details on these best
management practices wi11 be developed as the project development process continues through
coordination with appropriate environmental resource and regulatory agencies.
6.3 DWARF WEDGEMUSSEL
The recommendation for the Preferred Alternative (DSA 2) as well all other DSAs except DSAs 6 and
7(Red Corridor) have direct impact to suitable habitat for the federally protected dwarf wedgemussel
(DWM) in and along Swift Creek. Coordination efforts are in progress with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (LTSFWS) on suitable mechanisms for protecting the viability of DWM in Swift Creek. DSAs
6 and 7 cross Swift Creek upstream of the Lake Benson dam, avoiding direct impacts to DWM habitat.
DSAs 6 and 7 do cross streams that feed into Swift Creek below Lake Benson, such as Mahler Creek
and White Oak Creek, but these crossings are near the headwaters of these streams near the limits of the
Swift Creek watershed.
Based on DWM and water quality analysis performed for this project, the long term viability of the
DWM population in Swift Creek appears to be threatened. However, active management and increased
habitat protection may increase the chances for long term viability. Management being considered to
promote long term DWM viability include in-stream habitat monitoring, population augmentation using
captive propagation techniques, continued targeted water quality monitoring, and establishing a DWM-
focused stakeholder group in the lower Swift Creek watershed. Appropriate management strategies will
be determined through continued coordination with USFWS.
Water quality impact minimization will be achieved through effective use of appropriate best
management practices during construction and operation of this highway. Details on these best
management practices will be developed as the project development process continues through
coordination with appropriate environmental resource and regulatory agencies.
7 CONCLUSION
The key considerations in identifying DSA 2 as the Preferred Alternative are listed below. This list does
not represent all the benefits or effects of DSA 2, but instead focuses on those elements that
differentiated DSA 2 compared to the other DSAs.
• Because DSA 2 follows the Orange Corridor west of I-40, it is part of the group of DSAs that
would require substantially fewer relocations than the groups of DSAs following the Red,
Purple/Blue, or Lilac Corridors west of I-40. DSAs using the Red, PurpleBlue, or Lilac
Corridors would result in 60 to 100 percent more relocations than DSA 2.
• DSA 2 would avoid all historic sites and all non-de minimis impacts to Section 4(� resources.
• DSA 2 would avoid the Swift Creek Critical Watershed Area.
• DSA 2 would avoid impacts to the Neuse wastewater treatment sprayfields in the project area
and would also avoid impacts to the Raleigh police training center on Battle Bridge Road.
21
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

• DSA 2 would affect a smaller number of linear feet of streams than 11 of the other 16 DSAs.
• The Orange Corridor has broad public support and has been formally supported by nearly all
local governments.
• Because it follows the Orange Corridor, DSA 2 would have a lower potential to induce
development conflicting with local plans than options using the Purple/Blue Corridor.
• By following the Mint Corridor, DSA 2 would result in slightly smaller impacts to streams and
wetlands than the similar DSA 1.
• While both the Green and Mint Corridors would affect the planned Randleigh Farm
development, the Mint Corridor would shift the impacts closer to the edge of the property,
allowing more of the property to be developed according to existing plans.
• The Mint Corridor is the only option east of I-40 that has not been formally opposed by any of
the local governments in the proj ect area and has been formally supported by the City of Raleigh.
• DSA 2 would be the least costly alternative.
• None of the environmental resource and regulatory agencies has identified any Issues of
Concern with respect to selecting DSA 2 as the Preferred Alternative.
22
Preferred Alternative Report
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016

APPENDIX A
Individual Maps of the Detailed Study Alternatives
Appendix A - 1

�'�, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
, �—� ` � �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �- �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - - .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
.'»e � � �' �'��. -- � � � � . , . !'
c
_ � � � ''� � - . <.� �
�,�,�' � ' .. . . �� . �
..�_"" _ . . . _ . . �
55
, h , i
O I � j
APEX '' l� — l� P�% i r � P
� - T U ,,r, `� - � - / i �
S m �' I
-- .. —
�. —
►� � �I
— i L _ — — ' � � ! 401 70 ' �,se Ri� �
.� —� ���.� � �r�� � N2
,. � � � T�-� � � ��'�
� � ' ,j- I �dk GARNER ,-, n� /
TOLL ;��I�� �.��,,,', ��-- F�hee�e , � _ /
540 r _ `'t—� i _J�— ,j" /
� �, R .�/�� ` l , '+� �� , - -1 � � � - �. / � I
i �� °`� ,,� � , _ i ,�,-,J ��
I — � � �, - La� � f � , ��� � �, � /—
e ge � � �� r�o
�� _ � �� nsor� � � ; ,�� 1
� 1 HOLLY � � � ,`/
�.
, ���+ � � �
SPRINGS �'? f 1,� �'�''_TPn 50 o CLAYTON
—._ ! �\ �. S ' I �. R�' � � `f
\ �'' � ?-
'�� � .r i'" �-1� � il -��
`� ' , �r 401 ,,,. �� 1 �;� ��
:�,�I 'a �x / � �: �.
55 ,� ; �, s. 70 � �— ,,� ��
' �J �,
i b �_ � � �
J— � �`� �reek ` �i 5r : ,, y
. � J /. � ��
;�� 1 rz ` "` Pe/c � N
`�� � �� ��� — �c _ ' °� ?,
� �--_�— � `�. — i, =� . 42 � � �_ 42 � �
`� i O , 0 1 2 3 4
\ F U Q U AY- �. m r �� ���. � �
I �..-_ . ���� . `'l
� VARINA - �----� -- �� `� miles
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 . � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 1 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 2

���, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
, �—� ` � �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �- �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - - .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
.'»e � � �' �'��. -- � � � � . , . !'
c
_ � � � ''� � - . <.� �
�,�,�' � ' .. . . �� . �
..�_"" _ . . . _ . . �
55
, h , i ,
O � j
APEX ' � ��—�� � � F�� �` �� - _ ��
� _ � � , —, P
j T � �,r' °� - � - �
s m � ►
-- _ —
�. —
►� � �I
— i L _ — — ' � � ! 401 70 ' �,se Ri� �
.� —� ���.� � �r�� � N2
fi- - � � � ��'�
� � ' ,j- I �dk GARNER ,-, n� /
TOLL ;��I�� �.��,,,', ��-- F�hee�e , � _ /
540 r _ `'t—� i _J�— ,j" /
� �, R .�/�� ` l , '+� �� , - -1 � � � - �. / � I
i �� °`� ,,� � , _ i ,�,-,J �`
I — � � �, - La� � f � , ��� � �, � /—
e ge � � �� r�o
�� _ � �� nsor� � � ; ,�� 1
� 1 HOLLY � � � ,`/
�.
, ���+ � � �
SPRINGS �'? f 1,� �'�''_TPn 50 o CLAYTON
—._ ! �\ �. S ' I �. R�' � � `f
\ �'' � ?-
'�� � .r i'" �-1� � il -��
`� ' , �r 401 ,,,. �� 1 �;� ��
:�,�I 'a �x / � �: �.
55 ,� ; �, s. 70 � �— ,,� ��
' �J �,
i b �_ � � �
J— � �`� �reek ` �i 5r : ,, y
. � J /. � ��
;�� 1 rz ` "` Pe/c � N
`�� � �� ��� — �c _ ' °� ?,
� �--_�— � `�. — i, =� . 42 � � �_ 42 � �
`� i O , 0 1 2 3 4
\ F U Q U AY- �. m r �� ���. � �
I �..-_ . ���� . `'l
� VARINA - �----� -- �� `� miles
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 . � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 2 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange 0 �reen 0 rvi;nt indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 3

�'�, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
, �—� ` � �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �- �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - - .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
:'» � � �' �'�'. -- � � � � . �i
c
_ � � � ''� � - . <.� �
�,�,�' � ' .. . . �� . �
..�_"" _ . . . _ . . �
55
, h , i ,
� I � � �
A P EX �� ,. , l�- — l� P�� i r � , P
� - T U I,r� � - � - " �
S � � �` � � ' � � ►
_- ,� �
�. -
� � �
, .. . - - � � � ! , II .
7O e R �
— _. I, �-. .. r IL ���' � 4 O 1 � N e os lIG�
� ' -- � � r� 1 �� '`�- /
�,
� � ,j_ �I` tdk GARNER ,-, n !r�
F
To�� ,��I�� �:�;;�..,1�.- �Lhe / ; ��: .� r ,
540 e er %'t—��i _� J ��� /
�, .\/" '� � , - � � l'� �. / �
� ���� R� � � , � �Q il,`'! �,
� L 7L
I�
I __ � � � � ake� , , _ � �, � /—
� 'C� Benson r ; ,� 1�
- �� � � �
� 1 HOLLY + � � � ' ,� -
_ I � SPRINGS � � �1 ,` ',,�_TPn 50 J `-, o CLAYTON
_; � S ,i ,p�,
; �s;: i �. � - ` '� /f
\ �� _ . � ,. r �_,
`� � , �3r 401 ,,,. �� 1 �;� ��
;,^,�� •ry tj,� � f i� � �.
55 ,� ; �, s. 70 � �— ,,� ��
' �J �,
i b �_ � � �
J- � �`� �reek ` �i 5r : ,, y
. � J /. � ��
;�� 1 rz ` "` Pe/c � N
`�� � �� ��� — �c _ ' °� ?,
� �--_�— � `�. — i, =� . 42 � � �_ 42 � �
`� i O , 0 1 2 3 4
\ F U Q U AY- �. m r �� ���. � �
I �..-_ . ���� . `'l
� VARINA - �----� -- �� `� miles
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 . � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� � For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange � �rown 0 ran 0 �reen indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 4

�'�, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
, �—� ` � �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �— �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - — .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _- ',�!r
� �, � ` � , . ;�
� <,;
t
- r �� � � i ''� t. �
, ' � . 1
55
� ,
, h , i ,
O I � � ,
APEX ,., l�— l� P�� ir � P
� - �'I ,, `
1 T � '�'° °� " � - � �, _ �
S m �` � f � ►
.. , .. ,
� —
-- ..—�' r
� _ r � /
�
�. 401 70 ; �Se R�G /I
_I� .. •. � r iJ� � ..\ Ne �
� -_ � � r � �, ,�` �_ �'�'1, /
� �,j_ � I.. tdk GARNER ,-, n � /
F
To�� ,���� �,��;;�..,1�- `vhe , ; � � ,
540 e er _ %'�-'�1 -� J /
�, .�/" ,,� � , - � � l'� _ � / �
� ���� R� � � , � �Q il,`'! �,
� L 7L
I -- � � � � ak�� � � , � �� �- � /—
�� '.�C� Benso„ � 9 1�
- �� � �
� 1 HOLLY f �. . �� `.,� -
_ I � SPRINGS � ` �1 ,� '';''_TPn 50 o CLAYTON
_; � S ,i ,p�,
; �s;: i �. � - ` '� /f
\ �� _ . � ,. r �_,
`� � , �3r 401 ,,,. �� 1 �;� ��
;,^,�� •ry tj,� � f i� � �.
55 ,� ; �, s. 70 � �— ,,� ��
' �J �,
i b �_ � � �
J— � �`� �reek ` �i 5r : ,, y
. � J /. � ��
;�� 1 rz ` "` Pe/c � N
`�� � �� ��� - �c _ ' °� ?,
� �--_�— � `�. — i, =� . 42 � � �_ 42 � �
`� i O , 0 1 2 3 4
\ F U Q U AY- �. m r �� ���. � �
I �..-_ . ���� . `'l
� VARINA - �----� -- �� `� miles
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 . � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� � For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange � �rown 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 5

�'�, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
, �—� ` � �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �— �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - — .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
� �, � ` � , . ;�
� <,;
t
- r �� � � i ''� t. �
, ' � . 1
55
� ,
, h , i ,
O I � � ,
APEX ,., l�— l� P�� ir � P
� - �'I ', `
1 T � '�'° °� " � - � �, _ �
S m � � ' �� I
.. , .. ,
�
-- ..—�' r
� _ r � /
� II
. �,L----'—� 401 70 Ne�Se R'� �
, � _ — — fi'' 1 �-� I'�
, �,
� ' -� I �dk GARNER ,-, n�� I
TOLL ;��I�� F �h �
�,��,�,, 1�.. ee/er � �
540 %'t—� i -� , j� �
� �, R .�/�� ` l , �'+� � i - -1 � � � - a / � I
" a. � � ,�,-�� ��
i �
. a � ��� � � ��� ���. � ,—
z
�r ��- d
I — �_ `.0 k�' Benson ° ��� �° � � 1
� � � H O L LY + � �.� ° •.; � -
� SPRINGS ``�-f , f 1,� ',,�_T�nR 50 , o CLAYTON
�\ ��.� i �. `� � � `f
\ �� _ . � ,. r �_,
`� � , �3r 401 ,,,. �� 1 �;� ��
;,^,�� •ry tj,� � f i� � �.
55 ,� ; �, s. 70 � �— ,,� ��
' �J �,
i b �_ � � �
J— � �`� �reek ` �i 5r : ,, y
. � J /. � ��
;�� 1 rz ` "` Pe/c � N
`�� � �� ��� — �c _ ' °� ?,
� �--_�— � `�. — i, =� . 42 � � �_ 42 � �
`� i O , 0 1 2 3 4
\ F U Q U AY- �. m r �� ���. � �
I �..-_ . ���� . `'l
� VARINA - �----� -- �� `� miles
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 . � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� � For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange 0 creen 0 Teal _ arown indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 6

`, _, r_. _i KNIGHTDALE
.�-�, �,-�_
��
55
�
TOLL
540
�
—,
�
�f
� ��
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 6 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange _ Red 0 �reen indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 7

`, _, r_. _i KNIGHTDALE
.�-�, �,-�_
��
55
�
TOLL
540
�
—,
�
�f
� ��
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� � For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange _ Red 0 rw;nt 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 8

�'�, _' � r-.� ,_i KNIGHTDALE
�-� .� �
_ . RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �- �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - - .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
.'»e � � �' �'��. -- � � � � . , . !'
c
_ � � � ''� � - . <.� �
�,�,�' � ' .. . . �� . �
..�_"" _ . . . _ . . �
55
, h , i
O I � j
APEX '' l� — l� P�% i r � P
� - T U ,,r, `� - � - / i �
S m �' I
-- .. -
�. -
►� � �I
— i L _ — — ' � � ! 401 70 ' �,se Ri� �
.� —� ���.� � �r�� � N2
,. � � � T�-� � � ��'�
� � ' ,j- I� �dkN GARNER ,-, n� /
TOLL ,���� ,�r �h .
540 ��`� ee/er `�'�1 _� J /
� _ ��_ �
� p �eo.je `�/ ` �'. i - � � - �� L � +
i n Rd. � '� - - ` � �"� ,� '-,� `�
— � � ' � � Ld� � f �� �%—
�. �
� -1I=� _ �� � � � �< � B�ns���,�� � �� � '�
� H O LLY � �' -� �'�� � �'�
—� I ' '_' ' " ., r` • _. - _ � , � �
, �� SPRINGS �-S , � , - �, � ; -- - TQo.pe�R� 5O . ` / CLAYTON
, �� - r' {� � f
°,` �- , � i
` : . �,J J � "
;
�,��� �
� � 4�� a-. ' `.lv�c�.t ,� �'U,Y; � �'
� �i r---� ��
55 ,'.i y_ ryry/ ..� � s;, ' 70 , — �•, �
` b ...,�_ \� .. ' .f� �
� % y� ,,,, �
J— '�'
♦ ' � - �Pelc � ` N
� ��� � � � � �
� �� i- ♦-� : �� 42 ' �
`
ie 42 �—` - 0 1 2 3 4
� i . .
\ FUQUAY-�`mi �!ral,� _r��r.-. I I
J I �. .- _ . . . . __ . _ .�. � �, . . -y � � � �' . 'l
VARINA � �� m��es
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 - � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� O For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange � Purple 0 Blue 0 �ilac 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 9

���, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
�-� .� �
_ . RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �- �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - - .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
.'»e � � �' �'��. -- � � � � . , . !'
c
_ � � � ''� � - . <.� �
�,�,�' � ' .. . . �� . �
..�_"" _ . . . _ . . �
55
, h , i ,
O � j
APEX � ' � �� — � � � F� � � ` �� - _ ��,��
� _ � � , -, P
j T � �,r' °� - � � �
s m � ►
-- _ —
�. —
►� � �I
— i L _ — — ' � � ! 401 70 ' �,se Ri� �
.� —� ���.� � �r�� � N2
fi- - � � � ��'�
� � ' ,j- I� �dkN GARNER ,-, n� /
TOLL ,���� ,�r �h .
540 ��`� ee/er `�'�1 _� J /
� _ ��_ �
� p �eo.je `�/ ` �'. i - � � - �� L � +
i n Rd. � '� - - ` � �"� ,� '-,� `�
— � � ' � � Ld� � f �� �%—
�. �
� -1I=� _ �� � � � �< � B�ns���,�� � �� � '�
� H O LLY � �' -� �'�� � �'�
—� I ' '_' ' " ., r` • _. - _ � , � �
, �� SPRINGS �-S , � , - �, � ; -- - TQo.pe�R� 5O . ` / CLAYTON
, �� - r' {� � f
°,` �- , � i
` : . �,J J � "
;
�,��� �
� � 4�� a-. ' `.lv�c�.t ,� �'U,Y; � �'
� �i r---� ��
55 ,'.i y_ ryry/ ..� � s;, ' 70 , - �•, �
` b ...,�_ \� .. ' .f� �
� % y� ,,,, �
J— '�'
♦ ' � - �Pelc � ` N
� ��� � � � � �
� �� i- ♦-� : �� 42 ' �
`
ie 42 �—` - 0 1 2 3 4
� i . .
\ FUQUAY-�`mi �!ral,� _r��r.-. I I
J I �. .- _ . . . . __ . _ .�. � �, . . -y � � � �' . 'l
VARINA � �� m��es
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 - � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 9 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange � Purple 0 Blue 0 �ilac 0 Green 0 Mint indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 10

���, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
, �—� ` � �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �— �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - — .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
:'» � � �' �'�'. -- � � � � . �i
c
_ � � � ''� � - . <.� �
�,�,�' � ' .. . . �� . �
..�_"" _ . . . _ . . �
55
, h , i ,
� I � � �
A P EX �� ,. , l�- — l� P�� i r � , P
� - T U I,r� � - � - " �
S � � �` � � ' � � ►
_- ,� �
�. -
� � �
, .. . - - � � � ! , II .
7O e R �
— _. I, �-. .. r IL ���' � 4 O 1 � N e os lIG�
� ' -- � � r� 1 �� '`�— /
�,
� � ,j_ �I` tdk GARNER ,-, n !r�
1`� 1 F
540 ;��I�\ �%'%�,, • ,�t" �hee�e '; � �� : .� �
� � � � _ ;� i
-� J
p TeO.le ` r � . i , -( -r ` �~ 1 � �. / r +
� ° Ra• �1 � �� �1 \ � �� ��� ''! �,
I -- � � � ,�� � �- Lak�� I ,' l � �� j—
� 1I=�..�� � r � ���`� B�ns�>,�� � � � _ � .�� �'
� � H O LLY � --� � ��� , � '� ��� �
—i � �r- �=; " .� r _. - _ � � /
, �� SPRINGS � � , - �,.: - - TQo.pe�R� 5O , o CLAYTON
� �' - r' {� � �f
�'� .�"• ' ? `-
: �
;
�,��� �
`� � 4 � � a - . ' `.lv�c�.t � �' U,,� ; � ��
„ ., �� _ � ' �i�, ,,�, r +� E � / � ,
55 , ry, 5 � 70 , - , �
- ..J �, �
l �� b .� \� .. ' .f�_
� % y� ,,,, �
J— '�'
♦ ' � - �Pelc � ` N
� ��� � � � � �
� �� i- ♦-� : �� 42 ' �
`
ie 42 �—` - 0 1 2 3 4
� i . .
\ FUQUAY-�`mi �!ral,� _r��r.-. I I
J I �. .- _ . . . . __ . _ .�. � �, . . -y � � � �' . 'l
VARINA � �� m��es
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 - � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 1 o For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange _ Purple 0 alue 0 �il�c � Brown 0 Tan 0 �reen indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 11

�'�, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
, �—� ` � �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �— �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - — .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
� �, � ` � , . ;�
� <,;
t
- r �� � � i ''� t. �
, ' � . 1
55
� ,
, h , i ,
O I � � ,
APEX ,., l�— l� P�� ir � P
� - �'I ,, `
1 T � '�'° °� " � - � �, _ �
S m �` � f � ►
.. , .. ,
� -
-- ..-�' r
� _ r � /
�
�. 401 70 ; �Se R�G /I
_I� .. •. � r iJ� � ..\ Ne �
� —_ � � r � �, ,�` �_ �'�'1, /
I i - i'� � .: �
ly' I � GARNER �- n / ,
� ' I-`
TOLL ;r;l�l�\ �`�"%�,, ;,�t" kN hee/er ' � ' � r /
540 ' � _;'t—� i -� � r'� /
� �Y_ � �
p Te�.len Ra 1 r, �,. i _ _' ` 1��._ � J� � 1
i � \ �
I _ � � � � ���- �ak � I � � � . �� , �%—
� � e g �� �
_ �, � = � f enson � - �� 1
� 1 H O L LY �I=l� � �_. -� � �- �, ` `! -
, ��I � �' �, � J � �
SPRINGS `�-S , � , - �, ` - - TQo.pe�R� 5O , o CLAYTON
� �' - r' {� � �f
�'� .�"• ' ? `-
: �
;
�,��� �
`� � 4 � � a - . ' `.lv�c�.t � �' U,,� ; � ��
„ ., �� _ � ' �i�, ,,�, r +� E � / � ,
55 , ry, 5 � 70 , - , �
- ..J �, �
l �� b .� \� .. ' .f�_
� % y� ,,,, �
J— '�'
♦ ' � - �Pelc � ` N
� ��� � � � � �
� �� i- ♦-� : �� 42 ' �
`
ie 42 �—` - 0 1 2 3 4
� i . .
\ FUQUAY-�`mi �!ral,� _r��r.-. I I
J I �. .- _ . . . . __ . _ .�. � �, . . -y � � � �' . 'l
VARINA � �� m��es
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 - � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 1� For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange _ Purple 0 alue 0 �il�c � Brown 0 �reen indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 12

���, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
, �—� ` � �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �— �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - — .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
� �, � ` � , . ;�
� <,;
t
- r �� � � i ''� t. �
, ' � . 1
55
� ,
, h , i ,
O I � � ,
APEX ,., l�— l� P�� ir � P
� - �'I ', `
1 T � '�'° °� " � - � �, _ �
S m � � ' �� I
.. , .. ,
�
-- ..—�' r
� _ r � /
� II
. �,L----'—� 401 70 Ne�Se R'� �
, � _ — — fi'' 1 �-� I'�
, �,
� ' -� I.: tdk GARNER ,-, n�� I
�To�� ;��i�� ,1�- F`vh ,�
540 ��`� ee/er %'�—'�1 /
`- _�� J�y /
� p �eo.le ` (+ '+� ' � i -( -f t � - �. / � �
i n R0`• � � _ 1 �� .•� '� -'� �
I -- � � ' � � lak � �� I f l �� � j—
� �
� -1I=� _ �� � � � �<� � B�ns��,�� � �� � '�
� H O LLY � �' -� �'�� � �'�
—� I ' '_' ' " ., r` • _. - _ � , � �
, �� SPRINGS �-S , � , - �, � ; -- — TQo.pe�R� 5O . ` / CLAYTON
, �� - r' {� � f
°,` �- , � i
` : . �,J J � "
;
�,��� �
� � 4�� a-. ' `.lv�c�.t ,� �'U,,� ; � �,'
� �i r---� ��
5 5 ,'.i y _ ryry/ ..� � s;, ' 70 , — �• , ••�
` b ...,�_ \� .. ' .f� �
� % y� ,,,, �
J— '�'
♦ ' � - �Pelc � ` N
� ��� � � � � �
� �� i- ♦-� : �� 42 ' �
`
ie 42 �—` - 0 1 2 3 4
� i . .
\ FUQUAY-�`mi �!ral,� _r��r.-. I I
J I �. .- _ . . . . __ . _ .�. � �, . . -y � � � �' . 'l
VARINA � �� m��es
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 - � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 1� For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
0 orange _ Purple 0 alue 0 �il�c 0 �ree�, 0��-�i � Brown indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 13

�'�, _ � � � ,� � _i � � �� KNIGHTDALE
�—� � .� �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, _ C A R Y ;;l � � ,.'`� 64 264 -. � — �
� ,T � �� � � o � �
�. `:"� 64 . � ;�' � -
r� , -- ,�.�•r �
� �, � � ` � J ` , �;
t
_ � � i � ��� � <,, 7
, ' � 1
55
� _
, h , i
O I � j
APEX '' l� — l� P�% i r � i
� - T U ,,r, `� - � - / i �
S m �' 1
_- ,^ �
�. -
► r � �
— i L _ — — ' � � ! 401 70 ' �,se Ri� �
.� —� ���.� � �r�� � N2
fi � � � ���
� � ' ,j- I �dk GARNER ,-, n� /
TOLL ;��I�� �.��,,,', ��-- F�hee�e " � /
540 � _%'t—� i -� , j� �
� �, R .�/�� ` l , �'+� �� , - -1 � � - �. / � �
"' a. � - . , j� \
i � L �•�
I -- � � � ak� I� � ��,,� � �`
' - n � -�.�C� �' Benso„ �
� ° � �' ~ `' � -
—� � HOLLY f � � � �
� SPRINGS �?� 1,� �'�''_TPn 50 o CLAYTON
! �N �;� S � = �. ,p`�' � � f
�-. , � !
�\ � _ . r r'� � 1" �� � � ,
�
- �� 1 � 'T 401 2,. �' 1 "��� -����
,� ' y � �,''�..,�
_ 5 5 �� � _ � ry ,�
'` � �, 5�, % 70 :� �
� :.���b �—r . 4 � �.. . � .f" \
J
f `l
C' , r I
�- � � i�� �eek �� " �i i( ��� ,, � ��'',
�� ' � �1 jz � � :� � 1 Pe/c � � f' N
��� � �� ��� - '� ' V� �
,� �-� � .-` _ : i �: , 42 � � 42 � �
`� i O , 0 1 2 3 4
\ F U Q U AY- �. m r �� ���. � �
` �..-_ . ���� . `'l
JI VARINA -.. --.- .�----� -- �� `� � miles
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 . � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 1� For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
��;ange 0 �ilac 0 �reen indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 14

�'�, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
, �—� ` � �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �– �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - — .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
.'»e � � �' �'��. -- � � � � . , . !'
c
_ � � � ''� � - . <.� �
�,�,�' � ' .. . . �� . �
..�_"" _ . . . _ . . �
55
, h , i ,
O � j
APEX � ' � �� — � � � F� � � ` �� - _ ��,��
� _ � � , —, P
j T � �,r' °� - � � �
s m � ►
-- _ —
�. —
►� � �I
— i L _ — — ' � � ! 401 70 ' �,se Ri� �
.� —� ���.� � �r�� � N2
fi- - � � � ��'�
� � ' ,j- I �dk GARNER ,-, n� /
TOLL ;��I�� �.��,,,', ��-- F�hee�e , � _ /
540 � _%'t—� i -� , j� �
� �, R .�/�� ` l , �'+� �� , - -1 � � - �. / � �
" a. � � _ �;-�! ,
i L �
I -- � � � � ak � � �' � �—� ,, � � j'
' - n � �.�C� �' Benso„ �
� u � �. 1 :,� -
—� � HOLLY f � � � �
� SPRINGS �'?� 1,� �'�''_TPn 50 o CLAYTON
—._ ! �\ �. S ' i �. ��' � . `/
i �'• ' ?!
'�� � .r i'" �-1� � il -��
`� ' , �r 401 �,. �� ' �;� ��
:�,'� 'ry ��' / � �: �.
55 ; �, �s�, %' 70 � �— ,,� ���
i b � � � �
� � `
�'r � y
� �_ � � i'� eek � �i i(�� � I
♦ ,� � F '_ � , � ,P ��� N
\ Y �k` `
.. ``� � � �O /�� -- � � �V1 e'r ��
��_ : .. � ` , T
� 1 `�. - i =� . � ,( � 42 � �
`� i 42 - - , - 0 1 2 3 4
\ F U Q U AY- �. m r �� ���. � �
I �..-_ . ���� . `'l
� VARINA - �----� -- �� `� miles
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 . � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 1� For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
��;ange 0 �ilac 0 �reen 0 Mint indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 15

�'�, _ � � � ,� � _i � � �� KNIGHTDALE
�—� � .� �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, _ C A R Y ;;l � � ,.'`� 64 264 -. � — �
� ,T � �� � � o � �
�. `:"� 64 . � ;�' � -
r� , -- ,�.�•r �
� �, � � ` � J �;
t
_ � � i � ��� � <,, 7
, ' � 1
55
� ,
, h , i ,
� I � � �
A P EX �� ,. ,' l�- —� l� P�� i r � I i
� - T U I,r� � - � - " �
S m � �- � � ' � � 1
_- ,� �
�. -
� � �
, .. . - - � � � ! � I �
– �, . �,L_--- 401 70 Ne�,se Ri� �
, � -- _ — — r— 1 �-G ``--- � �
���
� �,j_ I.. tdkN GARNER ,-, n � I
To�� ,���� �,��;;�..,1�- `vhe , ; � � �
540 e er ,_ `'�—'�1 -� f� J ,; _ �
p :. Y �., ��.:. I ,. _ - —' c �~ � �1. , ,_-,� . .i. .. � I I
�"' Ra. ,� � \� ,�;� t
i L � �
I _ � � � .- d/�.P. .. I� . . .. �___ `�, �
_ � �.�C� Benso�i�� � � _ � 9� l�
� � � '� `,' -
—� � HOLLY f �
� SPRINGS �'?� 1,� �'�''_TPn 50 o CLAYTON
��N �S 'i � R�. �. ' f
�i �'' ' 1' _ !
'�� � .r i'" �-1� � il -��
`� ' , �r 401 �,. �� ' �;� ��
- ° ',^,,'� 'ry �f . . / � �: , . �`�..
55 ry. 5<, % 70 � �- ,� �
i b � � � .�"
� �.
� � �
J_ � i`;� reek ` ` Yi � i( � � . � ,/'
♦ � rz ' ' � P � � N �
_ ` ' � �;� / � � , "` e �t ,
'\ _ - - , `• �
� ♦ 42 �' �
`S� t--�`-' i � � — I =," , ! � ,(
`� i 42 - , - 0 1 2 3 4
\ F U Q U AY- �. m r �� ���. � �
` �..-_ . ���� . `'l
JI VARINA -.. --.- .�----� -- �� `� � miles
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 . � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 1�7 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
� orange 0 �ilac � erown 0 Tan � Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 16

� � � � i ��� - � ���� � � �
�-
_- � �=� � �_i
_, _ �s' --
1 i
�
�; � ��. � �
RALEIGH
�i �
KNIGHTDALE
.� �
�
.,.-�. ,� � _
C A R Y ,';i � , y . 64 264 �
J� - '�;T � ;� 64 � ,_ — •�i :�"' � � ` + �
� _ � � .r 1
� r � � �� 1
� � <;; (
t
1 � - � i ''� t.
� , ' �' . �
''�"�� ,
55
, h , i ,
O � � ,
A P EX �� ,. , l� — l� P�� i r � ' /
� - T U ,,r, `� - � " " �-, _ �
S m �` � f � �
_- � ` – ,
,..
-- ..–�' r _
.'\, ` _ r � � .
/ I-
� �. — — ' — � 401 70 ; �se RiD�
li � _ r
tJ� Ne � ,._��
'� � � � � � � � ��m � � � " � �' i
i i I_ � I.. tdkN GARNER ,-, n � I ,_� '� �
TOLL ;��I�� �.��,,,',, ��-- �hee� i /
540 e� %'�—'�1 _J�— J � / _ , �
�/ '+� . i - -� � � � --*�i_ .�. / � �
p „ Ra. ,� ,l , - �'� . ,�,-�� -
� — �� � �, Ld�� � f � �� � � �' , � /— � �
B
.,n
_ ~.< cn
s ,
l
� o �
� ���
u /
� � ��' � `�_
� HOLLY �
– —� + � �/
__ � SPRINGS � � �1 ,` �'`'�_TPn 50 o CLAYTON � �
�� ��. S ' i� �. �`�' � � ; `f -
. , ?',
\ ; ,. , .
r r'� , �� � -.
� ���� 1 �� 401 ,�,. � �� � �'� ��
, ` � � � � �. ,�
, 55 � � _ �< ry�,� ,� s;, ,' 70 : \
. r ._ � ,b . 4 \ (D . , .. .. ' .f� �
�J \(1 �i � �
J— -� i'� `eek " �i i(� � .�
� \ J .
� /
— ` ' � 1 Fz ' < 'w � 1 Pe/c � � N
♦ t�` ,�� �c
�� �_��, � -�� — , 42 � �
�i. i �`� I� J 4 2 �� _ - 0 1 2 3 4
\ O
\ F U Q U AY- �. m r �� ���. � �
� r <�
r` ,a..— ... . _- .- ._.����� �� � � \,� � miles
1 VARINA �
(approximate)
i 42 401 55 - � ,� �
�
�
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� � 6 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
� orange 0 �ilac ��roU-n � Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 17

�'�, _, r_.� � _i � � KNIGHTDALE
, �—� ` � �
RALEIGH � �
�<���_
, C A R Y ;;l � �,.'`� 64 264 -. �— �
'�;T � ;� 64 � - — .�. �,, � o ` i
r� , _— ',�!r
� �, � ` � , . ;�
� <,;
t
- r �� � � i ''� t. �
, ' � . 1
55
� ,
, h , i ,
O I � � ,
APEX ,., l�— l� P�� ir � P
� - �'I ', `
1 T � '�'° °� " � - � �, _ �
S m � � ' �� I
.. , .. ,
�
-- ..–�' r
� _ r � /
� II
. �,L----'—� 401 70 Ne�Se R'� �
, � _ — — fi'' 1 �-� I'�
, �,
� ' -� I �dk GARNER ,-, n�� I
TOLL ;��I�� F �h �
�,��,�,, 1�.. ee/er � �
540 %'t—� i -� ; j� �
� �, R .�/�� ` l , �'+� �� , - -1 � � - �. / � �
" a. � � _ �;-�! ,
i L �
I -- � � � � ak � � �' � �—� ,, � � j'
' - n � �.�C� �' Benso„ �
� u � �. 1 :,� -
—� � HOLLY f � � � �
� SPRINGS �'?� 1,� �'�''_TPn 50 o CLAYTON
–._ ! �\ �. S ' i �. ��' � . `/
i �'• ' ?!
'�� � .r i'" �-1� � il -��
`� ' , �r 401 �,. �� ' �;� ��
:�,'� 'ry ��' / � �: �.
55 ; �, �s�, %' 70 � �— ,,� ���
i b � � � �
� � `
�'r � y
� �_ � � i'� eek � �i i(�� � I
♦ ,� � F '_ � , � ,P ��� N
\ Y �k` `
.. ``� � � �O /�� -- � � �V1 e'r ��
��_ : .. � ` , T
� 1 `�. — i =� . � ,( � 42 � �
`� i 42 - - , - 0 1 2 3 4
\ F U Q U AY- �. m r �� ���. � �
I �..-_ . ���� . `'l
� VARINA - �----� -- �� `� miles
� (approximate)
` 42 401 55 . � � �
� �
Detailed Study Alterna�i�� 1'��� 1� For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments
are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider.
This DSA uses these Corridor segments: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width
(approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA
� orange 0 �ilac �;_rcen 0 r?I �¢rown indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over
or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations.
Appendix A - 18

APPENDIX 6
Comparative Evaluation Matrix
Appendix B - 1

LE NGTH
J
Q
�
�
H
Corridor Segments
and DSAs miles
G
0 G G
0 B G
os�
0 G T� B G
0 R G
0 R G
0 Pu B� L G
0 Pu B� L G G
O Pu B� B G �
O Pu B� B G
Pu B� L G T� B G
0 L G
0 L G G .
0 L B G
0 L B G
0 L G h B G
Corridor Segment Key
28.3
28.4
29.1
29.4
29.3
25.2
25.3
30.9
31.0
31.6
32.0
31.9
27.6
27.7
28.3
28.7
28.6
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX
DSAs and Key Impact Categories (page 1 of 3)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
� O
O
.+, �
� �
c �
� •� O o .�
O � '+� m �
J V Q U U
Q 0
H i �` � N �
� � � � � �
�
O � � -*' �
U O � }, �
�, � O
� ��
� �
w
$ million
2,195 1,757 296 66 75
2,178 1,744 295 66 73
2,188 1,765 282 66 75
2,189 1,776 262 83 68
2,191 1,746 291 82 72
2,317 1,798 439 24 57
2,315 1,786 442 31 56
2,566 1,902 541 41 81
2,547 1,887 541 41 79
2,550 1,897 530 41 83
2,549 1,907 510 57 75
2,559 1,890 538 57 75
2,362 1,784 407 96 74
2,344 1,769 406 96 72
2,346 1,779 395 96 76
2,346 1,789 375 113 68
2,356 1,772 403 112 68
Q Orange � Purple Lilac m Teal Q Brown
Q Green � Blue Q Red Tan Mint
LAND ACQUISTION ITEMS
� �
J J U a-' �'
Q Q � C �
� U
� �
O O � �� �
O �
U
acres number of parcels
1,830 741 38 510 193
1,823 744 38 511 195
1,802 754 44 509 201
1,818 719 44 484 191
1,843 737 40 506 191
1,753 993 63 673 257
1,752 995 63 673 259
2,135 1,213 57 861 295
2,128 1,216 57 862 297
2,092 1,230 63 862 305
2,108 1,195 63 837 295
2,148 1,209 59 857 293
1,960 984 45 765 174
1,953 987 45 766 176
1, 917 1, 001 51 766 184
1,933 966 51 741 174
1,973 980 47 761 172
RELOCATIONS
�
�
O
.�
�
N
+o ,n c
� � � � �
bA
� � �� � �
H "� � � �
� m O
a
�
O
z
number of relocations
278 269 6 0 3
281 271 6 1 3
265 256 5 1 3
243 234 5 1 3
272 263 6 0 3
449 435 12 0 2
451 437 12 0 2
566 548 15 2 1
569 550 15 3 1
556 537 15 3 1
534 515 15 3 1
560 542 15 2 1
481 466 14 0 1
484 468 14 1 1
471 455 14 1 1
449 433 14 1 1
475 460 14 0 1
Note: Preliminary cost estimates are in anticipated
year-of-expenditure dollars.
Appendix B - 2
w
�
Q
a
H
x
w
z
z
0
0
w
�
z
H
Z
O
U

w
U
¢
a
�
�
O
>
w
�
a
�
O
�
�
a
w
�
z
H
z
0
U
Corridor Segments
and DSAs
G
G G
B G
os�
G T� B G
0 R G
R G
• Pu B� L G
Pu B� L G G
Pu B� B G �
O Pu B� B G
�u B� L G T� B G
0 L G
0 L G G .
0 L B G
0 L B G
0 L G h B G
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX
DSAs and Key Impact Categories (page 2 of 3)
STREAMS WETLANDS ITYDRAULIC CULTURAL RESOURCES
�
� � N � U �
41 � � N � � � � � �
f4 cn �6 � � � � V OA w �-6 a--�
+�-� �n (0 � m m � Q +_-� � W � � � ' V
� Q � i
� �
� � Q - � c0 �6 '� � N O U � � � d � LL
� 41 � � � '� '� r6 N � � � L � > � N c6
CA UA � p+L-+ fl- Q 41 � a � i � N Q �� O
C a! ro M� � � � ra N U v� s �-- +-�
�v� N L � � N � � � � � *-' .� � �
O t! .� N 41 � � 3 = � .� a c.Li
C C
U � O O `""� N � a� w �
N N N Z N
num. linear feet acres num. acres num. acres acres num. acres num. acres
142 67,967 525 97.9 63.9 153 75.6 41 24.9 85.4 0 0 0 1 1.6
139 65,810 525 95.2 62.3 149 74.3 38 23.2 87.1 0 0 0 1 1.6
140 68,130 1,154 99.9 65.3 139 73.5 40 23.9 85.7 0 1 5.9 2 8.6
132 61,322 1,231 89.1 58.3 135 71.6 38 26.1 58.8 0 0 0 2 19.2
142 65,180 525 94.9 62.4 149 74.2 44 27.6 64.9 0 d 0 1 1.6
109 53,014 875 34.4 22.9 113 52.0 28 20.0 84.9 6.7 2 32.7 3 16.7
106 51,582 875 37.1 24.7 111 51.4 25 17.7 86.6 6.7 2 32.7 3 16.7
139 77,724 106 114.3 75.5 161 57.5 37 19.7 101.7 0 0 0 1 9.6
136 75,566 106 111.5 73.8 157 56.2 34 18.0 103.4 0 0 0 1 9.6
137 78,087 735 115.9 76.8 146 63.0 35 18.0 102.0 0 1 5.9 2 16.6
129 71,278 812 105.0 69.8 142 61.1 33 20.2 75.1 0 0 0 2 27.2
139 74,936 106 111.3 73.9 157 56.1 40 22.4 81.2 0 0 0 1 9.6
133 68,604 525 101.2 67.1 154 66.7 36 22.8 75.7 0 0 0 1 1.6
130 66,447 525 98.4 65.5 150 65.5 33 21.2 77.4 0 0 0 1 1.6
131 68,967 1,154 102.8 68.4 139 72.3 34 21.2 76.0 0 1 5.9 2 8.6
123 62,159 1,231 91.9 61.4 135 70.4 32 23.4 49.0 0 0 0 2 19.2
133 65,817 525 98.2 65.6 150 65.3 39 25.6 55.1 0 0 0 1 1.6
Corridor Segment Key Note: For categories where the unit of ineasure is either acres or linear feet, the impact
Q Orange � Purple �ilac m Teal Q Brown calculations were based on the width of functional designs prepared for each DSA, plus a
40-foot additional width on each side.
Q Green �;t Blue Q Red Tan Mint
NRHP = National Register of Hlstoric Places
Appendix B - 3
w
�
Q
a
H
x
w
z
z
0
0
w
�
z
H
Z
O
U

w
U
¢
a
�
�
O
>
w
�
a
�
O
�
�
a
w
�
Z
H
z
0
U
Corridor Segments
and DSAs
G
G G
B G
0 B G
G T� B G
0 R G
R G
• Pu B� L G
Pu B� L G G
Pu B� B G �
O Pu B� B G
�u B� L G T� B G
0 L G
0 L G G .
0 L B G
0 L B G
0 L G h B G
Corridor Segment Key
NOISE
u �^
� L
� �
() L
(a L
Q �
� m
_ v
� .�
L O
� �
Q �
u 41
41 Y
� J
number
540 22
539 22
565 24
551 24
541 22
804 20
804 20
454 16
454 16
480 18
510 18
456 16
598 23
597 23
624 25
610 25
600 23
Q Orange � Purple Lilac
Q Green � Blue Q Red
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX
DSAs and Key Impact Categories (page 3 of 3)
PRIME FARMLAND SOIL OTHER
a
� � � a � � �
i-A � � � c � �
? � �� VI � � i J '� -� �
�--� 7 d � '� � � � (B � L L �'
J 7 O h0 vi �� �'a � bp � � N vl
Q O U (o � � C N i N � a-.� 41 c6 v�
H U � � � V aJ � � � h0 � � y =
O Y O � � � m� � L °J �� U [6 QJ
(6 � � }I � � � �i � � �} Q� i""i �
� � _ � L Q �%i {/1 �%i � � L � (0
O �j �ra � � � � O � �
� � � Q Z C� c �
W
acres points number acres num.
2,451 1,954 97 116 13 2 10.8 0 62.1 0 4
2,040 1,943 97 117 13 2 10.8 0 29.5 0 4
2,035 1,862 173 128 13 2 10.8 0 29.7 0 5
2,049 1,876 173 128 13 2 10.8 87.2 0 9.1 3
2,056 1,959 97 118 13 2 10.8 81.5 0 9.1 4
1,972 1,972 0 101 13 4 0 0 62.1 0 12
1,949 1,949 0 103 13 4 0 0 29.5 0 12
2,328 2,288 40 129 13 1 88.7 0 62.1 0 8
2,310 2,270 40 128 13 1 88.7 0 29.5 0 8
2,286 2,170 116 136 13 1 88.7 0 29.7 0 11
2,300 2,184 116 136 13 1 88.7 87.2 0 9.1 9
2,332 2,292 40 128 13 1 88.7 81.5 0 9.1 8
2,175 2,135 40 121 13 2 88.7 0 62.1 0 8
2,165 2,125 40 121 13 2 88.7 0 29.5 0 8
2,122 2,006 116 128 13 2 88.7 0 29.7 0 11
2,146 2,030 116 128 13 2 88.7 87.2 0 9.1 9
2,164 2,124 40 120 13 2 88.7 81.5 0 9.1 8
Abbreviations: F.C.I.R. = Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
m Teal Q Brown WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plant
WTP = Water Treatment Plant
Tan Mint
Appendix B - 4

APPENDIX C
Correspondence
Appendix C - 1

II
18T6 +
� ,�� ..;' -. •
� � Tt�WN QF
� a n ,
��� �i4�C ,S' Y��2 S
� � �
Reso�utio� No.: � 5-23
Date Adopted: June 16, 2Q� 5
RESaLI��ION REAFFIRMING THE TQWN �F HOL�LY S�RINGS TOWN C(7UfVCIL'S
SUPPOR� REGA�DING THE ALIGNMEN� �F �HE SOUTH EAST EXT�NSION OF I-540
WHEREAS, the Holly Sp�ir�gs Town Council stror�gfy supports the constre�ctiora vf #he I-
540 Tria�ngle Expressway Sou�heas# Extensiar� �nd in October 2013 expresse� its favor for the
o�ange route Mllusxrated o� N.C, Transit Auff�ority study maps; and
WFIEREAS, the prvposed I-540 Triangle Expressway �autheast Exten�sion has been a
fundarr�ental transportataon �acility underpQrar�ing for rnore than 2i y�ars of docal fand use ant�
trar�sportation decisions of the Tawn of Hlolly Springs and other Vocal governments oi so�ut�ern
Wake County; and
WH�REAS, t�te Tawn af Hal�y Spri�ngs historica6ly has utilized the protec#e� I-5��
corridor praposed in earlier desigr�s ta ,ppan for both existing and future aevelopment un Tawn;
and
WHEREAS, the corridor ollustrated in stu�iy maps as purple and blue would be mare
disrupti�re to residents af Holly Sprir�gs and Fuquay-Varir�a anci elirr�inaie parklac�d;
NOW TFflEREfORE BE IT RESULVED t'�at the Tawn Co�r�cil o� the Town of Ho01y
Springs hereby reaffiro-ns its su�ppark of the original protected corridor design as illustrated in
orange on N.C, Transit A�thority maps for the construction of the �-540 Triangle Exp�ressuvay
Sautheast Extension.
Ac�opted this, the 16th day of J�ne 2015.
4 ���
Dic Sears, Mayor
ATf EST:
�rtu �i1u1���
J i Pc�well, Town Clerk
tt�7(;
Of�ce ofklae Mayor
12'8 S. iVlain Street • P.O. Bax S• Holly Springs, fVC 2'�540 �(9b'9) 557-3901 •(919} 552-4654 ftr�
d�el<.sears@I�ol�yspringsnc.us • wwvv.hol0yspringsnc.us
Appendix C - 2

�� ��� Y�_��.�� a �
� ���� ����������
NURTH CARULINA
����IAI� � �, �� �� .r.� : I�eso��.tiaY�
' RESOLUTIC)N NO. _ 'l5-i362
A RESOLU�10�1 ADC?PT�D BY FH� StiARp �'� CUNIMISSiON�RS :
` 4'F �F�E '�OWtV O�F FUQUAY-VARIN�4, NC
REAFFIRY4M1ING� iTS SUPPURT QF Tti� "ORAtJGE ROUT�"
REGARaI�G ALIGNMENT �F Ti1E SOUTHEAST �XYENSIdM �F I-540
�f' 1�c='�'��_���� ��� � ._ 'r s �S��
���:-.� ._. �?;t.t-�.��„�.���"Z,t�"`sSi..'e!Tay!'.� S+"; nt:�??3 �:����rir ,�'y_`-.�:!� .�,.,.... ,. ,�'� ,.5�.����fi..�.�+.�+.�,.-..+'�,�m����m���r�a# _ . `.
Y� -
WHI�REAS, ihe Governing Body of ths Town of Fuquay-Varina, North Caralina believes
; thc�t the 'brange rou#e" alignmeni for t�n� sout�east extension of I-54� is the
alignm��ni fhat would hav� fhe 4east negative impac# an citlzens in t�e ': i
' community, and , }
°�
;
WFiEREAS, the pr�pos�d I-540 �rian�le Expressway 5aut�east Ext�nsion has been a !
fvnc�amental �rc�nsportatioro facifi�y under�inning for r�ore than 21 years of '�
� laca� �and use and �rc�nspartaiior� d�cisions of all the local gover�r�a-o�rais in �
southern Wake Cavnty �+hife th� r�ewer pur�le-blue route recently was �
a�fc�ed.' anc!
'�
WHEREAS, •fhe Town of Fuqc�ay-Varina his#arical8y hc�s utilized the protected M-54L� corridor �
p�oposed in earlier designs to pla�i for bolh ex�sting and future developrn�nt ';
in Fuguay-Varinca; and �
E
WHER�AS, fhe purple-bi�re route is expected #o have great�r expense and human �
'ir�npact on the residents oF Fuquay-Varina fhan th� pro�aased orao�ge roufie. ':�
�
NOW, TH�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Baard of Comrr�issioners of the TQwn of Fuquay-Varina �
that the Govemin� aoard' dres hereby expr�ss support of t�,e original protected corridor design �
as illusfratec� in orar�ge an t�e N.C. Transit Authority maps for thc eonstr�ct�an of th� f-540 �
Triangle Expre$sway Southeast Extensian. �
1:
.�
BE IT FU�1'HER RESOLVEb, by the Baar�l of Commissioners af fhe Tawn of �vquay-Varina that this `.�
r�sole�tic�n shall take efiect immediaiely upon its adoption. �
' . �
Adapted this the ab'h cEay of .Ju�ne 2�15 in �uquay-Varina, �lorth Ca�rolina. � • �
;.
� . . �
� . ' , . . ' . . . . ' . . . ' ' .. E
. F QU -VARIiVA, �1C7RT�1 CAROLINA �
� �
. a � � c
, �
� nh� W. Byme, Mayor '. �
� p� .' ' F
ATT�ST: = (TC+VJiVSEALj;�'�v , .,.... !',y''. �
`:�f( �4 POFy;qT�,,'��.•. r
, :�,;•� 1909 a;�:
I
��� _� iy . �.�i � � � �:
Rose H. Rich, Tawn Clerk :Q �• '.� . �
,� �*�* . �
......, s.
�;
.;
Appendix C - 3 =

RESQl.17T10�1 iV�. (2�15) 2�257
A�ES�LUTIDN (?F THE �'aVIJN (}F GARN�R EXPRESSING SUPPORT F�R THE "�RANC�E Rf�UT�"
REGAR�ING 7WE ALIG6WMEI�T OF THE SOUTHEA5T E?fT�N510N {)F I-54�
WMEREAS, the governing bady of the `I"own of Garner believes that the "c�range rout�"
allgnm�nt f�r th� southeas� exrension of I-540 is t�e alignrnent tha� vuould have the 9���t
negative impact on citizens in this comrnunity; and
WFiEREAS, the proposed I-540 Triar�gie �xpressway Southeast'Exten�ion has been a
fundamenta� tr�nspartation facility underptin�ing fe�r mor� than 21 years of Pacai lan� use and
transportation decisions of all the local governrxoents in sauthern Wake Caunty; and
WHER�EAS, the Town of Garner historically V�as utilized the prateeted I-54fl carridor propose� in
eariier desi�ns to plan �or both existing and future dev�Po�ment in Garner, and
WMEREAS, the Town of Garner has supplied a great deal of comme�tary and evidence
regarding w�y th� arar�ge route is a super�or cMo9ce,
NOW THER�FO�RE �� IT RESOLVED that �he gover�ning body of the Town of Garner hereby
�xpresses support o� t�e originaV protected co�ridor design as ill��strated in arange an N.C.
�"ranslt �ltathorEty maps for tne constr+�ction of the I-540 TriangPe Expressw�y So�a�heast
�xtension.
Ado�ted tF�is, the 7x�' day of Ju�y, 2A�5.
/�T��ST
1 ��
Ju Bass
Towr� Clerk
Ronnie 5. SNilliams
Ndayor
Appendix C - 4

A RESOLUTION BY THE WAKE COUNTY BOARD 4F COMMISSIONERS
REGARDTNG THE ALIGNMENT QF THE
TRIANGLE EXPRESSWAY SOU'THEAST EXTENSION QF NC-54Q
WHEREAS, the proposed Triang�e Expressway Southeast Extension has been a
fundamental transportation facility undetpinning for more �han 20 years of local land use and
transportation decisivns for Wa�ce County and other local governments of Wake County; and
WHEREAS, Wake County historicaliy has utiIized the protected "orange" corridor in
earlier efforts to maice key planning decisions for �oth existing and future deveiopment in Wake
County; and
WHEREAS, nurnerous Wake County homeowners and landowners have relied upon the
protected "orange" corridor far mar�y years as they have rnade investment decisions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed alternative alignments that would relocate the raadway away
from the protected `'orange" corrzdor will have an adverse impact on communities in Wake
County; and
WHEREAS, the proposed alternative align�nents i�l�strated as "blue", "putple", "lilac"
and "red" on North Carolina Department of Transportation maps will have a greater impaet on
Wake County's designated prio�ity stream corridors and proposed Southeast Wake County Park
than the previously protected "orange" corridor; and
WHEREAS, �he Towris of Fuquay-Varina, Garner, and Holly Springs have recently
adopted similar resolutions in support of the "orange" corridor; and
WHEREAS, Wake County has adopted sirnilar resolutions in suppart of the "orange"
corridor on October 18, 2410 arad October 21, 2�013.
NQW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Wake Caunty reaffirfns its support af the
protected corridor as illustrated in "orange" on the North Carolina Department of Transportation
maps as the preferred choice for the deveIopment and construction of the Triangle Expressway
Southeast Extension.
Adopted this 8th day of September 2015.
�/ V
J es West, Chairman
rd of Commissioners
ATTEST: IU��.� ��
Denise Hagan
Clerk to the Board
Appendix C - 5

�Nake Coun .�la ors' Association
� y
Date Adopted: September 23, 2015
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE WAKE COUNTY MAYORS' ASSOCIATION
SUPPORT REGARDING THE ALIGNMENT OF THE
SOUTH EAST EXTENSION OF I-540
WHEREAS, the Wake County Mayors' Association supports the construction
of the I-540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension and, in particular, the orange
route illustrated on N.C. Transit Authority study maps; and
WHEREAS, the proposed I-540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
has been a fundamental transportation facility underpinning for more than 21 years
of local land use and transportation decisions for other local governments in Wake
County; and
WHEREAS, the corridor illustrated in study maps as purple and blue would
appear to be more disruptive to residents of Wake County and eliminate parkland;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Wake County Mayors'
Association hereby affirms its support of the original protected corridor design as
illustrated in orange on N.C. Transit Authority maps for the construction of the I-540
Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension.
Adopted this, the 23rd day of September, 2015.
ATTEST:
���
Russell B . Killen
President, Wake County Mayors' Association
Wake Countv Mavors' Association
Appendix C - 6

�� OF Gq�\
��t7'EKLo .q°h
Ronnie 5. Williams
MAYOR
Town of Garner
900 7th Avenue • Garner, North Carolina 27529
Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.GarnerNC.gov
December 16, 2015
Eric Midkiff, P. E.
Project Development - Western Region
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Study
Town of Garner Comments
Dear Mr. Midkiff:
Garner
�
All-Amerlca Cfty
1 I
�
2013
This letter presents an official list of the Town of Garner concerns regarding the above
referenced matter. The followin� points are maior reasons why the Town of Garner believes
why the North Carolina Department of Transportation should remove the red and lilac
corridors from further studv.
1. The red corridor is extremely detrimental to current and future parks and
recreation facilities in the Town of Garner.
The red corridor impacts the northern edge of the recently opened White Deer
Nature Park, the Town's first LEED Gold certified facility. This is a passive park
facility with an environmental education center, trails, picnic shelters, and
playgrounds,
The red corridor will also obstruct and wipe out a portion of the South Garner
Greenway leading from Timber Drive to White Deer Park. This greenway facility
connects 4.2 miles of a neighborhood loop sidewalk in central Garner with a 2.8 mile
�reenway trail through White Deer and Lake Benson Parks. The red corridor
completely severs the pedestrian connection between these parks and the 4.2 mile
sidewalk loop serving hundreds of homes in central Garner.
The red route obliterates and eliminates George W. Bryan Nature Park. Bryan
Nature Park is a 20-acre nature park facility located east of Highway 50 near the
South Creek neighborhood.
The red corridor will also impede and ne�atively impact the Town's 35-acre Timber
Drive Park property, designated as a future site of an aquatics facility and/or
community center.
1��.�,�,
Appendix C - 7

The Triangle Area YMCA owns a tract of land on Aversboro Road that will be the
location of a new Poole Family YMCA. The plans have been submitted to the Town
for review. Construction is planned to begin in 2016. The red corridor will impact
this property's availability for use as a community recreation facility.
2. The red corridor will disrupt lon�-range and orderly growth in areas designated
for future development by the Town's Comprehensive Growth Plan.
The Town's major future growth area is �enerally referred to as the White Oak area.
It lies south of US 70, west of I-40, east of Highway 50, and north of Clifford Road.
Significant infrastructure investment and planning decisions have been made to
promote future �rowth and development in this area. Capital investments of over
3 million dollars have been made in roads, major water lines, and sewer trunk lines in
this portion of the community to support future developrnent. Tremendous uncertainty
exists if the red corridor effectively bisects this future growth district.
The Town's Comprehensive Growth P(an and the 2010 Garner Transportation Plan
both recommend a new interchange at I-40 and White Oak Road to serve an emer�in�
Regional White Oak Mixed Use Center. The red corridor would likely prevent this
future interchan�e from ever occurring while creating some challenges for future
�rowth in this important section of Town that will require significant additional study
if the red corridor is selected.
3. The red corridor severely damages the Town's primary industrial recruitment area.
The red corridor obliterates Greenfield South Business Park, one of Garner's
premiere locations for jobs and industry. As a result, the red corridor will create
a loss of significant tax base and the community will witness the demise of an area
that has been programmed for non-residential growth that is vital to the Town.
In 2015, 151 acres of this park was inducted in to the Duke Site Readiness Program.
This program helps communities, such as Garner, develop their economic development
assets by providing professional assistance and counsel on how to make properties
market ready for development. This site has potential to be one of Garner's largest
employment centers and will play a key role to a bri�hter economic future for our
community. The Red Route, if chosen, would have a tremendous negative impact on
this site rendering the Town's and our partner's efforts in developing one of the
lar�est contiguous sites in Wake County and make it unsuitable for large industrial and
commercial development.
There are 26 commercial/industrial lots (developed � vacant) impacted by the
red corridor with a total Wake County tax value of over 30 million dollars.
4. The red corridor splits and disconnects the Town of Garner again.
US Highway 70 split the Town of Garner and literally divided the town into two
sections in the 1950's. The community has been striving to recover from this poor
z � i� .� �� ��
Appendix C - 8

planning decision since that time. Garner cannot afford to be divided again by a road
as large as the Triangle Expressway. If the orange protected corridor is selected as
the preferred route, the Town can naturally grow towards the new expressway in a
managed fashion over the next 25-35 years. Deference should be given to wise long-
range planning as exemplified in the protected orange corridor route.
5. The red corridor will have negative water quality impacts to Lake Benson.
The red corridor crosses into portions of the critical areas of Lake Benson and Swift
Creek. The corridor is located immediately upstream of Lake Benson and crosses
the majority of the tributaries feeding the lake. This location and proximity would
increase the likelihood of potential drinking water contamination. Any spill from a
roadway disaster would drain directly into Lake Benson. With the completion of the
$90 million Dempsey Benton Water Treatment Plant, this lake serves as a substantial
potable water supply for the Metro Raleigh area.
Correspondingly, the road construction impact on Lake Benson is an area of
concern with the red corridor. The aforementioned proximity and drainage ftow
direction could lead to lake contamination and/or potential reduction in the safe yield
of the lake due to potential sedimentation as a result of the construction process.
In addition to the lake itself the red corridor will negatively impact the existing
water transmission and distribution infrastructure associated with the new water
treatment plant. This is also a concern for the existin� wastewater collection
infrastructure located in the red corridor.
6. The red corridor fails to provide adequate access to the Clayton Bypass facility.
The red corridor fails to provide efficient and effective transportation by not
directly servicing traffic generation from the Clayton, Smithfield, Selma and the
eastern Johnston County region.
Pushing traffic via a more northern route as depicted by the red corridor does not
accomplish needed goals of accommodating travelers frorn areas south of Garner that
need to travel westward towards Holly Springs, Morrisville and Research Triangle Park.
The red corridor also puts an interchange that would be just over one mile from the
existing I-40/US 70 interchange. This would appear to create difficulty for proper
traffic circulation and flow for the traveling public.
7. The red corridor will have significant and direct impacts on thirteen (13)
Garner neighborhoods.
The following neighborhoods are directly impacted by the red corridor:
Lakewood; Heather Hills; Breezeway; Vandora Pines; Camelot; Breezeway West;
Breezeway East; Summer's Walk; Van Story Hills; Heather Rid�e; Heather Woods,
Forest Landing; and the Village at Aversboro.
3 � ��' :, c, e
Appendix C - 9

�
We estimate approximately 510 residential lots in Garner could be impacted by the
red corridor representin� a tax value of over $106,500,000. This represents a
si�nificant cost to the Garner community in terms displacement and relocation of
numerous families but also a significant impact to our tax base.
8. The following points summarize the Town's concerns reqarding the lilac corridor,
especially the portions nearest the Garner Town Limits:
o It would remove significant portions of the Town's industrial tax base;
o It causes a lar�e number of residential relocations for persons in the Greater
Garner area;
o It traverses directly through a City of Raleigh Wastewater Biosolids facility
located just south of the Garner Town Limits;
o It changes land use for a large segment of our Town's future growth area and;
o It fails to connect directly with the Clayton Bypass.
The Town of Garner is fundamentally opposed to both the red and lilac corridors illustrated
on the 2015 Corridor Public Hearing Maps. Therefore, the Town strongly requests that both
corridors be eliminated from further consideration at this time. The Town of Garner stronQly
supports the oriQinal protected corridor as illustrated by the OranQe Corridor on the 2015
Corridor Public Hearin� Maps as the preferred choice for the development and construction of
the I-540 Trian�le Expressway Southeast Extension. The comrnunity has long expected growth
along this protected corridor and has planned for it appropriately.
Many land use decisions have been made based upon citizens and community leaders
assumptions about the protected corridor and its future use. We respectfully request the
North Carolina Department of Transportation's formal and serious consideration of our
concerns regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
' ,���
Ronnie S. Williams
Mayor
cc: Town Council Members
4�i�,,.�;:,
����G�,�, /�✓a%��Gf,c�-,
Hardin Watkins
Town Mana�er
Appendix C - 10

RESOLUTION NO. (2015) 2277
A RESOLUTION STATING THE TOWN OF GARNER TOWN COUNCIL'S POSITION REGARDING
ALIGNMNENT OF TRIANGLE EXPRESWAY SOUTHEAST EXTENSION
WHEREAS, the proposed 540 Triangle Expressway has been a fundamental
transportation facility underpinnin� for more than 20 years of local land use
and transportation decisions of the Town of Garner and other local governments
of Wake County;
WHEREAS, the Town of Garner historically has utilized the protected 540
corridor proposed in earlier designs to make key planning decisions for both existing
and future development in Garner; and
WHEREAS, any change in plans to relocate this roadway away from its
previously designated location (orange route) will have an adverse impact on the
Garner community; and
WHEREAS, the "red" route shown on 2015 Corridor Public Hearing Maps with
a course north of Lake Benson is a very poor land use decision that will cause
tremendous disruption to existing homes and businesses in Garner; and
WHEREAS, numerous Garner homeowners and landowners have relied upon
the protected corridor route (orange) for many years as they have made investment
decisions. A change to the planned route will be burdensome, chaotic, and unfair;
and
NOW THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, the Town of Garner would like to see
the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension constructed, however, the Town
i s fundamentally opposed to the "red route" north of Lake Benson; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council supports use of the original
protected corridor design as illustrated in orange on the 2015 Corridor Public Hearing
Maps as the preferred choice for the development and construction of the I-540
Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension.
;��.��`� U � Gq •.;�: '_��
.�.a ..... . ,� �j,..
� ' '�� �"' �' �'s�.
rIG'`p�''�O�;�T�,. �?
:>.;('TQ��k�SE�),• 'a
�: J � u �� �`.,:
�.,-: �' • . '�,
•... �.
t�. ,,a
ATl'E�:• .
this 15`h day of December 2015.
�
° ,y� �
,�a; �
Ronnie S. Williams, Mayor
��-�-�,��,�.��..��.
Stella Gibson, Interim Town Clerk
Appendix C - 11

\ � �(� �i ��� .`�L�T'�/('
�� 1y. (`, � ��
�/ 1 fl'f/l. �/G71�'l�llfl�
Nancy McFarlane
Mavor
January 5, 2416
Mr.lamiUe Rob6ur�s
NC Department of Transporiation
1598 Mail Service Cer�ter
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
SUBJECT: Comments on Draft EIS, Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Mr. Robbin�,
�ransportation optians are of utmost importance to the eoratin�ued sutcess ar�d grow#h af th� Triangle
region. The City's Strategic P�an nat only foeuses on "Transportat�en & Ti rans�t" as one of six key focus
areas, but hig�t[ights the need for resilient and s�stainab1e public infrastrueture in objectives under the
"Grawth & NatWral Resaurces" and "Eeoroorr�ic Developmeni & Inn4vation" areas. It is wit�r thos strategic
emphasis or� mabality that the City oi Raleigh cot�tinues to strongly support and encourage the Complete
540 effort by �3CQOi and the fa�ture constra�ctioru of xt�e southern and easterro segments afi the (�C 540
Triangle Expressway. O�ur City Counci! r�affirmed the Eastern Wa�ke Expressway (T1P Project R-2829) as
ets top pri�rity request to NCDOT in your Trar�sportation Improverrient R�ograrr� at aur March 17, 2015
meeting.
City staff has revievrred the drafi Envoronmental Impact Statement and its supparting technical reports ta
�etter understar�d th�e potential impacts assaciated with each study alternati�e. Th� City of Raleigh has
conc�rns over potential impacts highlighted in the d'ocument and would fike to submit comrr�ents an the
following colar-coded segments evaluated for the freeway corridor:
Red Route: The C�ty is concerned that the Red Route directly Empacts �h� Swift Creek
Watershed Area, � critical water sou�rce far Raleigh and Wake County residents, as weli as
the treatrnent a�+d d'ustribution infrastructure operated by the City in thue Garner area. Based
on these impacts, the City op��ses all altemati�es that utolize the Red Rout�.
Lilac 'Route: The Lilac Route directly impacts 88.7 acres at our Public U2ilitbes facility located
off Wcenn 62oad, including water �reatr�ent s�prayfoelds & at seast or�e of twa 25-aeTe holding
porods. Th� City op,pases aIU alternatives that use the Lilac route.
Green Ro�te: The Rar�d��igh Farr� prope�rty represents a signi�Ficant investment in the f�ture
by #h� C�ty and 1Nake County as a site for proposed sehools and potential deueloprr�ent. The
Green Rout� ir�pacts those school sites and twice as much land area ora the property,
i�l;-�•il'ci�^r:;� �,..�q..''.i";:,C'�,`i
Office • 222 '�ti�cst Hargett Street • Post Office Box ��<-�,� • f-' �� ;n. i��!=�rt;-� �� �-_, .�-��_�:� _���_i
RecyGed P�p-� Appendix C- 12

therefore the Ci�y �pposes alternatives that use this route across the praperty, unless
cvmpelling e�idence to the contrary is presented far this alignment.
■ Brown Route: The Brc�wr� Ro�te repres�r�ts signifitant impatts to the Cit�s operatuons at
t�te Ne�se River 1Nast�water Trea�me�t P9ant (NRWWTF), i�cluding mo�e than 80 ac�es of
sp�ayfields and �eosolids applicatian fiel�s ancE pote�ntially 4he facolity gwar'dha�ase. The route
woa�Ed also require the reloeation af the Ciiy/County Law Enforcement Training Ce�ter
shooting range where offi�c�rs train to s�rv� ar�d protect the �ity's and county's resideruts.
8ased these impacts and pote�ntial impact to the City's solar array loca�ed near Brownfield
Road, the �oty opposes alternataves that use the Brown Route nar�h of Old Baucom Rc�ad.
The City would also fik� ta express concern tha4 thae draft EIS and Wtilities Irnpact technical repor� da not
account for numero�as water and sewer lines serving Garneo�, Wendell, and Raleigh t�at cros� the
carrbdor. Th�se inc�lude a 30" force mair� along Raynor and A�burn-Knigl�tdale Raads and two 72" mains
aCong the Neuse River serving the iVRWWTP, as well as a plann�d 96" lic�e to th� plant. Th� City will
need to retain access in the project corridar to maintain and repair those lines in t�eir curr�nt locatiar�s.
The City requests NCDOT to e�pdate the Utildty Impact Repart and draft EIS to (a) bdentufy fmpacts to
water and sewer infr�structure on alE rautes and �bj revise or account for those impacts in future
designs for the expressway.
T�e City also reques�s NCD�� cansider alternative designs for the Auburn-K�ightdale f�aad in�erchange.
The existing designs da nat account for the Hodge Road extension as shown A� Ra'leigh an� CAMPO
tra�sportation plans. T�h� City requests �ICD�T �nvestigate interchange options that wou4d facil�tate the
proposed Hodge Raati extension to Aub�rn-Knightdale Road.
Vn light af these concems, tf�e City views the Orange Route as the least impactful to City us�terests and
therefore recommends i�s endo�rsement as ihe preferred ro�te for the portion of the Outer Loop urrest of
Ia40. East of I-40, the impacts to the City's wastewater treatment operations and the Law Enforcement
1"raining Center {Brouvn Rou�e) outwe��h rhose impacts to the Rarodleigh farm property SGreen, BVlint,
ar�d Tan segrnents}. �he CoWrucil has ta�ker� previous action in Jan�ary 20i1 op�posing the Tan Route due
to eommun6ty im�aets {see attaah@dJ. Th� IVlint Route minim�z@s the imp�ets to the Randleigh propert�r
and proposed schoal sites, and therefore is the Gity`s preferred �route for the Eastern Wake Expressway.
Based or� tMese prefierred routes and segments, the �Cdty endorses Detail 5tudy Aaternative 2 as the
preferred aVternatuve for this project.
The City would like to thank NCDQ� for the opportunity to submit our comments and �ndorsements
based on review af the d�raft EIS. City staff will be providi�g additiona� �echnical comrrnents on the
docurr�e�t and the supporting reports. If you have questions about this letter or the Ci4y's corrar�ents,
please conXact 1�odd [?elk �t 9�9-996-2651 dr �odd.delk@ralei�l�nc.�ov.
Sincerely,
�,��� � /���
Nanc Mc r�ane
Y
Maya�
Appendix C - 13

Attachm€nt
NM/td
Cc: f�ick Tennyson, NC Secretary of TransportatPon
Beau Memory, NC Turnpi'ke Authuoruty Executuve Director
Joey Hopkins, NC�OT Division S Engineer
Jim Hartrraann, Wake Covr�ty Manager
Chrus Lukasina, CAMPf� �xec�tive �]irector
Appendix C - 14

���T �f' l�j� F."/ {�'F_�f .�f.���f f
1
�C4�a�i�s f�b'�e9�er ..•�'f r rIf � ���rrr�l'ra�r�
Mayror
p�►���y=11, 2a�7
��r��ad'4'tr'. J�oyne�, Execui��e T�ire�kcar
fi'd� Taaea-apa�c� Autiit�rit}r
��78 twlail Se.r�ri�� Cex�ter
R�I�ig1y, NC 276994157�
SU�jL^"�C'!": Cbmment� on TIP Pr���ct Y�-�?9, P�st�az,11�i11�1:� Fxpres��a��y
Deaa &'vlr. jc�yn�r:
�4t d�ar Janu�ry ��, ?'021 me�dn�, tEg� T��l�eigh �i#�� �o�e�l received e��e�ts
horru �d7� ge�ter�1 pA:�b1i� a'c��a�ing �lternatia�es u�der ��snsi�er�at��a� f�i• Lh�e Scla�tl�e�s�
Extensic�ru aL �e Trn�,ngl� �x�re�r�va}f. Th� p�xEie�n rsF y°o�r gr�p�ct �vit�,in, t�ie Caky's
�urisc�is`ckior� f�Yl� und�r fiIP I'r���et R-��� 4�astem i�IFak� Ex�r�sswa��. "I`l��ese r�,�ider�ts
�poke au� speeifi�lly in appos�tion t� th� Tan C�rriciar iisa� 3��� b��n dev�Faped �a}r ��
�T� Tu,�r�pbke tlutl�ux�ty f�r iRus seg�rr���rt �o# th� pres��ck.
I vrtdt�sl"arpd that y�avr projecf �e7� has �et �+,aiLh CnEy staff �ro� �-rcuIt�ple
�legr�tm�nk.s �rs �ver�@ �ccasions tc� discu�� alignrn�n�l• issu�s alo�,g th� La���m k'��k�
�cp�c�sway. 1+4Forku,�� n�t 13ie dedaiDs an a fin�l ali�eral C'or �is �c�rric��r H��s ��rn �
pric�rily C�ar F17e �i�}r [�r maray yFears, e�sp�ciaLy i+rit�� re�r�Ys t,� �elti�g, out aFiead ali
�ro�o��lti � tlus area as-�,� pc•�os,riciing �ounty resi�i�nk� with i�tprave�i pr�d'a�t�biIli[�+,.
'�71e City �Cauneil vcsted ut��n:mousi}r �� o�r�ose F1ie Tari �nrred�r as i� is
curr�ntiy pr��+�s��d, a�~��.� w� ➢�€�v� rc.�quest�� �roat Ci�y st�:EF c�ntin�e t� roPark ��e•it�ss your
prop�k team to �i�v���ga visble a]terraaEiv�s for cansic�er��ion un y�a�r Envi��rduYenk,aD
ixi�pa�l 5k�#em�nt �I5}. �1Fe x�dersLand Ila�t ��e �1� pra�c�ss is tec�ruc�i in n�l�rre, i�ut
��.�e �ur�� yrsu ��nt�nu� t� t�k� the ��r�c�rr�s �F area z•esidea�ts u�t+� a�cour�t �s y�ou prc���d
�arith y�ur sludy. i'it� cr��ng�Il��ar� o� €he ��si�rsa iNakc l:xpr��s�=ay �s �ark af �h� l�r�er
F;��eigh CJut�r Lmap ig s����rkant �� #�tie costtirt�ed },?a�o6vth c�f tla� Ci@y anci i.ts n�i,gh�rin�
c amrrrua�il�es. 44'e ��epr�ciate tli� eff�rr,s c�F r�tie T�.raipake Au�t�orit�� l�a mmv� U�i� prcroj�ct
d'orward.
Te l ejahun m: 919.9 9 fi.34 5q
C}iflce • 22e W�lesl Hargafld Street � P4sE 6�Gaca Eox fi90 • 8�alel�oh. Nflrlh Carala�sa� 2dfiQ2-67a963
fizey�Cl�d Pn�Far
Appendix C - 15

hia. C7avid +h'. ja}�reer - Commerots �m T&P Progect Cf••i�29, Casflern WaYce Eac}�aesy�va}•
january IT, 214P1 - Page 2
If y�u h�v� �dditianal ��a�s�oa�s a��s�at ow• c�a�uneraks, pleas� �xatacfi Eric Lam�
at �'41�� 53�i-'�l�il nr by esn�iP a�t ��iL.Il��b�r�ei�luas:�.
� ��}�,
;
� �''
� .
F�Iay��
C�i��I/ej1
�Cc: City Councila�s
J. Rr��sePY .�.IIledY - Raieigl� �Ci�y �vfat�a��r
�avid ��k+� � 1'1rak� ��a�e�ly �vlas�a�er
�it�clz�i� Salves, .t1'l�P - �ial�i�i� Planr�n� �ir��l�r
CarIl 1�. i�asvsorb, ,�r., d?� � I�a1�igPt �'ula➢ic Warles F:lar�ctnr
Br�cl B�ss, P.iCI-` aGara°aer Platu�ia1g 4�irect�r
Appendix C - 16

Ii' i �
! / ' /
� ♦
�,�
� v� � .
January 8, 2016
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Jamille Robbins, PE, NCDOT
FROM: Todd Delk, PE, Senior Planning Engineer
RE: Comments on NC 540 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
the Complete 540 project. As stated in the Mayor's letter to NCDOT, staff from multiple City
departments have coordinated to review the document and its supporting technical reports in
order to better understand the findings and potential impacts associated each study alternative.
City staff has concerns over the potentially major impacts to City facilities, operations, and other
interests within our planningjurisdiction as outlined below.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water Supply Infrastructure: The Red Route (Alternatives 6, 7) directly impacts numerous City
of Raleigh water transmission/distribution mains, particularly where the City provides service in
the Garner area & near Dempsey Benton Treatment Plant. While some of these impacts may be
below the $250,000 relocation cost threshold to be reported in the Utility Impact report,
discussion of the impacts are not acknowledged nor accounted for in DEIS or Utility Impact
Report.
The Red Route also directly impacts 6.7 acres of critical watershed area for Swift Creek and Lake
Benson, the primary water source for the City's Dempsey Benton Water Treatment Plant. As
noted in the DEIS, the watershed is managed through a NCDEQ management plan adopted by
General Assembly in 1998 to limit development and protect water quality. The City would
request to be part of the "extensive coordination with NCDEQ & USEPA officials to reach
agreement for protection" noted in the DEIS.
Sewer Infrastructure: The DEIS and Utility Impact Report fails to identify several major sewer
pipelines that will be impacted by Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension:
• The Red Route crosses the NC Highway SO sewer force main (30") adjacent to Raynor
Road. Designs for the NC 540 overpass at this location will need to ensure future access
to the line for operations and maintenance.
• The Green, Mint, Tan, and Brown Routes all cross two parallel 72" sewer interceptors
located south of the Neuse River. The City is also planning for a future 96" interceptor
OFFICC OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
ONE EXCHANGE PLAZA, SUITE 727 • POST OFFICE BOX 590 • RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Appendix C - 17

Mr. lamille Robbins — NC 540 Draft EIS Comments
lanuary 8, 2016 — Page 2
north of the Neuse River to serve the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NRWWTP). The lines are not accounted for in DEIS or Utility Impact Report and the
current roadway designs will require revisions to provide access for operation and
maintenance of the lines. Due to the volume handled by the existing interceptors,
relocations are not advised.
Water Treatment Sprayfields & Holding Ponds at Wrenn Road Facility: The DEIS and Utility
Impact Report identify the Orange Route (Alts. 1-5) directly impacts 10.8 acres of water
treatment sprayfields on the site, and the Lilac Route (Alts. 8-17) directly impacts 88.7 acres
including water treatment sprayfields & at least one of two 25-acre holding ponds. Based on
the designs shown in the public hearing maps, we request confirmation that the Lilac Route
would avoid impacts to either holding pond.
Wastewater Sprayfields, Biosolids Fields, and facilities at NRWWTP: The DEIS and Utility
Impact Report identify that the Teal and Brown routes (Alts. 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, 17) would directly
impact 81.5 and 87.2 acres, respectively, of wastewater treatment sprayfields & permitted
biosolids application fields, as well as agricultural activities on fields.
Not noted in the DEIS, the Brown Route may also impact the NRWWTP facility guardhouse
located on Battle Bridge Road and a city-owned solar array southeast of the intersection of
Brown Field and Battle Bridge Roads.
Based on the impacts above, the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department requests a
coordination meeting with NCDOT and its consultants to discuss utility impacts along the routes
listed above. The City also requests that the Utility Impact Report, as well as the subsequent
information and cost estimates reported in the DEIS, be updated to include the Public Utilities
Department in the Utility Contact Lists and to include those water and sewer infrastructure
impacts overlooked in the report's analysis.
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Randleigh Farm property: The DEIS identifies that the Green Route (Alts. 1, 6, 8, 13) impacts
62.1 of 415-acre site owned by the City and Wake County for future development. The route
effectively bisects the property, and impacts two proposed Wake County Public School System
school sites. The Tan and Mint Routes (Alts. 2, 3, 9, 10, 14, 15) reduce the impacts to Randleigh
Farm by nearly half with little or no impact to proposed school sites.
City/County Law Enforcement Training Facility: The Brown Route (Alts. 4, S, 11, 12, 16, 17)
directly impacts the 9.14 acres of public safety training campus, including a 42-lane outdoor
firing range and a live-fire shoot house facility. While the DEIS states that the facility "could
likely still function in its current use," the loss of the firing ranges would significantly impact
training and certification activities that take place on the site, according to the Raleigh Police
Department.
Neuse River Greenway Trail: The Mint, Tan, and Brown Routes (Alts. 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15) all
relocate the Neuse River Greenway Trail through a culvert under the proposed expressway. If
one of these routes is chosen, the City requests that NCDOT investigate bridging options where
the greenway and the sewer lines discussed earlier in the Public Utilities section could be
co-located. With the Brown Route, staff from the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources
Appendix C - 18

Mr. lamille Robbins — NC 540 Draft EIS Comments
lanuary 8, 2016 — Page 3
(PRCR) Department has no objection to the proposed relocation of the greenway to the east
side of NC 540 from its current location adjacent to Brown Field Road.
PRCR staff requests that the design plans account for all future greenway corridors in municipal
plans crossing the NC 540 alignment and consider the provision of greenways or easements
within the future rights-of-way to link these crossings.
Cemetery: Please note there is a cemetery located on the east side of 2898 Brown Field Road.
This is a potential impact that should be accounted for in the DEIS.
Residential relocations associated with Tan Route: City Council took action in January 2011
opposing the Tan Route due to community impacts. The letter to NCDOT is attached to the
Mayor's letter.
TRANSPORTATION
Hodge Road Extension: The DEIS fails to acknowledge the planned extension of Hodge Road,
which is shown as a proposed major thoroughfare in the adopted CAMPO Comprehensive
Transportation Plan and as a proposed four-lane avenue in the City of Raleigh's 2030
Comprehensive Plan. For all of the eastern routes except the Brown Route, the DEIS and
designs should account for this proposed street extension. The interchange design plans
at/near Auburn-Knightdale Road should be revised to better facilitate the proposed street
connection, with consideration of moving the southbound ramps from the northwest quadrant
to the southwest quadrant that could align opposite from the Hodge Road extension at Auburn-
Knightdale Road.
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The City's Long Range Planning staff concurs with the findings that the Red and Purple/Blue
routes would encourage development patterns different from those envisioned in the local
plans of our neighboring communities. The City has concerns that the Red Route would
encourage and induce more development in the Swift Creek Watershed, potentially impacting
water quality and increasing water treatment costs for the City. The City has concerns that the
Purple/Blue Route will encourage more suburban growth patterns counter to area land use
plans, increasing regional VMT and congestion.
OTHER DEIS COMMENTS
One page 15, please note and describe what scenario the 2035 network figure represents
(Existing Network, Existing Network + Committed Projects, MTP, or other scenario).
On page 40, the discussion that the capital, operating, and maintenance costs of transit
improvements not being fully funded by the fares is not valid when discussing the proposed
tollway improvements where the construction, operations, and maintenance of the facility will
not be covered by toll revenues and require gap funding.
Appendix C - 19

Mr. lamille Robbins — NC 540 Draft EIS Comments
lanuary 8, 2016 — Page 4
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIS. If you have questions or
need clarification on our comments, please contact me at 919-996-2661 or at
todd.delk@raleighnc.�ov.
Cc: Tansy Hayward—Assistant City Manager
Ken Bowers—City Planning Director
Eric Lamb—Transportation Planning Manager
Robert Massengill — Public Utilities Director
Diane Sauer — Parks, Recreation & Community Resources Director
Joseph Perry — Deputy Chief, Raleigh Police Department
Mike Kennon —Traffic Operations Manager, Public Works
Appendix C - 20

MAYOR
WILL{AM W. MASSENCILL, JR.
MAYOR PRO-TEi�ll
FREDERICK D. hIELSON, JR.
COMM9SSIflNER
W'ILL T. CHANDLER
JQHN R. 84f�NER
CASANDRAP.STACK
JERRY MEDLIIN
DR. R. MA)(. RAYNOR
Mr. lamilIe 1�ob%�a�s
Co�n�lete 54(} Project
NC Dep�rtnaent o� T'ransportation
159$ 1V�ai1 Se�'viee Center
I�aleigli, NC 2769�-1598
January 7, 2016
Dear Mr. �abbins,
TOWN OF �EI�SON
P.C). BOX 6�J
303 �,4ST CHURGF� STREET
BENSON, NC 275i]4
{9�9)894-3553
FFUC (91'S) 894-1283
www. townof�errson. com
TOWN MANAGER
MATTHEW R. 7�,PP
TOWN CLERK
CONNI� M. SC?RF�ELL
FINA'NCE flFFICER
KIMBERLY T. PICKETT
TOWN ATTORNEY
R. ISAAG PARKER
Thanlc yt��i for your consideflation of o�ir support for tlae Coinplete 5�0 Project. The Tawn c�f
Bensr�� �s coi�rniited �o the vitality af its citizens and sus�aina�le pianniilg ar�d deveioprnent. The
Coanplete 540 Project is an iin�orta�it compc�nent �o the ease af access anci c�uality of life For au�•
citiz�ns aild businesses. While no one route is devc�id of itnpactin� �lar, naturafl and ht�tnan
environn7erl�s, constrL�ction of tiie rot�te is necessaiy wai�h inc�•eased �owih an� �raffic congestion
in tl�e lr��n��e region.
Benson supports tl�e proposed "oi•an�e" eoi-��idor. Tlus cot-�ido�' wduld assist oa�r citiz�ns that
worlc i�� Wake CoLinty anc� RTP by decre�sing �l}ei�• cnmmute tir�Ze. F'urtlier�noi��, trucic traffc
flie��ing west from Benson will iinc� the "or�nge" corrido�• less er�cl�z�be�•ing tlian ti•aveling
tlu•o��h I-40 dufl•ing pea�C coFn.in�ate tit�es.
We will continue to follow i���rnlat�oil relatec� ta Co��plete 54� as it becon�es av�.ilable. T�is
praject plays a c�itical �ole in our strate�ic plaryning etfoi-ts and we look forward �o its
coitstit'uctia�. �f yotl have any questions ar coininents, please clo not l�esitate �o contact �is,
Best Rega�rds,
_ , �'' � .
���;��� � �
Karissa Ber�ene
�conoinic �evelo�memt Dgrector
Tawm af BensQn
�lcbergene c�tawncaf�ensor�.cc�m
Appendix C - 21

From: Tyler Bray <[e-mail]> on behalf of Tyler Bray
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 2:13 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: DRAFT EIS Comments: Town of Cary
Greetings,
The following comments are submitted on the Complete540 DRAFT EIS to NCDOT from the Town of Cary. If you have
any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Tyler Bray
• Page 31: The heading at the bottom of the page should be moved to the top of the next page.
• Page 32: The heading on the bottom left should be moved to the top right.
• Page 73: There should be a dash '-' after the word Services instead of a period '.'.
• Page 81: The word 'are' in the last paragraph should read `area'.
• Page 87: The heading is missing the word `on'.
• There are two greenways in the Town of Cary that are affected by the proposed Orange Route. They are the
Optimist Farm Greenway and the Camp Branch Greenway. Please ensure that connections are shown and
constructed so that these greenways will be accommodated with a grade separation across/under NC540 if it is
designed/constructed in this location. The Town of Cary specifications calls for culverts with this
recommendation to be a 12'x12' box culvert poured in place.
Tyler Bray, PE
Transportation Planning Engineer
Transportation & Facilities Department
P.O. Box 8005, Cary, NC 27512-8005
Voice: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Visit us on the Web @ www.townofcary.or�
In keeping with the NC Public Records Act e-mails, and all attachments, may be released to others upon request for inspection and
copying without prior notification.
Appendix C - 22

�, � (% (., •
�
� �
�zt/z ��zdG��
March 17, 2016
Via Electronic and USPS Delivery
Mr. Rodger Rochelle, PE
NCDOT - Administrator of Technical Services Division
1516 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1516
RE: Clarification of Importance of the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Facilities within the
Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 540) Corridors
Dear Mr. Rochelle,
Please accept this correspondence restating and expanding on our prior comments regarding the
importance of existing wastewater treatment facilities which will potentially be impacted by the Triangle
Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 540) project (STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829).
City staff provided written comments in January 2016 on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the project and further explanation of those comments at the March 3, 2016 meeting between
the City, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and supporting consultants. The
Orange, Lilac, Teal, and Brown corridor segments have various, sometimes significant impacts on the
City investments in regional wastewater and water treatment facilities located within the general
corridors under consideration for the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 540). Some
of those impacts (Lilac, Teal and Brown corridor segments) may jeopardize the current and long-term
ability of the City to provide both potable water and domestic wastewater treatment services.
The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) is the regional utility that unites the
municipalities of Garner, Knightdale, Rolesville, Wake Farest, Wendell and Zebulon with the City itself
and our collective 530,000 citizens, customers, businesses and institutions. The most important mission
of this regional utility is to meet our collective water and sewer resource needs today and into the future.
The current facilities are uniquely situated to meet this and other important missions of CORPUD. The
facility locations were well-established and are resources that may be impossible to replicate. The
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 59O • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Appendix C - 23

2
facilities impacted by STIP Nos. R-2828, R-2829, the Wrenn Road Spray Irrigation Facility (WRSIF)
and Neuse River Resource Recovery Facility (or NRRRF, formally the Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant), are critically important to meeting those regional needs.
As noted in the Draft EIS, the WRSIF is a 600-acre site that is made up of receiving and holding ponds,
a liquid distribution or "spray" system and receiving agricultural fields. The facility is dedicated to the
disposal of industrial discharge from the D.E. Benton Water Treatment Plant (DEBWTP). Opened in
2010, the DEBWTP is one of the most advanced potable water treatment facilities of its size and type in
Southeastern United States. Collecting water from the impaired Swift Creek watershed (Lake Benson
and Lake Wheeler) and with a maximum treatment capacity of 20 million gallons per day (mgd), this
facility was designed with emerging contaminates of concern in mind. In fact, in the future this facility
may receive treated effluent from the NRRRF to use as supplemental source water. The impaired status
of the Neuse Estuary for nitrogen loading makes it necessary that the City have capacity for land
application rather than having to use scarce nitrogen credits for a discharge. In addition, the Endangered
Species Protection for the dwarf wedgemussel population in Swift Creek prevents a discharge of evenly
highly treated wastewater to surface waters from the DEBWTP.
The DEBWTP, like all potable water treatment facilities, produces as industrial wastewater discharge
made up of water treatment coagulants and the organic/inorganic constituents removed from the source
water. This industrial waste, which can represent 5-10% of total treated flow, must have a final disposal
option; said another way, a potable water treatment plant cannot operate without an approved, permitted
disposal site for its industrial waste. The WRSIF is the a�roved, permitted disposal option for the
industrial waste produced by the DEBWTP. There are no readily available alternatives in terms of land
or point source disposal. Because this industrial waste contains organic matter, it is a source of nitrogen
and any point source disposal option would require a nitrogen allocation; something that is not readily
available in the Neuse River basin at this time. The "Lilac" corridor segment directly impacts 88.7 acres
of the WRSIF, including the treatment sprayfields and at least one of two 25-acre holding ponds,
effectively removing the facility from operation. The "Orange" corridor segment will still directly
impact 10.8 acres of the WRSIF, but will avoid the collection and spray irrigation components of the
facility. The City has both limited time and resources to evaluate the potential costs associated with the
loss of this facility, but staff considers the estimates provided in the Draft EIS to be on the extreme low
end of the probable range of costs, as the Utility Impact Report cited in the Draft EIS underestimates
utility impacts, in terms of number, location size and criticality, in its evaluation of water and sewer
infrastructure. For the City, this raise concerns regarding the accuracy of impact estimates related to
water and sewer infrastructure.
Alternative disposal options are not readily available around or near the DEBWTP or the WRSIF,
necessitating off site acquisition, permitting and construction cost of unknown magnitude. Complicating
the matter, the City of Raleigh may not purchase or acquire through eminent domain land in Johnston
County without the express permission of the Johnston County Commissioners, further limiting
alternatives (N.C.G.S. 153A-15). Accordingly any proposed mitigation of this impact by substitute
fields may require use of the eminent domain powers of NCDOT.
Also noted in the Draft DEIS, the NRRRF is a 60 mgd advanced biological treatment facility which is in
the final stages of an expansion to 75 mgd. This facility receives and processes up to 90% of the
wastewater generated by the regional utility customer base, is 49% percent of the 7Q10 of the Neuse
Appendix C - 24

3
River at discharge and is subject to stringent effluent standards for nutrients as a result of the Neuse
River Estuary Nutrient Management Strategy and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nitrogen.
Service area wide studies in August, 2008 (CDM/Hazen and Sawyer) and August, 2014 (Black &
Veatch) confirmed 2040 projected flows for this facility of 86.95 mgd, with preliminary engineering
reports for the ongoing expansion (February 2009, CDM/Hazen and Sawyer) and current water supply
planning (December 2015, Hazen and Sawyer) supporting the assumption of 50-year flows in the range
of 90-115 mgd. The facility produces Type II quality reclaimed water for distribution off site and
reclaimed water is utilized on site in an ever expanding spray irrigation system on approximately 300
acres of the 1,100 acre facility.
Currently, the facility is permitted as a non-conjunctive use, meaning the utilization of reclaimed water
either off site or on site as irrigation for the farming activities is not necessary for compliance with the
facility's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. However, as the NRRRF
discharge comprises 49% of the 7Q10 today and further expansions will only increase that ratio, it is
possible, even probable, that the City will need to exercise a conjunctive wastewater disposal option to
continue to meet the projected needs of the regional utility in an ever evolving regulatory climate. The
City recently selected Black & Veatch Consultants to lead a wastewater master plan that will include the
consideration of conjunctive use options for future compliance challenges.
The Draft EIS notes direct impacts by the `Brown" route equal to 87.2 acres of the NRRRF, with most
acreage composed of sprayfields and biosolid or residual land application sites. The Utility Impact
Report cited in the Draft EIS didn't assess planned future use of this acreage in the context of regional
wastewater treatment. The City has both limited time and resources to evaluate the potential costs
associated with the loss of this acreage at this facility but staff considers the estimates provided in the
Draft EIS to be on the extreme low end of probable range of costs for replacement of land for both
biosolids application and sprayfields suitable for conjunctive wastewater disposaL The Utility Impact
Report cited in the Draft EIS underestimates utility impacts in its evaluation. For the City, this raise
concerns regarding the accuracy of impact estimates related to water and sewer infrastructure.
As stated before, alternative disposal options are not readily available around or near the facility,
necessitating off site acquisition, permitting and construction. Complicating the matter, the City of
Raleigh may not purchase ar acquire through eminent domain land in Johnston County without the
express permission of the Johnston County Commissioners, further limiting alternatives (N.C.G.S.
153A-15). Accordingly any proposed mitigation of this impact by substitute fields may require use of
the eminent domain powers of NCDOT.
In conclusion, it is the opinion of staff at the City of Raleigh that the effects of certain routes on the
operations and future utilization of the WRSIF and the NRRRF have been underestimated in terms of
regional impact and cost. If a preferred alternative is selected that includes the Red, Lilac, or Brown
corridar segments, the City will request and require that information concerning impacts and relocation
being fully addressed in the iinal EIS, and that any iinal determination of LEDPA be held until more
complete information can be adequately reviewed and vetted by all involved agencies. We thank
NCDOT, FHWA and USACE for the opportunity to offer this correspondence clarifying the importance
of existing wastewater treatment facilities within the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
(Complete 540) corridors.
Appendix C - 25

Respectfully Submitted,
'�
Kenneth R. Waldroup, P.E.
Assistant Public Utilities Director
Todd B_ Delk, P.E.
Senior Planning Engineer, City Planning
Cc: Ta�nsy Hayward, Assistant City Manager
Robert Massengill, P.E. Pub�ic Utilities Director
Aaron Brower, P.E. Assistant Public Utilities Director
TJ Lynch, P.�. Assistant Public Utiliiies Directar
Dani�l F. McLawhorn, Associate City Attorney
Kenneth Bowers, AICP, City Planning Director
Eric Larnb, P.E., Transpartation Planning Manager
Rob Hanson, P.E., NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Brian. Yarr�amoto, P.E., NCDOT Project Development and Environmen�al Analysis
Nora McCann, NCDOT Project DeveIopment and Environmental Analysis
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Donnie Brew, Federal Highway Administratian
Appendix C - 26

United States Department of #he In#erior
�ISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post �ffice Box 33726
Ralei�h, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 2S, 2015
Richard W. Hancock, PE
Project Development and Environmental AnaIysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Hancock:
This letter is in response to your Nov�mber 13, 20151et#er which requested camments from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ser�ice) on the Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension in Wake and Johnston
Counties, North Carolina (TIl' Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829}. These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act {42 U.S.C. 4332{2)(c}) and
5ection 7 of the Endangered Species Act {E5A} of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543}.
The North Carolina Department o� Transportation {NCDOT} and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) prapose to build a new, limited-access highway from NC 55 in Apex to
US b4/US 264 Bypass (I-495) in Knightdale — a distance of approximately 27 miles. The
Complete 540 project wauld complete �he I-5�40 auter loop that currently exists on the north and
west sides of Raleigh.
General Comments
Overall, the project wiil have very substantial impacts on fish and wildlife resources, including
impacts to streams, wetlands, upland forest and ather habitat types. These impacts will be in the
form of direct loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation effects on remaining habitat. Although
these habitats are already fragmented by suburban development and other land uses in the praject
area, additional cumulative habitat fragmentation effects will accur. In addition, indirect habitat
loss is expected due to secondary development induced by the new road facility.
Comments on the Dwarf Wed emussel
In previous conespondence and during the Service's participation in interagency meetings, the
Service has frequently stated its concern regarding the likeiy adverse effects of the project on the
federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (DWM, Alasmidonta helerodan) wi�hin the Swift
Creek watershed {Neuse River basin). It is anticipated that the FHWA, as the lead federal action
agency, will initiate formal Section 7 consultation by submitting to the Service an initiation
package which includes a Biological Assessment (BA). In return, the Service will canduct an
analysis to determine if the project wilI jeopardize the continued existence of the DVUM and
Appendix C - 27

iss�e a Biological Opinion (BO). Since there was a significant lack of iriformation needed to
develop the Environmental Baseline gortions of the BA and BO, the NCDQT and FHWA agreed
to fund additional studies within the Swift Creek watershed to fill in the information gaps.
The Service has reviewed the "Dwarf Wedgemussel Viability Study: Phase 1" report and found
the information ta be very helpfiil and well presented. The information provided addresses sorne
of the critical information needs we have. However, we ur�derstand this infarmation to be an
interim report of tasks completed thus far, with subsequent tasks and analysis to be provided at a
later date in Phase 2. Conclusive answers to questions regarding the viability of the DWM and
its habitat in the Swift Creek watershed aze yet forthcoming.
in order to avoid a Jeapardy BO, the action agency must not "engage in an action that reasonabIy
would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the
survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of that species." In order for the Service to ultimately recover the DWM, the 1993
Dwarf Wedgemussel Recovery Plan requires, among other criteria, that a viable population {i.e.
a papulation containing a sufficient number of reproducing adults to maintain genetic variabiiity
and annual recruitment adequate to maintain a stable population) occur in Swift Creek.
Therefore, maintaining such a population in the post-project Swift Creek watershed is vitally
important. We cannot understate the significance of this issue.
Since the DWM was first discovered in Swift Creek in 1991, rapid development within the
watershed belaw the Lake Benson Dam has severely impacted the DWM. Mussel survey data
from this timeframe shows a decIining catch per unit effort (CPUE), implying a declining
populatian. Although preliminary indicators of the long-term viability af the DWM in Swift
Creek are mixed, one positive note is the evidence oi recent reproduction. However, it is uncleaz
whether this reproduction is sufficient to maintain population viability.
A North Carolina DWM work group has cancluded that population aug�nentation through
captive propagation is an essential component of management strategies to ensure DWM
persistence in Norkh Caralina (Smith et a�. 2015). This is especially true with the populatian in
Swift Creek where the Allee effect (high risk of demographic extirpation due to low population
abundance and lack af dispersal) is one of the majar limiting factars of population viability.
Though much of the technical and procedural knowledge far propagadng DWM has previously
been developed (Beck and Neves 2U01 }, the Service and our partners lack a dedicated facility
and staff to conduct DVdM propagatian on a large scaIe. As stated on page 95 oithe DEIS,
targeted efforts to propagate the DWM and augment the existing papulation in Swift Creek could
improve the chances of maintaining the species' viability in the watershed. As a project
conservation measure, the Service recommends that the NCDOT and FHWA provic�e assistance
in deveIoping a dedicated captive propagation facility in order ta produce DWMs for augmenting
the deciining population within Swift Creek. T�ie ability, or the lack thereof, to propagate
DWMs and augment the populatian in Swift Creek will factor significar�dy in our analysis to
determine whether the Complete 540 project will jeopazdize the cantinued existence of the
species.
Appendix C - 28

Comments on Alternatives
Detailed study altematives that include the Red Corridor segment cIeazly have the lowest
impacts on wetiands and streams. The Red Carridor would have the least direct and indirect
effects on the DWM and its habitat since it crosses Swift Creek upstream of Lake Benson —
outside ttre known range of the species in the watershed. However, the Service acknowledges
and understands the intense opposition to khe Red Corridor segment due to its disproportionate
impacts on tY�e human envirorunent.
Detailed study alternadves that include the Orange Comdar segment, being the protected
comdor with right-of-way purchases made many years ago prior to any comprehensive
environmental analysis, greatly minimize impacts to the humari environment. However, the
Orange Corridor segment has great potential to adversely affect the DWM since it crasses Swift
Creek, tributaries to Swift Creek, and a significant portion of the watershed all downstream of
Lake Benson — within the known occupied range of the species. The Orange Corridor segment
connects to I-44 at a particularly unfavorable Iocation for the DWM. This location puts the
interchanges with I-40 and U5 70 Bypass on top af several tributaries to Swift Creek and also is
in close proximity to the Swift Creek main stem. The DWM is at risk from direc� effects
associated with canstruction of the project (e.g. erosion and siltation from construction) and from
indirect effects associated with the degradation of water quality fram secondary development
induced by the new road. Increased impervious surface and storm water runoff from additional
development would likely further degrade the wa�er quaIity of Swift Creek and its tributaries.
Also, ather propased projects within the study azea such as the proposed widening of I-40 (TIP
No. I-5111) and bridge replacements on Swift Creek could cu�nulatively contribute to a decline
in habitat yuality for the DWM. The Service finds the Orange Corridor very problematic.
Detailed study alternatives that incIude the Lilac Corridor segment would have very similar,
albeit somewha� lesser adverse effects on the DWM. These somewhat Iesser effects would be
due to the fact that the interchange with I-40 would be farther removed fr�m Swift Creek and i�s
tributaries.
Other Species
The DEIS renders a biological conclusion of "no effect" for the federaIly endangered red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides barealis) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Based on tl��
survey results, the Service concurs with these "no effect" conclusions. The DEIS renders a
"May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect'° conclusion for the northem long-eazed bat (Myotis
septentrionalis). As stated in the DEIS, farmal Sec�ion 7 consultatian has aiready been
completed for this species #hrough a Programmatic Bialogical Opinion adopted on May 4, 2015.
As stated in the DEIS, Section 7 is yet unresalved for the DWM and Tar River spinymussel
(Elliptio steinstansana). However, the Service believes tha� the project is unlike�y to have
adverse effects on the Tar River spinymussel.
There is a possibility that up to three additional mussel species may be listed as federally
endangered or threatened prior to the completion of the Complete 540 project — the Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconaia masorti), yellow lance (Elliptio lancealata), and green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis). Conclusions and recommendations for the dwarf wedgemussel may be relevant to
these additional species. In addition, the Caro[ina madtom {Noturus furiasus, a f sh species) and
Appendix C - 29

the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi, an aznphibian) may also be federally listed as
threatened ar endangered prior to the completion of the project.
Other Miscellaneous Comments
Page 29 states "...the dwazf wedgemussei...could be directly affected by the proposed project."
While true, the Service believes that indirect effects from road-induced development aze the
greater cancern.
Page 97 incorrectly states "An incidental take is when a non-federal activity will result in the
loss, or "take" of a threatened or endangered arumal." As per SQ CFR 17.3, an incidental take is
"any talcing otherwise prohibited, if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the
carrying out of an otherwise Iawful activity." For the purposes ai Section 7, this would only
include federal activities. F'or Section 14 of the ESA, incidental take wouId only include non-
federal activities.
The Clemmons Educational State Farest is referenced several times in the DEIS. The Service
prefers that this forest not be impacted. At only $25 acres, this state forest is relatively smalI and
already exists in a fragrr�ented context. Even small impacts to this forest could substantially
degrade the wildlife habitat value of this public land.
The Service believes that this DEIS and its accompanying technical reports adequately address
the existing fish and wildlife resources, the waters and wetlands ofthe United States, and the
potential impacts of this proposed praject on these resources. The Service appreciates the
opportunity to review this project. If yau ha�e any questions regarding our response, please
contact Mr. Gary Jordan at {919} SSd-452Q, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Literature cited:
Beck, K.M. and R.J. Neves. 2001. Prapagation studies of the endangered dwarf wedgemussel.
Final Report to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 63 pp.
Smith, D.R., S.E. McRae, T. Augspurger, J.A. Ratcliffe, R.B. Nichols, C.B. Eads, T. Savidge,
and A.E. Bogan. 20IS. Developing a conservation strategy to maximize persis�ence of
an endangered freshwater mussel species while cansidering management effectiveness
and cost. Freshwater Science 34{4):004-040.
Appendix C - 30

Electronic copy provided to:
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
George Hoops, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Donnie Brew, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Neil Medlin, NCDOT, Raleigl�, NC
Eric Midkiff, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Rab Ridings, NCDWR, Raleigh, NC
Appendix C - 31

���t�o ST�TFS
�� A�� UNITED STATES Ef�VIRONMENTAL PROFECTION AGENCY
� � w ���ionr �
� �� ATLANTA fE�ERAL CENTER
0 6T FORSY7H STREET
yT9�ppQ�EG�` ATLANTA, GE4RGIA 30303-8960
Mr. Richard W. Hancoek, P.E., Manager `� A� � 4 201 fi
�'roject Deve�opment and Envirorunental Analysis
North CaroIina Departinent of Transpoctation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, l�Torth Carolina 27699-154$
Re: FederaI Draft Environrnental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft 54(�} Evaluation
for the Cornplete 540 [Triangle Expressway 5outheast Extension] Project, Wakc and
Jarinston Couzlties, North Carolina; ERA No.: FHW-E40852-NC; CEQ No.: 20150323;
NC Department ofTransportatian (NCDOT} TIP Project Nos.: R-2721, R-282&, and R-
2$29
Dear Mr. Hancock:
The U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency Region 4 Office has received and reviewed the
subject document and is cominent�ng in accordance with §309 afthe Clean Air Act (CAA) and
$ t 02(2)(C} of th� Nationa] Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NEPA process provides
decision-�nakers the type and quality of information needed to make infonnecE decisions about
�v�lere and how fa iinple�ne�lt the subject project, or whether to proceed with the project at all.
The Complete 540 Federal Draft Environtnental Impact Statement (DE[S) proposes an
approximately 27-mile, 4-lane divided, liinited-acccss toll high���ay originating at NC 55 in
Apex, North Carolina and connecting to US b4/US 264 Bypass (1-495} in I{nightc�ale, North
Carolina.
Alt�iough this project is not included in the NCDOT's NEPA/$404 Mer�er process, the EPA
staffhas been an active participat�t in the MAP-21 �6002 coordination plan fc�r tl�e proposed
project, ineluding purpose and neEd, detailed study alternatives to be carried for�vard and
alignment review.
Tl�e Complete 540 DEIS represents a navel approach to creating a strearnlined, reader-friendly
document. The EPA we]comes innovative approaches to describe and discuss the proposed
actions in a concise and straightforward n�anner. The primary funetion of a DEIS is to explain
how decisions about the project were made anci to convey the infonnation that was used to
inform those decisions. Nut�erous technical reports were cited and linked within the DEIS.
However, the information from these reports such as the findings, conclusions, and/or
recorramendations, which are essential in conveying th� basis for decision making, were not
included. Thus, the EPA rated the DEIS as `Environmental Concerns' (EG2), indicating that our
review identified envirorunental impacts within the project study area that shoulci be avoided in
order to fully protect the envirorunent. The `2' rating indicates that the DEIS document does not
#niernet Address (URL} . h1tp:/lwww.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycied Paper (Minimum 3Q% Postconsumer)
Appendix C - 32

contain adequate information in order to sufficiently assess all of the envixonmental impacts and
allowing the EPA to be able io identify an enviranmentally-preferred alternative.
Climate ch.ange could have potential effects on transportatiojz infrastructure. We recommend that
the NCDOT, in concert with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), incorporate
scenarios from the National Climate Assessment (NCA), released by the U.S. Global Change
Resource Programl as a prediction of how climate change may impact this particular
transportation facility. Based on future scenarios, it rnay be appropriate to incorporate resiliency
features to withstand rnore frequent andlor rr�ore intense storm events as well as the impact of
#emperature extremes on pavement and infrastructure.
Specific technical review cornments on the DEIS are enclased to this letter (See enclasure).The
EPA recommends that all of th� technical comments in the enclosure be addressed in the Final
EIS (FEIS). Additionally, we also recommen.d that all impacts to the human and natural
environment that have not been disclosed in the DEIS or c4vered in the FEIS be addressed in
additional NEPA documentation prior to the issuance of a Recard of Decision (AOD).
Dr. Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, af my staff, will continue to work with you as part of the NCDOT
Intera�ency Tearn in the identificatian of reasonable and feasible alternatives. Should you have
any questions concerning these com�nents, please feel free to cor�tack her
at: vanderwiele.cynthia(ri.;epa.�av ar [phone]. We appreciate the apportunity to comment
on the proposed Camplete 540 praject_
Sincerely,
G. Alan Farrn r
Director
Resource Conservation and Restoration Divisinn
Enclosure
cc: John F. Sullivan, II�, P.E, FHWA- NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS Raleigh Field Office
Rob Ridings, NCDEQ, DWR
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
� httn:l�'i�ca?�14,�lol�alcha�l�e.�ov.-
Appendix C - 33

ENCLOSURE
Draft Environmentai Impact S�atement
Complete S40 (Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension) Project
Wake and Johnston County
ERP No.: FHW- E40852-NC; CEQ No.: 20150323
Potential ImAacts from the ProAosed Pro�ect
The Complete 540 Project assesses 17 Deta.iled Study AIternatives (DSAs}, consisting of 1 �00-
foot eozridors on new locatzon—ranging from 25.2 to 32.Q miles in length. Residential
relocations range from 234 {DSA 4) to 550 (DSA 9) and business relocations range �`ro�n $(DSA
3& 4} to 16 {DSAs 8– 12). Agri-businesses impacted by the project range from none (DSAs 1,
S-7, 13, and 17) to 3(DSAs 9– 11), with losses in prime farmland soils ranging from 1,949 acres
(DSA 7) to 2,332 acres (DSA 12). The Clean Water Act Sectian 444 impacts range from 51,5$2
{DSA 7} to 78,0871inear feet (DSA 1�) of streams; 51.4 acres (DSA 7) to 75.6 acres {DSA 1) of
wetlands; and 49.0 to 103.4 acres af i 00-year floodplains. Cultural resource impacts include up
to 2 Natianal Register of Histaric Places (NHRP)-listed sites with adverse effects {DSAs b and
7} and up to 27.2 acres of i�npacts to Department of Transportation Aci of 1966 §4( fl public
parks and recreation facilities. The impacts of this project on floodways, the 500-year floodplain,
terrestrial forests, unique farmlands, soils/minerals, greenhouse gases and climate change,
community cohesion, futuxe local and regional land use plans, and on Environmental Justice (EJ}
coz�nunities is unclear. See Comparative Evaluation Matrix on pages 107-109 of the Draft
Environmental Impact �tatement (DEIS}.
Summary
The DEIS did not include an `Executive Suminary' section.
EPA Recaminendation: An Executive Surrunary section is used to succinctly and accurateiy
s�mmarize the EIS including the purpose and need, majar conclusions—particularly the
enviranznental impacts of all alternatives (e.g., a table of impacts), areas of controversy, issues
raised by agencies and the public, issues to be resolved, and the choiee among atternatives and
identification of a preferred alternative (CEQ reference 40 CFR § 1502.12). It is recommended
that an executive s�xmrnary and table oi all key natural and human resource impacts be included
in the Final Environmentai Impact Statement (FEIS).
Study Overview
Chapter 1 pravided an overview and history af the proposed project, including a useful graphic
of the project Iocation, and an overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
EPA Comment: The study overview chapter is useful for public outreach in explaining the
project cantext.
Appendix C - 34

Proiect Pu�rpose and Need
Two primary purposes of the Complete 540 project were estabiished: 1) improve mobility within
or through the study area during peak travel periods, and 2) reduce forecastCed] congestion on
the existing road►Nay network within the project study area.
The needs for the proposed project include: 1) mare route choices and 2) congestion on the
existing roadway network.
The Capita.l Area Metropolitan Plaririing Organization {CAMPO) notes that the "Traangle is one
of the natfon's most sprawling r�egions...a key challenge is to match our vfsion for how our
communities should grow with the transportataon investments to support this growth" (p. 1�
emphasized in red bold). The EPA supports the principles of sustainable community
development2.
EPA Comment: The transporta.tion agencies might wish ta consider the potential indirect and
cumulative effects from the various alternatives in the identificatian of a preferred alternative
and th.e potential negative enviranmental consequences of `sprawl'.
The Studv Area and Its Features
This chapter aims to describe the infarmation callected by the study team.
EPA Recommendations: The DEIS chapter on the affected environment should concisely
describe the human and natural environment of the area to be affected by the DSAs under
consideration. This chapter should concentrate future planning and documentation effort and
attention on important environmental issues, particularly the presence or absence of significant
human and naturai resaurces.
The Land Use and Population Characteristics section of the DEIS provides a substantial narrative
on suburban development and limited information on community characteristics. The findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Community Impact Assessment (CIA, June 2015}
technical report were not included in the DEIS. The CIA and the DEI5 both do not provide
sufficient in�ormation pertaining to the existing land use and demographics. Of primary concez-n
to the EPA regards not including the six (6) demographic indicators for identifying EJ
communities3 (i.e., rninority, low-incame populations, over 65 y�ars old, under 5 years old, less
than a high school education, and linguisticaily-isolated populations). A summary and/or graphic
of EJ populations within the detailed study area should be included in order to be able to fully
understand the demagz�aphic characteristics within the study area. Additfonally, the DEIS also
did not include a description, findings, or summary of the study area population's use and
consumptian of environmental resources, neighborhoods, ar reference existing or future land use
plans. The CIA report, however, substantiates the fact tha# while the project itseli does not
2 See Guiding Principles, http://www.�a.gov/smart�rowth/hud-dot-epa-partnership-sustainable-
communities#Livability Principles.
3 See: http://www.epa.�ov/ejscreen/overview-demographic-indicators-ejscreen
Appendix C - 35

conflict with any local land use plans or with any of the jurisdictions' desired development
patterns, each particular DSA would have potentially negative effects on localland use plans and
planning objectives (CIA, page E-5).
Tables listing park and recreation facilities, historic praperties and districts, and other significant
public or semi-public land uses/�uildings located within the study area are a useful way of
summarizing information in a succinct manner.
The Economic Characteristics section of the DEIS does not provide specificity with regards to
median income levels within the study area (i.e., does not include percentages or figures but uses
the terms "samewhat higher" ar"smaller percentage" and does not identify specific block
groups). Similazly, the Racial/Ethnic Percentages section does not provide suffcient information
regarding census block graups or cancentrations of communities of concern. It is Z.ulclear
whether there are significant block groups of EJ communities of concern as there was na
discussion of this in the chapter. As such, the EPA is unable to make a determination at this time
regarding which DSA would have the least impact to EJ communities. The EPA suggests that the
transportation agencies consider utilizing the `EJ Screening and Mapping' tool at:
http://www.epa.�ovle1screen for the FEIS.
The project study area includes 445 jurisdictianal streams and S43 jurisdictional wetlands. The
DEIS Water Resources section did nat include any tabular infarznatian summarizing stream or
wetlands findings (e.g., NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM} and NC Wetland
Assessment Method {NC WAM) ratings, water quality class, etc.}, or other data regarding the
quality and integrity of these systems. Some of this data, hawever, can be founc� in the Waters
Report (September 2014). The EPA recommends that detailed information on jurisdictional
resaurces be included and presented in a cornparative farm based upon the DSAs in the FEIS.
The DEIS section on Protected Species describes several species that are located within central
and/or eastern North Carolina. However, it was unclear as to whether or not there are species of
concern present lacated within the project study area. The referenced Natural Resources
Technical Report provides some additional detail. The EPA requests that a summary of key
protected species and the potential effects based upon the DSAs be included in the FEIS.
This chapter alsa lacked cross-cutting NEPA informatian regarding: floodplains (E.O. 11988; 10
CFR Part 1022); natural resources (e.g., timber, soils, minerals, fish, wildlife, etc.; Council on
Environmental Quality regutations at 40 CFR § 1508.8); prime/unique farmland (Farmland
Protection Policy Act of 19$1: 7 USC §4241); and migratory birds (Responsibilities of Federal
Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, E.O. 13186). The EPA requests that the transportation
agencies include this infarmation in the FEIS and also make it available to resource and
permitting agencies during the Interagency Coordination Team meetings.
Detailed Studv Alternatives
The DEIS Selection of a Build Alternative was based on several key factors: logical
termini/independent utility, roadway design criteria/typical sections, and study alternatives for
each section. The range of build alternatives was reduced to seventeen (17) 1,000-foot wide DSA
corridors which are comprised of various combinations of 10 discrete color-coded corridor
Appendix C - 36

segments. A substantial portion of the "Orange Corridor" segment was established through right-
of-way acquisitions by the NGDOT as a protected corridor for the paroject in the mid-199Qs, in
order to protect it from large-scale development. This pre-NEPA action could be regarded as
being pre-decisianal based upon the information provided in the DEIS. The Orange Carridor
crosses a portion af the Swift Creek watershed that provides habitat for the federally-protected
Dwarf wedgernussei (Alasmidonta heterodon) and has more wetland impacts than the other
corridors under consideration.
EPA Recommendations: Color maps of each of the 17 DSAs were included in the DEIS but did
nat provide the length {mileage) of each alternative. A table of each DSA and how each one
compares to the project's purpose and need would facilitate comparison of the alternatives (CEQ
reference § 1502.14}. Although the DEIS describes the color-coded segments, information on
each DSA is not provided. Consequently, this makes it difficult for the EPA to fully assess each
alternative in a comparable fashion.
From the information provided, DSAs 6 and 7 appear to most closely meet the Coznplete 540's
`Purpose and Need' as these alternatives best facilitate the ability to provide other route choices
due to their proximity to other major highways within the existing network (thus, alleviating
congestion on existing roadways). DSAs 6 and 7 would be the most viable `jumping on/off
points' to the majority af commuters witiiin the study area. The EPA notes that these alternatives
include the "Red Corridor" segment. NC General Assembly Session Laws 2013-94 and 2013-
l 83 removed previous restrictions on considering this segment as reasonable and feasible
aIternatives that meet the Coznplete 540's `Purpose and Need'.
Additionally, the EPA also f nds that DSAs 8-17 as being very problematic as these
alternatives are the most distant from existing road networks and would he less able to meet the
`Purpose and Need' as stated (i.e., increase mability and reduce congestion on the existing
roadway network as a commuter would have to drive substantially further to access the Interstate
540 toll facility}. Furthermore, DSAs 8-17 would have the most potential induce low-density
development in an area that is currently rural/agricultural and have the highest impacts on habitat
connectivity, §404 jurisdictional streams and wetlands, threateneci/endangered species,
farmlands, and residential relocations.
Because all of the 17 DSAs far the Compiete 540 project are entirely on new location, the EPA
advises that wildlife `hotspot' areas be fully iden#ified in the FEIS. Furthermore, the EPA
encourages additional collaboration with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC} and
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to design appropriate underpasses and/or overpasses
to reduce large mammal mortality with vehicle collisions, and increase safety and reliability.
Expected Effects of Each Alternative
This chapter aims to describe the DSAs and the resulting direct and indirect irnpacts on the
human and natuxal environment. The graphics provided facilitate understanding of relocation
impacts and neighborhoad effects.
EPA Recommendations: The DEIS describes the process for determining the effects and
discusses impacts in a general sense, but daes not explicitly discuss direct ar indirect impacts on:
Appendix C - 37

- future land use and transportation planning
- commercial cozxidors at�d nodes
- police, fire, and emergency sezvices (e.g. response times)
- relocations in terms of securing affordable housing; mobility, and access
- community effects (i.e., high beneft frorn project versus high burden}
With tYze exception of some EJ issues, zz�ast of the irnpacts of the Complete 54U project can be
located within the technical reports provided on a compact disc (CD}. The main findings,
conclusions, and recormnendatians from these technical reports would be beneiicial ta inciude in
the FEIS.
Cultural Resources and Public Facilities: The EFA encourages the transportation agencies to
continue coordination efforts ta avoid and minimize impacts to parks and recreational facilities
and historic properties.
Noise: The EPA understands that a more detailed review of specifc noise barrier locations will
be perfonmed during the final design process. The EPA encourages the transportation agencies to
consider the design and implementatian of evergreen roadside vegetation in lacations that do not
meet the threshold for naise barriers. The use of vegeYative roadside screening azn.eliorates noise
impact issues, visual quality impacts, as well as provides some potential beneficial effects for
downwind vehicle emissions from near-roadway air pollutants.
Jurisdictional Resources: Impacts to floodways or the 500-year floodplain were not incIuded in
the DEI5. Floodways and floodplains are vital to reducing the likelihood of localized flooding
during storm events, particulazly as the study area continues to urbanize. The EPA
environmentally prefers bridges to culverts at majar hydraulic crossings. The EPA encourages
engineering designs that in.carporates resiliency strategies inta the Complete 540 project to
mitigate the likelihood of floociing in low-lying, flood-prone areas in addition to the identified
FEMA 100-year floodplain. Such a design will ensure that the project's `Purpose and Need' is
met with regard to a robust, reliable transportation system as weil as potentially mitigate for
extreme weather events that are anticipated to increase as a result of climate change.
The EPA environmentally prefers DSAs 6 and 7 as the alternatives as having the Ieast impacts to
jurisdictional streams and wetlands based upon the inforrnation from the DEIS. DSAs 1— 4 and
8— 17 have the highest stream impacts while DSAs 1— 5 and 15 - 17 have the highest wetland
impacts. Further avoidance and minimization during final design should be considered in order
to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. The EPA has environmental cancerns about the potential
impacts from same of ihe DSAs with respect to the Swift Creek Watershed critical area and
streams and wetlands that have higher quality ratings using the NC SAM and tlie NC WAM
method.s, respectively.
Protected Species: The EPA encaurages fi.irther collaboration with the USFWS and the NCWRC
during final design to avoid and minimize unpacts to threatened and endangered species. There
is patential for adverse biological effects as a result of the proposed Complete 540 project.
Appendix C - 38

Several recent studies have examined the use of bridges and culverts as [day and night] bat
roosting habitat4. The staructural design af bridges and culverts with regard to the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis} might be considered during final design as a way to benefit
and/or promote recovery of the species within the project study area.
Climate Change Adaption: The DEIS did not address climate change/greenhouse gas emissions.
We recommend considering climate adaption measures based on how future climate scenarios
may im�act the proposed project in the FEIS. The National Climate Assessment (NCA) contains
scenarios for regians and sectors, including transportation. Using the NCA or other peer review-
reviewed climate scenarios to inform alternatives analysis and possible changes to the proposal
can improve resilience and preparedness for climate change. Changing climate conditions can
affect a proposed project as well as the project's ability to meet the designated purpose and need.
For additional infora�r�atian, the transportatian agenc:�s may wish +o refer �o:
https•/lwww whitehouse ,�ov/sites/default/f les/docs/nepa revised draft�hg u� idance searchab
le.pdf
4 See: http://www.icoet.net/downloads/99paper2l.pdf
Appendix C - 39

��EpY �F C�'�S
�� `��`":J y�9
.�_ M
. ��.: .
� �- �
Z�d -� �w�
°7ares oF P
(Sent via Electronic Mail)
UNITED STATES DEPAR�'MENT OF C�MMERC�
National flceanic and AtmosphericAdmiroistration
NATIONAL MARIfJE FISHERIES SERVICE
Sou�heast Regional Office
263 13ih Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505
hrip:llsero.n mfs. noaa.gov
December 15, 2015 F/SER47: KH/pw
Col. Kevin P. Landers, Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilinington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilinington, North Carolina 28403-1398
Attention: Eric Alsme�
Dear Colonel Landers:
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the public notice for Action ID # SAW-
2009-02240�, dated November 16, 2015. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
examining alternatives for the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension — Complete 540 in Wake and
Jollnston Counties. The Wilmington District is soliciting comments on seventeen (17) alignment
alternatives evaluated in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), dated November 2, 2015. The proposed expressway is not within
areas designated essential fish habitat, and the NMFS offers no comments under the authorities of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As the nation's federal trustee for the
conservation and inanagement of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishery resources, tl�e NMFS
provides the following coinments and recommendations pursuant to authorities of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.
The NCDOT proposes to complete the outer loop around the greater Raleigh area in Wake and Johnston
Counties by connecting the existing NC 540 toll road at NC 55 in Apex to the existing I-540 at the US
64/US 264 Bypass (I-495) in Knightdale, a distance of approximately 27 miles. The proposed project,
called the "Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension — Complete 540," would have six travellanes
divided by a 70-foot-wide median, which is consistent with the built portions of NC 540 and I-540. The
Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension woiild be within the Neuse River Basin.
All of the expressway alternatives presented would cross the Neuse River and most would cross Swift
Creek. The Neuse River and Swift Creek include spawning, foraging, or migration habitat for American
shad (Alosa scrpidissi�na), striped bass (Moi•one saxatilis), and American eel (Anguilla ��ostrata).
Anthropogenic impacts, including noise disturbance, sediment and toxicant input into streams and rivers,
and direct physical injLtry, are threats to these fish and their l�abitats. These impacts can directly affect
individuals and spawning aggregations as well as permanently eli�ninate nurseiy, foraging, and spawning
areas. At the ecosystem level, the loss of freshwater wetlands can adversely affect water quality as this
habitat filters pollutants and facilitates transport of organic material and impacts to streams can
permanently elii�ninate l�abitats used by aquatic organis��ns.
Within the 17 Detailed Study Alternative (DSA), the number of wetland impacts ranges from 111 to 161,
the acreage of wetland impacts ranges from 51.4 to 75.6 acres, the nuinber of stream crossings ranges
from 106 to 142, and the length of the stream crossings ranges from 51,582 to 78,087 linear feet. All of
t The NCDOT 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as project numbers for the wark are R-2721, R-
2828, and R-2829.
< � ;2=
�s�A ��,E
Appendix C - 40

the alternatives presented would require seasonal, in-water wark moratoria and other restrictions to avoid
and minimize potential impacts to diadromous fish and their habitat.
The NMFS prefers DSA No. 6 or No. 7 because these alignments avoid impacts to shad and striped bass
and their habitats in Swift Creek. DSAs No. 6 and No. 7 cross Swift Creek upstream of Lake Benson and
the Lake Benson Dam, which represents the upstream limit of these fish in Swift Creek. The NMFS also
prefers these alternatives because of the smaller impacts to the Neuse River compared to the other 15
DSAs. Additionally, DSAs No. 6 and No. 7 would impact the fewest wetlands (113 and 111,
respectively), least wetland acres (52.0 and 51.4 acres, respectively), fewest streams (109 and 106
crossings, respectively), and fewest stream linear feet (53,014 and 51,5821inear feet, respectively).
In summary, all of the expressway alternatives presented would temporarily and permanently impact
streams, wetlands, and open water ponds and would alter or eliminate the functions of these habitats.
Selection of DSA No. 6 or No. 7 would avoid and minimize impacts diadromous fish habitat due to the
comparatively small impacts to streams, wetlands, ponds, and the Neuse River and the potential
avoidance of impacts to shad and striped bass and their habitat in Swift Creek. The NMFS recommends
DSA No. 6 ar No. 7 as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).
The NMFS appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please direct related questions or
comments to the attention of Keith M. Hanson at our Charleston Area Office, 219 Fort Johnson Road,
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110, [e-mail] or by phone at [phone].
/ for
Sincerely,
; GcP �fJ-e�
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
cc: COE, [e-mail]
EPA, [e-mail]
FWS, [e-mail]
NCWRC, [e-mail]
F/SER4, [e-mail]
F/SER47, [e-mail], [e-mail]
2
Appendix C - 41

Natural Resources
Conservation Service
North Carolina
State Office
4407 Bland Road
Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Voice 919-873-2100
Fax [phone]
USDA
_ United States Department of Agriculture
DEC 17.2015
Mr. Eric Midiff, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transpor�ation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27601-1418
Dear Mr. Midkif£
Thank you for providing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), an opportunity to review and comment on the
Draft Environrriental Impact Statement Complete �40 - Triangle Ezpresswc�y
Soiatheast Extension (the DEIS).
We have reviewed our records and determined, as of this date, that NRCS:
1. Holds no conservation easements inside the DEIS Study Area; and
2. Is not in the process of acquiring conservation easements inside the
DEIS Study Area.
We encourage the Department of Transportation to use NRCS developed soils
data to identify, avoid, and minimize conversion of Prime Farmland soils to non-
agricultural uses to the greatest extent possible, as those soils represent an
irreplaceable resource. Technical interpretations of soil properties5 including
Farmland Classification interpretations are provided on the NRCS Web Soil
Survey at: htt�://websoilsurvey.nres.usda. og v/app/HoinePa�e•., htin.
If you would like further assistance from NRCS please contact Matthew Flint,
Assistant State Conservationist for Technology, at matt.flint�nc.usda.�ov, or
[phone].
Si ,
.�--�, �---,
' � ��--
Timothy A. Beai•d
State Conservationist
cc:
Matthew Flint, Assistant State Conservationist for Technology, NRCS, Raleigh,
NC
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources mission.
An Equal Opportunity Provider, Employer ard Lender.
Appendix C - 42

ER 15/0641
9043.1
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Suite 1144
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
December 31, 2015
Mr. Eric Midkiff
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
�1
'�"1
TAKE PR1DE�
�NAMERICA
Re: Comments and Recommendations on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Section 4(� Evaluation for the Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension,
Wake and Johnston Counties, NC
Dear Mr. Midkif£
The U. S. Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Complete 540 Triangle
Expressway Southeast Extension in Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina. We offer the
following comments:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) propose to build a new, limited-access highway from NC 55 in Apex, to
US 64/LTS 264 Bypass (I-495) in Knightdale for a distance of approximately 27 miles. The
proposed highway, known as Complete 540—Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension, is being
proposed as a toll facility.
Section 4(f� Evaluation
There is an extensive record of coordination with land owners and managers of 4(� properties as
well as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for this project. The potential uses of
these resources were discussed, avoidance alternatives and other measures to minimize harm to
the resources are identified and coordination with the public official having jurisdiction over
each resource is documented. Section 4(� resources that have the potential to be impacted are
listed below:
Appendix C - 43

Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension - ER 15-0641
Dr. L.J. Faulhaber Farm
Bryan Farms Historic District
Baucom-Stallings House, Middle Creek School Park, Planned Sunset Oaks Park,
White Deer Park Expansion Area
Planned Bryan Road Nature Park
Watershed Extension Loop Trail (Clemmons)
Neuse River Trail
Since a preferred alternative has not been identified at this time, we cannot concur that the
Section 4(� Evaluation includes all planning to avoid, minimize and mitigate all harm to 4(�
resources and that there is no other prudent or feasible alternative at this time.
The Department has no objection to the demimimis determination provided that a MOA is
developed identifying who is responsible for each avoidance, minimization and mitigation effort
and the MOA is signed by the SHPO, land owners and managers.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments. If you have any questions
concerning these comments please, contact Anita Barnett at [phone]. I can be reached on
[phone] or via email at jovice_stanley(�ic,ios.doi.gov.
cc: Christine Willis — FWS
Gary LeGain - USGS
Anita Barnett — NPS
Chester McGhee — BIA
Robin Ferguson — OSMRE
OEPC — WASH
Sincerely,
Joyce Stanley, MPA
Regional Environmental Protection Specialist
2
Appendix C - 44

Pat McCrory, Covernor
,. �, '. ; , i. � ' �, f . - �,.
�'. .. -. , ' � � :.
=� . �:�. �'':. �.l...' s:,.�<.:
I�ece�nber 1 �, 2015
Mr. Eric Midkzff, PE
Narth C�ralina Department of Transpa�tatian
I'rojec� Developmer�t � Envirar�r�ental Ana,lysis
15�8 Mail �ez v�c� C�nter
Ra�ezgk�, North Carolina 2�699-154�
��1� L�a�ghtridge, Jr., Secretary
Re: �C� I+ile #� 16-E-422D-0134y 1JA'.�Sy P�°���se� pr�sject �s fc��° t�e Cmtra�le�e S�fi `]C�°i��gl�
E�p�°�ss��;y �ou�the�st E�te�s��n, '�IP P��jects IT-2i21, �i-2�2� �n� i�-2�29a
Dear Iv1r. Midlciff, PE:
The abave �ef�renc�d �nviror�m�ntal impact i��armation has �eer� s�bmitted to the State Cle�ri�ghouse
under the provisions of the Natzo�al Envirpn�e�tal Poiicy Act. 1�ec�rding t� G.�. 113A.-1(3, wk�en a
s�ate a��ncy is xequzxed to prepare an envirar�mental docurzaexzt �uader t�e provisipns of f�deral 1aw, t�e
e�vzrar��ez�tal t�oc�nent mee� the �rovzsions oF �he �tat� Enviranrnental Palicy Act. Attached to this
Ietter for your consideratian are ihe car�tnents �aade by agencies in ihe co�rse af this re�rie�r.
I� a.ny furt�er environmen�al review d.acumen�s are �repared for tliis pro�ect, they s�auld be �a�raz�ded to
this offiee for intergovernmental re-�iew.
�hould you have any questions, pl�ase do not he�itaie to call.
Atiacllrnents
cc: R.egio� J
11aFailing �iddress:
I30I NFail Serviee Center
Rafeigh, NC 27G99-13QI
�incerely,
� ���-
C�yst Best
State Envzaro�me�tal Review Clearinghouse
Telephosre: [phone]
Fax(9I9)733-9571
State Courier #51-Ot-00
e-mail [e-mail]
An Equczi Opportunit,y/�1f�rmative Acfion Employer
Lncation AI ddress:
i 16 West Janes S€reet
Raleigk�, No�h Caro[ina
Appendix C - 45

���..
,.��
�YiVCI"DYtf'iZ EYl �"GZ�
QIICI�I$�
;�Il7:71►�-17�It�l'
Tc3: Crystal �est
5�a�e �iearingha�se Coc�rdir�ator
� f��partrraent �f Adrr►inis�rat�on
FRC?M: �.�r� Hardiscrn
Llivision �f En ir m�n��l A55i5t�nc� and �ustorr3er Set�riC�
Pe�m�t l�ssisiance � Proje�t it�view Coc�rdinatar
�'A�' i�l CC � E�l2 Y
cnvemo,�
{�Ci�lA�.D R. Vi�f� �ER VAART
5�cretpry
RE: 16-�134
Dr��t Enviror�rnental Irrspaet Stat�ment
�ropased pre�ject is �For �h� Corr�plete 54Q Triangfe Expressway Southeast Extensi�n, 7iP Prc�jects —
R-272�., R-282$ and R-�829 ,
VVake and Johnstan Counti�s
Uate; Decerr�ber 5.7, 20�5
�h� f��partrn�n� of Enviro�mentaE QualiCy has r�vi�wed the prnposal fflr the referenced project. Based on fhe
inf�rmatior� pr�rvided, 5�?V�Cai Of our agerlCi�5 �1�V� id�i�tl�Ed �7errnft5 that may be €�eqUEl'�d �I�ti Off�red 5a1'r1e
guitlanc� ta rn9nimiz� irnpaets tt� the natura! resources withfn ti�e pro�ect area. �'he cAmments are attached fcar
the applicant's eonsideratian.
�'h� C3epartment encaurages the appEicant to con#in�e to viarK with our a�encie� durir�g the N�PA ftller�er Prcacess
a�d as this �roject moves fnrw�rd.
ihank you for the opportunity ta respond.
Atta�hm�ret
-�'�"i�r��%i�g �c��par���...
SfiateofNort3t�aro�ina j Enviro�imentalQual€ty
1601 f�iail Servir.�Certer E R�ieigh. hicsrYh Carca�ir�a 276�9-76(11
419 - 707- �t's�
Appendix C - 46

� �o�� ��.����n�. ���d.�.�f� �sc� ��� ��� ������ �
Gord€�� �yers, Ezcec�.�ivs I�i�ec�or
a�13��t ! t = �i�i�
TO: L� �Iardis�n, �n�vz�an�e�atal Assis�ance Coo�c�a�sa�c�r
L7iviszon a�En�r�rau�ta�tal Assisia.t�ce �d C3uttea.ch, L7���i.
FRC3�: Travzs Wzi�an., �ag�v�ay Project Cooxdinator
Habita� Car�sservatiaz� Pr���asza,
3��TE: �3ecer�n��x �, 2€�3 5
SU�JE�T: I�'nt� ��rolina De��e�# c��Trar�sporta�io� (I�CI�O'I') Dxa�i �nvirc��enta�
I�xpact Sta�z�.�nt {�}E��) far tla� prnposed Camplete 54� T�ia�gle �xpresswa�
S�u�east Exte�sio� in �Jal�� azad Toh�ta� Counties, �o��ik� �axoiina. TIP Nos.
�.�272i/R-282$(Pa-�.$�9. �CI��rt�jectN€�. �.�-013�
�ta�� bicai�gists �vi� the N. �. 't�4r�.dl�e Resouroes �oxr�xni�sion have z�evaewed �e subj�ct
i�EZS and �r� fasr�iliar with habi�at va1���s iz, t�e p�•oject a�-��,. 'I'he pu�pos� o���is r��ievv �as t�
a,�ses� p�vj�ci a�x��acts to �'a�i� �d w�I.dli£e �esc�t,t�e�. C)ur corrt�r��nts a�e �ro�it��d ir� a.ccc�rda�ac�
�ith r,���t�.i� prc�visions c�f ihe �a��aar�aai �n�virnr�.�ntat P€��cy ��t �42 U.S.C. 43�2(2){c)) an.d t�x�
�'ish and'i�'��Iifs Coor€3.i�a�ion �ct {4� Stat, 401, �� am.e�ded; lb U.�.�. 66�-667d).
NCI30T �s proposia�.� �i� constr�ct't�n of � lirr�i�d �ccess fa�ility on �e�r Ioca�ian fxom.lrTC
55 i� Apex �c� LJ� �4lIJS26� �3ypasa (S-49S) i� ��zghtdale. �nowz� as fik�e Cnm�le�e ��4-
Txza.ngle E�pressway Saa�t�east Extez�sifln, zt zs pz��c�sed �s a. tofl I'acrli�y. The ap�ra�cima�� 27
��i�e �ong facitity will �ve exte�sive di�ect impa�ts t� t�.e nat��a� envixor�nent as we� a.�
se���xd�xy �.nd cr.amulat�ve im��.cts witiv� the prajec� ar�.,
The DEI� id�:a�a�'i�s 17 d�tailed stu+�y a�fi�na�tives (USl�s) w�� appro�.ated i�n�acts
z�arngi�.g �rom S 1;582 to 78,f}8'7 �i�ea�r feet of s�rea�xz, w�tla�:d. �pacts of 5i.4 to 7S.0 acres, a�
yvell as subsiantfal u�land �itat xemaval� The DE�S re�ezesaces flae valu� o�'rnaintaz�it� ha�itat
cax�necfzvzty x� this al�eady £�agmen.t�d ia�dscap�. .A.s �ith any mul�i�la�a.e �e�� lar.�tiQn. highway
�'acilrty ��zs praj ec� �vill xesult in �her �r�grr��n�g the: h�bita� t�r��.gho�.t i;�e prap�sed 27 mil�
c.c���idc�z.
��i��eg 1�c�da°��s: LDivision af�n3xtad �ishek•ies • i721 �ail �e�vice Cen�er � R�l�igf�, NC 2i699-1721
T��e�a�a�n�: (919} i47�-�220 a �"ax: (91�3j 707-UQ28
Appendix C - 47

��721/R.-28�81i�-2�29 Pagc 2 I3eceml�e�� 9, 20I5
105}
As ��$ed u�der 9:he Inc�i�•ect E��ts and U�.mulative �z�zp�cts saciia� c�f �Iiis dac�am��t, (p.
"... ihe burZc� sc�nar��os cc��ald lec�d t� �or•e �c��fd g�°�o�,th anc� ana�a inte�,�e
dev�lo��zcnt i� sor�ae ar�as n��rrproposcd inte�°ch�xn�;e,r. In this �vuy, �ach �f th�
.D,��s vs+ould. �ikely lead inc�uced la�d deveir��me�i �nd i2ighe� conce�airat�on�s of
Izrgh-r�ensiCy ancl �ao�e a��tense Z�anc� uses in t�re vr�iaai�y+ of the .�5.�, especaally �er�r
zrcter�ch��a.ge a�er�s ".
T�ais v�riil be a�ay aspect i� sel�cii�g the �,�ast �n.�vironm.��.�a��� I��agis�g �racticable
�.t�r�� ��i�e,
�i1��'�ise �, l0�)
"Ca�tinued a'evelo�rrae�i ir� ih� dawe�^ S�v� �eek wat�Nshed, belotv �he Lt�ke
�erzson dc�asa, rnay pose c�iai�enges far� the long-ter�z viabaiity af d�vr,�f
��edge�rtu�ss�l �arxbitat i�a this ar�ec�.... The addittor� of the �arn�lete S40 pr�aject ia
tha,� ar�ea has th� pc�t�r�iirxl ta cz�lc� to �he currtulative e. f,�"ects a�ot�ier pasl and
�lanned,�'uix��e�pr�aje�is on th� lc�ng-term viabi�rly r�fthe spectes in the lo��er �S`wr,�`
�"ree�C wate�shed: Contanued' grawila x�nde� either th� buald ��^ n�-hxtild scenari€�s
will have the pr�l.era�i�l in cont�rbuie to fv�est�'Nc��-,nen�ation and waldlife hc�batat
�'isttir�a�ee�. Ce��n�zned �it�i �he e}�'ects ofpast and�lrt�r�e�l,�'utur���c�jec�-,s, the
Complete 5�� p�°�ject could sl�ift t�iese e, ffe�ts farthe� �r� ��e s�uth a�ad ec�st. "
�`hes� a�•e concems s�i�rcd by ihe �iC'4�'RG not o��y %�r dvva�f ��dgerr3.usse� (Ala�idonta
�eterodo�) b�i al.so o-�1a� sensitxve ac�ti�tic speci�s �ound �� the Swift ��eeZ� w�.tez�shed. V�RG
wili assess potez�tzal �ni�.izx�iza�ion ant� coras�r��iion m�as�-�s to address tk�e� con�ern,s,
�R� has ptu�iicipa���. ir� sta�ceholdex• rz��etings as weli as intexag�cy caardi�atzo� t�Zat �as
ac��ed du�i�a� the �lanning o�'�his �roject. 'I�.t r`n��lvem�.i i�as a�o�ed us to express
c�xac�xns i�vo�ving �e poten��.I dir�t au.d i�.dir�ct impac�s assncza�ed wxt� � ti�e �l��t�at�v�s
�d�r conside��ia�a. As �e cc���inue th�c�ug�. t�e coardina�io� process anc� �e alt��na�ive
sele�,an �ve w��l wa�k va�tkz NCDt�'�` ta� av�id an.d zaa.,i�e i�rtpacis to n�#:ural �•esources in �e
prcrj�ct area. Th� �a� fox� �;he opporiur�.ty � com�r�eni. Zf we carn be �f ar�y fitr�.ez' a�sist�rzce
pleas� �o�tact me a� {919) 707�(1370.
ce. Gary Jordan, USF�V�
l�ab I�rc�gs, N�D't�R
Ez•zc .Al��eyez, TT�.A.�"E
�ynil�ia Van I7er �Ti��.e, USEPA
Appendix C - 48

;r � ;ci
� .. �.
'��: L,i�da Culpepper; T�ivgsit�n Direc�ar tk��oug� �har�n Bri�ey
�iigitalty slgned by T7ennis
��.��; f�e�nis Sl�ackel�'ard, Ea�ter�, L3istr�et Su ervisc�r snaEk�iro��
� Di�: cn=C3ennis Shatketfnrd,
�'Q�JE� �2;�t� ��C�l�il F..: r a=DivisionafVJasteManagement
„�,��,<,,H.,, ., .<����-_,�•��Ytr _SalidWasteSadlon,rw=DENR,
e rn ai#=den rri s s h a c k eif o rd @ n ede n
DATE: Dec�bet 1{i, 20I5 �.gou.t-us
aace: zoa s.� z.i o i 520:5�-os'oo`
SLT�i�CT: 1d�PA R�view: I�rojeet #� 1�-t}134 �a�Ce/Jo�stp� Cm�anty
544 T�a�gle E�press�ay �c�uth��t Ext�a�sian
The Division o�` Waste Ma�tagerrierzt, So�id �Jaste �ectior� (�ivision) has revi�ui�d the I�raft
E�vironrnent�.l Iri�pact Siatez��r�t far ihe carnplete 540 Triangl� Expressway �o�theastean Extensian,
Transportatia� ��prcrvement I'rojects �t 2721, R 2$2$ and R 2829. T�e Lii�ision has s�en �o a�verse
im�act c�n the s�rrQunding ccrrnmunity ;�nd 1i�ewise knows t�f z�o sit�t�tiniis in the eQmmus�i�y, �hich
�ot�id affc:c;t tl�is praject.
I��ri�g cc��as�u.ctipn �h.e �artl� Carc�li�a I3e�a�rr���tt Qf T�an�portation (NCD�T) �ho�ald mal�� ev�ry
feasible ei�c�rf to nai�iraaize t.he �eneratia� af vvasie, t� recycle rnat�rial� �or which viabl� marke�s
��i�t, and ta use recyci.ed products and materials iaa t�e develc�pa�aent c�f this prflject where suitable.
Any wasra gez�erated by �azs px�ject that �az�ot be be��£�icially reused ar r�cycled must be dispas�d
of ai a solid v�'aste manag�m��t facility permitted by t�e l�ivisi�n. The �.3ivision s����1�r
recc�ttnn��nd� that the hTCD��' regt�ire aIl �omnaetors to pro�ide proo�' of proper disposaI fc�r �.11
waste gen�rat�d. Eig�t Parzz�itted Faczlities in �ake C�u�ty are as �'olla�vs: 9226-CI3LF-2�101, 9227-
TRANS�'ER-2fi�2, 92�8-�D�F-200L �229T-TRI�NSFER-2009, 9Z34�CDL�"-2000, �231-�DL�`-
20I2, 9234-TRAN��'ER-20�2 a�td 923iT-'�RARrS�ER-2(iJ{4. Additional perrni�t�d faciliiies are
l�sied nn i�ae �ivisio� of �T�.st� Management, �Sc�li.d. Wasfe 5ecti�n pc�rtal sate ai:
� l�n;%/�_c��~�al.�zcdez�.r.or���,e4�f�rt�rf��>f �i��i�ity3z�t.
[uestions xeg�rdir�g solid t�vaste manage3ne�i s�i�tald be directcd ta Liz Pat�erson, En€�rror�nenta]
S�ni�r �peczaIist, S€�l.id Wasie �ection, �.t (919-707-$2b6).
cc: Jason G�atki�►s, Field C9p�ratians Bra.nc� I-�ea�
Liz Pa�,�;ersan, E�virdnrnental Senio� Specialist
Jessica Ntnn�ie, �orn�liance Off'icer
F�yefteuilfe �egi�r€al �i�ice
225 �Si�een StreQt, Suite i74, Fayeti�ville, Nn�4h� Caralina �63Q9•5695
Mair� Plione: 99�•�33-3300 1 lniernet: htip,lf�ww,ncd�nr,gov
An �qttal Qp�arfunify S Aff�rmativa Rction Emp9oyer-N�ade in part by Racycled paper
Appendix C - 49

L ^�:
�t�
s.
�';
�� :�` ._.....:� � ;�� _... .,:
�
���
�� �
�"�';zSiS �tFliCiLJ#.'3YE:TYii
(:.Eti ViR:J?�!ME�A�Fz!_ G�U,43,.11 Y
To:
I.inda Cul�epper, I3ireci�r
I�ivi�ion of Waste Nia�agemeni
D�cerrlber 11, 2D15
PAT MCCRC3R�
. ;.,:�.,.
DC}N�LLD R. �AN I]�'R VAA�'I'
LTNL)A CUL.P�PF�tZ
liL�.,.
Frfl�za: 7enny Patterson, �nviro�ux��ntal ��:nic�r �pecialist, �c���lianc� Branch � �'v'��"`� ����"'�`'�t�°��
�iazardous Waste Section
Subjeet: Hazardous Waste Sect-ion Commen.ts on �he Ca�plete S40 - Triangie Expz-essway Saut�east
E�tension ('U4�ake and .l�ohns�on �ounties}
Project N�mber: 16-0P 3�€
The Hazarclous Waste Section (HWSj has reviewed t�e sub�eat Envia�oz�mental Ass�ssm.e�E%�z' �e p�•c�pnsed
project far tbe constr�ction of the Complete 544 —'iriaugle �xpressway Southeasi Extension project wl�ich
wauld exte�d the �xisking 'I'riangle E��ressvv�y, fro�n IVC 55 Hypass in Apex tc� ti�e U� 64/LTS 2f� �3ypass
in I�r�i�htdale, compieting t�.e 540 C3uter �.00� az�c�und �Iae Raleig� zn�tropol.i� area.
A�y Iaazardo�zs wa�t� ge�ez'ated from dair�plitiern, ccs�structic�n, operatian, or mflinten�ace and/or
remediaiion (e. g. excava#ed soil) frorn the g�xaposec� project must be mana�ed in �ccordance wi�h ti�e Narth
Garplina Hazarda�s 'GVaste R�zles. Th� den�olitio�, co�struction, operaiion, maintenance; and remediation
activities cc�nduct�d wilt �ost lrkely generate a solid wast�, and a detennination must be made whether it
is a�azardo�zs waste, If a project si.te gen�za�es moxe �han 22D paunds �f �a.t�z^dous �+aste an a calendar
morath, the HWS �nust be noiified, a.nd ihe site �rzust comply wi�h the small quautzty genara�or r�quzrern�n�s_
Sf a praject site generates more than 22C10 pounds o£ hazardous r�raste in a calendar montti, t�r� �iWS must
be natif ied, ax�d the site musl comply with the �arge quant�ty generator req�.i�-ements.
��ouId azby questians a�rzse, please co��act z�n.a at 336-"167-0031.
�-„�..,•.,�s, .: � .. , �e�-�.3�-.,__ ,..�,
.. , ,.r, .:����-n �
.- .. „�;.6;...,.�� ...l,rcag�rc8`a :..._ . �., ...
3la[e ofAlorth Camtina j Enviromnenta[ Quciity � LVaste h/tanagement
1645 Mail Basvice Ceneer � 217 West ]nnos Srrc: �� Raleigh. NC 27S99-1b�5
919 7117 H2O0 T
Appendix C - 50

Pat McCrnry
�avernar
Date;
T'o :
'Thrau��h:
Fram:
Subjeet:
��r�h ��roli�� �ep�rtm�r�� o� �r�vir�nr��nial Q��li�y
I��ceynber 7, 2f31.5
Lin�.a Culpepper, �ire�tor
L�i�isiar� af �ast� Managerrient
Ji.m l�ateso�, �u�erfu�d Sec�iion Chi�f
�or�altl i�. van d�r Va�r�
5�cr�tary
: ;� ,�';�' ��:�y�:. ..
;W
t�.darr� Ulis�r��y, �nactive :�azardous Sites Bran�h
�EP�. Project N�mber #� 16-OI34: Complete 540 Triangle E�pr�ss�ay
�autheast E�tensi�n�Wak� an�! Jc�hnstoz� Cc�un�i�s, Nc�rth �arolx�a
I�a�ve co�pletad a database review af sites und�r �he jurisdiciion of th� �upe�fu�d Sea�ion,
and thirty (30} sites are located either wii:�ain t�e studv ar�� or within a on� ��nile se�ci� r�di�s
of the study area b��ndary. The identified sites ar� listed an i�e a�ach�d s�Oreadshee� and
show� a� �.lae a�ached map.
Files %r the attached sztes ca.n be accessed �y �ollowin.g the "Access (��[i�e Files" Iink on
ti�e �uperf-und Sectic�n web�ite: i�tt�s:l/�c��•t�l.��.c�er�r:c�r�;/�r��/wr�s./�L=Ii1�-r�c�ords. ��yau �ave
a�y ques�io�s, please c4n�ta.cfi me at (9 P 9} 707-$21 Q ar via errrail ai
aci��n.i€li.�hne� �.�n.cc3�;r�r.�nv.
Ec: 3'trn Bateson
�� ��
Pete Dorn
16Q6 �lail Service C,�:nter, Ra�eigh, North Caroiira 27699-1 �a4£
Phone: 919-7(17-II2CI0 i infernet: http:llpor�af.r:cdenr.arglwebl�rm
M Ecua€ Uppo� tunilp', Aifi�rnaliue Ar,Gon Emplayer — hiads io part foy recyclac� papgr
Appendix C - 51

Site n4ame Site 1� ��res�ra� 5ite Addre�s eity C�unty
CARRIAGE WOUSE CLEANERS �C92pQ51 €�SC,4 537 Plaza CIR Garner Wake
�OY CLE,4NER5 �C9�a028 DSCA , 45{i3 Fayettevi€le Rd Rataigh Wake
GREENSR#ER CLEANERS f7C92Q032 DSCA 42Q7 Fayeitevlfle Rd Ralaigh �VVake
Con-Agra i5b36-12-92 9�A �85?JonesSausage Rd �arner Wake
4htaimart—Garner � 1f1fl66-D6-92 BFA 4SpE�FayetteviileRd � 6arner Wake
Purser Drive 1Cti767-06-92 BFR 81S Purser Drive Garner Wake
Baker Property, Fprm�r 11�18-07-92 6FA I�ewspaper Way Mally 5prings Vilake
Caayton Bal! Fieid NCD98084A732 PRLF Clty Raad Claykan lahnstan
Eiwac�d Pines pum� �fQ�lCI700Q0729 PR4F 18Q Neurspaper Vvay HoEly Springs Wake
GarnarTr�sh �ump AlONCB�OOD694 PRLF 3Y7S Her�snn �d GARNER Wake
� Nafly Springs Dump NC1NCDppU06A5 pKLF BRSS t.�1KE RD tiOLLY SPRI�iGS � Wake
old ho41y springs dur�tp/ CBry san'EEary LF �fONCD000�6fi5 PRI.F Fdvlly Springa Rd HO�LY 5PR9NG5 ; Wake �
C�LD RRLEf6H LF #12 NONCBEl00069A pRI,F SHIRl.�YST RALEIGH f WRKE �
WE 8uifaloe, JR private dump PdONCB�QC10657 PRL� US-70 GARtVER vaake
CflIV,4GftA FODQ�a. [�[C N�q9R2216477 IMSB 4851.JqNES SAli5AGE R� GflRPfER �1hfAK�
CP%�L Nflfii'HEft�i PIVESIt7N CdMPLEX NQidCp00(��.061 INSB 90Z WITHER5 Rd; SR C�AiiNER 41fAKE ;
�.4fi6
GIJI�FOEiD MILL5 PLANT i` NONC�OOQ1064 IHSB 200 �ICKENS ROAR FU(�UAY- WAKE '
VARINA
BARiNELL RORQ V4tELL5 N�NCppOp132� IHS� CHARiES 5T & ANN AV� RALEIGti Waice
�N-p-gH�EN, INC. Pf01VCf�tpC��.96[t IHSE 2�1 DICKE[�5 R� Ft1C�UAY- Wa}ce �
! VARIfVA
EV�RNGUM,MAftY RE51.�FR1NGE5 Gft0 j NONCi30ti02029 iH5B 455 MAIN STR�ET APEK Wake
NAPR/LOCKAtVIY'SBD€1YSHL3P(F�REtIIER� ' MCiNCi3DQ02116 IHSB 13Q1HIC�HWAY7qWE5T �ARN�R W2k2
NEWS & QS5ERVER MECH 8LV-SPILL NONC�002202 IHSB 1400 MECHAN€CAL �aARN�R Wake
BIUD.
RALEIGH l�Ei75E RiVER W1+VTP fV�ETHANQE. 3UO�tCC�QQ2363 IHSB N�USE FiIVEFt WtNTP � RRLE[GH Wake
REI.�RS �
1N.F. GAfiR[5RN CEIMPANY NOIV��30[ifl2683 tHS6 582p �AYE7TEVlL�E ittaLElGH N/ake
RpA6
Appendix C - 52

S6te Plarrte Site IIS pro�ram ' SBte AddreSs Cliy € ��unfy
WiLLIAMS, E. W, FACfL9TY Ni1NCi7QLip272$ IHSB $�Q� FAYEiTEVILLE RRLEIGH ' V�Iake
Rt]A�
NEEQNiORE GEMERAL STORE N�N�Dt�D02882 IWSB 192i BASS LltKE RD FtJQU.4Y- WRK�
VA[iINA €
POQLE ROAD PCE I�{3NCDRfl�2943 € 4HSB PCSqLE RD RALEtGH I+�AKE I
AMERICAN CQNTRACTCDAi7NGS N�NCfl0U01D33 € IH5B HWY55 APEX WAKE �
S�I FACILIT`( M14�NCAOR02448 i IH56 121 EASTTRYO�t 5TREET RRLEfGH Waice
CASTE.EBE9tRY PFipPERTY NONCD0402A63 ' IHSB 451 �ASi MAIN 5TREET CLAYTON lahr�sYon
#C7SCA-Dry Cfean'sng Frograrn
�BFA-Brpwn�elds Pragram
�`PRLF-Pre-Ptegulatary Landfiil Program
"`1HSB-Inactove Ftazarda€�s Sites Prog�am
Appendix C - 53

, f.... . . .. . ' ' ��..
<.
� y� i 1 � �.. ... �� �g �
� �:..,.' � � ,. . , . !"" f��
�., a
� ��� t� �< S��-Y . _ � . �� .���- v'"� �`�.�.'�� , �i
. ,. � , <• ��.. ., �.. . .- .. � . ,
J !
. � _ �� E3� : � � �, � � ..,�;'_ ,,:
�x I' - � � , , "' �''_ .m4 � .t`s;�'r � .. �:
� �_ " � � � � �'
��, '� 4 � �. � �- �
� , �
� , .� �K -�� �, _,�. ., ��
� �
� �� ' �� � � :�� .� � �� .. �. '
; ` ��� ��- +� �;���`� � �
�y� � , F� r� � .� ,�, ���
s "�- "'
� v ���5 ;:r � � �
s� � � �� � ��'�� �
��� ���;� ��
� � ���� E� , � �s r
! F �
A � d
���. ]L'T �, ' _
'�-" ? ' � ✓' - �
e
M��j�.9��� ..)^ .ax � � ' ' �. .
�
�J h "..� S 3` � �.1
�vy..`� 2��" 4 • : . � �..
Y: . �
�
� � x �. �W ���jf ��i.�"
� �� `
��:, ��� � � �I! .,J�q�p
.. � f., � � . ., �
� �
� <� r� #�� ` � e �r ^
� k ,. � ,'� �x� �a � �� �� �.:
� �
:,'[� � " ' x ` `� u�
E'
� � � f� � .
. , ,.
��, ���_ �,� . r ., ' � � . .,
�
��F�,.,�' �' �z:s,: �
��+ �. ,� � w-. ;
f�lz�`W � �aD � s �
�> � �� � [� J '
".- h
S3
�.,,� � � !�}� �'i„°"',,,r� . � � �'� ���.i�.
W
�'�y�,�'��,';� .�+� �f�eR ` .�� a V� CY.
� �.� .
� � ��
p� > � � � � �a, �0. �, �*
�t r 3��°"s; � �� � �:.�� # � - � e..
� ,� ,,: .j
_ � . � � _ .��n���;�'e`�° ._ 2 , .., _ Y����. . . ��`�:.
�
�
� � ... � �,� rr' 'n� � j ,.
� �
cn a �
� � �'' �
� � � �
� �
�� S:
S �
�¢,,;
�e b
S
��� 1� � = F
�
��.�� �z.<. ��'�� � . . e
� �
�-�� `
: � b
f� � �� � `� �% � �,
`�;'� ` . _ .�
� , � `� �n
� � �
� � �
a� � � � �.
� �: � � � �
� E � � � a�
�
.� r �
��� � � . � � �
,; � � � (!1
� �` ; '� , '`° ,,.. � ��'
� "� _ � � � ; � � � Q e�
� ` ���'y��
'�i'^ �'�^ F�.K ` N� [�
� «'-: � � (� �
�" '�^"_� f 9 .I' � ��.. � � �L
^R
.: 4 � ���� .' i � � � � �
�' �
� � � �
,:: ` � � � � .�
_ ,:.��� . . , �
� � � � �
Appendix C - 54

' -r . ,.:± ,. ... ,
lNaier ltesour�ces
EIVVfRilWMEP{TAL C}idpLi7N
id�i�i�+���ai !� �V�J
PAT MCCRd�Y
c.�„��.,:�,,.
DO�i�LD R. �FAl�1 DEIt VAAtZT
srurerarv
S. .�P.Y ZIiV[NfEEZN1AN
i}iJ'CLYUI'
��� ��� _
T�: L�y� Hardison, �nvironrnents[ C�ordinator, ��ce o�L,�gisl�#iv� ar�d I��ergav�rrtmen�ai Affairs
ihro��h: ,�my C�taprnan, Super�is�r, 'i'ranspartati�n Perarsitt3�a� Unit, �7ivisi�n af �ater ources
Frorn: Rob Ricfings, �ivisi�n of Water f�ese���as, T"rans�r�rtati��s i'erz�itfing iJnit ,�
5ubject: CaYnrnenrs an the Draf� �nviro�nmental Empact State�ner�t, rel�tad tcr �ra�ac�sed h�C 540 Triangl�
, � Expressway 5authe�st L�xtension fro�n NC �5 to U� 264, �a�e Caur�ty, F�dera! Aid F'rojec�t�ia.
S'i'Ppt154a(19-2i� State Pz`ajacil�io. 6.4Dlili$, 6.401Q79 & G.�&OI€38[?; TiPs �-2'i2!/R-282�J€�-
2�29., �tate �tearic��hfl�e Prajeai No. ;"-4�t3�. '
'ihis afiic� �aas reviewed the r�ference�# doc�rr�eni receivcd �ece�nber �, 2CIlS. The NC l�ivision af Watea�
Resauroes (I�(CD1�IR) Es responsible for the issu�nce af ihe Sectian 4Q 8�Jatar Quafity Csrtification #'ar activities
that icnpact �aeers oft�e LI.S., ir►aiudir�g wet[ands. l.t is n�r understar�ding that the prnject as presented wi[l r�su[t in
i�npacts t� jurisdi�ti�na� wetlands, streams, and ather surface wat�rs. Th� t�lCDWR o�`era the foficswing c�r�me�ts
based nr� r�view of the a�'�remenYianed dacument:
�rojec2 �pe�i%� �n�rra�n��:
1. "�his pra,�ect is be��g pPanned as p��k a�the 4fil4/I�CE�A Msrger and Sectinn &ft02 Coardination I�rocess. �e.s a
participating tea�n Enember, the P�ICDWR wili cantiraue t� �rark with the iearn,
2. S[���tns in the praject ar�a incfucfe NS� waters af Yhe 5tate. �'he NGD'�Id. is very cancerned with sediment
ar�d erosiott irr�pacts th�# cauld resulE fra�n th9s projeet, 'Fhe NCT3�1 R re�orrtm�nsis that highiy proteciive
sediment and erasior� control �3MPs be implem�nted to reduce the risk of nntrf�rr� runoff tt� tt�ese streams and
their taibuta,ries. Additianal9y, �� meet the requirements of I��DOT's NPDES permiY NC�OEiD0250, the
1�ICDWR req�ests t�at raad des'rgn pigns ��vide treatment of the 5tornt wet�r rutto€'f 4l�'ough best
rnanage�ent practia�s as detailed ir� th� rr�c+st recenc versian pf khe North �arolina L3ep�rtr.�eni c�f
Trarrsportatiarr StorrrrwaFer iJest h�far�agemerrt Practices Tnofbrz� ttt�nut��.
ldumerous sYreattas �nd tribuC�ries in the !'roject Area are impaired 303(dj wat�rs af i�e State.. TFae NC�WR
is �ery cancerr�ed witk� sediment and �rosian impact5 that caulc3 r�ult fi�ant ehis proj�cY. The NCD��
recor�mends that the most protactive sedic�teat �nd �rrssian�contrql BMPs be impiemented in accordan�e with
.�esrg�r Saa�rdards ira Serasitrbe Wcrtersheds (15A NCA� �4B .� i 2�} to reduca Che risk o�further irrtpairrnent ta
these �vaiers. f�dditic+nally, tl�e NC�BWR rec�uests that road d�sign �Sfa�ss provide cre�trnent of the storm water
r+gn€�ff t��ro�gh hest maroagement praeiioes as detailed in ilte r�nst recent mersion of tl�e l�nrth Carolina
Uspartment of Tran�pnrtation Storrnwater Best Mtr�tcrgement Practices Taol6ax manual. �
5tate of North Caroiina ��'nvironmental {�uality � 1Nater Resources
7&17 Nf�l SBrviCe Center, Ra�eigh, �IwEh Caroling 27654•I6I7 '
Appendix C - 55

4. Review oPthe graj�t reveals the presence csf surface waCers cflassified as Water 5uppiy Critical Area in the
peoject study �rea. Giuen fhe pptential for impacts tn these resource� during Ytte pr[�ject impl�,m�;ntation, the
hfCF3V�R req�xests thet the NC�]Q'� striCt(y adh�re to North Carc�iaa�a rag�(ations entitled i�esrgr� S�ai�rtcards irt
�`znsitive �atersheds ( t5A N�AC 04S ,D]24} thtaughnui design and eonstt�ucYion of'the project. This wauld
aPpty far any area that dr�ins �a streams having WS CA(W�Cer �up�siy Critacai Area} elassi�catinns.
5. �has�ld th� project in�luc�e bridges 6ocat�ti withi� ihe Critical Area ai a Water SuppiY, tk�e i�1G��T may �Za
requir�d t� design, cor�struct> and �raaintair� hazardous spiit catch ��sins in the project asga. The number c�f
c��ch basins i�sstal3�d shouid be det�rn�ined by th� desi�n a�th� h�id�e, su chat runoff�o�al�i e�st�r said
b�sirs(s) rather t4t�n �7owing dir�ctly into th� atream, and in cc�nsuitaeion witF� ti�e RICi�WSt.
Tit�s. pra�ject is withi� the Neuse �tiver �asin. �iparian b�ffer am�cts shall �e avaided and minimiaed ta ihe
greatest �xt�nt possib[e pursuant to 15A NC�C 28.0233. New developrneat activifies lacated in the
pro��cted 5Q-f�aat wide cipas�ian areas within th� b�sin sha[� be li€nated ia "uses" identified wiiF�ir� attd
canstruct�d i� aecordanc� wi4h 1SA. 3�iCA� .02� .fi295. �trffer r�z�igatian may ba required fnr bu�'er impact�
rese�[eing i�om �ctivitias classi��d as "affowaiale with re��tigaeicsn" within the "iable of �ises" se�tian of the
�iuf�'er f�ules as requiee a variance under th� Bu#�er Ruies. :� buffer mitigatian pias�, Garardin�ted with the
I�iorth C�r�lin� E�ivisi�r� of fviitig��ian Serviccs, ara�st ba pramidec! to th� �1��1�IR Priar tc� approval of the
�a�er Quality Cett's�c�ti0n, Bnff�r mitigaYion may fse required �c�c buffer impacts resulting fra�rta aa�tir�ities
cla�sif�d as "aliowable with r�itigation" w'stiun the "Table oiUses" secti�sra of the Buifer ituies mr require a
�ariance u�der the Buf%r Itules. � b�affer �niti�ation plaa�, �anrc#anat�d with ths No�th Garolana �ivisian of
il�itig�tivn 5ervices, rriusi ba pravided to ihe 3�3CI3Vi7€t pricsr Ya approval o�the Water Quality �ertificaiion.
��ne�a! Cvonrne�fis:
7. �'he endironfnez�tal r}Qeumartts shauid �rovide a d�tailed and iterr�ized presentatian aaf th� pro�ased imp�cts to
wetlands and streams witt� carrsspc��ding m�pping. 3f mitigatio� is neeessary as required by ! 5�. �l�AC
21�.f?5�36{h}, it is preferabfe t� present a conc�rYual (ifr�flt finalized) rnit'rgation plan with the environm�rstal
� ri�cument�tfin�. Appra�:riste miti�acir.n pi�ns wili Pse reauired pr�ot� tc issusnce af a 40I WatMr Q�alrty
Certificaiian. °
6, Environment�l imp�ct sCatem�nt altes�€�atives shat[ eonsider design eriteria that reduce the impaets fia sireams
and wetiands irom s4orrn watsr runoff: To rrteet the requiramenCs oFN�DOT''s 1VF�1ES perrnit NCSQ���i254,
fittese afternatives �houkd includ� road des�gns tha� allnvk� for traa[rnent �fi �he storm water runoff thra�agh best
rr��ra�gcment practic�s as detaiiec€ in tF�e mast recent versi€�n aith� 1Varth Cc�r�lirrQ �eperrt»rsrrt af
1`r�c�nsporta8ion �lor�rtwcster &est rYfanagentent Practices Toalbax �rtanu�i, t�hic� ir�cludes BI�FS Suc6� as
grsssed swales, buf3�er a.r�as, prefot�€r3ed sersur hofes, ret�niian basit�s, etc.
�. After the selection o€the preferred altern�tive and priar to an issuance of the 4i1 E Water Qualit3� Certifscatian,
the 1��I.30T is r�spectf�l�y rerr€incled that they wili nee�t #a de€nonstrats the avoidanee and minimizatinn af
isxxpaots fio �vetlands (nnt� sirearr�s) to ihe rr�axim�m exte�t practicai. ir� accnrdance witf� th� Enviranmentai
M�n�gen�ent �amrrEissian's �t�les (15A NCA� 2H.0506(h]}, miti�ation wiil fsee reqr�ired for icnpact� n�'
greater �an i aare to watla[t�s. In the event tha� mi�ig�tion is r�u€rad, tCte mitigaiiot� ptan sha11 ba dssigned
to replace apprc�peiate lost functiotts atsd v�Eues. The Nortts �aroli�a Division [�f Mitigatian Serrrices �nay be
avaii�ble to assist wieh wetland mit'sgaYion.
9. in accardance with the Environmcntal Management Cam�n'rssion's Rules (15A �ICAC 2HA506[h�),
a�itigatifln wi€1 be r�qE�ired f�r impacts of greatar than l50 linear �eet ta ��ty single stream. [n th� e�rent that
�iti�atian is re�uared, t�ta �:itigati�n plan sE�a![ �e designed tc� re�lace ap}�re�tiate fost fu�cticsns ar�d ���.1ues.
The I�csrth Carali�a �iyisic€n af Mitigatian 5srvioes may t� available to assist with s�re�m rnitigation.
lp. Future dacumen�ation, incl�di�ig che 4�1 Watsr Quality Certificatiaz� Appiicatioa�, shali continue tc� inalude an
it�rr�ized 6isiing af the prapQsed wetland and stream irnpacts wiih carr�sgvndi�g rnapping.
Appendix C - 56

i�. The IVC��ffi2 ls very cor►cerned with sediment and erasion 'smpacls thaC could cesu€t fr�m this project. The
NC��T sha�t address tt�ese concents by des�ribing �he potential impacts that may accur to t�e aquatic
environrrrencs ar�d any rnitigating factors tha# wou[d reduee t9�e impacts. �
i2. An �n�iysis af cumula�iVe ar�c? secas�dary impacts antic'rpated as a result �fihis project is r�quired. '�ha rype
and detail of ana�ysis shall coa►�ortrz to the NC L?ivisian pf �efster �tesaueees Pfliicy �n the assessment vf
seconda� �nd cumulaeive iznpacts dated April 1 f3, Z00�,
1�. �'he h[�L��T is r�s�sectfuliy rerttinded that Ail impacts, i�c[udir�g beat not ii�ited to, b�idging, ��1, excavativr�
a�td cfearir€g, antf rip rap ta jurisdactian�i wetiands, s�reams, and riparian but�ers need ica be incfuded in the
�nal impact caiea[atinns. 'ihase ittapacts, in add'ation to a�y Cans�rt�ction itnp�ec#a, �emporary ar �therwi�e,
aiso ne�d to 6e incflud�ci as part of �he 4D [ Water �uality C�rti�catic�i� Appiicatiore.
14. 'VVljere streaans m�ast be crassect, the �IC��f� preP�rs bridg�s be used in lieu csf cc�lve�ts. Hc�wevzr, we r�alize
ti��t �convmic cQn'�id�rations often reqeaire ihe use cofi cu[v�rts. Pi�sse be adviaed that culver�s sha�ld b�
eou�tersuesic ta ailaw unirn�cfed �assage by �si� a€�d other aquatic organisrns. t�oreover, in areas where hfgh
quaiity �+etlands or strea�ns ara i�npactec�, a bric&g� rnay prnve prefera�sle. W�en a�plieabte, the t�i�L1C}T
s[�ould nat insCafl the bridge bents in thc cre�k, to the max€m�m �xte�t practicable.
I S. Whenever �ossibie, the R�CI3�NR prefers spanning stnac�ures, �pasu�ing §tructures usualiy do nnt require
wark widlin the stre�m or grubbing of the strearnban[cs �nd da z�c�i requ'rre stream channel reaiig�ment. Ths
harizantal and verCicaf ciearan�es provided by bridges shall allnw for i�uman and wi[diiPe passage beneath tne
structura. Fish pass�ge and navigation by canoeists and hoe�ecs sha11 nnt be blocked, �3ridge supports (bents)
sh�u[d ncrt be placed ia� the stream �rhen passible.
15. Bridge deck drains shal[ not dischazge dir�ctly 3nt� the steeam. S�ormwater shal� be directed acrass ti�� brizige
and pre-trea#�d through si[e-appropriate means (g�'assed s�tales, pf�-�at'PT1�1� SGqIiC �10�05, veg�tated buffers,
etc.} b�fore entering the stream, To meet the req�irer�ents nit�IC[�C�i's iVPDES �ermit �ICSOfi00250, pflease
refer ta the most recent versic�n of the Narth Carolina I�epartmer�t of Trar�sportalran ,S`tormu �ter Best . -
�uJana�e�en� Practic:s 7"onlh�x r►�nu�l Fr�r ap�sroved meas�ares. ..
lb. 5ediment and erasian c�nt�ol cr�ea�ures should nAt be p�aced in wetlands or streams.
17. Sorrowfwaste �eas shc��.id avn€d weCtands to the maximum extent practica4. lenpacts to wetlands in
6orrawfwaste areas wi[i need ta �re }�resented in ths �#0I Water Quaiity C�riific�tion and cauid �recigitat�
r�►�pensatory za�itiga#[an. -
1 S. The 40t Water C�ua[ity �ertification app�icatEc►n will need t� specificalfy address the proposed �athads for
staranwater managsrr�etzf, ivlare speci�calty, stormvvater sf�a�l not be perrnitter� to dischar�� diractky into
strearns or surface waters.
19_ Based an the in%rmatic�n presenteci in the docum�nt, the magnitttde af irnpacls to wetlands aad streams msy
rec�uire a►t individual Permit (iP} �ppllcatiaee to �he Corps of �ngine�rs aa�d eorresponding 40i Water Quality
Certificacian. Ptease be advised thak a 4fl [ Water Qualiry Csrta�cation requires satisfactmry protecti�n of
water qua3 ity tc� er�sur� that water qusi �ty st�ndards are met and na wetland or strearn uses are 3ost, �'inal
permit auihc�rization wilE require t�e suE�rnit�al vf a farmal �ppiicatior� by the 1�C�l�T and r�rritten ca�currence
fror� k�e NCi3WR. Please b� rware that any appravaf wiil be continger�� oa a�pro�riate avvidance and
minimizatEan of wettand and str��m irnpaets to the rnaximu� extent practical, the deveiapme€�t af an
acceptable stormwater managecnent pla�z, and ths inclusion of apxsr�priaTa mitigatiare plans where appropriate,�
2U. tf eoner�te is used during constructian, a dry war[� area shail ae maintained to pr��ant riirect eontact betw�en
auring concrete and s4r�am water. VJat�s that inas�ve�tently contac�s u€�c�rsd cnncrete s�r�l� not be discharged
Co surfaee vvatars due to the patentiaE for ele�aked p�i and possible aquatic life arsd fish {cilis.
2I ..Ef tert��arary access roads or det�aurs are constr�cted, tha site shall E� graded ta its preaons�ruction conto�ars
and aJevatians. �isturb�d areas shall be seeded c►r rr�ulch�d tn stabilize the saii and appra�riate native waody
Appendix C - 57

species shaiE be planted. When using temporary structures the are� s�tall be claared 6ut not grubbed. �ieartt��
the area with cttain savvs, mowers, �ush-hogs, or other €neehanized ec�uipment and leavr'ng the stus€�ps and rnot
mat intact allows the area tia re-degetate naturally arsti minimizes soif disturbance.
22. iJr�tess otherwise a€�thaxized, p[acem�nt a�culverts �nd ocher strEsctur�s in w�ters anc� streams s�SaiD be piaced
be3csrv the elevatior� of t�e stzearnbed i�y une foot far ali cu�ve�ts witk� a diameter gre�ter th�n 48 inches, ae�d
20 gercent c�f the euivert dflarnet�r fcsr cuiverts havi�g a di�snefar less than 4� incl�es, to ailor� low �1ow
pasaage ofwater an�l aquatic ]ife. I3esign and p[ace�aen� cs�cuive�s a.nd otf�er structures sncludi�g tempnr�ry
et'qs[or� �a�[ttrof s�teasureS Shail nt�t be conduc�ed in �s rnarzt�er t�at a��y res¢it an dis»eg�i[zbrinrr► �f �veglan�l5 ot
streambecEs or bazt�cs, adjacent tn mr upst�eam and dow�strea�n �f tha �bcav� s�ruct�€res. '�`he ag�piicant is
requ'tred to pravide evidence that th� equilil�ri�rm is be'rng r�aint�ined ii requested in wriir�g by the 1V�D�FJIt.
lf ehis enncfitian is una�is Ccs be met due ts� bedrn�k nr c��her limit'sn� �'eat�ar�s eneaur�te�ed duri�g aanstru�tion,
please cc�ntt��t tiie NCD'WR for guidance on ha� ta proceed and to dstarrnine whether or not a permit
�nadi�catiam witl be req�ired. �
23. tf muiti�[e �ip�s ar barreis are required> they shaii be design�� ta rr�ir�€c n�t�ra� s€�eam crass s�cYaan �s
G�nsely as possibl� ir�ci�ading pipes ar ba�reis ai tl�od plain �leva�iass, �7oe�dplaan ben�h�s, ancUor si[Is c��y bc
requiced where apprc�pria�e�. Wide�ing the stream chann�l sha�td 6e avo�ded. Stream cha��tel widening �t the
iniet or outiet end csf sfnactures rypicalty decreas�s water vetocity causi�g sediment depositian titat req�ires
increased enaintena�ce and disrupts aquatic fife passage. .
24. If faunclatian test barin�s are r�ecessas�y; it sh�ll be ecated in tE�e daau►nent. Ceatechnic�( work is appr�ved
ur►der Cx��eral 4U1 CerCification Number 3�83/Natianwide Permit Na. �a ��r Survey AcCivities.
25. Sedaman� as�d srasi�n conFrol rs��asures suf�cient tcr protect wa�er resa�rcas must be i�nple�en�ed ar�d
msintai�e� in accardance wit� t�e mcrst receat versi�� of Iriorth Caro[ina 5edi�ent �nd'�rosior� Cantrol
Planning end E�esign Manu�l a�d t�Ze sr�ast reeent v�rsion oi�4GS4ti(}25F?.
26. A�I work in or adjaeent €o siream waters si�ai! he cot�dcacted if� � cEry work area. r�pproved �M�' sneasures
�crn the rrs�st curren� version nf the NCY�C�T Consrruction and i�iain€ar,ance Aci�viiies m�nu�l s�eh as
sacsdbags, rock "t�erins, co�i'erdams and bther diversion str�c�ures shai( �e used to prevent excavation in
iiowin� water.
27. While the ase of Natianal Wetland Inventvry (I�E�II� ma�s, NC Caa�stal i�egi�r� ���luati�n of �e€iand
�igrsi�cance (l�iC9�REVif�) mnaps and soil surv�y msps ar� usefia8 taca�s, t}�eir inherent inaccuracias rec]uir�
ih�� qusii�ed personne� perfo�trt ansite wetland d�iineatinres pric�rtQ pes7nit appr�val.
2�. Heavy ec{uipment should b� b�aerated fr�rtx the bassk rather than in stcearn ehanne�s in or�ec ca minirrsize
setiimerttatian and eeduce ti�e likc9Ehood of inrraducing ath�r gollutants �nto streams. �'his �quip�ent shall be
�nspect�d dai�y and �r€ai�tained to prevent eanta�ninatian of s€�rface waters from ieaking fuels, Iubricants,
hydrauEic �uids, ar �ther toxie materials.
�9. Riprap sf�al[ nat 6e placed in tlse aetive th�iweg ck�annel or p[acec3 in the streambed in a m�nner t�at pr�cludes
aqu�tic life passage. Bi��ngirse�ing boulders ar structs�r�s should be pr�perly designed, sized and iRst�lted.
�0. Riparia� vegetation (native tre�s and shrubsj shaii be preserved t� tha maximt�m extent possib[e. Riparian
vegetation must b� reestabiished wiif�in the e4nstru�tian iirnits r►fthe praject by the end afthe grawing seas�n
f�[3nwir�g completion o4' consiructia€�. ^
Appendix C - 58

The hEC�WR appreciat�s the �ppartunity tm provide camcnents an yc�ur �rojeat. �hould you have any q��stians or
reqtiire any aciditionai infarm�tion, pfl�ase cont�ct Etcsb �idings �t 919-i€D7-�7�6,
Electr6a�ic copy only d`astrabratiars:
�ric Alsmeyer, US Army Cc�r�as of �ngineers, R�ieigh Fie(d t3f�ce
[]r. C:yn�hia �Jan C�er Wieie, U� Enairpnm�nTa� Prot�ctian Agency
Fiie Copy
Appendix C - 59

�t�te o�'�Tarth �a�t►flan�
Revi�wing Offaee: Ralei�,,,h,
H3e�s�rt�e�t af �nviron�saen� and I���ural �es�urces
�1�'i'E�G��ktlo���NTAk� 13E�I�� ��R�3�C�' ��I�Ii��:NT'� Prajeci Number 16-Q 134 Due I3aie: i 211.Of2QI5
Cc�uniy �Iaice (JoEutston�
After reuiew ofthis pro.�eet it has heen deierminesi that the fiNR permit(s) andFor agpmvais indicated may �ieed to bs obtained €n csrder t�r #his project tn comply with
Nor�h Csrolina Law. Quesiions r�garding these permiYs ahnuld ba addaessed to tiie .C2egional f3fiiae indieated on the reverse of tha form. t�ll app[icaiions, infomnatian
and p idelines relatrve to ihese plans and pe�mits are available from tlze sa�ne Regional fJffinc
Diarctrai Pracess Tim�
P�,FtIvri'T'� SP�CIA�, APPLICAiIOS� PItUCED[IitES ar z2 E�UtR�:MENT5 [srst�rtary came limitj
Permst to constr¢ct & ogarate wastewatcr €re:otment facilities,
Applicetion 4Q days �fore l�e�in eonstruc�tion os awaxd of cnnstruction 30 days
❑ sewer syskem e7cterisians � sew�r systeans noF discliar�ing
intu sEaCe surFace 4vaters. cos�tracts. On-5ite s`nspu�tion, t'ost-applica#iais teahnieal ctin%,rance usua3. (9D days)
Ni�BES • gertnit to discharge inio surface water andlor Applrcation 180 tiays before begin acii�ity. fln-site inspection Pre-
❑ permit io operate and construct wuste�;afer facilities 8pplrcari°° conference uSuaL Additionaily, obla'rn petmit to construct 9fl-120 da}°s
diecharging intn state sucFuce tvaiers. r"'����'�'°���' �"����� facility-granrred a€1er?v���S. Repty tatne, 3D days after (N/A)
receipt of �inns ar issue nf 1�kDE� perrs�it-whichsver is later.
❑ Water 1Jse i�ermit Pre-appiication technicul confer�Mae Ezcual6y necessary 30 days
i���1
� Well Cunst�t€on Iyermit Cam�lete appiication must be �eceieed and permii issued prior io the 7 ciays
insiaitatian of � wetL (l i days)
Applica#ion copy rnust be served on each adjacent riparian pmpeny owner,
❑ ����� �� �,F�� ����� (3n-site Rnsgection. Pre•applscat'son ennf�rez�ce usuat. Fitling may require 55 days
Easement to Fill from td.C. Depatkmant af AdrninistrAtion anc€ (9� days)
Fsderal Diedge �nd FiII Permit.
�'emtit to construct & operate Air i'oIl¢tion Abatement �pPlic�tiun rnust be svbmitteti and permii receiverl prior to
eonstruct�an and operat�an nf the source. If a permic is required in an
� facilities andror Ernission Saarces as per 1� A h�CAC . 9�} duys
{ZQ.b iQ� ihru 2Q.0300} area wichaut tacaE znsvng, then thera are addition�i �qu�c�ment�� and
cimelines (2Q.0I 13j.
❑Permit m eonstntct 8c c�per�te Transpqrtatinal Fpcs[ity ets per Applicatdon must he svbtnitY�ei a± Ieast 9U deys priarta consittiction �a ��$
1SA i+�CAC (2D OBo�, 2p,oGp7 oz mc3dificaiic�n aft[ie sonrce.
�Any apen bumirsg ass�ciatc:�i vrith sub�ect proposal mu5t �e
ia compliance wi4h i� A�ICAC 2'D.190Q
DemoIitiun ar renovatiQns of sEruotur�s con4aining ashestos
�niateria3 must Ue in com�liance tt�ith IS A NCAC: 20.4111� �0 ���,5
(a) (1) which requires noti5cation andremoval prior to �1A (90 dayx)
de�noiition, Cqntact Asbestas Cantral Gxaup 919-167-5950.
��;omplex Source Pennit requised under 15 x1 NCAC
� ! 2I3ASd0
Tha Sedimentariorz Polluiion Contrnl Aci vf 1973 �ttusC be properly addressed Por ar�y lznd disturbin� �ct€vity. An erasian BU sedirnenlation
� contrcrl g3ast will be rec�uired if one or mnre acies t� he disturi>ed, Plan �3sd wskh proper Re;ionai Ot�"�ce �,urtd Qwality &2cFion) At IeasY 3ti �6 ���
tlays bsfore begipning aotivity, A fe� of �r�1� for the first �re or any part of an acre. An express [e�ew opiian is avaiiabie with additional (3� days)
fiees. '
�5edimentatian anci emsion coe�frol2nust be addressed in accardance vrith NC17E1T's approved pro�aram. Particulac attention shauld be given �3p ��ys�
ts� design and installatinn af ugpraprzafie �uzimeker sedsmen# trapping devices es well � s3abie starmuater canvayances and outlets, �
On�ite usspeciiun usual, SUrety hond �led tvith �1i2 Bond aznneint varias
� Mining Permit with lype snine an3 number af acres c�f afEe�tetl fA�zd Aray are mined gceater 3o days
fhan onc acre must he permitted. Tlze approgriate hond must be reoesved (60 days)
before tIie permit can Le issued.
�� ___.�._.. ��-site inspecfian hy N.C. Bivision Fcscasi Rasources if perniiE �ceeds 4 I day
� North Cazotina Buraing pen�ut days
(NlA.}
On-site inspeotiop by N.C. Di�dsion Foresf itasvurce5 mt�uired "if mnce than
�SpeciaS Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 1 day
five acrzs a£graund olearing actir�ities a��e it�volved. T�spec[ions sl�auid be
couniies iry coast�l �I.C. with arganic soils reqnested aE least tea days t�fnre acCual bum is pkannad." ��A�
� Oi! ReHning FaciliLies N/A �g�j2� �Y�
(���)
If permik r�qe�ired, appiicaEiQn GO days bcfcsre begin cansCr�etinn, Applicant
musf hira N.C, qualifi�ci engsncer to: p�pare plet�s, inspect eonstructian
� certify canstnac#ion is accordine to �NR approve� plt�ns. M�sy alsa require
�` Dant Safety Pemut ���� r�der mos�uiW eontroI pmgrarn. And a 4U4 pern�cit from Cotps of 30 days
Engineers. tL�l inspection oF sife is nacessary Yu ver'rfy Ht�mrd GlpsSification. {b0 days)
A minfmu�tt fee of $2G0.()f3 must accampany the application. An addiCia�a1
grocessin� fee ba�ed on a percenia�e or ihe tos�l praject cast �i 11 be required
upon camgletian.
Appendix C - 60

�ounty Wa�e l3ohnston� Project Number: 1b-Q13A Due aate�: 12fib/2�15
NOft128I PfOC�55 TI3iLC
�S£8[tti(!S'Y tiltl8 �SItItC} �
1'ERArII'I'& SPECL4[. APPLiCAT[C7N PROCEDURES 6t REC,�L1R2&iVIEEY.T3
File surety band of �S,DOfl witkr ENR running to State oENC conditipnal that azty welt j� ��y�
� Permit to drili exploratnry oil or gas welI apencd by driil operatur shatl, upan eba�c[onmcnt, be plug�ed acenrding tn Ei�'R ntles �/�
ansi ce�ulations.
�Geo h sical Ex Inration Permit App�ication fSlc�i witkt £�NR at least ti7 days pridr to issue uf permi#. App3icsitian by t� days
p y � lati�r. tiro standa�l app3aca[ian form. NIA
� 8tate Lakes CnnstructiQn Pernsit 1+�Sp[ication fee bes�d on structure size is chnrgad. Musi inaSt�de descraptions &� 15�2D �ys
drawings of struoture &c proof of ownerst�ep af riparian prog�rty. I�/A
� Aat �vater pualiry Certiiica�an �yp fit? days
{ 130 days)
� Cr1MA FecFnie for MAJOR developafeni $250.0� fee must accnmpany �pplicatibn 55 days
(f 50 days}
� GAMA k'ern�it �iar M[NQR daveIopment �50.00 %e mus£ �ccotnpany aFP[ieaiivn 22 days
j25 days)
Sever3l geadeEic manuments are located in or near the project area. If any mo-nument needs to Be moved or dasimyed, piease notifi�:
� N. C. Geodetic Sun+ey, Sax 27G87 Rnleigh, NC 2761 i
� Ahandonment ofan} wells; if isquiced must he in accordance with Titie 15A. 5u6Chspler 2C.(�3fl(3.
� AFptificatinn of the proper r�gonal p�ce is requested if "arphan" undergraund storage uu�ks (LTSTS) are discovered rluring any excavation operation.
� Comp3iance cwith ISA NCAC 2�Ti I Ooq (Caasta) Starmwater 12�1es} is required 45 days
�r�3
� Catawba, Jordan L�e, Rundalanaza, Tur Pamlico or 3+lavse C2iparian �3uf%r Ruies rcquired.
Ylans und specificatsons fnr the canstructioq exganss�n, ar xlYeration oF a public water system must be approved l�y the Bivi sion of W ater
�Resources/Pubfic Wa4er Supply Saction prior to the award o£ o contcact oe t�ie ini�i�tion of canstruction as per l5A NCAC ] 8C .43�0 ec. seq. P3sns and 3� �g�s
speci�€ctstions sl�outd be submitteri t� 1634 Mail Service Ccntcr, Ralei�h, NorEh Caratina 27699-1634. Ail puh3ic u�atar supply systetns. ms�st eomply
v�ith state and federai drinicin� wster monitoxin� requisements. Pc�r mase information, coniaet tlia Pubiic �'Jst�r Supgly 5ectian, (919} T07-9 ]t�a.
Ciexisting water I'snes svrtl6e reineated durir,g the construction, pians far tlte water tine relacatiun must b� submit[ed to the Bivisinn of Water
� ResourceslP�bl'rc Weter Suppty Sec3ion at 1634 Mail Seavice Center, Raieigh, Ncsrlh Carolina 27699-1634. For more inforcnation; contact ths Pu6lic 30 days
Wa�er SupgSy Section, (919) 707•9i OI}.
Oth�r earr:menis atta�h additiffnal a es as ascess �, bein certuin to cite co�nant auPhari
DP�ision Initials No Comments �late
comment Reviev�r
[3Aq ddm ❑ ; �2�25/98
aWR,WQF�t]5 ds ❑ Projeci will need ta carnply vvi�h the failowing: �2/14/15
(Aquifer & Su�face) ❑ � Sectian �4Q�1 F�rmit �anditioras, EVatianwide Permit Canditions, Reg�onal //
Conditions,
e 5ectior� 401 vVater Cer�i�cation Conditlans,
� measures detaiked in h1CDDT`s 6est Manag�ment Pr�c�fces f�r the
�rat�ctian of Surface watersl,
• Comply with riparian t�uf�€er rul�s.
� Com�ly with erosion cvntrol requirements durire� construction and
individual iss�ec� s�ate stc�rrrnwatewr perrriit.
� V�later suppfy �raters, buffers and endangered species will be issues
� with c�rtain praposed routes
�u��-�ws ❑ 1 /
DE{VlLR (LQ & SW) 1LH ❑ While it is clear that potentiaf sedimer�t issues are being address�c{, It 12/14/15
should b� noted that the ultimate pro}ects wifl need detailed constructiar
plans addressing S�,E eorrtral as well as work that rr�ay be assaciated wEth
dam removal at pond sites impacted by the constr�ction act9vities.
DWM - US'T IVIRP � l�otify the USTSectinn at fihe praper re�9�nal nffice if petroleum- 12/�.�J15
contam£nated sail or graundwat�r is discavered during �xcavation.
��IOI�I�L. �F�'����
Quesiic�ns regarc�ing these permi�s shouid �e addresse€� to t�e Regional ��ce marked belov��.
❑ �shevi�le �tegionaE C��ce ❑ 1Vlaoreavaite R�giare�l O�'�e� � �3'iianington It��ion�! �f�c�
20R� U� Hi�h�ay 7� 614 East Center Avenue, Suzte 3Q 1 t27 Cardinal I3rive E�rtensi�n
Fe�sru6ry t l, 2015
Appendix C - 61

Swannanna, NC 25778 Moaresv€1te, I�IC 281 15 Wilming#on, N� 28405
(828}29b-45�0 (7i14}6�3-1699 [phone]
❑ I+�yeiievil�e I�egion�! Ofi��e
22S I�Iorth Green S�reei, S�zite 714
Fay�t.teviIle,'�C 283fl1-5U43
( 91q) 433-33f}0
��b�� i�,zors .
� �aie�i� I2egio�al �lfff�ce
3800 B�rre�t Drive, Suite 141
Ra[eigh, NC 27609
(919� 791-A�2Q0
C] �+�s�Bin�tc�n lte��o�aal ��ic�
943 V4'as[�ng�csn Sq�aare Ivl�id
Washis��on, NC 27889
(Z�2�345-b�81
❑ Wgns�o�a-5azfe�n Re�inn�fl �ffice
45� Vdesi H�nes Mi19 I�aad, Suite 30U
T�inston-Sal�m, I�FC 271ti5
(336)771�9800
Appendix C - 62

Coi7P7I"�' : WAKE
�OHIV5TOI�
NORT� C' ��NA �aT��� �LEPsRII�TGHOUSE ��� � � ��m
D��; i��TT O�' Ai3M�N�S�'RATION
�]: __ ,:��Oii'�RNP��NTAL REV��G�
F02pHIGHWAYS AN� ROADS
MS CARRTE ATI{II�7,50N
CI,,�ARINGI�OUSE COORDTIVA.TOk2
DEP`I' CJF T17ANSPflR'i`A'I'IC3%T
STATEWIDE PLANIQING - MSC ��554
RALEIGH NC
�,i�lly��k���?�}�"ii�i;ii�lciiitiili�[i7�+1
17E1VR LEGISL�ATIVE AFFAIRS
DEP'�' 0�` AG�2�Ct7�,TU�2�
DEPT OF CULTU�AL RESOL7RCES
I3EPT OF TRAI�TSPOR.TATiON
1]PS M T}�V C)�' �M�RGEIVCY �'l.ANF�G����l'�'
TRIANGL�E � CdC�
�Et(3J�:�',�° INFORMA�°Iq�7
APP�ICANZ`: NC Bepartment of firan�portation
TYPE: Na�ian.al E`nvirnnmen.tai Pnlicy Act
T]ra�t Environrr�ental �mpact Staterrtent
STA.TE ��Rt �6-E-4220-D�.3�
r���� z��c��v��: ai/l�/ao15
����rc�r �.ss�or���. 12/11/2015
x�v��w c�as�no �z/a��/2o��
DESC: Prapased project �.s for t�ie Complete 540 'T�-iangle E�pressway Soutkzeast Extensian,
TIP Project5 R-2721, R-2828 and R-2829.
C�20SS-R�F�RENC� �if.lMF3��: �-0--�-4220-0283
r
The attackaed praject has bee� sub�a.tted to th� �7. C. S�a�e Clearinghouse �ar
intergovernmental review. Please review anci submit your response by tl�.e a�o�re
indicated date to 1301 Mai1 Service Center, RaleigY� IVC 27699-1301.
If additianal review time is neecled, please contact this offzce at [phone].
�s � �z�su�� o� �xxs ��vz�w ��� �az��ow�z�� xs sr�s�x���a�: � �ro con��N� � cor���rr�s ��rTzac��n
s���v�n $�: �Ax�: �� 1 � �°
�
Appendix C - 63

i�TOR.Tki CA�,OL�N,�. �`�`A�.'� CLEA,R��TGHE�iJSE
i�E�'A].i`I'I�ET�I�' f]�" �M�N��'T`RA'I'TON
�NT�RGO�i'�R�"MElN"'�"AL REVI�Y�
CO�1"'TY" : WAKE
�OHIVSTON
Ma� ELIZABETH HEATH
C�EARINGHOLTSE COORDIIVA'I'OR
DEPT 0�` 1�C�RiCULTURE
1001 MSC - A.GRICULTURE BLDG
RAI�EIGH I�iC
REV��W i?IS'I'FtT�UTTON
Ff12: �;IGiiWAXS AND ROADS
DE1VR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEP'T' CJ�' AGk2�CC'i�,�'I'FJ�E
DEPT OF CULTL7RAL RESdL3RCE5
DEPT OF TR�SNSPORTATION
��s -- aa�v a� �r�����z�c� n�z�r���r���r�
TRIANGL,E J COC,
��.a��cx xz��oz�,�rxo�r
APPL,ICANT: NC Department of Transportation
TYPE: National Envirnnmen�.al Palicy Act
T�raft Environr�ental ��npact Sta'ternent
STA'Z'E iViJNlHE3t: �.6��M4220-0134
���� ��c;�x��: �1/�6/Zo��
����'�x ��s�a�s�: I2/l�/2015
rz�vx�va c�os�n: az/�.6/zois
DESC: k�ropos�d project is �or t�e Cor�plete 5�0 Tra.angle Expressway Snutheast Extension,
TIP Projects R-2721, R-2828 and R-2829.
CROSS-R�FERE�C� �TL7I�'iBER: �-Q--�-4220--0283
The attach�d pro�ect �as k�een subm�t�.ed �o th� �T. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovern.menta� review_ Piease review and su3�mit your respanse by �kz� abov�
indicated date to i3D1. Mai1 Service Center, Ral.eigh NC 27699-130I.
If adclitional review time is needed, please contact this o
AS A F2�SLTL,T 4� '�'HTS REVIEW 'I`HE FOLLC?WING I� SLTBMT�'TEI?: u
�
SIGN�D BX: '"`�
4 :.�
ce at (9�.93807-242�.
NO COMMENT � COMM�I�T'I`S A'I`TACHED
BATE : � � -}.`f �� �,���_
€ �
Appendix C - 64

CO'CTPT'I°Y : �AKE
�70I-INS �'ON
NORTH CAROLINA STAT� CLEARiN�HOUS�
I]�PAR'i`MENT .�F �M�N�S`�RATIOL�T
�NT�I�GOVER�V"M�%i"�"A�, R�ViEW
�`Q2: �IIGHWAYS AND RC3ADS
MS CARO�XN PE�TNX
c������r�xaus� coa����r�xo�
DP5 - I3IV OF EI�ERGEI�ICY MANAGEMEN'I'
FLOOBPLAIN NfANAGEMEI3T PROGPtiAI�f
M�C # 4218
�z��x�x �c
��vz�v� �s���r���U�xo�
DEF�TR LEGISLAfiiVE AFFAiRS
DEP'I' OF AGRICUL,'I'LTRE
T7E�'`T' C)F CUL'I'URAL RESOURCES
➢EPT OF TRAI�7SP4RTATIQN
DPS - DIV OF` EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
'I'R TANGL,� � COG
PitC}JEC'T T�TFE)RPlF3TiODT
APPLICI�T: NC Departrr��r�t of '�ranspor�.at�on
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
Draft Environrnental Impact Staternent
S TP.2`E Y3i7P�B�`R : 16 ��-� 2 2 0- D 13 �
DA'Y'� Td�CEiV"��3: 11/16/2015
r'��ELSC'Y' it.�SPO%1S� : I2 / I 1/ 2 015
��v��w c�.os�n: �2/��/zois
���(j1�� � r,::� '��
�.s��;;F
DESC: Pro�aosecl project is for the Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast �xtenszon,
TTP Prajects R-2721, R-2828 and R-2829.
CROSS-REFERENCE �iUMBER: ��-�-4220-0283
The attached project has been submitted to the i�F. C. State C�earinghouse zar
in��rgavernrrren�.al re�riew. Please review and sub�nit your response by the above
indicated date to 13D1 Mail Se�vice Ceratex, �al�igkz�3C 27699-1301.
If ac�ciitional review tim� is rseeded, p�ease corz�.ac�. this office at {9I9)807-2425.
F15 I-� RESL7LT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED :'� 1�70 COMM�D?'I' ❑ COMMEN'I'S ATTACHED
hd \ �'�
S T GI�TE� BY : � � ; ..m � �..,• .,�, ?�,.. DA�`E : �� ?� k � `�.� � � � �
�.'''. y.
�,:
�� r� �
}
::�7 a
� � ';�p7� C
'� Ra_
,. ��
Appendix C - 65

Maseman, Kristin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Roy Bruce
LOCHNER
Begin forwarded message:
Bruce, Roy
Wednesday, February 24, 2016 4:51 PM
Maseman, Kristin
Fwd: Complete 540 (R-2721, R-2828, R-2829) -"Interagency Meeting to Review the
Recommendation for the Preferred Alternative"
image001jpg; image002.jpg; image003 jpg; image004jpg
From: Kiersten Bass <kbass(�hntb.com>
Date: February 24, 2016 at 2:17:53 PM EST
To: Roy Bruce <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Complete 540 (R-2721, R-2828, R-2829) -"Interagency Meeting to Review the
Recommendation for the Preferred Alternative"
Regards, Kiersten Bass
Planning Services Manager, HNTB
**Pardon typos, sent from my iPhone**
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Wilson, Travis W." <[e-mail]�>
Date: February 23, 2016 at 9:18:18 AM EST
To: Kiersten Bass <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Brew, Donnie ([e-mail].�ov)" <[e-mail].�ov>,
"�ary lordan@fws.�ov" <�ary lordan@fws.�ov>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>, "Van Der Wiele, Cynthia
(VanDerWiele.Cynthia@epa.�ov)" <VanDerWiele.Cynthia@epa.�ov>, "Ridings, Rob"
<rob.ridin�s@ncdenr.�ov>
Subject: RE: Complete 540 (R-2721, R-2828, R-2829) -"Interagency Meeting to Review
the Recommendation for the Preferred Alternative"
Kiersten, in accordance with the Section 6002 process, the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission does not have permitting or regulatory authority that may affect NCDOT's
proposed project. We have provide comments throughout the planning for this project,
and our concerns have not diminished. We remain concerned the potential negative
effects in the watersheds impacted from this project will continue to degrade aquatic
habitat utilized by state and federal listed aquatic species. Those concerns apply to all
alternatives. NCDOT should not equate WRC's lack of comments on the preferred
Appendix C - 66

alternative as not having concerns with the project. WRC will continue to coordinate
with NCDOT during the planning of this project to address those issues.
Travis W. Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1718 Hwy 56 West
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Travis.Wilson(c�ncwildlife.orq
ncwildlife.orq
�'�'�'�'
From: Kiersten Bass [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 1:49 PM
To:'[e-mail]' ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; Ridings, Rob <rob.ridin�s@ncdenr.�ov>; Van Der
Wiele, Cynthia <VanDerWiele.Cynthia@epa.�ov>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]�>; Gledhill-earley, Renee <renee.�ledhill-
earley@ncdcr.�ov>;'[e-mail]' ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; Houser, Anthony A<thouser@ncdot.�ov>; Teague, Jeff
L<jltea�ue@ncdot.�ov>; Huang, Herman <hfhuan�@ncdot.�ov>; Hopkins, Joey
<jhopkins@ncdot.�ov>; Lauffer, Matthew S<mslauffer@ncdot.�ov>; Elam, William H
<[e-mail]>; Joyner, Drew <dioyner@ncdot.�ov>; Robbins, Jamille A
<jarobbins@ncdot.�ov>; Marshall, Harrison <hmarshall@ncdot.�ov>; Furr, Mary Pope
<mfurr@ncdot.�ov>; Mellor, Colin <cmellor@ncdot.�ov>; Medlin, Kenneth N
<knmedlin@ncdot.�ov>; Hauser, James W<jhauser@ncdot.�ov>; Staley, Mark K
<[e-mail]>; Stanley, Mike <mtstanley@ncdot.�ov>; Ishak, Doumit Y
<dishak@ncdot.�ov>; Childrey, Tom <tchildrey@ncdot.�ov>; Paugh, Leilani Y
<Ipau�h@ncdot.�ov>; Pilipchuk, John L<Ipilipchuk@ncdot.�ov>; Chapman, Amy
<amy.chapman@ncdenr.�ov>; Jernigan, Dennis W <dwlerni�an@ncdot.�ov>; Shapiro,
Alan W<awshapiro@ncdot.�ov>; Lee, Craig J<cllee@ncdot.�ov>;
keith.hanson@noaa.�ov; Desai, Rupal P<rpdesai@ncdot.�ov>; Pleasant, Kyle A
<kpleasant@ncdot.�ov>; ken.riley@noaa.�ov
Cc: Donnie.Brew@dot.�ov; Midkiff, Eric <emidkiff@ncdot.�ov>; Jennifer Harris
<[e-mail]>; Roy Bruce <[e-mail]>; Kristin Maseman
<[e-mail]>; fred.skaer@�mail.com;'John Studt
(Ifstudt@�mail.com)' <ifstudt@�mail.com>; Hancock, Ronald A <rhancock@ncdot.�ov>;
Hanson, Robert P <rhanson@ncdot.�ov>;'�ary lordan@fws.�ov'
<gary lordan@fws.�ov>
Subject: RE: Complete 540 (R-2721, R-2828, R-2829) -"Interagency Meeting to Review
the Recommendation for the Preferred Alternative"
Appendix C - 67

Maseman, Kristin
From: Bruce, Roy
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:52 PM
To: Maseman, Kristin
Subject: FW: FW: Comments for Complete 540 Preferred Alternative
WRC Comments
From: Kiersten Bass [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 12:33 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: FW: Comments for Complete 540 Preferred Alternative
FYI
From: Ridings, Rob [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 12:31 PM
To: Kiersten Bass; Midkiff, Eric
Cc: Brew, Donnie ([e-mail]); Wilson, Travis W.; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Van Der Wiele, Cynthia ([e-mail])
Subject: Comments for Complete 540 Preferred Alternative
Kiersten,
The NC Division of Water Resources understands that under the Section 6002 process, unlike Merger, we do not sign off
or approve a Preferred Alternative for this project. At this time, we feel all the alternatives had various pros and cons,
including NCDOT's Preferred alignment.
On the positive side, we are very glad that Water Supply Critical Area watersheds will be avoided.
However on the negative side, we are concerned about the high wetland, stream, and buffer impacts that would be
found in the Preferred Alternative.
In accordance with Section 6002 process, we do not currently see issues that will halt the process or future permitting of
the project. But we will continue to coordinate with NCDOT and other agencies during the process to find as many ways
as possible to avoid and minimize these impacts to wetlands, streams, and buffers; also including comprehensive and
successful mitigation, and thorough stormwater treatment.
The more successful NCDOT is at minimizing and lowering impacts to these resources, and ensuring preserved water
quality in the project area, the more confident our agency will be going forward in the permitting process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Rob Ridings
Environmental Specialist
Transportation Permitting Unit, Division of Water Resources
NC Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-8786 office
rob.ridinqs(a�ncdenr.qov
Appendix C - 68

512 North Salisbury Street, 12t'' Floor
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
� `'"h�raihi� ���m; �
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Kiersten Bass [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 1:49 PM
To:'[e-mail]' ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Ridings, Rob
<rob.ridin�s@ncdenr.�ov>; Van Der Wiele, Cynthia <VanDerWiele.Cynthia@epa.�ov>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]�>; Gledhill-earley, Renee <renee.�ledhill-earley@ncdcr.�ov>;'Chris.Lukasina@campo-
nc.us' ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Houser, Anthony A <thouser@ncdot.�ov>;
Teague, Jeff L<jltea�ue@ncdot.�ov>; Huang, Herman <hfhuan�@ncdot.�ov>; Hopkins, Joey <jhopkins@ncdot.�ov>;
Lauffer, Matthew S<mslauffer@ncdot.�ov>; Elam, William H<belam@ncdot.�ov>; Joyner, Drew <dloyner@ncdot.�ov>;
Robbins, Jamille A<jarobbins@ncdot.�ov>; Marshall, Harrison <hmarshall@ncdot.�ov>; Furr, Mary Pope
<mfurr@ncdot.�ov>; Mellor, Colin <cmellor@ncdot.�ov>; Medlin, Kenneth N<knmedlin@ncdot.�ov>; Hauser, James W
<jhauser@ncdot.�ov>; Staley, Mark K<[e-mail]>; Stanley, Mike <mtstanley@ncdot.�ov>; Ishak, Doumit Y
<dishak@ncdot.�ov>; Childrey, Tom <tchildrey@ncdot.�ov>; Paugh, Leilani Y<Ipau�h@ncdot.�ov>; Pilipchuk, John L
<jpilipchuk@ncdot.�ov>; Chapman, Amy <amy.chapman@ncdenr.�ov>; Jernigan, Dennis W<dwlerni�an@ncdot.�ov>;
Shapiro, Alan W<awshapiro@ncdot.�ov>; Lee, Craig J<cilee@ncdot.�ov>; keith.hanson@noaa.�ov; Desai, Rupal P
<rpdesai@ncdot.�ov>; Pleasant, Kyle A <kpleasant@ncdot.�ov>; ken.riley@noaa.�ov
Cc: Donnie.Brew@dot.�ov; Midkiff, Eric <emidkiff@ncdot.�ov>; Jennifer Harris <][e-mail]>; Roy Bruce
<[e-mail]>; Kristin Maseman <[e-mail]>; fred.skaer@�mail.com; 'John Studt
(ifstudt@�mail.com)' <ifstudt@�mail.com>; Hancock, Ronald A<rhancock@ncdot.�ov>; Hanson, Robert P
<rhanson@ncdot.�ov>;'[e-mail]'<�ary iordan@fws.�ov>
Subject: RE: Complete 540 (R-2721, R-2828, R-2829) -"Interagency Meeting to Review the Recommendation for the
Preferred Alternative"
All — thank you for attending the interagency meeting (February 17, 2016) regarding the draft Preferred Alternative
Report for Complete 540 project. Attached for your review is a draft summary of the subject meeting. Please review
and provide your comments on the draft summary by Monday, February 29t". A revised final summary will be
distributed soon afterward.
If I have missed anyone or you feel others should be included in this review, please let me know so that I can share the
draft and final versions with them.
If you have any questions regarding the project or this summary, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Kiersten R. Bass
Planning Services Manager
HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Appendix C - 69

Ja�tED STqT�s
2� A ��
� �� z
i � a
r
��yTqC PROZEG�`O
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
SAM NUNN
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303-8960
March 10, 2016
Ms. Kiersten Bass, Planning Services Manager
HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
343 East Six Forks Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
SUBJECT: Comments on Preferred Alternative for Complete 540 [Triangle Expressway
Southeast Extension] Project, Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina; ERP No.:
FHW-E40852-NC; CEQ No.: 20150323; NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
TIP Project Nos.: R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829
Dear Ms. Bass:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 4 Office has received and
reviewed the information package regarding the NCDOT's preferred alternative for the
Complete 540 project.
Although the Complete 540 project has not been included in the NCDOT's NEPA/§404 Merger
process, the USEPA staff has been an active participant in the MAP-21 §6002 coordination plan
for the proposed project. The USEPA provided comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), however, our comments and concerns were not fully addressed in the project
package or at the informational meeting on February 17, 2016.
The Complete 540 Project included 17 Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs), consisting of 1000-
foot corridors on new location—ranging from 25.2 to 32.0 miles in length. Potential impacts
stemming from the 28.4-mile NCDOT Preferred Route, DSA 2, include: 281 relocations,
including a farm/agri-business; §404 impacts consisting of 65,810 linear feet of jurisdictional
streams, 74.3 acres of wetlands, 95.2 acres of zone 1 riparian buffers, 62.3 acres of zone 2
riparian buffers, and 87.1 acres of 100-year floodplains; 2,040 acres of prime farmland soils,
10.8 acres of sprayfields, and 1 park/recreation facility. In comparison, the proposed impacts
from DSA 7 include: 451 relocations; §404 impacts consisting of 51,582 linear feet of
jurisdictional streams, 54.4 acres of wetlands, 6.7 acres of Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area,
37.1 acres of zone 1 riparian buffers, 24.7 acres of zone 2 riparian buffers, and 86.6 acres of 100-
year floodplains; 1,949 acres of prime farmland soils, 2 National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP)-listed sites with adverse effects, and 3 park/recreation facilities.
The USEPA has identified the following concerns regarding the Complete 540 project and our
ability to identify an environmentally-preferred alternative:
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30°o Postconsumer)
Appendix C - 70

Detailed Studv Alternatives (DSAs) and Impacts to Resources
The 17 DSAs were based on several key factors: logical termini/independent utility, roadway
design criteria/typical sections, and study alternatives for each section. The USEPA understands
that the actual right-of-way will occupy a 300-foot wide corridor and that the impacts listed in
the Comparative Evaluation Matrix represent an initial "best fit" within the 1000-foot corridor.
Preliminary design was not provided during the February 17, 2016 meeting; consequently, the
engineering decision-making process remains unclear in how / where specific resources were
avoided or minimized during the development of the preliminary design. Interchange designs, in
particular, can have substantial impacts. In addition, the potential impacts on the various
alternatives to floodways, the 500-year floodplain, and terrestrial habitat/forests (impact on
habitat connectivity at a landscape scale) still remain unclear. Floodways and floodplains are
vital to reducing the likelihood of localized flooding during storm events, particularly as the
project study area continues to urbanize.
IISEPA Recommendations:
• Please include a summary of the impacts to forested land, floodways, and the 500-year
floodplain.
• Provide a preliminary design of the project for DSA 2(NCDOT preferred alternative)
and DSA 7(lowest jurisdictional stream and wetland impacts as well as impacts to the
dwarf wedgemussel) to enable a comparison between these two alternatives.
Aquatic Resources and Indirect/Cumulative Impacts
The Complete 540 project has the potential to incur substantial impacts to aquatic resources,
including §303(d)-listed [impaired] waters and essential habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel. It
remains unclear how these impaired streams will be protected from further degradation as both
local and state riparian buffer protections that historically have been relied upon to reduce
pollutants loads into receiving streams have been weakened (see NCGS § 143-214.23A]. It is also
unclear how the Swift Creek Land Management Plan, prepared by Wake County, will serve to
limit indirect/cumulative impacts within the watershed. Finally, it remains unclear whether
impacts to dwarf wedgemussel habitat will be sufficiently mitigated to prevent a jeopardy
determination.
With regard to indirect and cumulative impacts (ICI), it remains unclear where development and
`sprawl' will occur along the proposed DSAs. The USEPA is concerned with increased
impervious surfaces and ICIs to streams and wetlands from induced growth near interchanges
and intersections. The DEIS did not provide a quantitative assessment of ICIs.
IISEPA Recommendations:
• Please provide quantitative information regarding indirect and cumulative impacts.
• Please provide information on predicted pollutant loading and measures taken to avoid
and reduce these impacts to receiving waters.
• These issues should be further evaluated by the transportation agencies as the proposed
project proceeds in the NCDOT interagency team process and information provided to
team representatives.
�
Appendix C - 71

I will continue to work with you as part of the NCDOT Interagency Team in the identification of
reasonable and feasible alternatives. Should you have any questions concerning these comments,
please feel free to contact me at vanderwiele.cvnthia(cr�,e�a. o,�v or [phone]. We appreciate
the opportunity to comment on the proposed Complete 540 project.
Sincerely,
�
. ��. �. �v�
Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, Ph.D.
USEPA Region 4, NEPA Program Office
Resource Conservation and Restoration Division
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA- NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS Raleigh Field Office
Rob Ridings, NCDEQ, DWR
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
3
Appendix C - 72

a���tir�T. oF d���z�
A �"'�IIIR� � ' �
-;.�; -
iG � ' `P
2��f' . . � . - ��� �
O
"STqTES OF�:� � �
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
March 18, 2016
Regulatory Division/1200A
Action ID No. SAW-2009-02240
Mr. Phil Hai7•is, P.E.
Noi-th Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Harris:
In February 2016, the Noi�th Carolina Turnpike Authority submitted a Draft Preferred
Alternative Report (DPAR), for the proposed Complete 540, Triangle Expressway Southeast
Extension (STIP Pi•oject Numbers R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829) in Wake and Johnston
Counties, North Cat•olina (AID SAW-2009-02240). On February 17, 2016, the participating
agencies met with your staff and consultants to discuss the PDAR. On March 3, 2016, we met
with your staff, the Federal Highway Administration, your consultants, and the City of Raleigh,
to discuss questions we had concerning your justification for selecting Detailed Study
Alternative (DSA) 2 as the prefei7ed alternative, as compared to DSA 4, which has the Iowest
number of relocations, and also has lower stream and wetland impacts with no effects ta the
watershed critical area, historic sites, and likely only de minimis impacts to 4f resources. The
City of Raleigh submitted a letter dated March 17, 2016, which further clarified the impacts to
City of Raleigh facilities by DSA 4.
After consideration of all the available information on the DSA's, we have determined that
we have no significant objections or Issues of Concern, and have no objection to your
proceeding forward with identifying the Preferred Alternative.
Eric Alsmeyer is responsible for processing your application and is available to assist you at
telephone [phone], extension 23, if you have any questions or comments.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Appendix C - 73

Sincerely,
� � e ��
�
Monte Matthews
Lead Regulatory Project Manager
Wilmington District
Copies furnished:
Mr. Clarence Coleman
Preconstruction and Environment Director
FHWA — NC Division
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ms. Amy Chapman
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, Noi�th Carolina 27699-1617
Cynthia VanDerWiele, Ph.D.
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA — Region 4
715 Shepherd Street
Durham, NC 27701
Travis W. Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1718 Hwy 56 West
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Fritz Rohde
NOAA Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division — Atlantic Branch
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516-9722
Appendix C - 74

Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
1VI�. Gary Jordan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Appendix C - 75