20091031 Ver 1_Finding of No Significant Impact_20090501

Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Wake County
Federal Aid Project No. STPDA-0520(25)
WBS Element No. 39949.1.1
TIP Project No. U-4901
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE CITY OF RALEIGH
Documentation Prepared By:
URS CORPORATION - NORTH CAROLINA
May 2009
U OF Rot _O= 1 DOE N H C4,p
?i '+ R y
FINAL
a V?
s
9,?J tiP
??NTOF TRAN`'QOP
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332(2(c)

Da of ppr val Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
/ North Carolina Dep'artJment of Transportation
Date of Approval John F. Sullivan, III, PE
ivision Administrator

5 64LOS F deral Highway Administration
- .?. ?e--A
Date of Approval Dean Fox, PE
Design/Construction Manager
City of Raleigh
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Wake County
Federal Aid Project No. STPDA-0520(25)
WBS Element No. 39949.1.1
TIP Project No. U-4901
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE CITY OF RALEIGH
Documentation Prepared By:
URS CORPORATION - NORTH CAROLINA
May 2009

Ed Edens, PE
Project Manager and way Project Engineer
Garldon Hall, PE /
;%Structural Design Engineer
For the:
CITY OF RALEIGH
and
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ives er Percival, El
Project Engineer - Ci of Raleigh
.?? ?H caRO?
O? S f'L
?:4OF-S
IQ?9 ,9
Q SEAL r
=? . 18470
qL -:z
;?9p? GI - ?O
GC ENN
"N111110
U 0l"I[fJ/,,
??0 ?FESSI???'Ly?
Q? SEAL yr
5953 _
aN N
''?lll/llllllll?\?`
Vince Rhea, W
Project Engineer - North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Falls of Neuse Road (SR 2000) Realignment and Widening
City of Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project No. STPDA-0520(25)
WBS Element No. 39949.1.1
TIP Project No. U-4901
In addition to the Section 404 Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency, City
of Raleigh (City) controls for protecting surface water resources, North Carolina
Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Surface Waters (March 1997), General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the City of Raleigh has agreed to the following special
commitments.
The City of Raleigh will consider special construction techniques including those
specified in North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 048.0124) throughout design and construction of the
project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having CA
classifications.
2. The City of Raleigh will continue coordination with Mount Pleasant Baptist
Church with regards to access issues. Mitigative measures to the church
property will be investigated with NCDOT further to include placing guard rail in
front of the church
3. The City of Raleigh's contractor will contact appropriate officials at United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Falls Dam Operation Center to monitor the
daily release of water from the facility during construction phases.
4. The City of Raleigh will work with USACE to acquire any necessary right-of-way
easements to cross public lands at Falls Lake. Additionally, the City will work with
USACE on the placement of the parking lot, gate, lighting, and kiosk. The City
will also continue coordination with regards to intersection movements into the
Falls Lake Management Center entrance.
5. The City of Raleigh will further assess the affected properties for hazardous
materials and make right-of-way recommendations accordingly. Should
hazardous substance sites be discovered, measures to minimize and/or mitigate
potential impacts would be implemented.
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table of Contents
1.0 Type of Action ........................................................................................... ........................1
2.0 Additional Information ............................................................................... ........................1
3.0 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................... ........................1
4.0 Alternatives Studied in the Environmental Assessment ............................ ........................5
4.1 Build Alternatives ................................................................................... ........................5
4.2 Structure Crossing of the Neuse River .................................................. ........................6
5.0 Recommended Alternative ........................................................................ ........................6
6.0 Cost Estimates .......................................................................................... ......................13
7.0 Project Impacts ......................................................................................... ......................13
8.0 Floodplain Analysis ................................................................................... ......................15
9.0 Federal Lands ........................................................................................... ......................19
10.0 Jurisdictional Findings ............................................................................... ......................19
10.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams .................................................... ......................19
10.2 Neuse River Buffer Effects .................................................................... ......................23
10.3 Avoidance and Minimization .................................................................. ......................23
11.0 Construction Effects .................................................................................. ...................... 24
12.0 Permits ...................................................................................................... ...................... 25
13.0 Indirect and Cumulative Effects ................................................................ ......................26
13.1 Indirect Effects ....................................................................................... ......................26
13.2 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................ ......................27
14.0 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ........................................... ......................27
14.1 Agency Coordination ............................................................................. ......................28
14.2 Public Involvement ................................................................................ ......................28
14.3 Circulation of the Environmental Assessment ....................................... ......................30
14.4 Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ..................... ......................31
15.0 Summary of Revisions to the EA .............................................................. ......................41
16.0 Only Practicable Alternative Wetland Finding ........................................... ......................41
17.0 Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact ................................................ ......................41
List of Tables
Table 1: Estimated Project Impacts and Costs of the Recommended Alternative ......................14
Table 1: Estimated Project Impacts and Costs of the Recommended Alternative continued .....15
Table 2: Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams .................................................................................19
Table 3: Neuse River Buffer Impacts ..........................................................................................23
Table 4: Agency Comments Received on the EA .......................................................................32
Table 5: Impacts .........................................................................................................................42
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location Map .................................................................... ................................. 3
Figure 2: Project Study Area ........................................................................ .................................4
Figure 3a and 3b: Recommended Alternative ............................................. .................................9
Figure 4: Typical Section ............................................................................. ...............................11
Figure 5: Recommended Structure Over Neuse River ................................ ...............................12
Figure 6: Flood Hazard Evaluation .............................................................. ...............................17
Figure 7: Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources ............................................. ...............................21
Finding of No Significant Impact
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Public Hearing
Appendix B: Agency Comments on Environmental Assessment
Finding of No Significant Impact
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
1.0 TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the FHWA have determined
that this project will not have any significant impact on the human environment. This FONSI is
based on the September 26, 2008 Environmental Assessment (EA), which has been
independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss
the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the project and appropriate mitigation
measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
2.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this proposal and
assessment:
Federal Highway Administration
Mr. John F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone: [phone]
City of Raleigh
Mr. Dean Fox, P.E.
Design/Construction Manager
City of Raleigh Public Works Department
222 West Hargett Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: [phone]
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is designated in the 2009-2015 NCDOT State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) as STIP project number U-4901 and is described as "SR 2000 (Falls of Neuse
Road) widen to multilanes and realignment from Raven Ridge Road to Neuse River including
new structure over Neuse River'. The goal of this study is to identify solutions to create a new
Finding of No Significant Impact 1 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
north-south connection over the Neuse River and improve the efficiency of the local and
regional area roadway networks while considering local human, natural and physical
environments.
The project is located in northern Wake County, North Carolina, immediately east of Falls Lake
and south of the Town of Wake Forest (Figure 1). The project study area, shown in Figure 2,
encompasses existing Falls of Neuse Road beginning slightly south of the intersection at Raven
Ridge Road, extending just north of the Neuse River and includes both extraterritorial
jurisdiction (ETJ) areas of the City of Raleigh and unincorporated areas of Wake County.
The primary purposes of the proposed project (TIP U-4901) are:
Improve north/south connectivity and local and regional access on project study area
roadways in North Raleigh and northern Wake County.
Needs Addressed. The City of Raleigh, Town of Wake Forest, and Wake County as a whole,
experienced unprecedented levels of growth over the past 30 years. Much of this growth
occurred and is still occurring in North Raleigh and areas north of the City extending along
existing Falls of Neuse Road to the Town of Wake Forest. The existing road network,
including north-south crossings of the Neuse River, does not support associated increases
in traffic volumes and changing travel patterns.
Increase traffic capacity on congested roadway segments.
Needs Addressed. The traffic capacity studies discussed in Section 2.4 show that in the
project study area, 2 of 3 existing signalized intersections are operating at LOS E or worse
in either the AM or PM peak hour for the current year (2007). In addition, all 3 signalized
intersections will operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours for the design year
(2035) without the proposed project in place.
Results of the adjacent system (see Section 2.5.1.2, page 19 of the EA) level of service
analysis show that in the current year (2007) all multilane segments and ramp junctions
operate at LOS D or better; however, 6 of 8 signalized intersections and the only
unsignalized intersection are operating at LOS E or worse in either the AM or PM peak hour.
In the design year (2035), the results of the analysis show that 5 of 8 signalized
intersections, 6 of 12 basic freeway segments, and 6 of 16 ramp junctions will operate at
LOS E or worse in either the AM or PM peak hour.
The City of Raleigh recognizes the need for an improved travel corridor and additional crossing
of the Neuse River to serve citizens who live and travel in the northern part of the City,
unincorporated areas of Wake County and the Town of Wake Forest. SR 2000 (Falls of Neuse
Road) is a primary means of access to established communities and new development, as well
as, local park and recreational destinations including Falls Lake and the Neuse River. The Build
Alternative presented in this FONSI is being pursued to enhance local and regional connectivity
by providing an additional crossing of the Neuse River and improving traffic capacity throughout
the travel corridor.
Finding of No Significant Impact 2 Final
98

1t
-(-- -,"*' ,-? / 11-1r) F
City of Raleigh
North Carolina Legend N
_ Project Study Area W E
Interstate
yq f/ US Route
0 0.5 1 2 3
_: NC Highway
Miles
Local Road
Falls of Neuse Road
Realignment and Widening - - - County Boundary Figure 1
Wake County
IO Neuse River Crossings
STIP Project No. U-4901 Project Location Map
Date: January 2009

Dr 'O 'd?ey Dr Fall
relton :D,
s Lake Reservoir
ae? ?e 5eQ
/
0
SCR
?oPS G h HoIIY L
rah
f
e9so\
Begin Section 1
?a

City of Raleigh
North Carolina
Falls of Neuse Road
Realignment and Widening
Wake County
STIP Project No. U-4901
Date: January 2009

I:P
0J
D
=
O

Y\ w
Begin Section 2
sI ?
L?
Rq m? Q A Q^?4,
p` ool Spring Rd
wes?o?o ? tie <
r escott of
c Oa
a
m
Crisp D F
s
m
Ikertown Dr
Oakboro Dr 4
C r ingto rove
Rhw al
?o
m
Legend
Project Study Area
Local Road
Streams
Falls Lake Reservoir
Municipal Boundary
-CD
End Section 2
Q

N
WE
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Figure 2
Project Study Area
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
4.0 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
A full range of alternatives including the No-Build Alternative, Transportation System
Management (TSM) Alternative, Mass Transit Alternative, and four Build Alternatives were
presented and evaluated in the EA. In addition, alternatives (or options) for the new structure
crossing over the Neuse River were also presented. Four build alternatives and three Neuse
River Structure options were carried forward for further study and are described below.
4.1 BUILD ALTERNATIVES
A description of the four Build Alternatives follows
Alternative 1 is a 6-lane divided roadway with a raised landscaped median. Full movement
intersections (conventional intersections that allow all turning movements) would be provided at
October Road, Dunn Road, Lake Villa Way/Tabriz Point and existing Falls of Neuse Road. The
remaining intersections would be restricted to right-in/right-out operation (eliminating left and
through turning movements from the cross streets).
Alternative 2 is a variation of Alternative 1 with the difference being that directional median
crossings (islands that allow left turn vehicles from the major roadway) would be constructed for
vehicles turning from Falls of Neuse Road onto Dehijuston Road, Kings Grant Drive/Whittington
Road and Waterwood Court. Providing left turn movements from Falls of Neuse Road would
improve access to these areas by providing a sheltered left turn movement in the center island.
In this type of access known as a "left-over', the turning traffic only needs to cross one opposing
direction of traffic. The flow of traffic is improved over Alternative 1 with additional direct
connections to side roads being provided.
Alternative 3 provides the highest level of traffic flow improvement of the four Build Alternatives
by redirecting all side street traffic to turn right and utilize u-turns provided along Falls of Neuse
Road. Eliminating left turns from full movement intersections improves safety by allowing
vehicles to turn right into safe acceptable gaps in one direction of traffic and then get into a
sheltered median island and perform a u-turn into an appropriate safe gap in the opposite
direction of traffic. This eliminates the necessity for a driver to accurately identify a safe gap in
two opposing directions of traffic on a multilane roadway. The signal at Dunn Road would be
modified to provide protected left turns onto Dunn Road from southbound Falls of Neuse Road
and timing coordinated with an additional signal for a u-turn north of the intersection. Left-over
access would be provided at Dehijuston Road and October Road.
Alternative 4 was developed based on citizen input and regulatory agency feedback requesting
an alternative that considered the need for direct access into the neighborhoods along Falls of
Neuse Road and that would still provide a safe roadway to meet the predicted traffic volumes in
the future. The alternative added as Alternative 4 utilizes a part of Alternative 2 and combines it
with the desirable traffic operations aspects of Alternative 3. Alternative 4 provides full
movement intersections at October Road, Dunn Road, and Lake Villa/Tabriz Pointe. The
intersection of existing Falls of Neuse would be restricted as in Alternative 3 to left-over
operation with u-turn accommodations. Left-over movements would be provided at Dehijuston
Road and Kings Grant Drive/Whittington Road. Alternative 4 includes the option of placing a
new left-over movement at Waterwood Court. A new traffic signal would be constructed at the
Finding of No Significant Impact 5 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
existing Falls of Neuse Road intersection along with upgrades to the existing signals at Raven
Ridge Road and Dunn Road.
4.2 STRUCTURE CROSSING OF THE NEUSE RIVER
An analysis was completed for the new structure crossing that considered the economics of
different bridge cross sections, span arrangements, and construction materials, as well as,
spanning waterways and the proposed Upper Neuse Greenway. Impacts were quantified for
natural resources and aesthetic consideration given with respect to the views from the planned
Upper Neuse Greenway, located on the south bank of the River, and general everyday users of
the Neuse River. Three bridge options were studied.
Option 1 consists of three spans, 112-foot, 112-foot, and 100-foot, for a total length of 324 feet.
One set of interior bents would be in the river, while the second set would be constructed on the
northern river bank. The bents and end bents would be constructed on an 84-degree skew.
Option 2 consists of five spans, 45-foot, 67-foot, 78-foot, 67-foot and 67-foot, for a total length
of 324 feet. Two sets of bents would be in the water and two sets on the bank. The bents and
end bents would be constructed on an 84-degree skew.
Option 3 consists of three spans, 70-foot, 166-foot, and 100-foot, for a total length of 336 feet.
No substructure elements are in the water. The bents and end bents would be constructed on a
77-degree skew. The construction of this option is based on using structural steel plate girders
which would enable moving the bents out of the water.
5.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The following Recommended Improvements for the Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and
Widening project are recommendations based on data collected, public input and studies
completed at the time this document was published. Changes to preliminary designs (both
roadway and structures) are subject to change in the final design to ensure compliance with
local, State, and Federal regulations and permits.
Alternative 4 begins approximately 500 feet south of the existing Falls of Neuse Road/Raven
Ridge Road intersection and proceeds north along the existing roadway until approximately
Waterwood Court. The new alignment then leaves the existing alignment of Falls of Neuse
Road, makes a slight eastward turn and proceeds north bound on new location crossing the
Neuse River and connecting with New Falls of Neuse Road in the Wakefield development. The
length of the widening section on existing location is approximately 1.46 miles. The new location
section is approximately 0.78 miles including the new bridge structure over the Neuse River.
The widening section would be comprised of a mix of symmetrical and asymmetrical widening to
balance and minimize property impacts to the greatest extent possible. The land uses adjacent
to existing Falls of Neuse Road are primarily residential consisting of individual homes and
neighborhoods. Existing intersecting streets would be re-connected to the widened Falls of
Neuse Road and with appropriate vertical grade adjustments. Dunn Road would be widened to
accommodate additional turn lanes onto southbound Falls of Neuse Road at the existing traffic
signal to improve intersection capacity. Individual driveways would be re-connected to the
widened roadway utilizing NCDOT standards. In the area of the realignment and new location,
several roads would be terminated with cul-de-sacs and not be reconnected to the new location
section. Existing Falls of Neuse Road would be realigned to form a new 4-leg intersection on the
Finding of No Significant Impact 6 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
new location section with the extension of Wide River Drive. The Recommended Alternative for
the proposed project is shown on Figures 3 a and b.
The general typical section of the project, shown in Figure 4, would consist of a six lane, raised
median divided roadway with curb and gutter. The standard median width varies from 17.5 feet
to 21.5 feet. The median would also have curb and gutter treatment with NCDOT standard 1-
foot/6 inch curb and gutter on each side. The median would be narrowed in sections to facilitate
turn lanes. In several narrow sections the median would be reduced to concrete islands to
separate turning traffic.
Lane widths for the cross section would consist of two inner 11-foot travel lanes and a 13-foot
wide outside travel lane to accommodate bicycle traffic. The project cross section would also
include a 5-foot concrete sidewalk on the west side of the roadway and an 8-foot asphalt
sidewalk on the east side. Appropriate ADA-accessible wheel chair ramps and cross walks
would be provided at intersections and street radius returns.
Bridge Option 1 was modified to accommodate the design revision and consists of three span,
dual structures with spans of approximately 125 feet, 115 feet, and 105 feet. The width of each
structure is 47.5 feet. One interior bent is located in the Neuse River and the other interior bent
located on the bank north of the river. The bridges consist of reinforced concrete decks
supported on concrete girders. The substructure consists of post and beam bents founded on
drilled shaft columns and conventional end bents with turn back wing walls. The Recommended
Bridge Option is shown in Figure 5.
Construction Phasing - The Recommended Alternative will be constructed in multiple phases.
The project is broken into two sections - Section 1 is the widening of existing Falls of Neuse
Road and Section 2 is the realignment of existing Falls of Neuse Road and the extension to
New Falls of Neuse Road. The initial work effort will consist of constructing a four-lane roadway
(two lanes in each direction) with the construction of the inside two-lanes being constructed for
Section 1. The right-of-way will be reduced accordingly (to approximately 100 feet). Section 2
will include the construction of the outside two-lanes in each direction with placement of the
additional lane to the inside in the future. The reason that the inside two-lanes are being
constructed in the initial phase for Section 1 is due to concerns raised by adjacent property
owners and the desire to minimize the footprint for the initial phase of construction.
Section 2 will include constructing a six-lane bridge over the Neuse River. The bridge is
designed as dual structures each being approximately 324 feet in length and 47.5 feet in width.
In response to citizen comments, the median width of the Recommended Alternative has been
reduced to 17.5 feet for Section 1. This will be incorporated into the initial construction phase for
Section 1. The median width for Section 2 of the Recommended Alternative is 21.5 feet.
Additionally, intersection operations and their respective design layouts are being coordinated
with the public. The initial construction of various intersections may differ from the layouts
included in the Recommended Alternative due to citizen interest and input. Detailed intersection
design will be incorporated into the final design phase of the project.
The ultimate 6-lane design presented in this document and in the EA as the Recommended
Alternative will be completed in the future as traffic demand dictates and funding becomes
available.
Finding of No Significant Impact 7 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
This page intentionally left blank.
Finding of No Significant Impact 8 Final

City of Raleigh
North Carolina
JM.=A?bvi
t\ ?
Falls of Neuse Road
Realignment and Widening
Wake County
Date: January 2009
Legend
Turning Movements
Full movement
• Right-in/Right-out
Directional median crossing
N
W E
Traffic Lanes 0 250 500
Curb and Gutter
Feet
Figure 3a
1,000
Recommended Alternative

k

City of Raleigh
North Carolina Legend N
Turning Movements
W E
of An<
` Traffic Lanes
Full movement
Curb and Gutter ?
Cul-de-sac
Right-in/Right-out 0 250 500 1,000
-
- Roadway Removal
?- -? Feet
Directional median crossing Structure
Falls of Neuse Road
Realignment and Widening • Figure 3b
Wake County U-turn
Date: January 2009 4 Directional median crossing/U-turn Recommended Alternative
B' 3'-6"
SIDE UTILITY Varies 17.51 to 21.5' 3`6" B'
UTILITY SIDE
WALK STRIP I3' II' Varles -L- Varies II' 13' STRIP WALK
THRU TRAVEL LANE THRU TRAVEL LANE THRU TRAVEL LANE T 3" to 9'7'3'to 9'-3"* THRU TRAVEL LANE THRU TRAVEL LANE THRU TRAVEL LANE
I-6"
CURB & CURB & CURB & CUAB6&
GUTTER GUTTER CUTTER GUTTER
EXISTING GROUND
CITY OF RALEIGH
NORTH CAROLINA
Falls of Neuse Road
Realignment and Widening
Wake County
STIP Project No. U-4901
Date: January 2009
EXISTING GROUND
Not to Scale
Figure 4
Typical Section
PROPOSED SIX-LANE TYPICAL SECTION
+ The width for the widening section will be 7'-Y end the width for the new location section will be 9'-3"
APPROXIMATE EXISTING 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN (OUTSIDE LIMITS OF BRIDGE)
ELEVATION
3 SPAN BRIDGE WITH CONCRETE GIRDERS
APPROXIMATE
FLOODWAY
PLAN
DUAL BRIDGE OPTION
APPROXIMATE
/-FLOODWAT
Not to Scale
Falls of Neuse Road
Realignment and Widening
Wake County
STIP Project No. U-4901
Date: January 2009
Figure 5
Crossing of the Neuse River
Recommended Option (Option 1)
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
6.0 COST ESTIMATES
The total cost of the roadway improvements recommended in this document is $21.1 million;
which includes $14.7 million for construction, $5.1 million for right-of-way acquisition, and
$1.3 million for utility costs. The total cost of the structure crossing recommended in this
document is $3.35 million. The cost estimates are preliminary and more detailed cost
information will be provided during the final design. Any phased construction would be within the
footprint of the selected alternative and will not incur additional impacts beyond those identified
in this document.
7.0 PROJECT IMPACTS
Operational impacts include:
Increased traffic capacity resulting from the new facility;
Improved north-south connectivity in North Raleigh and to northern Wake County
Reduced travel times; and
Impacts to the human and natural environment include:
Impacts to jurisdictional features: streams (702 linear feet); and
Four residential relocations. None of the residential relocations were determined to be
minority or low-income.
The Recommended Alternative will not:
• Cause any appreciable change in the regional air quality;
Affect any recreational areas or public facilities;
Disproportionately benefit, harm, or impact any social group including the elderly,
handicapped, non-drivers, minority, or low income; or
Will not impact any federally listed Endangered or Threatened species.
Estimated impacts and costs associated with the Recommended Alternative are summarized in
Table 1 Error! Reference source not found.. The design for the Recommended Alternative, a
six lane, raised median divided roadway with curb and gutter, has been revised since the
completion of the EA as the project has moved into the final design phase. The impacts
presented in the EA as well as those for the updated design are included in Table 1 Error!
Reference source not found..
Finding of No Significant Impact 13 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 1: Estimated Project Impacts and Costs of the Recommended Alternative
Impact EA Impacts Updated Design
Impacts
Length (miles) 2.24 2.24
Estimated Cost
Construction Costs $14.7 million $14.7 million
Right-of-Way Costs $5.1 million $5.1 million
Utility Costs $1.3 million $1.3 million
Total Costs $21.1 million $21.1 million
Neuse River Crossing (Structure) Costs $3.35 million $3.35 million
Relocation Impact Summary
Residences (total) 4 4
Owner Occupied 4 4
Tenant Occupied 0 0
Minority 0 0
Businesses 0 0
Farms 0 0
Section 4(f) Resources Impact Summary
Section 4(f) resources 0 0
Community Services and Facilities Impact Summary
Schools 0 0
Parks and Recreation Facilities 0 0
Churches 1' 1'
Cemeteries 0 0
Utilities
Electrical Easement Crossings 0 0
Major Gas Mains 0 0
Railroad Crossings 0 0
Telephone Switch Transformer 1 1
Cultural Resources Impact Summary
No. of Archaeological sites 0 0
No. of Historic Resources 0 0
Farmland Impact Summary (acres)
Prime and Unique Farmland 21 21
Statewide and Local Important Farmland 15 15
Biotic Community Impact Summary (acres)
Maintained/Disturbed 27.0 27.0
Fallow Agriculture 7.0 7.0
Disturbed Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 7.5 7.5
Jurisdictional Impact Summary
Acres of Wetlands Impacted 0 0
Number of Wetland crossings 0 0
Linear Feet of Jurisdictional Streams Impacted by
Stream Crossings 879 702
Square Feet of Zone 1 Buffer Impacted 34,969 23,457
Square Feet of Zone 2 Buffer Impacted 22,307 18,829
Finding of No Significant Impact 14 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 1: Estimated Project Impacts and Costs of the Recommended Alternative
continued
Impact EA Impacts Updated Design
Impacts
Protected Species Impact Summary
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) No Effect No Effect
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) No Effect No Effect
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) No Effect No Effect
Air Quality Impacts
No. of Intersections exceeding Carbon Monoxide
NAAQS 0 0
Noise Impacts
Number of Impacted Receptors 71 71
Hazardous Materials Impact Summary
No. of Impacted Hazardous Materials Sites 0 0
8.0 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS
This project is subject to Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (42 CFR 26951),
which requires the following:
All federal actions must avoid the occupancy and modifications of floodplains and avoid
direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever that is a practicable alternative.
If an action must be located on the base floodplain, the agency shall take action to reduce
the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare,
and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.
Each agency shall also provide opportunity for early public review of any plans or proposals
for actions in floodplains.
The recommended alternative includes a new crossing of the Neuse River. The floodplain for
the Neuse River in this location is included in a FEMA detailed study. Impacts to these
floodplains and floodways would be analyzed, mapped and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) would be requested.
The CLOMR would be submitted to FEMA for review and approval. The analysis would detail
the proposed structure opening, roadway embankment encroachments and any hydraulic
changes that would occur within the floodplain. Upon approval and after construction is
complete, as-built plans would be submitted with documentation for a Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) to FEMA. Once this is approved, the FEMA maps would be revised and reissued by
FEMA.
Finding of No Significant Impact 15 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Structure No.1 (Neuse River Bridge)
FIRM mapping shows the proposed roadway and Neuse River crossing are located in a Special
Flood Hazard Zone, Zone AE. The 100-year base flood elevation is approximately 205 feet at
the proposed crossing and is not expected to flood the roadway during severe weather events.
Structure No. 2 (Unnamed Tributary to Neuse River)
A CLOMR would be required to ensure compliance to FEMA regulations. A LOMR would be
required post-construction.
The preliminary design has been updated since the publication of the EA and the bridge
crossing has been shifted slightly to the west of the original location in order to avoid impacting
the water line crossing under the Neuse River that was recently completed. The overall effect to
floodplains for the Build Alternative will include approximately 2.1 acres of encroachment into
designated floodplains, with no encroachments being made into the floodway. The
encroachments on floodplains are anticipated to be minor and are not likely to be significant, as
the project would not raise the water elevation to a level that would affect insurable structures.
The encroachments on the floodplain would also not present an increased danger to human
health and safety as a result of the construction, nor promote development inconsistent with the
City of Raleigh's floodplain development plan. The flood hazard evaluation and impacts to
floodplains are shown in Figure 6.
Finding of No Significant Impact 16 Final

City of Raleigh
North Carolina N
Legend W E
Edge of Pavement
Curb and Gutter
Traffic Lanes 0 250 500 1,000
Slope Stakes
Feet
- Roadway Removal
Falls of Neuse Road Structure
Realignment and Widening Figure 6
Wake County Flood Hazard Zone
Date: January 2009 Flood Hazard Evaluation
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
This page intentionally left blank.
Finding of No Significant Impact 18 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
9.0 FEDERAL LANDS
The Falls Lake impoundment, including the entrance and parking area immediately adjacent to
existing Falls of Neuse Road, is owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The City
of Raleigh does not have the authority to condemn property owned by the federal government.
The EA stated that the impacts to federal lands would be addressed in accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The Federal Land Policy and Management
Act applies only to USACE lands that were withdrawn from status as public domain lands.
Because Falls Lake was purchased from private landowners the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act is not applicable. Therefore the City will work with USACE to acquire any
necessary easements to cross public lands at Falls Lake. Additionally, the City will work with
USACE on the placement of the parking lot, gate, lighting and kiosk.
10.0 JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act require regulation of discharges of fill material into
"Waters of the United States." The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the principal
administrative agency of the CWA; however, the USACE has responsibility for implementation,
permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the CWA related to dredging and filling. The
USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330. NCDWQ is the principal
administrative agency of the Section 401 Surface Water and Wetland Standards, which are
defined in NC Administration Code 15A NCAC 02B.0100 and .0200. The impacts to
jurisdictional resources are included in Figure 7.
10.1 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND STREAMS
No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated for the Recommended Alternative.
Of the approximately 6,400 linear feet of jurisdictional streams present within the project study
area, the Recommended Alternative would directly impact a maximum of approximately 702
linear feet of jurisdictional streams (Table 2).
Table 2: Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams
URS Stream Label Stream as Indicated on USGS Quad Impacts
Recommended Alternative
(linear feet)
S2 UT to Neuse River 69
S3 UT to Neuse River 82
S4 UT to Neuse River 284
S5 UT to Neuse River 55
S6 UT to Neuse River 212
Total 702
Finding of No Significant Impact 19 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
This page intentionally left blank.
Finding of No Significant Impact 20 Final

City of Raleigh
North Carolina
s' v
Falls of Neuse Road
Realignment and Widening
Wake County
Legend
Edge of Pavement
Curb and Gutter
Traffic Lanes
Slope Stakes
Ephemeral Channel
Delineated Streams
Delineated Wetland
Streams eligible for Neuse Buffer Rules
- Roadway Removal
Structure
N
w E
S
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Figure 7
Date: January 2009
Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
This page intentionally left blank.
Finding of No Significant Impact 22 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
10.2 NEUSE RIVER BUFFER EFFECTS
The Neuse River basin is subject to buffer rules designed to protect and preserve existing
riparian buffers to maintain their nutrient removal function. Riparian buffers act to remove
nitrogen, phosphorus, and other pollutants from rainwater and runoff. The buffer rules establish
a protected 50-foot wide riparian buffer consisting of two zones. Zone 1 consists of a vegetated
area that extends landward a distance of 30 feet on all sides of a surface water. Zone 2 begins
at the outer edge of Zone 1 and extends landward 20 feet. Under the buffer rules, Zones 1 and
2 are to remain essentially undisturbed, except for certain exempted and allowed uses provided
by 15A NCAC 2B .0233 (6). Uses designated as prohibited under this rule may not proceed
within the riparian buffer unless a variance is granted pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0233 (9). The
buffer rules are administered by the North Carolina Department of Water Quality (DWQ).
The Recommended Alternative would impact approximately 23,457 square feet of Zone 1, and
18,829 square feet of Zone 2 Neuse River Buffers (see Table 3).
Table 3: Neuse River Buffer Impacts
URS Stream Label Recommended Alternative
Zone 1 Impacts
(sq. ft.) Recommended Alternative
Zone 2 Impacts
(sq. ft.)
Neuse 0 2,938
S2 4,483 4,512
S4 16,235 9,063
S5 2,739 2,316
Total 23,457 18,829
10.3 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Land development activities that may adversely impact wetlands require consent through permit
approval from the regulating agency. At the federal level, under the CWA Section 404b(1)
Guidelines (40 CFR 230) and USACE regulations (33 CFR 320.4(r)), the USACE is obligated to
require mitigation for any unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams as a condition of permit
approval. Mitigation for impacts to wetlands and streams include: avoiding impacts, minimizing
impacts, and compensating for impacts.
Avoidance
Avoidance examines the appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
wetlands and streams. One of the primary needs for the proposed project includes a new
crossing over the Neuse River. Due to the need for a new crossing and the fixed end points at
existing Falls of Neuse/Fonville Road and New Falls of Neuse in Wakefield, avoidance of
jurisdictional streams is not possible. Due to the location of wetlands in the far western part of
the study area, jurisdictional wetlands would be avoided.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate
impacts to streams and wetlands. Steps that would
streams impacted by the proposed project include:
and practicable steps to reduce adverse
be implemented to minimize impacts to
Finding of No Significant Impact 23 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Minimizing "in-stream" activities;
• Strictly enforcing the sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of streams
and wetlands;
Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of right-of-way widths
and steepening of fill slopes where possible; and
• Utilizing natural stream channel design principles when relocating streams.
Additionally, the preliminary design has been modified to further reduce impacts to jurisdictional
features and floodplains. The alignment was shifted slightly to avoid impacting the recently
completed water line extending under the Neuse River. To further minimize impacts, the typical
section for the project has been modified to reduce the median width from 23 feet to vary
between 17.5 feet and 21.5 feet while the overall right-of-way width has decreased from 120
feet to 100 feet.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is meant to replace, on at least a one-to-one basis, the lost functions
and values of natural streams and wetlands affected by development activities. The City of
Raleigh would investigate the study area for on-site mitigation opportunities. If on-site mitigation
is not possible, mitigation requirements would be satisfied by purchasing mitigation credits from
an approved mitigation bank that services the same watershed that the anticipated impacts
would occur (HUC - 03020201).
11.0 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS
Construction activities associated with building the bridge over the Neuse River would create
environmental impacts that are short-term in nature and can be controlled, minimized or
mitigated through conformance with BMPs and standard NCDOT procedures.
Bridge Construction
The potential exists for stream impacts to be minimized through the utilization of various
bridging construction methods. For construction of the bridge in the vicinity of the Neuse River,
several construction methods were evaluated for practicability. These methods include
construction of causeway and temporary work bridges.
A causeway would entail resting a layer of geotextile fabric in the river adjacent to the
construction site on which material would be placed in accordance with NCDOT specifications.
This temporary causeway would provide both a road and work platform for conventional land-
based construction equipment. After the construction is complete, the temporary causeway and
underlying geotextile layer would be removed with the use of construction equipment.
Using a temporary work bridge was evaluated where a temporary work bridge to support
construction equipment would be built adjacent to the location of the permanent bridge being
constructed. The work bridge would be removed upon completion of the permanent bridge.
Impacts to the waterway bottom under this construction method would be considered minimal
due to temporary piles. The temporary work bridge would be expanded between pier
construction sites with bridge extensions called "fingers."
Finding of No Significant Impact 24 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Based on preliminary meetings with permitting agencies the use of causeway was determined
to be the most feasible construction technique, however final selection of the construction
techniques will be accomplished during preliminary and/or final design and evaluated formally
through the Section 404 and Section 401 permitting processes.
Releases from Falls Lake Dam
The City and the contractor will be aware of the fluctuation of daily discharges from the facility
and will be responsible for making contacts to determine the discharge amount and how to
proceed with construction in a safe manner for each day.
12.0 PERMITS
Construction of the project would result in activities requiring environmental regulatory permits
from federal and state agencies. A list of these permits, organized by issuing agency, is
provided below. The City of Raleigh will obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. Many
of the environmental issues and mitigation measures discussed in the EA and FONSI will be
further quantified and evaluated as final roadway designs are completed.
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit: any action that proposes to place fill into "Waters of the United States" falls
under the jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C 1344). The CWA
provides for public notice and review of pending Section 404 permit applications.
Encroachments into areas determined as subject under the CWA must be reviewed and
approved by the USACE through the Section 404 program. It is anticipated that a Department of
the Army Nationwide Permit #14 - Linear Transportation Projects will be required for impacts to
the UTs to the Neuse River, and a Section 10 permit for the proposed bridge crossing of the
Neuse River.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality
Section 401 Water Quality Certification: any activity which may result in discharge to navigable
waters and requires a federal permit must obtain a certification through the NCDWQ that such
discharge would be in compliance with applicable state water quality standards. This permit is
required in association with the Section 404 permitting process and is required prior to Section
404 authorization.
The City of Raleigh is subject to the requirements of the NPDES stormwater permitting program
for roadway construction and material storage facilities. The permit requirements include
implementing a comprehensive stormwater management program, monitoring the program, and
annual reports of the program's effectiveness and direction.
Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules: an "Authorization Certificate" is required for any non-exempt
activity within the 50-foot wide riparian buffer along all perennial and intermittent streams in the
Neuse River Basin (including the Neuse River). A listing of allowable "uses" of the buffer areas
is provided in the rules.
Finding of No Significant Impact 25 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Land
Resources
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan: in accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act of 1973, projects disturbing more than one acre of land must submit an
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to the NCDENR Division of Land Resources (NCDLR).
The plan must include erosion control measures and be approved by the DLR prior to
construction.
United States Coast Guard
Section 9 Permit: a permit must be obtained for any new bridge built over navigable waterways,
including the Neuse River. Bridge clearances are reviewed under this permit.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Forest
Resources
Open Burning Permit: a permit is required to start a fire in woodlands or within 500 feet of
woodlands under the protection of the Division of Forest Resources. Thirty day permits can be
issued for highway construction.
13.0 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Per Section 5.0, page 127 of the Environmental Assessment, "indirect and cumulative effects of
the project are expected to be associated with encroachment-alteration rather than induced
growth". The following sections describe indirect and cumulative effects of the Recommended
Alternative.
13.1 INDIRECT EFFECTS
Overall impacts to the region are expected to be positive. However, several small businesses
located along the realigned portion of Falls of Neuse Road will likely be impacted by a reduction
in drive by traffic. While long-term economic impacts associated with the road widening and
relocation project are considered positive, the short-term impacts during construction activities
and local impacts to bypassed businesses along the proposed realigned portion of Falls of
Neuse Road are considered a negative impact.
The project is located in a substantially built-out suburban corridor with little developable land
available. Over the past few decades, development in the project vicinity has occurred largely
due to proximity to the region's major employment centers of Research Triangle Park (RTP) and
downtown Raleigh, located southwest and south of the project respectively. As a result of this
growth, the study area is encompassed by established communities including the Town of Wake
Forest and the Community of Wakefield to the northeast, the City of Raleigh to the south and
east and rural residential development of Wake County to the west. Additionally, the project is
located adjacent to expansive parklands, including the Falls Lake reservoir to the north and
west.
Eventually, the few remaining vacant parcels within the study area are likely to be developed.
Likewise, the overall growth pressure in the region would ultimately encourage redevelopment
of underutilized parcels. To a lesser degree, the increased access the project provides to major
employment centers could potentially accelerate development in Wake Forest and northern
Wake County. However, this development would likely occur with or without the project.
Finding of No Significant Impact 26 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
The Recommended Alternative was created based on citizen input and regulatory agency
feedback requesting an alternative that considered the need for direct access into the
neighborhoods along Falls of Neuse Road. Individual parcel access along the corridor will be
limited to existing driveway connections. Future driveway connections will be subject to approval
by the City in accordance with current zoning restrictions. According to the City of Raleigh's
Falls of Neuse Corridor Area Plan, new detached single family residences fronting the Falls of
Neuse Road thoroughfare are discouraged. Therefore, due to lack of developable land, Falls
Lake Water Supply Watershed zoning restrictions, and the Falls of Neuse Corridor Area Plan,
new driveway access and/or new subdivision development is not a likely result of the project.
The new alignment portion of the Recommended Alternative does provide new access to the
undeveloped Leonard Tract, a large parcel of land on the south side of the Neuse River that has
been acquired by the City of Raleigh. The City is currently studying the possibility of using the
tract as a park/recreation area. No master plan has been prepared and the property has not
been formally designated as parkland therefore it would not be subject to Section 4(f)
regulations.
Due to the already well established development encompassing the study area, lack of
developable land, the presence of the Falls Lake reservoir and zoning restrictions of the Falls
Lake Water Supply Watershed, the Recommended Alternative is not likely to substantially
induce development.
13.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
All direct jurisdictional impacts to streams and Neuse River Buffer Zones will be mitigated.
Therefore, the project will not cumulatively impact jurisdictional resources.
Other projects located within the study area or immediately adjacent to the study area include
the Upper Neuse Greenway Project and the Falls of Neuse Bridge Replacement. Considered
cumulatively, impacts projected as a result of the Recommended Alternative, when combined
with expected impacts from the greenway and bridge replacement projects, are not expected to
have a substantial negative impact on the human or natural environment of the study area.
As stated above, the Preferred Alternative is not expected to substantially induce growth in the
study area or surrounding communities. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to induced
growth are not expected.
14.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Agency coordination and public involvement are integral processes leading to the successful
planning and implementation of a roadway project. The following sections detail participation
efforts undertaken for the proposed project.
The general purpose of the Merger 01 Process is to integrate the coordination and
documentation processes for surface transportation projects in the State. The integrated
approach is an attempt to streamline the project development and permitting processes, with a
stated objective of "to ensure that the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act are incorporated into the NEPA decision-making process for surface transportation
projects in North Carolina." There are designated milestones or Concurrence Points (CPs)
Finding of No Significant Impact 27 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
during the planning and design process where interagency meetings are held with team
members and other interested parties and project specifics discussed and agreed upon.
14.1 AGENCY COORDINATION
NEPA/Section 404 Meraer Team Meetinas
The general purpose of NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team meetings is to obtain agency
comments on the on-going planning and environmental studies. The following NEPA/Section
404 Merger Team meetings were held:
The Initial Merger 01 Screening Meeting for the proposed project was held on May 14, 2007.
Staff members representing FHWA, USACE, NCDENR; DWQ, NCDOT and the City of Raleigh
were present at the meeting. It was determined in this meeting that the project would not follow
the Merger 01 Process and the Merger Team would not be convened for TIP Project No.
U-4901. However, the USACE requested that resource agency input be obtained on the
crossing of the Neuse River before a final design is selected. The agencies could review the
designs and decide if all avoidance and minimization options were applied.
A Structure Design Study for the new crossing of the Neuse River was submitted to the
following agencies on April 01, 2008;
Federal Highway Administration
• United States Army, Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division
• United State Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
• United States Environmental Protection Agency
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Historic Preservation Office
North Carolina Department of Transportation
In response to the letter and study, an on-site meeting was scheduled for May 28, 2008 to
review the designs at the proposed location of the crossing. The conclusions reached at the
meeting were the three span structure with one set of end bents in the water of the Neuse River
was acceptable (Option 1). Drilled pilings would be required. Construction could take place from
each side of the river; thus, a temporary work structure would not be necessary.
Comments received from local, state and federal agencies from the project scoping phase were
included in the EA. The EA was approved on September 29, 2008.
14.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A public program was developed for the project pursuant to Part 1506.6 of NEPA (Public
Involvement Regulations for Implementing the Provisional Procedures of NEPA). In general, the
Public Involvement Program to date has included development of a project mailing list, three
newsletter mailings, two Citizens Informational Workshops, multiple small group meetings, and
an EA Public Hearing. Coordination with the public will be maintained through the construction
phase of the project and may include presentations, additional small group meetings, and
individual citizen contacts.
Finding of No Significant Impact 28 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
EA Public Hearin
Approximately 80 citizens attended the EA Public Hearing on November 03, 2008. The format of
the meeting was a 1- hour open house from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM where interested citizens had
the opportunity to review a handout and preliminary mapping of the four alternatives as shown
in the EA and make comments / ask questions with project staff present.
Next, the official EA Public Hearing was held from 7:00 PM to approximately 9:00 PM. The
meeting began with Mr. Sylvester Percival from the City of Raleigh introducing the project and
format for the upcoming Hearing. Mr. David Griffin and Mr. Ed Edens from URS Corporation, the
City's consultant for the project, also spoke briefly about the findings from the EA (human,
natural, and physical environment studies), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
compliance, and project design issues, respectively. Citizen comments on the EA were due by
November 18, 2008.
The public hearing handout as well as a detailed summary of the comments and responses is
included in Appendix A. A summary of the comments and concerns are summarized below:
Right-of-Way
A majority of the comments heard and recorded concerned the 6-lane cross section and 120-
foot right-of-way necessary to plan for a future 6-lane cross section. Many citizens objected to
the acquisition of this much property when the need for the 6-lane was in the future. Many
citizens requested that a four-lane widening with a center median be selected for the widening
project now and when the needs arises in the future, additional right of way be purchased for
the ultimate build out to 6-lanes.
Traffic/Access Issues
Numerous comments were heard related to access control options for the project. Citizens living
adjacent to existing Falls of Neuse Road were concerned about control of access and not being
able to turn left directly out of their driveway or development entrance. Citizens also questioned
the validity of traffic projections, the need for widening to six lanes, and the need for additional
access control.
Noise
Many citizens living adjacent to existing Falls of Neuse Road were inquiring about noise walls
between their individual properties or developments and the proposed project.
Safety
Comments were received from citizens about safety concerns, following two main trends; the
first being concerns for the safety of property owners and their families when the widening was
in place. Second, people were concerned about the speed of traffic and especially truck traffic.
Quality of Life
Issues heard included not wanting Falls of Neuse to turn into a commercialized area such as
Capital Boulevard with speeding trucks, loud noise and too many signs and industrial lighting.
Citizens wanted to retain the "residential" feel of the area as a neighborhood connector.
Finding of No Significant Impact 29 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Mount Pleasant Baotist Church
Concerns were voiced for the safety of members of the church with the loss of land/extra lane
from the front of the church property. A sound proof barrier was requested for construction in
front of the church. These citizens also supported a 4-lane widening as opposed to the 6-lane
widening. In addition, a petition was received from Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church with 173
signatures voicing support for 1) a barrier in front of the church for protection against out-of-
control vehicles, and 2) a four-lane roadway. A copy of this petition is attached.
Economic Impact
Many citizens believe home values in all the neighborhoods located along existing Falls of
Neuse will decrease due to the proposed widening and adoption of the current plan would
encourage flight from neighborhoods and industry to take their places.
Paddy Hollow Lane Opening
Residents in the Oakcroft community were opposed to the opening of Paddy Hollow Lane for
several reasons including; safety, quality of life and home values. Citizens do not want their
neighborhood opened up to increased, high speed traffic.
Miscellaneous
Daltons Ridge community was against a sidewalk being added along the west side of project,
and collectively against city taxes being spent to build the sidewalk. They were also against the
6 lane cross section. A community and citizen collective (North Raleigh Coalition of
Homeowner's Associations or NORCHOA) signed a resolution with the following stated:
RESOLUTION: The easements and rights of ways be sufficiently wide and aligned in
such a manner that they only accommodate: 1) Two north lanes with a continuous
throughway. 2) Two south lanes with a continuous throughway. 3) A properly marked
free-flow center turning lane. 4) Adequate landscaping and noise mitigation be installed
for the protection of all affected residents/neighborhoods on or near the widened
roadway and replacement of any trees that might be negatively affected with trees of
similar size and species. 5) Protected crosswalks shall be installed at each traffic control
signal. 6) A protected bicycle/pedestrian (multi-use) path shall be installed on the east
side of Falls of Neuse Road, connecting to the existing path, which currently ends at
Raven Ridge. 7) Two designated bicycle lanes, each two feet in width to be created by
increasing the width of the outer traffic lane in each direction from 11 to 13 feet. 8) No
sidewalk is needed or desired on the west side of Falls of Neuse Road.
14.3 CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This environmental document was prepared and distributed to the following agencies for review
and comment. Agencies providing comments on the EA are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Federal Agencies
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of the Interior
Department of Agriculture
Finding of No Significant Impact 30 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Regional Offices
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Emergency Management Agency
*Environmental Protection Agency
Natural Resources Conservation Services
• *U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division
• *U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, Falls Lake Facility
• U.S. Coast Guard Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Geological Survey
State Agencies
*North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development
*North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks & Recreation
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
North Carolina Department of Transportation
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
North Carolina NC State Publications Clearinghouse
*North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Local Government Agencies
Mayor, City of Raleigh
• City Manager, City of Raleigh
• Chair, City Council
Planning Director, City of Raleigh
Planning Director, Wake County
• Chair, County Commissioners
• Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Chief, Falls Volunteer Fire Department
North Ridge Library
Wake County Public Schools Transportation Director
14.4 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Comments on the EA were received from a number of agency personnel and are summarized in
Table 4. Agency review letters are included in Appendix B.
Finding of No Significant Impact 31 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 4: Agency Comments Received on the EA
Comment Comment Response
No.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, October 16, 2008
1 This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a This project has not been incorporated into the formal
participating team member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team. 404/NEPA Merger Process. However, appropriate
resource agencies including NCDWQ are active
participants in the project planning and design process.
2 The Neuse River and its unnamed tributaries are class WS-IV; NSW waters of the Comment noted. The design plans will comply with the
State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result most recent NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management
from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion Practices.
control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these waters.
DWQ request that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of the
NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
3 Unnamed tributaries to Falls Lake may be present in the project study area. These The project will be designed and constructed in
waters are classified as Water Supply Critical Area (CA). Given the potential for accordance with the regulations noted.
impacts to these resources during the project implementation, the DWQ requests
that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B.0124) throughout design and
construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams
having CA classifications.
4 This project is within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts shall be Comment noted. Additional coordination with NC DWQ will
avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC be completed throughout the design phase of the project.
2B.0233. New development activities located in the protected 50-foot wide riparian
areas within the basin shall be limited to "uses" identified within and constructed in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0233. Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer
impacts resulting from activities classified as "allowable with mitigation" with the
"Table of uses" section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance under the Buffer
Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program, must be provided to DWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality
Certification.
Finding of No Significant Impact 32 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 4: Agency Comments Received on the EA continued
Comment Comment Response
No.
5 The environmental document should continue to provide a detailed and itemized Impacts to streams and wetlands are summarized in the
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding EA.
mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is
Comment noted. The applicant aware of the regulations
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the for the North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification. All
environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to proposed stream crossings for the project are identified in
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. the EA, and mitigation planning will incorporate these
regulations. The City of Raleigh would investigate the
study area for on-site mitigation opportunities. If on-site
mitigation is not possible, mitigation requirements would
be satisfied by purchasing mitigation credits from an
approved mitigation bank that services the same
watershed that the anticipated impacts would occur (HUC
-03020201).
6 Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce BMPs will be incorporated into the design plans and
the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives implemented where practicable.
should include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of
NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer
areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
7 After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to issuance of the 401 Wetland and stream impacts were avoided where
Water Quality Certification, the applicant is respectfully reminded that they will practicable to the extent the roadway design criteria would
need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and allow. However, mitigation efforts will be required due to
streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental unavoidable impacts. The City of Raleigh would
Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be investigate the study area for on-site mitigation
required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation opportunities. If on-site mitigation is not possible,
is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost mitigation requirements would be satisfied by purchasing
functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank that
available for use as wetland mitigation. services the same watershed that the anticipated impacts
would occur (HUC - 03020201). Mitigation planning will
take into account requirements set forward by NCDWQ.
8 In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A Comment noted.
NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150
linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required,
the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
Finding of No Significant Impact 33 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 4: Agency Comments Received on the EA continued
Comment Comment Response
No.
9 Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, Comment noted.
should continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream
impacts with corresponding mapping.
10 DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from Section 4.16, page 112, of the EA describes potential
this project. NCDOT should address these concerns by describing the potential water quality impacts in detail.
impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that
would reduce the impacts.
11 An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this An Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) technical
project is required. The type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC analysis was summarized in Section 5.0, page 127, of the
Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of secondary and cumulative EA.
impacts dated April 10, 2004.
12 The applicant is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, Final impact calculations will include all impacts including
bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and bridging, fill, excavation, and clearing. Temporary and
riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, permanent construction impacts will be included as part of
in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
13 Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of Comment noted.
culverts. However, we realize that economic considerations often require the use
of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow
unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas
where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install bridge bents in the creek, to
the maximum extent practicable.
14 Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or Comment noted.
streams.
15 Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Comment noted.
Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401
Water Quality Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
16 The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the Comment noted.
proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater
should not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
Finding of No Significant Impact 34 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 4: Agency Comments Received on the EA continued
Comment Comment Response
No.
17 Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to Comment noted.
wetlands and streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the
Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be
advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of
water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or
stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a
formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ.
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance
and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical,
the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion
of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
18 Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible. Comment noted.
19 Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures Comment noted.
usually do not require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and
do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances
provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure,
do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
20 Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater BMPs will be incorporated into the design plans and
should be directed across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate implemented where practicable.
means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before
entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NCDWQ
Stormwater Best Management Practices.
21 If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to Comment noted.
prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that
inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should not be discharged to surface
waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills.
22 If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to BMPs will be utilized for the control of erosion and to
its preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or minimize any impacts from clearing and grubbing
mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species should be activities.
planted. When using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area
to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
Finding of No Significant Impact 35 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 4: Agency Comments Received on the EA continued
Comment Comment Response
No.
23 Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall Comment noted.
be placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a
diameter greater than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic
life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary
erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and
down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide
evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If
this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features
encountered during construction, please contact the DWQ for guidance on how to
proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
24 If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural Comment noted.
stream cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain
elevation and/or sills where appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be
avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically
decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
25 If foundation test borings are necessary, it should be noted in the document. Comment noted.
Geotechnical work is approved under General 401 Certification Number
3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
26 Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must Comment noted.
be implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and
the most recent version of NCS000250.
27 All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. BMPs will be incorporated into the design plans and
Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction implemented where practicable.
and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams
and other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing
water.
28 Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream Comment noted.
channels in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment should be inspected
daily and maintained to prevent contamination or surface waters from leaking
fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
29 Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the Comment noted.
streambed in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering
boulders or structures should be properly designed, sized and installed.
Finding of No Significant Impact 36 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 4: Agency Comments Received on the EA continued
Comment Comment Response
No.
30 Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the Comment noted.
maximum extent possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the
construction limits of the project by the end of the growing season following
completion of construction.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, October 24, 2008
1 The document (the EA) addresses concerns and comments from prior Comment noted.
coordination with NCWRC. At this time we do not have any specific comments, we
concur with the EA for this project.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, November 3, 2008
1 The Natural Heritage Program has already commented on this project, during the Comment noted.
scoping phase, with a letter sent to Mr. Sylvester Percival of the City of Raleigh
Public Works Department, dated June 4, 2007 (found in Appendix B of the EA).
We have no additional comments on the project.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh Regional Office
1 Any open burning associated with subject proposal must be in compliance with Comment noted.
15 A NCAC 2D.1900.
2 Demolition or renovations of structures containing asbestos material must be in Comment noted.
compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110(a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group [phone].
3 Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Comment noted.
Subchapter 2C.0100.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, October 20, 2008
1 No Comment.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Raleigh Office, November 08, 2008
1 NCDOT and FHWA considered 4 build alternatives and have identified Alternative Section 3.9.6, page 68, of the EA discusses an analysis
4 with Bridge Option 1 as their preferred alternative. The proposed project would completed for the new structure crossing that
be 6 lanes with 23-foot raised medians, curb and gutter sections, a 13-foot wide considered the economics of different bridge cross
outside lane for bicycle travel and sidewalks. EPA notes that the two inner travel sections, span arrangements, and construction
lanes are proposed for 11 feet in width and the outside lane is proposed is materials
as well as
spanning waterways and the
proposed for 13 feet in order to accommodate bicycles. EPA also prefers Bridge ,
,
proposed Upper Neuse Greenway. Impacts were
Option 3 (i.e., 336-foot bridge with 70/166/100-foot spans) as it keeps the bridge
bents out of the Neuse River. quantified for natural resources and aesthetic
consideration given with respect to the views from
the planned Upper Neuse Greenway, located on the
south bank of the River, and general everyday users
of the Neuse River.
Finding of No Significant Impact 37 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 4: Agency Comments Received on the EA continued
Comment Comment Response
No.
2 EPA notes that there are approximately 34,969 square feet of Zone 1 and 22,307 The use of noise abatement walls is usually not feasible
square feet of Zone 2 Neuse River Buffer Impacts. There are 4 residential due to the lack of controlled access along the facility. The
relocations and 71 noise receptor impacts. EPA does not full understand the construction of noise abatement walls would convert the
discussion concerning the use of noise barriers on page 102 of the EA and that property along the corridor to controlled access because
noise abatement on partially controlled access freeways is "usually" not feasible no access would be possible due to the physical presence
due to multiple property owners. There are numerous near roadway receptors of the wall. The property owners would be required to
located in and along subdivisions that could be benefited by noise abatement relinquish access rights to the roadway from their
walls. EPA does not fully concur with the discussion concerning vegetative barriers properties in order for the walls to be feasible. Even if the
and noise abatement. Even minimal vegetative "evergreen" (landscape) screening property owners relinquished the access rights to the
along the right-of-way can slightly minimize near roadway traffic noise in roadway, the frequency of access along the corridor (an
residential areas without the need to purchase additional right of way. breaks in the noise barriers) at side streets would greatly
reduce the effectiveness of the noise abatement walls,
which is why they are usually recommended for controlled
access facilities. The FHWA publication Highway Traffic
Noise states that in order to reduce noise by 10 dBA a
200-foot wide width of dense vegetation is required and
that it is often not practical to plant enough vegetation to
achieve such reductions. It further states that roadside
vegetation can be planted to create psychological relief, if
not an actual lessening of traffic noise levels. The
proposed project includes a landscaping element that will
evaluate the corridor to determine if screening is
appropriate in noise sensitive areas.
3 Terrestrial forest impacts are to be 7.5 acres to Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest The "disturbed" classification is a modified classification
type from a total of 41.5 acres of all community types. EPA could not ascertain the that reflects the influence of modern human activities. For
"disturbed" classification for the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest type. a full description of the classification refer to Section
4.15.6 in the EA.
4 EPA acknowledges the preliminary information on hazardous material sites The above ground storage tank is located behind (east of)
contained on pages 92 - 94 and Appendix F. From the discussion, there is the main church building. The tank has no recorded
potentially one property containing a registered above ground storage that could incidents of leaking.
be impacted by the proposed project (i.e. Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church). Table 14,
which includes the list of all recorded hazardous material sites within the project
study area, does not provide clarity on this issue.
Finding of No Significant Impact 38 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 4: Agency Comments Received on the EA continued
Comment Comment Response
No.
5 EPA notes the general qualitative analysis on Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) There are no sensitive populations such as daycare
provided on pages 102 to 106 of the EA. The MSAT discussion in the EA does not centers, hospitals, and nursing homes located in close
address potential near-roadway, sensitive receptors along the existing route or proximity to the corridor.
new routes, such as daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. As previously
identified by EPA and in past FHWA interim guidance and studies, MSAT
emissions are primarily a near-roadway exposure issue and not a "region-wide"
problem. The FONSI should identify potential near roadway sensitive receptors to
MSAT emissions. EPA also notes that the proposed project is located in non-
attainment areas for the 8-hour ozone standard and carbon monoxide standard.
The current State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP) does not any
transportation control measures for Wake County.
6 EPA found in the Summary of Impacts Tables S.1 and 4.19 were not especially The summary of impacts table has been revised in the
helpful in ascertaining the magnitude or intensity of the proposed project's FONSI to include quantitative measures.
impacts. This "qualitative" type format in the form of symbols for "positive impact",
"negligible to low", etc. is somewhat subjective and not consistent with other
FHWA or NCDOT EA impact summary tables.
7 EPA acknowledges the discussion on Federally owned land on page 80 of the EA It has been determined that the City of Raleigh will request
involving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The proposed project would a permanent right-of-way easement across the Fall Dam
remove part of the entrance and parking area immediately adjacent to the existing property as detailed in Section 9.0 of this FONSI.
Falls of Neuse Road. The EA discussion does not include relevant information
regarding the "negotiations" and permission required between FHWA and USACE
regarding the "taking" of Federally owned land from one public use to potentially
provide for another public use.
United States Army, Corp of Engineers, Wilmington District, Falls Lake Operations, November 17, 2008
1 The area of direct impact t o Corps property fee owned property is located at the The City of Raleigh will coordinate with USACE on
entrance to the Falls Lake Dam and Visitor Assistance Center of the "Falls acquiring a permanent right-of-way easement across the
Management Center Road" as shown on the drawings. Under the proposed plan, public lands at Falls Lake and will coordinate on the
the existing parking area would be obliterated and it appears that a new parking revisions to the parking lot, gate, lighting and kiosk.
area would be constructed. From review of the drawings, it also appears that the
existing entrance sign and gate would be moved back from the road to allow
access to the new parking area. The document should also indicate that the City
will work with USACE to acquire any necessary easements to cross public lands at
Falls Lake.
Finding of No Significant Impact 39 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 4: Agency Comments Received on the EA continued
Comment Comment Response
No.
2 The intersection with Falls Management Center Road as proposed would be right The location of some intersection treatments is ongoing at
in / right out. While we recognize that the design attempts to maximize traffic flow this point and will be addressed during the final design
and safety, we have concerns over the routing of incoming traffic to make a u-turn stage of the project. The City will coordinate with USACE
to access our facility. We regularly have tractor-trailer deliveries and large regarding the intersection treatment at this location once
equipment (such as cranes) entering our area, as well as vehicles pulling boat more details are available.
trailers to access our boat ramp. Both large equipment and vehicles trailering
boats will have difficulty executing u-turns. Several emergency and law
enforcement agencies such as NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Wake County
Sheriff's office, and local fire departments utilize the boat ramp. The public use of
the location also occasionally requires access by emergency vehicles. We request
consideration to of full-movement access and a traffic signal to allow for safe
access to this facility.
3 On page 80 - Section 4.4.2 references the Federal Land Policy and Management Comment noted. Revision is included in Section 9 of this
Act of 1976. The FLPMA only applies to Corps land that were withdrawn from FONSI.
status as public domain lands. Since the Corps lands at Falls were purchased
from private landowners by the Corps and were not in public domain lands the
FLPMA does not apply. Suggest that all sentence references to FLPMA be
removed from 4.4.2 be eliminated.
4 The preferred bridge alternative Option 1 includes bents in the river. We expect The City and the contractor will be aware of the fluctuation
that this would result in requests for prior notice or coordination of releases from of daily discharges from the facility and will be responsible
Falls Dam into the Neuse River and perhaps changes to our releases during for making contacts to determine the discharge amount
construction. Suggest that they address any issues, anticipated requests, and and how to proceed with construction in a safe manner for
proposed methods of coordination regarding releases in Section 4.20 Construction each day.
Effects.
5 Page 132 shows agencies that were asked to participate in scoping - note Comment noted.
Regulatory is included but no comments are shown. Please ensure that
Operations, through the POC of the Falls Lake Operations Project Manager is
included on scoping for the bridge replacement.
6 The preferred alternative drawings show an 8-foot multi-use path on the east side A mid-block pedestrian crossing was evaluated at this
of Falls of Neuse Road. It is likely that users (bicyclists, runners, walkers, etc.) of location and determined to not be feasible due to the low
this path would be interested in accessing the public lands at the Falls Dam and volume of pedestrian traffic, the high travel speed along
Visitor Assistance Center. We request consideration of a crosswalk or some other the corridor and the limited sight distance at this location.
method of allowing the multi-use path users to safely cross Falls of Neuse at the Pedestrian crossings will be available at the signalized
Falls Management Center Road. intersection at Dunn Road, 2000 feet to the south of the
entrance to Falls Dam.
Finding of No Significant Impact 40 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
15.0 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO THE EA
Following the circulation of the EA, the final design portion of the project was undertaken and
included a revision to the design that shifted the roadway slightly to the west as it approaches
the Neuse River. The revision was made to avoid impacts to the recently completed water line
extending under the Neuse River. Additionally, due to the design shift and additional floodway
analysis the bridge length was increased from 324 feet to 345 feet. The design changes
resulted in lower impacts to the streams, riparian buffers and floodplains within the study area.
An updated floodplain analysis was completed based on the revised design, reducing the
impacts to floodplains.
The Falls Lake property owned by USACE is not subject to the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act as described in the EA because it was purchased from private landowners.
The City will work with USACE to acquire any easements needed to cross public lands at Falls
Lake.
Due to concerns raised at the public hearing and through coordination with NCDOT, the median
width for the project was reduced from 23 feet to vary between 17.5 and 21.5 feet. In addition,
the overall right-of-way width was reduced from 120 feet to 100 feet. These changes resulted in
a slightly reduced footprint for the project.
16.0 ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990 established a national policy to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse
impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands
wherever there is a practicable alternative. The Recommended Alternative avoids all impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands.
17.0 BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a detailed study of the proposed project as documented in the EA and upon
comments received from federal, state, and local agencies and the public, it is the finding of the
City of Raleigh, the NCDOT and the FHWA that this project will not have a significant impact
upon the human or natural environment. Impacts are summarized in Table 5.
The project is not controversial from an environmental standpoint. No significant impacts to
natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are anticipated. Every effort has been made to
avoid and/or minimize wetlands, streams and riparian buffers. Potential on-site mitigation
opportunities exist but are limited; consequently, most of the mitigation requirements will be
provided by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. No significant impact on air or water
quality is expected and no effects on federally listed endangered or threatened species are
anticipated. The proposed project is consistent with local plans and will not disrupt any
communities. In view of the above evaluation, it has been determined a FONSI is applicable for
this project. Therefore, neither an EIS nor further environmental analysis will be required.
Finding of No Significant Impact 41 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 5: Impacts
Section of the EA Significant Impact?
Section 4.1 No.
Local Community This project is compatible with the local communities in the
project area. The project conforms to the City's Master
Plan and other planning efforts. In addition, extensive
coordination with local citizens was undertaken to ensure
project designs were thoroughly explained and understood.
Section 4.1.1 No.
Community Facilities and Services The Falls Volunteer Fire Department is located on Falls of
Neuse Road just north of Lowery Farm Road. Preliminary
design options were reviewed with representatives from the
Fire Department and several small changes were made to
ensure the trucks would have unencumbered access at all
times. The implementation of the Recommended
Alternative should reduce response times for fire, rescue
and police services by creating greater connectivity and
moving traffic more efficiently.
Section 4.2 No.
Land Use, Zoning and Development This project is not expected to disrupt or change land use
patterns other than for direct conversion of land for project
right of way. The project is consistent with area land use
plans and long range transportation plans.
Section 4.3 No.
Parks and Recreation The Recommended Alternative would improve access to
study area parklands and recreational opportunities by
increasing traffic capacity and providing new bicycle and
pedestrian routes. Connections would be created to the
Upper Neuse Greenway, local neighborhood greenways
and a proposed whitewater park.
Section 4.4 No.
Federally Owned Land The Falls Lake impoundment entrance and a small parking
lot area located off of Falls of the Neuse Road will be
impacted by the Recommended Alternative. The
impoundment is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. In an agreement between the City and the
Corps, the City agreed to relocate entrance signs and
provide a new parking lot that accommodates the road
widening project as well as additional parking demand to
meet the needs of the reservoir's visitors. The City of
Raleigh will obtain from the Corps a permanent right of way
easement for the federal lands required for the project.
Finding of No Significant Impact 42 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 5: Impacts continued
Section of the EA Significant Impact?
Section 4.5 No.
Farmlands Approximately 36 acres of Prime and Unique or Statewide
or Local Important farmland could be converted or
otherwise impacted by the project. An analysis was
completed as required by the Farmland Protection Policy
Act (FPPA) which determined that the project fell under the
minimum requirement for further assessment; therefore, the
project is in compliance with FPPA.
Section 4.6 No.
Utilities The City of Raleigh will coordinate utility impacts with utility
providers to minimize impacts and reduce service
interruptions.
Section 4.7 No.
Relocations For the Recommended Alternative, four residential
relocations are anticipated and no relocations of
businesses, churches, or farms are anticipated. Therefore,
the project will not result in a significant impact to the
human environment.
Section 4.8 No.
Environmental Justice An analysis completed for the project indicated that the
study area relative to Raleigh, Wake County, and North
Carolina has a lower percentage of population that is either
a minority or low-income. Impacts associated with the
project are expected to be concentrated along the project
corridor. Of the four residential relocation identified for the
Recommended Alternative, none are minority owned.
Therefore, there are no disproportionate impacts to
environmental justice populations from the Recommended
Alternative.
Section 4.9 No.
Historic and Cultural Resources It has been determined that there are no historic
architecture resources within the project study area that are
eligible for National Register listing.
In addition, findings for Phase I and II surveys completed
for archaeological resources stated that none of the Build
Alternatives will impact any archaeological resources.
Section 4.10 No.
Flood Hazard Evaluation The project study area contains one system that is
designated by name on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The construction of the Recommended Alternative
would encroach on the designated floodplain associated
with the Neuse River. The encroachments are anticipated
to be minor and are not likely to be significant, as the
project would not raise the water elevation to a level that
would affect insurable structures.
Finding of No Significant Impact 43 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 5: Impacts continued
Section of the EA Significant Impact?
Section 4.11 No.
Hazardous Materials A small household dump site was located on the Leonard
Tract just south of the river and on the east side of existing
Falls of Neuse Road. In addition, several hazardous
materials sites were recorded in the project study area.
None of these sites fall within the right-of-way for the
Recommended Alternative
Section 4.12 No.
Noise Design year (2035) traffic noise levels from the project are
expected to approach or exceed the NCOT noise
abatement criteria or substantially increase over existing
noise levels for 71 receptors. Based on the NCDOT Noise
Abatement Policy, noise barriers are not feasible or
reasonable at any of the receptor locations. The projected
increase in future noise levels are mostly due to the
predicted increase in traffic volumes. Based on an analysis
of the context and intensity of noise impacts for the
proposed project, the future noise levels and associated
impacts are representative of typical noise levels along a
suburban arterial corridor for projects with widening of the
existing facility and a segment of new alignment roadway
and are not considered significant.
Section 4.13 No.
Air Quality The CO hotspot analysis and regional emissions analysis
determined the project is in conformity with air quality
standards.
A quantitative Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis
was performed for the project and determined MSAT
emissions in 2035 are expected to be slightly higher with
the construction of the project relative to the No Build
Alternative.
MSAT emissions for the Affected Transportation Network
are predicted to decrease despite increases in vehicle miles
traveled. MSAT emissions will be lower than present levels
in the design year as a result of USEPA's vehicle and fuel
regulations.
Section 4.14 No.
Aesthetics Overall, the project is not anticipated to have a substantial
visual or aesthetic impact to community resources within
the project study area or in the surrounding areas.
The City of Raleigh will incorporate aesthetic elements into
the final design of the project. Examples of possible
aesthetic features are coloring of the structural elements,
creating buffer areas, and landscape screening,
Finding of No Significant Impact 44 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 5: Impacts continued
Section of the EA Significant Impact?
4.15.3 No.
Soils As a result of earthwork and various construction activities
associated with the Recommended Alternative, the project
would result in localized alterations of study area
topography, geology, and soils within the right-of-way limits.
Overall, the project is expected to have a negligible impact
to the region's topography, geology, and loss or creation of
soils.
4.15.5 No.
Biotic Resources The project study area is in a disturbed state from decades
of farming and other agricultural / land clearing activities.
Many of the plant communities are already fragmented by
previous human activities.
Also due to the disturbed nature of the study area, all the
faunal species observed are opportunistic species that will
inhabit any and all of the terrestrial communities before and
after construction of the project.
4.15.9 No.
Aquatic Resources Construction of the Recommended Alternative may cause
temporary impacts to aquatic communities due to
sedimentation and reduced water quality resulting from
project construction. Permanent impacts are not expected
due to the implementation of Best Management Practices
and other measures to avoid and minimize harm to aquatic
systems.
4.16.1 No.
Water Quality Impacts to water quality, as a result of the construction of
the Recommended Alternative, are not expected to be
significant. Impacts to water resources could include
stormwater runoff, disruption of the substrate, increased
sedimentation and siltation, and temporary decreases in
dissolved oxygen during construction. Clearing and
grubbing activities, as well as bridge and culvert
construction activities could also impact water resources.
Most impacts will be temporary in nature during project
construction and limited to the immediate area of
construction. All impacts will be minimized to the maximum
extent feasible.
4.17.1 No.
Jurisdictional Wetlands No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated for the
Recommended Alternative.
Finding of No Significant Impact 45 Final
Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Table 5: Impacts continued
Section of the EA Significant Impact?
4.17.3 No.
Jurisdictional Streams The Recommended Alternative will impact 702 linear feet of
jurisdictional streams.
The City of Raleigh will mitigate the impacts to the
jurisdictional areas listed above. Therefore, the project will
not will not have a significant impact to jurisdictional
streams.
4.17.4 No.
Neuse River Buffers The Recommended Alternative will impact approximately
23,457 square feet of Zone 1 and approximately 18,829
square feet of Zone 2 Neuse River Buffers.
The City of Raleigh will mitigate the impacts to the buffer
areas listed above. Therefore, the project will not will not
have a significant impact to Neuse River Buffers.
4.17.8 No.
Required Permits Construction of the project would result in activities
requiring environmental regulatory permits from federal and
state agencies. The City of Raleigh will obtain all necessary
permits prior to construction.
An off-site mitigation program based on in-lieu fee
payments made to the NCDENR; Ecosystem Enhancement
Program was established in 2003. Coordination with
regulatory agencies determined that payment of an in-lieu
fee would be an available and satisfactory option for off-site
mitigation to satisfy any Federal Clean Water Act
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.
4.18.1 No.
Federally Protected Species No federally protected species will be affected by the
project.
4.18.2 No.
Species of Concern The project does not affect any federal species of concern
or state listed species.
4.2 No.
Construction Since construction operations will be limited to the time
needed to complete the project, both benefits and impacts
to resources are considered temporary. To minimize these
temporary impacts, the City of Raleigh will follow the
NCDOT standards and specification to ensure that these
impacts are minimized.
Based on coordination with the environmental review
agencies and the public, several commitments have been
added to this FONSI to minimize construction impacts such
as adhering to North Carolina regulations entitled " Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 048.0124)
and coordinating with officials at Falls Lake to monitor daily
water releases from the dam.
Finding of No Significant Impact 46 Final
APPENDICES
Appendix A Public Hearing

Cate: Dcccmhcr 30, 2008
To: Sylvester Percival, City of Raleigh
From: Kim Leight, URS Corporation
Subject: Summary of EA Public Hearing
City of Raleigh Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
November 03, 2008 at Durant Road Nature Park
1', 1 of 3
Approximately 80 citizens attended the EA Public Hearing on November 03, 2008. Sign in sheets are appended
to this summary (Attachment 1)
The format of the meeting was a I- hour open house from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM where interested citizens had the
opportunity to review a handout (Attachment 2) and preliminary mapping of the 4 alternatives as shown in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) and make comments / ask questions with project staff present.
Next, the official EA Public Hearing was held from 7:00 PM to approximately 9:00 PM. The meeting began
with Mr. Sylvester Percival from the City of Raleigh introducing the project and format for the upcoming
Hearing. Mr. David Griffin and Mr. Ed Edens from URS Corporation, the City's consultant for the project, also
spoke briefly about the findings from the EA (human, natural, and physical environment studies), National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and project design issues, respectively. The Hearing
proceedings were recorded and are appended to this summary (Attachment 3).
Citizen comments on the EA were due by November 18, 2008. A summary of these comments/responses is also
appended to this summary (Attachment 4).
A summary of the comments and concerns are summarized below:
Right-of--Way
A majority of the comments heard and recorded concerned the 6-lane cross section and 120-foot right-of-way
necessary to plan for a future 6-lane cross section. Many citizens objected to the acquisition of this much
property when the need for the 6-lane was in the future. Many citizens requested that a four-lane widening with
a center median be selected for the widening project now and when the needs arises in the future, additional
right of way be purchased for the ultimate build out to 6-lanes.
Traffic/Access Issues
More comments were heard related to access control options for the project. Citizens living adjacent to existing
Falls of Neuse Road were concerned about control of access and not being able to turn left directly out of their
driveway or development entrance. Citizens also questioned the validity of traffic projections and the need for
widening to six lanes and correspondingly, the need for additional access control.
Noise
Many citizens living adjacent to existing Falls of Neuse Road were inquiring about noise walls between their
individual properties or developments and the proposed project.

Pi',c ? of 3
S;lIct\'
Comments were received from citizens about safety concerns, following two main trends; the first being
cNIccrns for the safety of property owners and their families when the widening was in place. Second, people
wcrc concerned about the speed of traffic and especially truck traffic.
QtAitv of Life
lssucs heard included not wanting Falls of Neuse to turn into a commercialized area such as Capital Boulevard
with speeding trucks, loud noise and too many signs and industrial lighting. Citizens wanted to retain the
"residential" feel of the area as a neighborhood connector.
Mount Pleasant I1ahtisrChurch
Many concerns \?cre voiced for the safety of members of the church with the loss of land/extra lane from the
front of the church property. A sound proof barrier was requested for construction in front of the church. These
citizens also supported a 4-lane widening as opposed to the 6-lane widening.
In addition, a petition was received from Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church with 173 signatures voicing support for 1)
a hnrrier in front of the church for protection against out-of-control vehicles, and 2) a four-lane roadway. A copy
oft his petition is attached (Attachment 5).
Economic Imp
Many citizens believe home values in all the neighborhoods located along existing Falls of Neuse will decrease
due to the proposed widening and adoption of the current plan would encourage flight from neighborhoods and
industry to take their places.
Bridge
No citizen comments were received concerning the new structure over the Neuse River.
Paddy Hollow Lane Opening
Residents in the Oakcroft community were opposed to the opening of Paddy Hollow Lane for several reasons
including; safety, quality of life and home values. Citizens do not want their neighborhood opened up to
increased, high speed traffic.
Miscellaneous
Daltons Ridge community was against a sidewalk being added along the west side of project, and collectively
against city taxes being spent to build the sidewalk. They were also against the 6 lane cross section. A petition
was signed and is attached (Attachment 6).
A community and citizen collective (North Raleigh Coalition of Homeowner's Associations or NORCHA)
signed a resolution (Attachment 7) with the following stated:
2
1075?1
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION. The easements and rights of ways be suffciemb- ?ivdc (uzd aligned in such a manner
that they only accommodate; 1) Two north lanes ?rifh a continuous thrrntghway. ?) Two south lanes with a
continuous througIrwgy. 3) A properly marked f -cc flow center turning lonc. 4) Adequate landscaping and noise
mitiization be installed), for the protection of rill ull"cicd residentslneighborhoods on or near the widened
roadway and replaccIncnt of any trees that mi?Ihi hc nc,,,(WvcIy affected a lilt trees of similar size andspecies. S)
1'rowc/cdl crosswalks shall be installed at each traffi(- control signal 6) A protected bicyclelpedestrian (multi-
use) path shall be installed on the east side of Falls of Neuse Road, connecting to the existing path, which
currently ends at Raven Ridge. 7) Two designated bicycle lanes, each two feet in width to be created by
increasing the width of the outer traffic lane in each direction from II to 13 feet. 8) No sidewalk is needed or
desired on the west side of Falls of Neuse Road
Comments or concerns can be directed to Mr. Sylvester Percival, El, City of Raleigh, 919-996-3030.
Attachment 1 Sign In Sheets

0
Z
Q
Z
V
J
I
W
t%i
W
NA
Q
J
W
Z
O
W
0
Z
F
W
V
J
IL
?Z
V
W
M
dN
1-0
0
Z
Q
Z
U
Z
t9
W
W
O
F-
U
03

a
?10 ?%
c r

T

z
W
}

?7-
Z
LL.
0

N
J
J
Ll-

J
"'? r ? ?
?

J rte . ?? '
l-r
\,
{
V

V
Z
Q
Z
V
J
Z
W
t%7
H
"Q
J
Z
W
z
O
W
Z
11
W
W

J
CL
Z
W
0
ON
%0
a
z
z
U
Z
W
LL_
O
N
U
L

]A _ l

r? ?

?
l00
T

LLJ

Kim C-4
:E
Z
O
w

`
U
'?

O
-j ? e
ix
W
N
z 3

O -? J
N
?i
W
t
4

r
1 106

LLJ
??
i
?.< V'
v
v
`!.i

J 1
r

\\/?'-'yam ? r

0
z
u
J
I --
z
uJ
Q
J
N
W
Z
O
W
V
Z
ui Q
uj z
u_ a?
¦J U Z
.7 DG Z
CL O
z :3
Z = W
v r u-
LU O
O ?
LL.
o O H
`in ? Z
.gyp U LL.
p O
Z
Q
LL.
• ` (? {V ( v

(? .?

J

I

Z
?
S ..,.

W
_ n
r.
t
V) ( l
• J
U
' \

F d

0
z
Q
LLJ
u
J
W
N
N
Q
J
ui
C
z
O
W
0
z
W
W
u
J
CL
z
0
W
1110
4i
%0
to
z
Q
Z
J
U
Z
W
J
W
r
U

w v f'

-4
?
L t}

Cl-

Qb
? ?
z
LU
cC -

S
z
W v v
Z

Ix

Ltd
LL. 0
Q,-
H
J
J

?
LL.

??

?
J
lj

-a
CL
_ N.
"I it

a
V
z
Q
V
J
F--
W
LLJ
Q
J
H
W
z
O
W
V Z Z9
LW Z
OQ
UQ?
Uw
CL O 0
z = W
?Wa
Waa
p ?0
LL.
p`r O
? r w
%0 U ?
in O
Z
Q
LL.

.45

a c
O t
V

6
VC l qj-
/

Z (IN
-?

CL
LLJ ??--

a
LLI
W
'^

?- te
r,

0
Z
Q
U
CL
Z
W
Ni
W
Q
J
H
W
z
O
Z
w
0
z
W
110-
V
CIO
CL
rZ
V
W
93
e
LO
%0
0
Z
Q
z
J
U
oc
O
Z
W
J
LL
O
U
•
V
Z_
Z
W
n
Q
W \ ?
Z
t9
a
W . J

N V
a
0 ? ? r
N
w ?--
Z
LL_
O --
--'
tn
J
J
LL.

z
u
y
"' v
? li

Y
z
Q
U
m
CL
F-
Z
LLI
H
H
Q
yrr?
W
Z
0
r.
Z
W
0
Z
w
W
U
J
CL
rz
V
W
0
0
Z
Q
z
J
U
I--
z
W
J
lL
•
4 •
•

z ?
1
Z
3

W eI
Z
W
a

z
O
N
J
J
W

CL ?l
N
W
`

i
`a
(D
z
Q
V
J
I-
W
N
W)
Q
J
W
z
O
z
W
0 Z
z Q
W Z 3
= D
OZ
Vaz
J U W
CL 00
z =i
n<i
Z =
W
W QO
< w
W
O tn
W
L ~ Z
i0 U u,.
j3 O
z h
J
Q ?
LL.
•
v
n
a..
C)L
D

I Q17

G

Q

r-

Z
CL
H
c

CL 11-
S a 2

0
z
LAG
W
U_
J
CL
Z
W
H
N
a
J
a
W
Z
0
W
0
Z
H
cw
C
U
-i
m
CL
Z
COO)
W
t9
0
Z
a
z
J
a
U
Z
W
J
0
F-
V
`l
t9
Z

ui
o

F
uCi
C *
v

Z ?
\

W
M J
W
Z

t J !?
LL.
0
N
J
J
W

?
CL J
ur
a
ui

d.

i -

t
'c"'
It

0
Z
Q
U.j
i
u
I-
W
`W
v I
Q
Q
cW
G
Z
O
W
0
Z
i
W
CW
C
U
J
CL
?Z
V
W
Lf)
D
Z
Q
Z
J
U
Z
z
Z
W
J
W
F
U
rG

'n
V
Z n
LLJ
z
is r-
z
W
z
J

C7
?
LLJ

u

LLJ
W
LL

N
J
J
W

Z
CL °-
W
Q

?
,
J
CL c: .
1
rz,j

loll. ?-,,
0
z
Q
U
m
CL
I-
w
W
N')
Q
Q
z
W
z
0
z
W
0
_Z
N
W
W
U
J
CL
Z
0
0
e
r
0.O
0
Z
Q
z
J
a
0
z
C9
W
J
N..
0
H
U

0
Z
LLJ
x
u
J
CL
F .-
z
W
401
H
W
Q
J
Q
z
W
Z
O
Z
W
0
z
W
2
_U
J
m
CL
Z
t/y
ULI
in
z
Q
z
U
Z
0
W
J
LL.
O
f-
U
•
Cr •
r,

z elm
W
}

?
Z I
W F
Z "
Lu /

O
W ?,; lr
LU
Z {
W
t4
J
J
a

'
°~
W

F-
Z
1
f
ui
WtI f .

?
CL
. ?.

w;

a.
W
z
c
D
C>
09
v
O
J
d
S2
C.
to
V
g
a:
0
0
00
0
0
N
M
41
E
d
O
z
A
ca
C
0

Attachment 2 Hearing Handout
PUBLIC HEARING City of Raleigh Falls of Neuse Road
Realignment and Widening Project From Raven Ridge Road to New Falls of Neuse
Road November 03, 2008
Welcome! Pre-Hearing Open House: Monday, November 03, 2008; 6:00
PM to 7:00 PM Formal. Presentation: Monday, November 03, 2008; 7:OOPM Design Public Meeting (65%): Monday,
November 03, 2008; Approximately 30 minutes following the end of the Public Hearing.
Thank you for attending the Public Hearing for the City of Raleigh Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening
Project. The objectives of tonight's hearing are as follows:
1 The first objective is to provide all interested parties with another opportunity to review results from the
recently completed Environmental Assessment (EA). Representative staff will be present to answer questions during
the informal part of the meeting scheduled for 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Copies of the EA and mapping of the
Recommended Alternative have been available for public review since October 03, 2008 at the North Ridge Public
Library, Falls Lake Visitor Assistance Center, City of Raleigh Public Works Department, and URS Morrisville Office.
The materials will be available through November 18, 2008.
2 Next is to provide a formal setting for all interested parties to voice concerns or make project-related
comments. The Hearing will begin at 7:00 PM. Remember that this is a recording only and debates are out of place.
Also the Public Hearing is not to be used a popular referendum to determine the location and/or design by a majority
vote of those present.
3 Finally, the third objective is to provide all interested parties with an opportunity to view the Recommended
Alternative at a higher level of design completion. Approximately 30 minutes following the completion of the Public
Hearing, staff will display the alternative map with 65% design completion and answer citizen's questions about the
design.
HISTORY Three (3) alternatives were presented in the January 29, 2008
workshop. Based on comments received as a result of the workshop, a fourth (4) alternative concept was created. All four
(4) alternatives were presented at the July 17, 2008 Corridor Public Meeting. Since then, City consultants have completed
planning, environmental, and preliminary design studies to improve the existing roadway and create a new crossing of the
Neuse River. The City has reviewed citizen input, resource agency concerns, design guidelines, and results of all technical
studies, and selected Alternative 4 as the Recommended Alternative. An Environmental Assessment documenting the
selection was approved in September 2008. The information shown here tonight is the result of these actions.
YOUR PARTICIPATION Now that the opportunity is here, you are encouraged to
participate by making your comments and/or questions a part of the public record. This may be done by having them
recorded here tonight during the formal presentation or by writing them on the attached, pre-addressed comment sheet. All
comments will be taken into consideration during the final design of the project.
Please leave the comments with a representative of the City of Raleigh, or mail your comments to Mr. Sylvester
Percival at the following address by November 18, 2008:
CITY OF RALEIGH
Sylvester Percival, El, Project Engineer 919-9964053 telephone
Public Works Department 919-996-7643 fax
City of Raleigh [e-mail]
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Project Details: The overall rrojcct c?fl , Ii01- kfll, ol'Ncu,c 12o7d to 1)C: iai<icncd to a multi-lane roadway bc1_1iuni111X south
of Raven Ridge Road and coniinuim-, on c?i,lin ali??nnicnt to apllroyirriatcly Lowcry Farms Road then traversing on new
location across the Neuse Rivcr to connect to Ncw 1'a11s of Neuse (load in WakcCcld.
This project is currently plnnncd to be constructed in two (2) pleases: The first phase constructed will be the new location
section bc-irnnim-, ncm- L mo ci-N I arms Road. As part of Phasc 1, a new brid,-,e crossing of the Neuse River will be
constructed. The; ,cction i, al)IIroximatcly 4.200 Icct ton<a acid is being constructed first to allow for an alternate
north/south route ill adkancc ol' N('f OF, B-4660 I,rojcct Io replace the existing, Falls of Neuse Bridge over the Ncu,se
River. Tlic second phase of the lvojcct will be comtrucicd 1-011owing completion of Phase 1 and will involve widening Falls
ofNeuse Road for aplvorimately 7,500 feet from just ,ouch of Raven Ridge Road, to connect to the end of Phase 1 near
Lowery Farms Road.
Length of Project: The project length is approximately 2.24 miles. Adjacent connecting roadways will be tied back into
the widened Falls of Neuse Road with the exception of Lowery Farms Road and Fonville Road. Existing Falls of Neuse
Road will be realigned to connect with an extension of Wide River Drive and form a new intersection with the extension of
Falls of Neuse Road. This realignment is approximately 2,100 feet in length.
Approximate Cost: The estimated construction cost of the proposed project, including the new bridge over the Neuse
River is approximately $21 million.
Purpose of the Project: Existing traffic volumes on Falls of the Neuse Road within and surrounding the study area range
from 14,200 AADT to 40,000 AADT (annual average daily traffic) and volumes on New Falls of Neuse Road range from
4,400 AADT to 21,200 AADT. The primary purposes of the proposed project are:
• Improve north/south connectivity and local and regional access on project study area roadways in North
Raleigh and northern Wake County. Nccd. - _Iddressed: The City of Raleigh, Town of Wake Forest, and Wake
County as a whole, experienced unprecedented levels of growth over the past 30 years. Much of this growth occurred
and is still occurring in North Raleigh and areas north of the City extending along existing Falls of Neuse Road to the
Town of Wake Forest including NC 98. The existing road network, including north-south crossings of the Neuse River,
has created an unsafe roadway facility that does not support associated increases in traffic volumes and changing travel
patterns.
• Increase traffic capacity on congested roadway segments. Needs Addressed: The traffic capacity studies
show that in the project study area, existing signalized intersections at Raven Ridge Road, Dunn Road, and Wakefield
Pines Drive are currently operating at congested conditions, and are at or near capacity levels in either the morning or
afternoon peak travel hours. In the future (Year 2035), the same three (3) signalized intersections will experience
breakdown traffic flows, increased over capacity issues, and reduced travel speeds in both the morning and afternoon
peak travel hours without the proposed project in place.
Proposed Typical Sections (Figure 1): The typical section for this project will be a 4-lane median-divided facility with
accommodations to be widened in the future to an ultimate 6-lane roadway. The project will include a 5-foot concrete
sidewalk on the west side and an 8-foot asphalt multi-use path on the east with a connection to the future Upper Neuse
Greenway.
Proposed Right-Of-Way: Additional right-of-way will be acquired as needed on the east and west sides of Falls of Neuse
Road and the new location segment from Fonville Road north to New Falls of Neuse Road. Additional easements will be
acquired as needed to construct the project's slopes, utilities, and drainage structures. A minimum of 120-feet right-of-way
width will be acquired for this project to encompass the planned ultimate typical section of six lanes.
Assessments: A Public Hearing will be held through Raleigh's City Council to authorize this project as an assessment
project. Assessments will be at an anticipated rate of $6.00 per linear foot for sidewalk, $32.00 per linear foot of frontage
for residentially zoned properties, and $64.00 per linear foot of frontage for non-residentially zoned properties.
Project Schedule:
Environmental Assessment (EA) Complete September 2008 EA Public Hearing November 03, 2008
Design Public Meeting (65% Design) November 03, 2008 Council Public Hearing December 2008
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Complete January 2009 Right of Way Acquisition Begins
Spring 2009 Construction Begins (New Alignment) Early Summer 2009 Construction Begins
(Widening) Post Year 2009
The City of Raleigh will update the Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening project website periodically.
Please check WWW.RALEIGHNC.CIOV and look for the link at the top of the page to "Current Projects" and
"Transportation Projects". Thank you for your interest and participation!
Figure 1
PROPOSED SIX-LANE SECTION
SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT STEPS
With regards to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP.k) Pertinent to the City of Raleigh Falls of
Neese Road Realignment and *N ideidw., Project
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NLP.N), as amendcd, requires all agcncics of the federal
government to prepare and include a recommendation for any major federal actions significantly a fl'ecting the quality
of the human environment. A portion of the funding for the proposed project will come through the Federal Hi,dm ay
Administration (FHWA) and thus, the Falls ofNeuse Road Realignment and V,Vldcriin, 7 1 project is subject to applicable
NEPA requirements. The following steps provide a brief overview of the process:
Identify Purpose and Need: The first step in the process is the Purpose and Need, which provides the intent and
justification for an intended action to address a specified transportation-related problem. Purpose and Need provides
the foundation of a project under NEPA and the Clean Water Act (CWA), provides a baseline for developing
alternative scenarios, and explains why the expenditure of funds is necessary.
Collect Data on Project Study Area / Analyze Preliminary Alternatives: After a project study area is defined, data are
collected from various sources including GIS databases, document searches at agencies such as the NC Natural
Heritage Program and the State Historic Preservation Office, on-line resources, and from direct field observations. An
environmental features study area map is created from all data discovered during the searches. The map is used as a
base for identifying alternatives to satisfy the Purpose and Need. Once preliminary alternatives are identified, each is
compared against important features (human, natural, or physical) in the project study area and against each other.
Alternatives that have high probable impacts are eliminated.
Select Detailed Study Alternatives: Based on citizen input, comments received from federal, state, and local agencies,
and results of all technical studies, alternatives are developed, analyzed in greater detail, and addressed in the EA.
Publish Environmental Assessment (EA): The documentation of the Purpose and Need, results from data collection
studies, alternatives analysis, and public involvement activities are included in the EA. The EA is the principal
instrument used in NEPA for investigating impacts. The findings of the EA are used to determine if project impacts
are significant enough that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. If the EA
provides clear and convincing evidence that the project would not result in significant impacts, or that any significant
impacts can be mitigated to the point of non-significance, then a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be
prepared.
Select Preferred Alternative: Based on citizen input, comments received from federal, state, and local agencies, results
of all technical studies, and revised design studies, an alternative is selected by the project team as "preferred".
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): Where the EA demonstrates an accurate, unbiased, scientific basis for
determining significance, the FONSI will document the actual judgment regarding the significance of each impact. In
addition, if any additional information comes to light prior to the finalization of the FONSI, that information will
become part of the FONSI.
Purchase Right of Way: After a FONSI is approved and signed, right of way contacts can begin.
Construct Project: Construction begins when final designs are approved and necessary permits are in place.
Attachment 3 Hearing Transcript
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING
City of Raleigh
Falls of Neuse Road
Realignment and Widening Project
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2008
7:05 P.M.
DURANT NATURE PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
8305 CAMP DURANT ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Garrett Reporting Service
Professional Stenomask For The Record
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone] -Facsimile 676-2277
I jl"; ? r???tu? -It--al .;r m(i nt Public Hearing 11/:3/08 Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S
Project meetings. And I say meetings because we actually -- we
have scheduled two meetings here tonight. The first meeting is
considered the public hearing that's associated with the
environmental as,,es:;rnent document that we recently completed as
part of this project.
The second meeting is actually considered a design
public meeting that will shortly follow the hearing, and I'll
provide you a little bit more information regarding the
structure of both meetings in a few minutes.
First, I'd like to introduce myself as well as many
other members of the city staff who are present with us today
or this evening, as well as our consultant team. My name is
Sylvester Percival. I've had the wonderful opportunity of
meeting many of you -- meeting and/or communicating with many
of you. I work with the City of Raleigh's Public Works
Department. I'm considered the project manager and is
scheduled to oversee both the design as well as construction of
this project.
Present with us this evening are two council --
I'd like to point them out for you. Three
councilors. And as I -- as I point them out, if you don't mind
just raising your hand for me, please.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Sox 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental A,, :;<;wcnt Public, ik,,, i :Ing 11/3/08 PJ?tci
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Councilor Koopman, Rodger Koopman, is actually
s hand there. Next to Councilor Koopman is
MS. BALDWIN: Mary-Ann Baldwin ---
MR. PERCIVAL: Mary-Ann Baldwin.
MS. BALDWIN: --- Raleigh City Council at Large.
(Inaudible.)
MR. PERCIVAL: Thank you very much. As well as
Councilor Russ Stephenson. All right. Thank you.
Public Works Director Carl Dawson is standing back
there as well. Carl, if you don't mind raising your hand a
second.
Other city staff members here with us tonight is Lynn
Raynor, Eric Lamb, David Fix, Greg Pittman, M.A. Robertson. Am
I forgetting anyone?
(No response.)
MR. PERCIVAL: Okav. I think I've covered t-hPm All
I'd like to also introduce to you two members of our consulting)
team. There are many others here this evening. However, the
two that you will hear from directly is Mr. David Griffin of
URS, as well as Ed Edens.
Okay. As you-all get settled in, I'd like to just
give you a little bit of an idea how the remaining meeting will
actually take place. In a few minutes, I will provide you with
a brief history of the project. Following the history, we will
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Fnvironni-nt l l Public 11(x, i -ing 11/3/08 Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'll
provide you a little bit more information on the actual hearing
in a little bit.
Following the public hearing will be a design public
meeting and then following the -- the public meeting session
will actually end with a question-and-answer session during
which you who are present here tonight will be allowed to ask
questions and we will be allowed to address them during this
meeting.
I would like to note that the -- the public hearing
that is expected to follow very shortly is considered just
that. We'll -- we'll not be allowed to address comments
directly. Your comments will be recorded.
There are some rules that we will reinforce as we go
through the -- the -- the -- the meeting session. Just to give
you a couple of them right now is that we will be allowing
three minutes each for you to speak. We ask that you please
don't disturb others who are trying to speak. I would like to
remind you that these comments are going to be recorded.
Following the -- the closure of the hearing, we'll
actually allow an additional fifteen minutes for individual
comments to -- to be recorded for those who just don't like the
idea of standing in front of the crowd and -- and speaking out.
Following that fifteen minutes, we'll actually start
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Public Hearing 11/3/08 Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the design public meeting. Additional comments -- hearing
comments will be allowed; however, they'll have to be submitted
in the form -- there is a comment sheet that we provided as
part of the handout for the meeting. Those comments will be
allowed to us no later than the 18th of November. So we will
be receiving additional comments based on the -- the public
hearing no later than -- up to but no later than November 18th.
All right. Just to give you a little bit of idea of
the history of this project, the Falls of Neuse Road has always
been considered a major road within our city. It actually
leads from the outside of our city limits to the core or the
heart of our city. So it's no surprise that this road, just
like several others, is considered a main street.
It has been classified on our thoroughfare system as
a major thoroughfare since the 1960s, and since the 1990s, it
actually has been upgraded to a secondary arterial, meaning a
six-lane section. That's the reason why we're actually
presenting that or showing that to you as well. We've shown it
to you as part of our environmental documentation process.
The -- we've -- actually, our consultant has taken
existing traffic counts that put traffic somewhere in the
vicinity of twenty-five thousand in terms of average daily
traffic volumes. This traffic volume is expected to increase
to about a little under forty, forty-five thousand by -- in
thirty years from now. So you can see that there's a dire need
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental n ? iw,nt Publics r.ing 11/3/08 r,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for the project.
Most of you are aware of the -- of the congestion
that is currently occurring along Falls of Neuse today, and
it's only projected to get worse. The general funding for this
project was approved as part of the 2005 bond referendum. I
did mention that to you during our July 17th meeting. Since
funding was approved, we've actually gotten Council's
permission to start design, got URS approved as a design
consultant, and we've actually offered several input
opportunities to you since we started design.
We've received them. We've noted them, evaluated
them and have made changes -- in some cases, a lot of the
changes. We've also consulted with various agencies -- NC DOT
as well as other environmental permitting agencies -- and as a
result of those consultations, certain (inaudible) changes were
allowed, which we've made. And you'll hear more and more about
this as we start the -- the design session -- design -- design
public meeting session following the public hearing.
At this point, I'd like to introduce again or bring
to the mic Mr. David Griffin, who will actually start the
public hearing with a brief presentation.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Sylvester. As Sylvester
mentioned, this project does involve some federal funding, so
we will be following the National Environmental Policy Act
process. There are a number of steps involved in that process.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental T,..; ;- ,sment Public i;(,aring 11/3/08 y),i, j- 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The public hearing is a part of the NEPA process. So
your comments tonight are important. They pertain to the
environmental assessment that was prepared. The document has
been in the library and a few other places. We've put public
notices in the newspaper for availability for your review,
along with the twenty-five percent -- we'll call them the
twenty-five percent plan sheets for the recommended
alternative, which is Alternative 4.
Just a little bit of history, we had a meeting --
when was the last meeting, back in ---
MR. EDENS: July.
MR. GRIFFIN: July. July. Where we -- we met
here. We had a workshop to review the alternatives, and at
that time, we presented the four alternatives.
Prior to that, we had had only three alternatives.
The fourth alternative came about as a result of your comments
that we received at an earlier meeting earlier on in 2008. So
we developed Alternative 4 as a result of those comments.
It's kind of a combination of two of the alternatives
and a little bit of tweaking here and there, but it's a
best-fit alternative that we feel warranted recommendation as
the preferred alternative. So that is what is addressed in thel
environmental assessment.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Public 11<,,??-ing 11j3/08 1"I,?(? Li
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
We'll talk a little bit about our process here.
First, the project itself on the south end begins near Raven
Ridge Road. It follows the existing alignment northward up to
about Fonville Road and then goes on new location across the
Neuse River to tie into Neuse -- New Falls of Neuse Road on the
north end. The southern portion involves widening of the
existing facility. The northern portion is relocation of the
bridge over the Neuse River.
Once again, the NEPA process is -- is quite complex
and a lot of steps that you have to go through as you're
looking at -- at a project.
First of all, you have to identify the need for the
project. This more or less justifies the expenditures and the
funds. And, again, these are the federal requirements. The
state also has the same types of requirements under the state
Environmental Policy Act. The NEPA process also satisfies the
state Environmental Policy Act process.
We then go out and collect certain types of data in
the study area where the road might go. We develop some
preliminary alternatives. We analyze those alternatives, and
as a result of our preliminary analysis, we reduce those down
to alternatives that seem reasonable and feasible and can work.
Those are what we call our detailed study alternatives.
We then follow up with more field work and data
25 collection, traffic studies, noise analyses, all the things
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental. /1,:;,, ((, ,,meat Public Hearing 11/3/08 Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that go through with the design; coming up with design
footprints, if you will, where the right of way will be, where
the (inaudible) slope is going to be, where your impact area is
going to be.
And then we evaluate the impacts to various
resources: the human environment, natural environment. Things
like wetlands and streams are probably more obvious that we
care about, but we also look at the human environment, things
such as socioeconomics, noise, air quality and the like. We
then publish an environmental assessment. That's the report I
just (inaudible) a minute ago. That's a formal document that's
signed by the city. It's also signed by the federal highway
administration, and it's released to regulatory and resource
agencies for review. It's also placed in public areas, like
the library, for the public to review.
We then hold a public hearing. That's why we're here
tonight. This allows us to get comments from you and the
agencies. The agencies require a comment period now as well
with regard to the impacts that were disclosed, the
alternatives that were presented. The recommended alternative,
which is Alternative 4, is being presented. This allows you to
make comments with regard to all those things.
Once we receive the comments back -- November 18th isl
the deadline -- we'll accumulate those comments, compile them,
analyze them, sort them according to subject matter/topic,
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Assessment Public, 1{(,,, ring 11/3/08 , rFa 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
respond to those comments and p' Lpc i-c a final environmental
document.
We, at this point, anticipate that it will be
considered a finding of no significant impact, but we need to
wait until those comments come in before we can move forward
with that. At that point, the project will then move forward
into final design, construction, right of way acquisition and
those steps associated with construction of the project.
Initially, one of the first steps that we've got to
do is look at a need for the project. We identified several
needs in the environmental assessment. There may be more.
They're -- everybody has their own perception of what -- why a
project is needed.
The ones we analyzed in the environmental assessment
to improve more southbound activity; to improve local and
regional access on project -- on the project study area
roadways in North Raleigh and Wake County; to increase capacity
of congested roadway segments, which will improve safety along
Falls of Neuse Road.
Once again, we looked at four study alternatives,
and, again, I'm referring to the environmental assessment that
was prepared. As we went through developing these
alternatives, the first three alternatives, it was kind of an
interim process. We tried to attain higher and higher and
higher levels of service with regard to traffic while
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental ?,> ><;;;silunt Public, it li-:'ng 11/3/08 Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
minimizing impact on the human and natural environments.
We looked at various structural layouts for crossing
the Neuse River, various span designs and those sorts of
things, once again, trying to minimize impacts to the river
while satisfying the roadway needs. Again, Alternative 4 was
added as a result of the comments received in one of our
workshops. Alternative 4 became our recommended alternative.
Just a quick review of some of the things, we looked
at natural resources. We looked at traffic, levels of service,
turning movements. We looked at accident rates. We looked at
noise, air quality, community facilities, floodplain impacts.
We prepared the environmental assessment.
In that assessment, we disclosed that all
similar traffic and noise predictions, minor impacts to the
Neuse River as well as the riparian buffers along the Neuse
River, and we determined that there are no adverse affects to
the community facilities or services.
Again, Alternative 4 was recommended as the preferred
alternative.
So where do we go from here? First of all, the EA's
been signed by all the parties that need to sign the EA: FHWA,
city officials. It was reviewed by North Carolina DOT. They
served as -- as a conduit between the city and FHWA.
We're holding the public hearing tonight. We'll
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental 71.E :>ment Public Hearing 11/3/08 1-2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
review and evaluate the response and comments we -- we receive
tonight and in writing for the newt several weeks, before the
28th. We need to do the same for any agencies that have any
comments to make about the impacts that we have.
We'll prepare the final document. There will be a
design public hearing, another opportunity for you-all to
comment, at some future point. I don't think that meeting has
been determined and the full extent of it yet, but it will be
soon. We'll proceed with right of way acquisition and then
construction.
Again, tonight's hearing is just -- just part of the
public involvement process. You'll recall we've had several
workshops. We've had mailings go out with some information to
keep everybody informed. You'll have a -- a subsequent
opportunity for public comment during the design phase.
We are recording your comments tonight. We have a
reporter over here who will record everything that's said. We
want to make sure we get an accurate record of what's being
said so that we can respond to those accordingly.
We'll accept written comments until November 28th.
There were forms as you came in in the back. They have a
mailing address and you fold it and put a stamp to it and send
it in.
Once again, there will be another opportunity for you
to review the design plans later on this evening and attend a
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Public Ht),tt i_ng 11/3/08 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
design hearing that city council will be holding at some future
date.
We have a list of folks who have registered when they
came in. We asked if you wanted to speak. There was a sign-in
sheet if you wished to speak this evening. If you have not yet
signed in and you wish to speak, please do so. You can see Kim
or you can come up here and talk to Ed or go to the back table.
Make sure your name is on the list so we can call you.
Please be respectful. Everybody has their own
opinions. And whoever is speaking has the microphone. They
can say what they want. So please be mindful of their
comments.
We're limiting your comments to three minutes. As we)
please re-register again. Go back and add your name and we'll
call you again.
After everyone has had a chance to speak, we'll close
the forum part of the public hearing and you'll have about
fifteen minutes maybe to come up here and -- and record
comments personally with the reporter while she gets ready for
the next part of our meeting tonight. Anybody else wishing to
do so, if you'll do so in writing. Again, the comment forms
are in the back. Kim has some comment forms as well. Just let
her know.
I believe that's it.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Public Hearing 11/3/08 Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PERCIVAL: Thank you, David. Just before we
open up the -- the recording session, I'd like to reinforce the)
importance of abiding by the -- the guidelines and the rules
that we have actually established here to have a -- an
efficient recordation process. I'm not going to bore you by
going through them.
Ed, do you have the list?
MR. EDENS: Sure.
MR. PERCIVAL: All right. At this point, we'd like
to open the -- the actual hearing process and call registered
folks up to -- to be heard and recorded.
MR. EDENS: Our first person who signed up to
speak tonight is Purshutam Rajani. If you can just come up and
kind of somewhere -- stay near the "x" up here. Don't walk in
front of the speaker or we'll get feedback.
MR. RAJANI: Thank you. I'm Purshutam Rajani.
I'm 56 years old, and to tell you how strongly I feel about
this, I canceled two days of business trips, foregoing income.
I've never been to public speaking before.
This monstrosity, this seven-lane highway plus
bicycle lane, plus who knows what is going to go right through
my back yard and is going to cut down a beautiful tree. And I
don't understand why we need all that when up further north on
New Falls of Neuse there's four lanes and there's no bicycle
lanes. You go further south on Falls of Neuse, again four
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Public [I( f ng 11/3f08 Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lanes, and there's no way (inaudible). So everything
(inaudible) says you're still going to have a back log and
you're going to be backed up anyway.
So stick to four lanes and if we do get the growth
that we envision twenty-five years from now, then you can build
up all the -- the three lanes. Until then, I'm firmly opposed,
especially in this economic downturn. These are my tax
dollars. Whether they are federal or local, they are my tax
dollars, and I would be opposed to spending them unwisely.
Thank you.
Purshutam Rajani, 1905 Falls Farm Crossing, 27614.
Next speaker up is Gene Senecal.
MR. SENECAL: Hi. My name is Gene Senecal, 1320
Kings Grant Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina.
I'm the president of the River Oaks Homeowners
Association, part of a coalition of seven homeowners
associations that have grouped together for a common cause, and
that is to oppose -- well, first, we don't oppose the widening.
We really believe that the widening should occur.
What we do oppose is this -- as -- as our previous
speaker said, this monstrosity of six lanes and a median that's
going to destroy the residential quality and the quality of
life of these neighborhoods. And I see a lot of people shaking
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental A -?lm(,nt Public H r'ng 11j3f08 Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
their l _i , and I'm --W I'm with you.
We're in favor of -- of return -- of a turn lane, a
median, four lanes. And then twenty years from now, or thirty
years from now, when it's needed, then let's look at the issues
then. But I think, as was just previously noted, from the
north you go south and it's all four lanes. So why are we
going to become this big where our neighborhoods get literally
destroyed? The residential segment is destroyed. The quality
of life is destroyed. That's all I wanted to say.
MR. EDENS: All right. Next speaker we have on
the list is Rob Gale. Rob.
MR. GALE: My name is Robert Gale, 11300 Paddy
Hollow Lane, Raleigh. I just want to register a few points
echoing the speakers who have previously spoken.
I believe that we do need to improve Falls of Neuse,
and I think it's quite clear to everybody that we have traffic
issues and we need to resolve them. But I work in the software
industry and one of the things we've learned is that doing big
projects with nothing like (inaudible) until you know what's
going to happen in the future is usually a big mistake. We
usually don't know what's going to happen in the future.
What we do know is what we need right now, and I
think that's what we should be trying for and to seek to build
and serving the needs of the communities. In the future, there
may be further improvement and there may not, and that is the
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Ar ,;??rr?rst Public llr,,ir-ing 11/3108 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A couple of other points, you know, we should be
aware of unintended consequences. The road is, you know,
stated to meet the needs of the (inaudible) and the
communities, but as we join up Highway 1 to 540, I think that
we'll find that this road will become a very desirable
cut-through for increasingly heavier traffic and that, you
know, down the road, we might need to limit that traffic that
can use that route because it will be very attractive as a
cut-through.
I also would like to register my opposition to the
addition of the Paddy Hollow Lane connection. It was brought
up at the last public meeting, joining Paddy Hollow Lane to
Dunn Road. That was not part of the original project's scope
and it was added on just as a result of a couple of comments at
a public meeting. It seems to be just, you know, (inaudible).
So I would like to register that that might be withdrawn after
those issues have been considered. And, you know, if there's
enough engineering going into the full project, then the same
kind of engineering should be going into anything tacked onto
it as well.
So in final -- in closing, one of the slides
previously said there's no finding of any impact to the
community, and I think the comments tonight will refute that.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Public 11(1?i??.1_ng 11/3/08 Wage 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
MR. EDENS: The next name we have is Sam Rabon.
MR. RABON: Hello. My name is Sam Rabon, and I
live at 1301 October Road, which is at the corner of Falls of
Neuse and October Road, and which my neighbors -- they live
right across the street from me. (Indicating.)
And to echo the sentiment that some of the other --
the other three speakers have said, the monstrosity -- I'm not
sure how you spell "monstrosity," but it does seem to be quite
an overly ambitious project in the fact that there's a multiuse
purpose path on one side and the sidewalk and the other side
and medians in the middle and (inaudible). It's -just very
ambitious in the right of way acquisition.
So I'm all for getting folks in Wakefield to home so
they can watch the news on time, but if we can construct two
lanes this way and two lanes that way, that's fine. But I am
against the overly ambitious acquisition that's going to be
impeding and coming into my yard, quite frankly.
And then my last point, Ed, is that safety, safety,
safety. Everybody talks about safety and how safe this thing
is going to be and you read in the -- in the meeting minutes
how we all sang "Kumbaya" and said this is great (inaudible).
Well, with the brand new Alternative 4, it's
extremely unsafe. In fact, it's downright dangerous at our
particular intersection on October Road. So, hopefully,
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Assessment Public Hearing 11/3/08 Wage 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
through this forum, I can at least voice on behalf of the
Autumn Hills subdivision homeowners the fact that we would like)
to have October Road dead-ended and closed down at our
particular location due to the fact that the new Alternative 4
is making two directions of U-turns coming in our very -- at
one little intersection.
Furthermore, all the subdivisions that have been
built after our subdivision was created actually have the
facilities to have pedestrian walking. Therefore, funneling
traffic into our road, October, down to a road that doesn't
have sidewalk makes it even more dangerous for my two little
girls, age six and two. Thank you.
MR. EDENS: The next person up is Greg Barley.
MR. BARLEY: Thank you. My name is Greg Barley.
I live at 3117 Sweet Cherry Court, Raleigh, in the Wakefield
development. I am the president of the homeowners association
for Wakefield. No, we are not part of that consortium, thank
you, but I do have some people here tonight.
Speaking on behalf of the board and the community of
Wakefield, we do support the widening of Falls of Neuse. It is
a safety issue. We have been concerned and involved in this
for a long time. You don't have to do much more than watch the)
school buses coming across the old Falls of Neuse bridge to be
concerned about what's going on currently, with the current
situation.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental ii-at Public 1.1/3/08 Page 20
I
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Having said that, we do not have a formal
g position on,
exactly how the traffic gets over, and at this point, I'll turn)
my comments to the (inaudible). No matter which way we go with
the project, let's get the project done so that we can make
this a better situation for the commuters, get our children
home from school.
And also, while we look at these alternatives, let's
keep our options open as we go forward so if we do end up with
a four-lane highway, which is our sentiment here tonight, let's
keep in mind that it may very well develop in the next fifteen,
twenty years, because I think we find ourselves in the current
situation because of lack of planning in the first place. So
let's be looking ahead to what our options are in the future as
we moved forward with this project. Thank you.
MR. EDENS: The next speaker on the list is Jim
Deming.
MR. DEMING: Hi. I'm Jim Deming, 12609 Waterlow
Park Lane in Raleigh. I have a Web site I -- my career was
outsourced to India, and I'm retired, quasi at least, so I put
together a Web site called sites.google.com/site/newneuse.
(Inaudible) six items that I was interested in having
answered at this meeting, and I think I've had relatively good
answers to all of them.
I invite anybody who would like to get on that site
and add anything to it to join me. Unfortunately, you have to
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental n;? ?ssrnent Public Hearing 11/3/08 Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have a gmail account, and you can e-mail me at newneuse, all
one word, at gmail.com.
a deer path there that will be at grade level. The greenway
will be on the south side of the bridge, which was not clear to
me when I read the map. So I got that resolved tonight.
We have a mess on the north side that needs to be
cleaned up, and I've been informed that the rest of it will be
cleaned up when construction starts.
Also, my concerns have been a sewer line which is in
the direct line of the three percent grade coming down toward
the bridge, and that -- a truck if it went through a barrier
would land on that sewer line and probably break it and put
sewage directly into the Neuse River. So that was a concern,
and I've been told that there are a number of things that have
been done to take care of that.
The other item which I think is probably the most
thing I -- best thing I can suggest here is we should build a
six-lane bridge or three lanes one way and three lanes the
other. And the reason for that is the eastbound lanes coming
off the bridge, there should be a left turn lane. The left
turn lane would allow people who are going to the YMCA on
Townfield Drive not to clog the other two lanes in that left
turn area. And I think that is -- is probably the most sane
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental As In st Public, Eli , t i i.ng 11/3/08 i(j, 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thing that we can do at this point as far as the width of the
bridge, at least going to the east.
Also, I'd like to mention that the Web site is a
Wiki, and you can put comments on it if you get signed into it.
Thank you.
MR. EDENS: The next speaker up is Linda
Strother.
MR. STROTHER: I'm not going to tell anybody how old
I am. My name is Linda Strother, and my address is 10805
September Court, Raleigh, NC 27614. And what I'm about to say
is what I've said over and over and over again.
First of all, we cannot be against the widening. I
think all of us agree with that. However, I think that we need
real responsibility in how this thing is done.
The concerns that we have are safety, safety, safety,
safety, safety. We already with the two lanes have had people
run into our pine trees on the corner all the time. If we
increase the traffic and if we have a drive-through so that
people can turn -- U turn both ways all the time, we're going
to be turned around (inaudible). We're going to be worse.
Also, with them widening, they're going to take our
corner to widen the street that goes into Falls of the Neuse.
That's going to make the danger worse. It's going to come into
the driveway, increase the traffic, make it very, very unsafe.
We talk about human environment. That's a real human
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
kflnv i nt Public - ring 11/3/08 Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
environment, not just me, but for the people on Falls of the
N?-,._1->( , .
The other concerns that we've had that we've asked
over and over again, our property. When they did the water
assessment, they took down twenty of our trees. Okay. Now the
pollution from the cars -- it has to be worse. When there's
going to be four lanes, it's going to be increasingly worse.
We've asked for noise barriers. We've asked for safety
barriers. The answer to this over and over is no, no, no.
Safety, air quality, structure of property, all of
these things I've not asked for but once, twice, three times,
four times. My question is do pay attention, are you going to
honor some of the requests, how can I be more effective in
getting these things done, and will you listen? Thank you.
MR. EDENS: The next speaker on the list is
Andrew Topp.
MR. TOPP: My name is Andrew Topp. I'm at 13200
Ellesmere Court. And my house is -- is just about a stone's
throw from the Neuse River bridge. I'm at the very end of New
Falls of Neuse. And I'm also a transportation engineer. I'm
very familiar with the process.
And I want to say that, you know, it does -- it kind
of cuts through where my neighborhood is. We're going to have
to cross New Falls of Neuse, my children and I, to go to the
pool. And we understand the traffic is really going to
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Sox 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental A,? c .;:;ment Public i?c,rr ing 1Ij3/08 Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
increase on New Falls of Neuse. (Inaudible) and that will be
an issue, but when you think about the amount of traffic and
little over half, two-point-three miles.
So that fifteen minutes it takes me to get there
every morning -- I have to cross over in front of three schools
and all the kids crossing, about ten minutes to get back, that
trip is going to be a five-minute trip for me going a.m. and
p.m., and that's -- the road (inaudible) and the traffic is an
issue, but, I mean, if you multiply that fifteen minutes I save
from one commute, that's -- that's seventy-five minutes a week,
multiplied times weekend trips, evening trips, everybody in my
neighborhood -- I mean, for the twenty-five thousand people
that use this, I mean, this is hours upon hours.
And taking this project and stepping back and
redesigning it and putting in a five-lane section, all of us
twenty-five thousand that go through it every day and for
another year to study a suicide lane and -- I mean, that's what
they call these things. They're not very safe. There's
head-on collisions. There's left turning collisions. With a
nice wide median like there is on New Falls of Neuse I think
makes a lot of sense.
So the plan often gets criticized, but planning
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Envir(,rai-? ,i? tl Public lk-,zring 11/3/08 Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ahead -- I think if w(? <1o ti head and plan for a wide median
inside -- maybe you need five or six lanes, but you can widen
them inside and not have to touch the outside and go back
through this process and add more right of way down the road.
So, you know, I'm looking forward to having a new
connection. That new bridge is going to (inaudible) Neuse
River trail, and the frustration of sitting in that line of
traffic every single day and the congestion and the emissions
and banging my hand on the steering wheel trying to get through
it all.
But it's clearly needed, and I think that just having
the flexibility and just being able to -- being able to go home
and back -- if I have a 6:00 meeting south, you know, I can go
home and eat dinner and come back, the baby-sitter -- I mean,
it's a lot of -- it's just a lot of congestion problems, and I
think that the design the way it is now is pretty good.
The signals make sense. They used good engineering
judgment, and I think it's a -- it's a -- I think it's a very
good project.
MR. EDENS: The next speaker on the list is Bruce
Spaulding. Bruce.
MR. SPAULDING: Thank you. Bruce Spaulding 11621
Midlavian Drive, Raleigh, 27614. I'm a resident in the Daltons
Ridge neighborhood, and I would like to say that I agree with
the widening, at least the first four lanes.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Assessment Public Hearing 11/3/08 Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
According to the numbers in the letter we got in the
mail, that we should expect something like a sixty-eight
percent increase in traffic between now and 2035, and we are
proposing a two hundred percent increase in road capacity. I
think at this point when you try to balance that against
environmental concerns, it's a bit of overkill. Maybe if I'm
driving in 2035, I won't think so, but right now I do.
If we build four lanes on the current plan, but
instead of building from the outside in we build from the
inside out, we save twenty-two feet of impact, especially to
our trees along our wall. Also, we heard a lot last time
especially about all the traffic flow improvements the previous
speaker just talked about, and maybe that will help a little
bit with that two hundred percent versus sixty-eight percent
15 ( capacity.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We have to build sidewalks if you expand it to six
lanes in 2035 or thereabouts, but sidewalks are pretty
inexpensive. The expense might be the curbing and the drains.
I don't know. I'm not that kind of an engineer.
Another thing we could do was referred to in that
letters, no trucks from Route 1 down to 540. That would keep
some of the more obnoxious traffic out anyways. And then,
basically, we're stuck with four lanes for a few years. We're
not going to get a sidewalk close enough to our wall that
you're going to get brick burn just walking.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE [phone]
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
Environmental 7\; >m,.,nt Public 14??,3r i.ng 11j3j08 Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In the process, you could also do a traffic count on
sidewalk use and maybe eliminate a sidewalk on one side or the
other, because I bet if you take a look at the number of people
from Wakefield walking down to the nature area, it might not be
real (inaudible). Thank you.
MR. EDENS: The next speaker on the list is John
Manczak. Mr. Manczak.
MR. MANCZAK: My name is John Manczak. I live at
1241 Kings Grant Drive, Raleigh, 27614. I also live in the
River Oaks subdivision.
I would like to make comment tonight about the design
precedent for this roadway. You've heard people here in
earlier presentations talking about Falls of the Neuse being
part of the general master plan of the roadways in the City of
Raleigh and this is designated as a Category 2 thoroughfare.
I'd just like to remind people here that that general traffic
plan was designed as early as the year 1960. It has to be
forty-eight years ago, and that was at a time when none of
these subdivisions up here were even thought of or preplanned
at that time.
Falls of the Neuse now winds its way through a
residential section of town. I personally do not believe that
a Category 2 thoroughfare is merited. If we did an updated
plan right now for the City of Raleigh and region, I do not
believe it would be designated as such.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental n., (-;; ; 7i-nt Public Hearing 11/3/08 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'd also like to point out about the idea of
evaluating more carefully Capital Boulevard, Route 1, as a
limited access highway and putting a higher priority on design
and construction of that as a limited access highway and a more
reasonable way for traffic to move from Franklin County to the
north down to Interstate 540.
As you all know, Capital Boulevard is a much more
commercialized, industrialized, nonresidential setting and
would -- would actually remove traffic from Falls of the Neuse
Road to a more -- a quicker access to Interstate 540 if Capital
Boulevard were allowed to become a limited access
interstate-type roadway. So I ask the people who are doing
this design work to look again at those priorities and try to
take a look and -- and capitalize the idea of (inaudible) going
through residential neighborhoods. Thank you.
MR. EDENS: The next speaker on the list is
Dorothy Remy or -- Remy.
MS. REMY: My name is Dorothy Remy. I live at
11221 Paddy Hollow Lane in the North Ridge subdivision. I'm
against opening the Paddy Hollow extension to Dunn Road. All
the traffic on Dunn Road going out in the morning is lined up
way past Paddy Hollow. So opening that up, you're not even
going to be able to get out on Dunn Road. Also, it's -- it's
going to be a -- a safety hazard to consider.
When the people can't get out, they're going to be
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental A? -;>, m(,nt Public -ing 11/3/08 Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lined up Paddy Hollow Lane. And there are children there going
to school, waiting on the school bus, so there's going to be a
problem.
If you look at that, there -- the way the land lays,
there's a big dropoff. I don't even know how they can level
that to make that flat for the cars to get through.
Emergency vehicles, it will be difficult for them to
turn on Dunn Road. You would have to probably buy -- there's a
couple of houses on Dunn Road that are rentals. You'd have to
buy that property to extend the opening. So that's all I have
11 to say.
12
13 McGregor.
14
15 still hex
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EDENS: Next speaker on the list is George
MR. McGREGOR: Are any of our city council members
? One. Thank you. One out of three.
My name is George McGregor. I live at 11612
Midlavian. When I moved here to Raleigh in 1978, Falls of the
Neuse was two lanes north of Millbrook. I'm not trying to
stand in the way of progress. I think the road needs to be
expanded, like a number of other people have already stated.
And I agree with all previous folks, with the exception of the
one gentleman whose opinion was that he liked the plan as has
been presented in the back of the room.
I agree with four lanes, and I don't need to
reiterate what everybody else has already said. In fact, I
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE [phone]
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
:i?l.v i -r ('Iii m,nt,)l Public' .[f(,,Lri ng 11/3/08 Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,_A<>[1't think t.hf r r should be any r?--?,_;on whatsoever that Falls of
the Neuse should be expanded beyond that at any time to six
I believe that -- as has been previously alluded to,
that Capital Boulevard was intended to be the feeder to the 540
intersection. And if you make six lanes on Falls of the Neuse,
every commercial vehicle I can think of that'd be coming down
Route 1 is going to take Falls of the Neuse right there at 1A
in Wake Forest and swooping down that six-lane highway and then
to 540 and go west to figure out the other -- to get to the
other feeders in town, like Six Forks or Creedmoor or Glenwood.
I think it would be a bad idea to plan for at any time.
You know, that's -- in fact, that's what Capital
Boulevard was, I believe, designed to do and that's why the
intersection with 540 is what it is. The thing that strikes me
as really incomprehensible is that we live here in Raleigh, the
City of Oaks. The church that I belong to is at the
intersection of Wade Avenue and Glenwood, and there's quite an
expanse there of grass. If we wanted to pave that over to turn
it into an extension of our parking lot, which we dearly need
more parking spaces, we would have to plant trees where there
are none.
This project calls for cutting -- clear-cutting a
hundred and twenty-five foot -- a hundred and twenty foot
swathe and eliminating thousands of trees for whatever reason I
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental n_nt Public H- tri_ng 11/3/08 Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cannot figure out. This thing, as has been < < , t c ,;-iously stated,
ought to be built from the inside out and leave the outside for
future considerations, which would have to include the widening
of Falls of the Neuse the rest of the way.
And, for heaven's sake, that area of Falls of the
Neuse that they made into six lanes by painting the lanes
narrow, as many of you were around when that occurred, is
hugely dangerous to go three abreast in what is supposedly six
lanes.
The whole thing needs to be rethought, and it seems
foolish to me that we would spend the money needed to make
this, in essence, six lanes and just not pave it all. Now, if
the need arises later -- as I said, I don't think we should
ever do it in any case because it would just become a
commercial highway going through residential neighborhoods and
that's not right.
MR. EDENS: The next speaker is Elizabeth
Jackson. Ms. Jackson.
MS. JACKSON: I'll pass.
MR. EDENS: You'll pass. Okay. Moving on down
the list, the next speaker on the list, and, actually, the last
two on the list -- so if anybody else wants to sign up, you'll
have a chance to speak again, sign up with Kim in the back of
the room.
MS. LEIGHT: (Inaudible.)
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental rat Public iii-, _ ing 11/3/08 Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. :1) r?
Tim.
MR. NILES:
Drive, 27614.
The next sp<,. i i-, ? r up is Tim Niles.
It's Tim Niles, 11509 Midlavian
I'm probably not going to say more than any other
people have already said but maybe add a little visual to it.
I had an opportunity to drive today on Glenwood Avenue from 540
North to the shopping center. While driving, all of a sudden I
realized I'm on a six-lane with a median, and it's exactly what
they're planning for Falls of Neuse Road.
I thought it's appropriate for Glenwood Avenue, which
is full of major shopping centers, but I can't envision any
circumstance where that kind of a highway -- divided highway is
appropriate for going through residential neighborhoods in the
Falls Lake watershed area. It just doesn't make any sense to
me.
Four lanes would alleviate all the traffic problems
we're now having and would encourage it to get worse. We're
just going to get eighteen-wheelers driving down (inaudible).
So to agree with everyone else, there's no reason to start from
the outside in. Start from the inside and you'll never get to
the outside, unless what your goal is is to have a Target on
every corner and the next week a car dealership on the corner.
And we can't do that in the watershed unless you plan on
destroying Falls Lake at the same time. Thanks.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
?,1.vironmentaL 7 ;ment Public Hearing 1If8j08 Page 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EDEN: The next speaker I've got on the list
MR. CARCIA
Hollow Lane in the Woodbridge community for three reasons:
safety, quality of life and home values.
Regarding the safety, there are many children,
including my seven-month-old son, on Paddy Hollow Lane and
Turtle Ridge Way whose safety will be put at risk when
adjoining neighborhoods and those in our own neighborhood use
our own streets to access Dunn Road as a result of not being
able to make a left from our Paddy Hollow Lane onto Falls of
Neuse. This will also be a major cut-through for more
potential traffic, not to mention the child care facility that
will be placed at Dunn Road very near that intersection.
Regarding quality of life, increased traffic will
bring noise and congestion to our peaceful community. The
Falls of Neuse Road widening will already affect three to five
homes in our community. By opening Paddy Hollow Lane to Dunn,
we're going to be affecting another twenty-five homes. In a
community of a hundred and twenty homes, that's twenty-five
percent of our community will be affected by these plans.
Home values: I purchased our home in April of 2008,
this year, specifically for its location in a peaceful area of
our community. Folks with children pay a premium price for
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental A:- (,.?.,,ment Public i r,<T 11/3/08 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I strongly believe that our home values will
significantly decrease as a result of this construction. I
also want to state that for a neighborhood of approximately a
hundred and twenty-five homes with at least three exits that we
have plenty of access. I will count the exits: High Holly to
Falls of Neuse, High Holly to Autumn Oaks to Tabriz to Falls of
Neuse, High Holly to Oakcroft to Dunn to Falls of Neuse.
I also wish to report that the opening of Paddy
Hollow to Dunn has not been adequately communicated nor
reviewed by our community. Taxpayers should also understand
that the cost of grading that slope as well as obtaining the
land to make a connection with Dunn will be very expensive, and
the city may be tacking this onto the expense being covered as
a federally aided project.
So, in conclusion, I state that I am opposed to the
connection of Paddy Hollow to Dunn for three reasons: safety,
quality of life, home values.
MR. EDENS: Our next speaker is Michael Paul.
MR. PAUL: Michael Paul, 2013 Stoneyridge Drive,
Raleigh, North Carolina. I'm the president of Oakcroft
widening Falls of Neuse Road to six lanes. We do support
widening Falls of Neuse to four lanes with a center turn lane.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Envirolin- :iI_ it l <r,,,,mc1t Public 1{?r`_rrg 11f3f08 Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We understand the need to expand to two lanes to
congestion, but we do not want to make this road a highway
through our neighborhoods to 540, nor do we see any reason to
divide the landscape now for a possible need to expand this
road again in thirty more years. Our intent is to preserve as
much as possible the beauty of our natural surroundings,
tranquility of our neighborhoods and the residential character
of where we live.
We use this road to go to and from work, school,
shopping and social events. Currently, the road itself acts as
a buffer between our neighborhoods and the rest of the world.
We want to keep it that way.
If we allow expansion to six lanes, that will destroy
the natural beauty of our residences and will invite more
traffic to rip through our neighborhood to area highways and
will create a corridor of commercial and industrial
development, the result of which would eventually destroy the
neighborhoods we paid a premium to live in. It was (inaudible)
when we moved here and we are opposed to letting that happen.
Thank you.
MR. EDENS: The next person on the list is David
Cox.
MR. COX: I'm David Cox. I live at 1902
Stoneytrace Court, 27614. Like everyone else here except for a
few, I'm opposed to widening of Falls of Neuse Road to six
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Assessment Public Hearing 11/3/08 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lanes. I would prefer it be kept to four lanes with It
turning lane.
Moreover, I would like to see the speed limit limited
to forty miles an hour and I would like to see traffic
lights -- traffic lights posted in locations to control the
speed of the traffic through the road when it is constructed.
I would also like to have the road limited so that
there can be no truck traffic on the road -- in particular,
heavy truck traffic -- unless it's for local deliveries.
I will agree with everyone else that we need to
preserve the residential character of our neighborhood. And to
be honest with you, I'm a little bit amazed that city officials
have decided they need to come in here to take a hundred and
twenty feet of right of way. Actually, on the papers that were
handed out tonight, it says a minimum of a hundred and twenty
feet of right of way.
Recently, I've been reading a biography of
Alexander Hamilton, and it strikes me that our founding fathers
were opposed to tyranny of the majority, and this is where
government uses powers such as eminent domain to come in and
violate the property rights of other people. I view this as a
violation of the property rights, particularly of those who
live along Falls of Neuse Road.
I'm not an attorney. I think this is
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental [ Public lI ng 11/3/08 Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
violation of the law. They say that they have a need to take
this -- this land in order to build a six-lane highway. The
need isn't there today, and, by their own admission, it won't
be there for another thirty or thirty-five years. What I don't
understand is how can they claim that they have a real need
when that need won't exist for so long and may, in fact, never
exist at all.
To conclude, I just want to say that -- that, again,
to reiterate, that I oppose the current design and I wish that
the city officials would listen to us and revise the design and
ask URS to develop a design with four lanes of road plus a
middle turning lane and to submit that for evaluation. Thank
you.
MR. EDENS: The next speaker on the list is Angel
MS. DOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Angel Dowden, and
I live at 9342 Tabriz Pointe. I live on the corner of Falls of
Neuse and Tabriz Pointe at the Falls Pointe neighborhood.
I, too, am opposed to the six-lane widening. I
purchased my home in Falls Pointe fifteen months ago, I
believe. At that time, I communicated with the city officials.
I communicated with the developer as well as the realtor -- I
moved there from Bedford -- about the property. I wanted to
know how the widening would impact the property. I was told at
that time by all three members that right of way had already
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Envir? m? ,,., n'. ?tl Public il-,iiing 11/3/08
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
d(,, L(inated for the property on the outside of my fence
line and that there would not be an impact. Since then, that's
changed.
I've been told there will be an impact to my
property, that the city would like to acquire seven feet onto
my property, which would take away for the time being my fence,
maybe fifteen trees from our property and destroy my quality of
living. I currently have two five-year-olds -- twin
five-year-olds who play in the back yard.
I've been told that mesh -- orange mesh fence will be
put up to block the traffic that already comes through way
beyond the speed limit. I was told by one city official that a
barrier wall could be put up to block the noise and traffic. I
was told by another that that could not happen. So at this
point, I don't believe anything the city says because they say
one thing and then another.
I'm very disappointed with this project and would
like to get some final -- I would like for them to be able to
confirm something for me. So I do oppose this six-lane
widening. Thank you.
MR. EDENS: The next speaker is David Gill.
MR. GILL: Good evening. My name is David Gill,
and I'm representing Mount Pleasant Baptist Church, which is
10720 Falls of the Neuse Road. And we are concerned that
widening this road, as you know, is going to take most of the
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental .?. ??? -?ment Public 11/3/08 1,9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
front of our church away. We're very close to the road as it
is now, and we don't understand why it couldn't be shifted to
the other side, where there's much more property that's not
being used.
It doesn't make sense to me or to any members of our
congregation that you couldn't do that shift. Now, I'm not
saying it's too late to do that shift. It's never too late,
because you haven't put the first bulldozer out there to push
up anything yet.
And the second thing I'm concerned about, I asked
about if there was going to be any type of protective barrier
in front of our church, because, as you know, when we step out
of the front door of our church, we're right on the road.
Now, what I feel that the engineers are not familiar
with is how fast people drive down Falls of Neuse Road. Like
the lady said, we've seen cars hit trees on Falls of Neuse
Road, and I would hate for us at Mount Pleasant Baptist Church
to be a news story because the city and designers won't spend a
couple of dollars to protect people that's going to be out.
Now, we have kids at our church, and, as you know,
children run and play. They don't think about the dangers
that's involved. So what I'm asking for for our church is
protection of our congregation and also to please consider a
little shift in that road. I mean, there's property on the
other side. Thank you.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental ?,ncnt Public ' ng 11/3/08 Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. uL^J._ We're down to our final two speakers
on the list that I have, if you want to sign up. Rob Gale.
MR. GALE: Rob Gale, 11300 Paddy Hollow Lane.
I'm not from around here, as you can probably tell. I believe
there's a phrase "If you build it, they will come." Is that
(inaudible) -- oh, baseball. Right.
I think that's the case, and I think you've heard
many people say tonight, and I completely agree with, this road
has been designated for a purpose which is no longer relevant.
This is now clearly a (inaudible) road environment. There's no
place for commercial -- major commercial development between
Raven's Ridge and -- and Wakefield, and any development that's
going to happen is going to be (inaudible) development, I
believe.
And as our speakers have very eloquently (inaudible)
at no place in the future is there a conceivable need for a
six-lane highway through this neighborhood close to the Falls
Dam, you know, and where people use it for recreational
purposes. That quality will be lost if this is ever turned
into a six-lane highway, and I can see no reason that that
should be done.
And the long-term strategy, I believe, is to develop
Capital Boulevard Highway 1 possibly into a freeway in the
future. Great. It's a commercial environment. There's enough
land there to do that and that's what I think should be
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental A ,(- ;ment Public Tearing 11/3/08 P, ?, ?c, 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(inaudible). I want those neighbors in Wakefield who are
looking for improvement to their quality of life to be able to
get that and, you know, first of all, building this bridge as
But you do need to restrict this -- this taking too
much land to -- to make this road, especially considering over
the last year we have been, you know, told about the watershed
issues and -- and -- and construction or extension of
(inaudible) and we won't be able to do this and we won't be
able to do that. But, apparently, you know, those rules don't
necessarily apply if you're building a big highway.
So my comments, again, to reinforce the views that
you've heard before, are to restrict this and -- in keeping
with the (inaudible) that will develop in this area. Thank
you.
MR. EDENS: All right. Jason McGinnis.
MR. McGINNIS: Jason McGinnis, 1505 Perryclear
Court, Raleigh. This is my first time speaking also at an
event like this. I think we all would agree (inaudible). I'm
not looking to say anything which (inaudible).
I agree that widening is necessary. I agree four is
much better than six. If you follow the logic of we might need
six in 2030, we might need eight, we might need ten.
My property happens to be on the corner of Dunn and
Falls, so not only am I going to be impacted on the Falls side
GAS TT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental As -,: rnr,nt Public ii- ir i ng 11/3/08 X12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
but also on the Dunn side. So I'll 'ooking at two lanes
coming down on the left side of my property and then,
obviously, the extension of Falls into the back.
There is significant impact there for me. I have a
pretty big tree line. It blocks a lot of the noise right now.
That will be disappearing from both sides. So there will be a
noise impact that's going to be there. So it's here stated
that there's no impact -- no significant impact. It is a
significant impact to me, so I take that as a bit offensive.
There's also safety issues, as someone mentioned,
cars being in trees before. There have been at least two
occasions of cars in my back yard that have been stopped by the
trees that were there. So now we're going to remove the trees
and we're going to move the road twenty or thirty feet closer
to me. I'm not really sure what's going to stop these cars
16 1 this time.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And the other thing I want to talk about is property
values. You know, this has been touched on just a little bit,
but there's actually a really big impact to everybody.
Obviously, you know, (inaudible) two lanes on my property and
two on each side, but that affects everybody. If my property
value goes down thirty, forty percent in the -- in the value,
so does everyone's value.
So there is definitely financial impact to me and,
again, personal impact. So, again, if it's not significant to
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE [phone]
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
Environmental A?,I i nt Public Hearing 11/3/08 Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the city, it is significant to me and that's what I want to
say. Thank you for the opportunity.
MR. EDENS: All right. The last speaker we've
got is Mr. Rajani, Purshutam Rajani.
MR. RAJANI: Thank you. Just to comment on my
neighbor, the reverend -- are you the reverend?
MR. GILL: No, I'm not the reverend.
MR. RAJANI: Oh, I'm sorry. But your church is
right behind my house, and -- and -- and so instead of moving
the road, just make the road narrower. Instead of it being a
hundred and thirty feet or a hundred and forty feet, can you
make it eighty feet or seventy feet?
(Inaudible.) And by the way, the way you've got old
Falls of Neuse coming down and -- and -- there's a fire station
there. If there's a fire at his church or at my house, the --
I have no idea what -- even though there's a fire station, you
can't get across. They can probably run a hose. That would be
easier than for the trucks to come around.
Why couldn't you put a (inaudible) there and put a
light over there to save his church and -- and -- I think that
would be just too much common sense for you. That's all.
MR. EDENS: We do appreciate all your comments
and that's why we're here tonight, to get them. So I don't
believe -- is there any more folks that had signed up to speak?
MS. LEIGHT: (Inaudible.)
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Public, 11(,,i ri,i? i 11/3/08 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. EDENS: Okay. Last chance.
MR. NILES: Tim Niles, 11509 Midlavian, 27614. I
just wanted to add to one of the previous gentlemen's comments.
I too find it offensive to have the officials make the
statement there's no significant impact. I'm sure they didn't
mean impact to our quality of life. They must have meant
something completely different and probably should have
specified what they were talking about.
MR. EDENS: One more sign-up, I think. All
right, Gene. Come on up.
MR. SENEGAL: My name is Gene Senecal, 1320 Kings
Grant Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina. I just wanted to address
the thing about the economic impact. We all know and recognize
today, given the current situation and everything else, how
housing values are all under siege. The adoption of the
current plan just would further exacerbate those home values
and the erosion of those values.
Adoption would encourage bordering properties to seek
rezoning. we also believe that it would encourage flight from
the area and would have a negative domino effect on values
throughout the area. Adoption is just going to encourage more
commercialization and will destroy the residential setting and
the impact of our quality of life.
MR. EDENS: All right. If that's all the formal
251 comments we're going to receive, we're going to close this part
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
EnvironmentE 1 zi Public Hearing 11/3/08 Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What we're going to move into now is actually moving
into the second stage of our meeting, which is the sixty-five
percent design meeting, where we'll take a look at the plans as
they are developed up to this date.
We'll need a few minutes to actually get back and set
the maps up and then we will be available to actually, you
know, discuss individual properties and the impact to the
properties and discuss design issues and other things. Then
there will be, actually, another presentation followed by an
open question-and-answer period, which will be basically what
we had at the last meeting.
Sylvester, any ---
MR. PERCIVAL: We'd just like to thank you all again
for the input and comments you provided this evening during the
hearing session. We would like to also mention that written
comments are also welcome until November the 18th. We will be
providing -- the court reporter actually will be here for
another fifteen minutes recording comments as necessary. For
anyone needing to make individual comments, you're welcome
to -- to speak with her or have them recorded.
Please keep in mind that there's only an additional
fifteen minutes allowed. I'd like to again also mention we
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental As - nt Public 11(,,?i-ing 11/3/08 1',-1, 1(, 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have design -- design mapping -- the map. Thank you. I
should also reiterate the fact that we are allowing three
minutes per -- oh, thirty minutes, pardon me, for the -- for
the design mapping review. The three-minute -- we ask that you
try and keep your comments to the reporter down to three
minutes as well.
So please get up and feel free to walk around and
review the design mapping. We will reconvene in thirty minutes
to have another presentation made by URS and then a
question-and-answer session.
(Recess in proceedings.)
MS. JUSTICE: My name is Lizzie Justice. I live at
10620 Dehijuston Court. I am concerned about the widening of
the road. I also am a member of the church at 10720 Falls of
Neuse Road.
We have a traffic problem as it is getting out into
the road. By widening it and putting more traffic on the road,
it is going to cause a bigger problem for us. Also, we're very
much concerned about the church and taking so much of the land,
our safety there when we meet.
It is our desire that you will not widen the road
as -- as in the last design that we saw, that it will be less
lanes and that you will shift it so that you could take more
property on the opposite side of the church.
The church is a hundred and twenty-three years old.
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental Public ing 11/3/08 Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We have been there and we -- it is our desire that you would
keep -- remember us and keep this in mind in your design, all
that you can do to make it better for us and safety issue and
address our safety, the -- the noise barriers that - - the noise
that will come with all the traffic. All of this we would like
for you to take in consideration. Thank you.
MR. COX: I just wanted to state for the record that
in addition to my previous comments that I have circulated a
petition in my neighborhood, which is the Oakcroft
neighborhood, and have collected approximately fifty signatures
in opposition to the widening of the road to six lanes.
We -- the petition states that -- that everyone
supports a widening to four lanes with a center turn lane,
restriction of the speed limit to forty miles an hour, to
restrict access to truck traffic except for local deliveries,
and also are -- are opposed to the fact that the city has not
addressed landscaping or noise abatement issues or turn lane
issues regarding the construction of the -- of the road.
I will submit this petition at a later date to city
council, but just wanted to take the opportunity now to get
this on the record. Thank you.
MR. SHAVER: I am Charles Shaver, 11504 Midlavian
Drive, Raleigh, 27614.
I'd like to comment on this quality of life issue.
First of all, Falls of Neuse Road needs to be widened, in my
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental A , .? >mcnt Public iJo, t -ing 11/3/08 Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
opinion, to four lanes and a turning lane but not to the
six.-lane megahighway we're talking about.
The quality of life concern I have is the noise and
the loss of privacy when they clear-cut all the trees outside
the -- the short wall outside my house. As evidence of this,
in September, Mr. Percival and Mr. Upchurch were at my house.
And we went into the back yard and were talking and Mr.
Upchurch had to stop talking because the noise level got so
loud that he couldn't -- we couldn't carry on a conversation.
In October, Ms. McFarland, Councilwoman McFarland,
was out. We were in essentially the same spot and the same
thing happened again. Now, I am told that there is not a noise
pollution problem, which is not true. The decibel level is
over sixty-seven, but that the city planners intend to do
nothing about it, no noise barrier, no privacy barrier, nothing
whatsoever. In addition to that, from safety, we're on the
outside of a curve which at the increased speed is going to
present a safety hazard. Thank you.
(HEARING CONCLUDED AT 8:37 P.M.)
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
[phone]
Environmental AL (?,; iE,ut. Publics l? 1:13 11/3/08 Page 49
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY - COURT REPORTER
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA}
}
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN }
I, Patricia C. Elliott, Court Reporter, Notary
Public in and for the above county and state, do hereby
certify that the foregoing public hearing was taken before me
at the time and place hereinbefore set forth; that the
foregoing comments were duly recorded by me by means of
Stenomask and speech recognition, which is reduced to written
form under my direction and supervision, and that this is, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, a true and correct
transcript.
I further certify that I am neither of counsel
to any party or interested in the event of this matter.
This 18th day of November, 2008.
Patricia C. Elliott
Notary Public, Franklin County,
North Carolina
Notary No. 19940480043
GARRETT REPORTING SERVICE [phone]
Post Office Box 98475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624-8475
Attachment 4 Table of Comments and Responses
M 0
N
C°O
C
c C: .
N
Y'r u) t = co N F;
m L c? m -° ? C vi C : U
a? 0.
3 -
a) a)
N a) O E m ` m 0 0 N C
'

U 0 0 ° U N 0 O m 0 Z N .a
° r LL C CL
O
`
O c -Lw v L C w

°- U
° m
) °
E s,
"0 0"
N N E o '
t
cr _ T -0
0
T.7
° •0 7: 0 -q) U tU O N N
7) 0"o m 00 O d

c _
q) -0 p N - LT O C a)
?j .E t31 •C .

_?
tU
'O q a3 cf .o m= O N o U)
0 m d N
O U "
ID O d
O ® Q N C° y} y+ E
U a) -0 v) hp N
CZ m
cO U) U p O M N .?c m L C O 'D :s
c
0

Q-
c:
?, 2 c0 N j p3
p'o3 mb -E
G

0 Co t c Y U m
(D a) cn
O
wgm

N .

t!) c N U C
p inIn
in
`? p3
. cn m c p 'O 2) 4
U U
U 7 UN m Q N tO.7 OR) ?
LL m m .C C
p m P
u m
c_E5O.L? .L.. O Q -?' I
E m T U C N L N C iU ° m
)
: 8 }3 U C O Q 0
o c C
N
o
m o N L t d)
475 N m 0 0 p j N p m t(} -p } IL
o- m o o ° c m
?
°
6 Ct)
3 T --
'S N

O 0)
M O= Oo C O a
W C tl)
E W a)
O V) 05
O
O m 'f7 N C d ti m?y En L
0
'0
C p a)
- 0 M
LL a)
o O E
m° cu G? ?0so'?
u
m
vi o
?1 3 0 0 - c.E
o.
°
- o ?
uci°c•cOm°
)M°??co
o?3c
m°m o)
O w
>
L Y
m C
tU y7 _° 0 'D C c c
O c
-- m
2
'p
L

O
t:
m t7
O
t
_
,
.c
N C O
E da
O:s E 0°
°° 0 O
w E
a
O)-c-8=)ao)o?Ncw° p? CD
aQ Z?? ?cY)0 U)
a)
t?
? a) m
o uc
aci ° °E c _ a)
c)
O.c
c
3
L p
d N '0 t!) O O 'p m m m
C 4a
Q > (3) '0 >
Q)
N
m p
-
(D a) 2
O
N 019 CL L
Z -0 0)
04
O m O
3: O O 0
C

W F-

W w N U
E

E L6
) (D
W-
O 0)
iU m
43 °0 cp 6} O C .L..+
g
c o
c

'g

'L N (n

0
U C7 m
x ?
Y
O O p 52 4U 4U O +L-'
V> .? .?- m 0).., J 0 C .O `'i
o c
L
V
0
O oZ a.
.
.+ U U O M
O U
00
O

p
2195 O co
C.
o U r
O)
C
0
O
O
N
d 4-
Y Q
O >m0

N
0) N
0)
i
_ m
tL Z N O
a)
C?
tU
E
co
z
T
lU
N
-

4a

J
`m

m ?
c
m
U
o
_ Z
-
04
L O C O a
?? ?j_ aC) C a) C
m .'C... N o
C CU,
E O. L? o ? 6?C o- a o ° C o O
.? m 'O W u
O,. N m a
O '.w N
O -.. a 0
5i C m> a s
t m o N
.
L
'
CL (f) c w- m o o. ca o
°o _ a'ci a) w C: M
a C o °-
c?ov °
°
m ?a o ozs
N ?? v m Q m N ?O'
C
rn
o
Q O- C N

a)
N Cn-U ?
N E7. " ,
m °`- i?
t f?
c6
U
O
-
C N O N C. U) o C o N Q)
O. S 0 O 6 M [). 27 O N -d a.. U) (.5 0 "
a a) 'N C
> a) o

2
23 N C m ai
a) N a' a -O a)

6
a
M a a) C L J O m a) S w
c M .C a)
N E zj
i its Z L CC A,5 U) a
- N O)
a) -
m
N O) O U)
U
?
.
U
a) 0. °
F- (1) O p U (t) C p
N CIS .
d tiS tf
co d -2
O
C
a) Q m a 4 =d ?- d) a) 0 v) 'd Q o LO o p a
G] d C1 w 0
?p 4 U m '? Z a N ? -a E ate) - p a
'
d
(
4 °'S o O a) 0
a) N N m a) tC Um)
U C ?
d a - o N.
Q
)
N
c v? h aS
c L)
- a.
a) w
U N
a)
- U O
0 O
Cu O v U y 3t a)
.? U O N ? Z
t
p U
o
"0 0 '1 a
,
O
o
N
a) 0) E 0
a) a_ O N C m
F"C
. C
Y cd
m
0 y

a_ .
O > c
7 6
g. L p a. O O
.
.
>, -C m
d 15-6- O
"`
N m :+-'. 'O m .--.. oz 9, tq o C F- COQ O C C
J„
U)
o N a m
a
w .O m is Z C
c p E o 3=O a--' E m? a) ° a)s. C °
ID ?0 F- W
>'0 y m a cog 1- m p?h=
° ?
mw
O Z cu
'
N a`r o > o a) o m c m

> E
? E c
i a
E a u
co ?. C°ao ° N Nsd
E -c) Q
°c o N
ocoaV°vcE E
(D If 0
C CL Cm -:5 0 E
a) 0 0. 'in
.
U CL N h .'
... O-0 ° a. C C§ a. U) hT U Q F- Z Z Q?2 _ ? m O U
C) `a .E
U E
0 m L o
h0 ,C' w
°
E O

v o
N
v o
Ca
U o a C yC >
C
m.m`
i
m a) $ a 43
M a) .2 O 2) d (0 G w Ct) m
n
° E CL
c
, N w •-• J-- 'a
O E -0 .`° C -C
v00 0 o
3 9? m
O
°
a a) m(
o.a
G a m
CL
v
m c
- d c
.- ° t3 Y
N ` N a
__
w N m
N
'G ?
d
C i4 ctf
.
>.
m m p a. a
.gy
.
E
E 0
(D - (0 N
o
a -O -., N p >,
C
Ci
a) "CO .a m oC N
m m a N
a
It 0 o
N a o,
C %T N C ?V -° C C -
m N y
a
)
Q C > o?
E cc CO ? ? Co 'cc in
m N N . a0 m
.? N C
a m O 8.0
-,? 4 O C m -O C - .c r'_' C m
m O 1E ?. m N
?
?° ._ U ° 'O 5; =3
N
m .gym.. N U
N
0 E TmJ a) o >
O >, > a) .C C m: 'r
m O O)
-
O
() d) a.
U a' > c m i O) m G
o x O O N
N a- O m a)
t0 t c
(D a
a) 0 0, G
o o ,y N U a)
m N w C
° w ,? yy ° M " U
O N
a)
ca p

0)
o 0-0-0 0 o Z7 m

w C6 C ' a a.'a tC4 gy
N a) m

Z5 O N .C o
.
Z P t a) m N 2

> a_N U
u > °

h E -a 11 C
S -
N
(D >, ? >
.,
O m a.
is
W
Eo
a
-0
?_?
m W
m= p N C M c6 '
3 C?w co C> m> O

m
a)
.
)
(D
Uco N?
?o to
° o
om'3"
oa?io
EE
° ci)o
3?ov
o
° a ° m
o? ?o a° 0Za)
o o° °oo
3 m
? _x o -?
i c .
>occd
°
o 4 m
° m 6 m - t)n
rn°)
m-0 in
m 4 > m N i!' d) cm3 n
° O 'C o a) v
.?-. e
D >, >,.r- N C 01 w 'C m =
a) . o X D N
C N 0 a
O > is m > a m C N
W
O
" a) (1) h= U p
-0 N >m, 0
E m C.0 °
C
C w
N
m a) LL
Y m O
d '
7 -
.
o
'i7
° O >,
'a w N
T
J N a) U)
w a
.
-+ a- N (y c?4 .
C a)
-a)-' do "gym
a) '
'
moo L
U
?p ir
w
-?co C
'S
0 "
Q ?>,rnC30
a)
.
-x
x
co m
?
_y ._
Q E m. m
M E O N in
U E C
.Qy. ' t6 to
3 w y p
U- L O 0-
(1)
'''g N
'O F- ..
w
Q- U N
Cm
`
h O o c° 2 a)
? E
-?
h
Z d
0
v o
z
`o N
Z
Q a)
d o C_. n
d 2-
?
Z m -.
..
u) c
Z
U
C m
i6 .
W N
°
`n c `o ?
W a N O
W o d }n
w c._ c C
ca
W e 3m
°
m o C
+
w Z E
2 C,
> 0 (D G) 7?5

Y
Q- a
E
-0 .
_
ca

E
Ow p=?cvi )u?i
U a_?.oh U m L Oaa
i
U O
a o
O
U p °°-)?
U U c R U C=°E-5w
o 07Q m c
O S
M 0" a)
?
_ 4 U 0wI
- 3
an
2 «0
a
co
°
o

>
> a

m
0 >
m
0
x
°
U x
O
U
co d
° o c t)
v) c
o ? c,° c ro ro
'6 CO r- C:
2 0 cu cu

A 0 m c ? L
(D a) 0 o)v , o a)
a) O
C m c a ??
c
?
?
i
4; E = ° a
-0 :mES> aid°
>
E
E
N o
°
o
cc A z
° L
m
a 8 (D
-
U i= N N Cc75 ' OC ' U} C O c
m
c 'O i s L O U- o O m N p a) O'
O
C
L
o 0 2
*
?
p
L C > a
+
0 E
O
8

.. N O 3 'C °.
N +?- 'o N CO
a`) ro o n. H ,L
°
0 ocC m w0mam °
n oam?
-0 to ro t° m o? a c o 0 Ns o a) ? o
?
c
c ?cwo 00 maLim°no om?a)ro
C o
a) U? C 0 E o L> OS °? ° (n L >> 0
° c a!- cammc C
E L? U U 0O 0 5 0 0 tE5 °i m
'
a) mv
U a)
H?wo m mZ m-, or- E
c
to ? ._ E a)
a) a)
cn

0
o
C 0-0 c

"'
-0 cn
"O c

o V) O

r
-C
-

I•

70 Zo a) 0 LO
'C O N y ° 0 'O

0 a)
N
E o
(D

+?- L

(D

p m
a)
r--. a)
CA
m
.O 1-'
cu -
=
>
L
m m p A a)
a) o o mOU
Cc

a)
-°
'- L
C
W L "' L
0)
-
$
C'•
V)
_ - a) O or a m ?'U 3 a) m
O. E
L
-
0.
N c m
?
(
9 - a)
L?cU)m a) I
n
O '
L uro)a)
mho n C a
.Nm ., m ro m L a)
? .
N C
X00 m-0 c aciOE>,°ocia o> c o .C)
o
a)m1?3m
s m 'L .
u)L aa)) aa))
°a
)
') c U EL a) °Y m 2- ro o-
U
- -° o ° c ai
3
3 m>s
ma)x ?
L
a
m p)E m
° o a)aio m
>
?rso???
° CU-0 a00-- ro U o o c _a c?•o?
c E Q.
°?c'
L ro
a
•
V La) 0m-°° ?
> :gym 1)c..
mmvooo>.03Y?a?iUcu
L a) C E 0) c a) >
C
O mu m 8a)
4
° N O
)
m
.L
+
m '2 :F; a)
mp Z o t c t1 O
N ..L., _ .Ct w
?a 0 0 00 a)
N O
Cn i
R
m ?S C) 0) O cm .?' a) 'O - C to C
•
a5q
U E= w
m : ..L., 'O V)
o
c o
a) >' a)
N
L O C O ,> c 045
M CL
E C ?
° a) ?
0 O
a) C) a) iu 2) a) O m r U >,
m
' 0 m
C
O -°
N° w .
...
6.2 E
m V)
V) E U L
° me ?? Y
? ° .,L.., CA
t1 w .0-In .L...
w L m CO ro
a m 3 L ° o'--= ? p me
m m a)
mom' (D 0.
>m o p.c . to 0-
V-
a) -p a) a
cu a)
14 0 0
= ? ?? c ??t o
'o c mwa 0) aci
m m O_ C
N GL
L
c ? 0 4 c°)
. i L -. O
..
°
E
A O°
°
tiU v. O
f
-° 0 L O c c
m
O L c
. 0
O .
N O O_ CL O L
C E O .C
m >,._ p
p N >
m c
U p.-
C_
L
U o
O
C
U r a) cc y m
..
a) m C E" - w ?
0-0 U 0
O L
r
L a)
E N O a) O. L a)
Lm ?
N N
p a) (0 a) A
OU a) N ro L a)
A N' >i
C L N a) m e "O O
° c m
a)
a)
Q E a)
C .O m C 'O c m O_ V A >i a) w -C} C
.
-.
p 'o a) o -11 -0 ° m E >''t1 C .x O 0 J. 't1
'
U L O "O C
a) ° Z N V) o-
O QY

a O m Lm L Q
w
E
H 0 +C-• U t0 o O
m
? C
O CL CL
C •p
O m m
d ? '0 a) a) E .2 a
C
ca m - - o 0
•
a)- m p
> p 'U N Q C fl.
_,
m c m 7 L
to a)
Q. - O 0 O a= ? 2 CL
cu 0 ? m
to Q U)
d _
.
V) .L.-.
C U O u) m -O U: ' O
Q cu f4f c m ro a
a) r m CL ir C, O
Q C U)) N
> a`)
L
I- 0 0 a)
d m C
W 07
T
H m a) E
W L
O -0 O M f- C
,2
W ,
H e 'S A C a a) m
Z
7
° ?
H> m? a) °
O
ca
-c _
V)
-0 0
a)
m
2 O C O ?- u) ° m t °
A o 4
W a)
Z, CU C: CD '0 CL-0 C: 2 a)
UJ
c m
O a) _0 a
)
y C)
O
m
m
m a) L U a. u) C: w o d 00 a) m C a)
L
m m
m
m t QUy U a`) a
(
L
"
°
p
Uo30Up X
L O
m
0cn cnCAwUw O m
UC) O A _-.
.• LO
ro _= m
>`'
o- N
UE3O?a a)3Enom 4
?
p
00
°
mo
crs
w
0 0 co C)
° Cl) Cl) L
0
? m
c
O c
p

ai
(n
? p
m
LL
cn
a)
?
ro ?c c
Cn
c c c c
ro
(D a) ° o

LO r 00
°? w tea)

-". o I-
, _, J c) Z-
1 c
c
C O r ?
C 4 S
aJ _
s ctJ q) r r j Cu L_ V 3 J S O N -
T3
m
M O a> Q) a? Q) u? a1 .n m S) -C3 C
(!1
o
c () Cc) (0,)) L G) N (Q <ll 2
C V) N t C) LL -j c? U •-' L
m N Q -
T p
U
L
J
m
y (Z -- c? v )
m m c U O O N Y U e-?
m
'L
2
O) -rj N - 7 IL L _ ) O c IG Cm. (J O "J C) 0 - CJ a
vi O N •_ 0)
c > rJ
C v
'
'O

O
C
,
C) (7, LL
. T n (U
- u) U Q- lv ?- L V " ' l? y
C C r7 U O C ?.. ?D -t? 'A 4) > :j O
E qS
E
fh CA
a) (3) cn 0 G) :3 0) 0 E0
T) C- ? E
°
m tU C1) } v
C N C '[7 U Cli L -E C _V U
w
O t£p7- ( p
_
.
47 m a
-O C - r m C c5 S? C d'O r- d O .U) p O N C D
U O
m CS) ° 4) C„) "q N `p 2 ? .0a .C N m t? m r - d £O'1. v
•C Q. en
.>'. C (TS O. O Cb .O :? 'C7 N "'?-1 r. m >;'L'j O O LM M m m m p, o
C- 93 N V! N O.E C ' O m O, o m m

G m
d
_

O m O O a m O ' CA C m C m ) o N L
C )
CU Z5 a) >
-
}

m o A

N
W O
(D - CL
m N O d N O .C ... O .C O
O. 9, Q? z o N N o O 47
c
'
m ? N
F (s ?W O o room c
i
oQ C? E ALL ac
o vw0 b d a (n
o 0 m C c 2 C> .O
to
L T3 .cO : m -C c 0
O O tU N +° ; N
? (D a) a)
)
2?
2 Q

m fU U a)
N
? O ?
o
0)
(U h C CO
tq O ? O N
•

.D m
'C O
R N ID O N N O O_) N a) N p)

?r
o d
C C c (D b c m +-.
N a w a5 0 C N > m
U) E N N Z7) = CA L>6 D1 m 2,6
0 M
.0...' N ,•CO,, C. -
O N N a m Om (D N 0 N O
0- _ m ? cu o c
r •a o c c° > °-' ct-

C C
aDa? 0

2p

C
° m .t]
m
an d •-
C
°'oa?°m30.0 oQ)-
dd = i tl) O a) m` N a p Cn O' C O- .C O 1t

o M
>

' -0 E C)
O
O (D
o >1 E m m? c?`
' cc ):
p p .
'O m m
>+ N B -O m tl0?
O
°
N C
E _o
° O _
p O
•
m p C -ctc E E ?-c c° 0 m c
0 C'A o
m m
L O
0.
o 0)
C C C O. ?
,?-
O
C6 0' O= 0 >i 8
5 -C
° omo0 o 4)
50
mEC,?o`omo
a) W
U .c 'O a.
0: 0 O >

N
O F- M O -5 r- N
J= w N Y
0
0 ti 2
>? o o > 6 E
F- a o. 6 ?, N a) .(0 O N > C-
:1 -0 E
O) O N
F.. O. r O C-
U) O O r r 6 C N C N .- m m "= C, N o
CA p' > Q) -0 ? o d _ -0-
z OO
am zoo> I- z?o?0)m0OE'pmmma.-m
c)-
?
W w-gym w r
-?8E
w,
ca
O O .-1 tB 'O O (3) CL m C) U) Z,
"? C N m -? m
O m o O
V
20
U 3 O
U O.
O
N
C: c d`
6
G
c -
:
c o m
00
O 00
Q 00
C
2 00
O
Cl) W -
ce)
O Cl)
C
m -c
C N N 2
°mac
a)
U) o a) M

m
2! a

O

N
- N U)
2 N
m
Q C
Q C
Q
O

.O C d O

? O
p O
c
m

0
`o a)
c O.
U p a) a) a v rs
O N ci -O o Y' m -3
>, uJ
m
i
C
t d X
C")
C
i
f
n
> O U U
c o ° ccca
c
m U

O a cv a d
vc
c
c?
O O.
J
0
CV)

Z tt{{??
U ?j O
:? 2) O ct5 N• o N C
o
2 0)
6

.
-F)
p O pC O
a y .C
co
U O U
(1)
CD

C

0)
ca 0
c

-6 O 'O O Z N
E ca 0) tn E
d
c vmi
c 0) a) CL N n X c c m m i6 O a) p a)
c a) U -?' C) U (U Cl. 0 7r O Ga
LL ` 4J a)
to '....
u
c )
c
-? O m Cri N N E Q3) v '? :? E a) v) vy 'O d
C m *0 O
O
C c O

E N

a) _ V
}
C C O t- Q)
fl. "Cy N y N
O m N a) N 2 cis O U 2 G- 0 o O fJ c
Q 0),
.
(=
c U7
N
O

U

a'
4/) 5;
Q) C U '} - E E
5).
' > c c
a)
a)
c U 6.0 o c D o c c m C}._ c c c m
t- m s c va () Sr a o a) a g Z E w t- w E cn
aY

U
)
?

(D -0
N -c O N
p c

c i 2 O) (n r

•?
N 0
O m O = ?5 m 23
Z "a ??y-5 ca) w-.
O :c C ?

N :S
- O

?o a)
?-. p m
.

mo ca)E
J
E
a
_ c ill 0 a)

m
oyro -°'
Ia)0) o-0
N w

2wrnU 0 A c -

m s: 4)
22 cs0)0) 23 y?

c
via)

.m
: 2

O
?C N '
N
v= O m
3:
0 0miaz2a)a)c?
?
U ?' 1 a) p m'S N U') E m A O O v)
? c E a) >,
? O- C = O 'm O 'S3
=O
U. tII - O a) --,F= m -E O 2 o m
- - a) cu 8 p a L 7 O Q'E t3T N
... c c E c _ _c E N
6 4>) .O _ C fl. L7

C .LT N 'c
>
a) e?•+ N '
E n M p
v- E c-0
O U q) C
O
c
0 o
O
(D IL T3 = N @ tU
-0-0
T3 (t3 .c ,
a' •
q)
M m C N .
C
'c 'T3 'C p
0 -c
fl c
Z M
= c .'t-
. 0 22
-1 m
,
p N
fl.- o
f1
0 fl
c
N 9 4
U w c c .c O
.
+-
0 M 4)
a)
to
4523
O) c '
' ,
0 'O E ? `
•
-0 in
m m - to
L m
d
cm M Oc O a5 ?
`
.
p
O
mMa)o c p
() ..?.. .'c.. 4:]. O -O O) = 349ocu a)
a) >
Uc2
m cc
o m
0 rn
?'a.
c U)
-
)
a m
C c nEo nE
O
to a),- N = O
c 0) 0) .c 57 E a)
L7 C
O O
E
4 'C3 ?", U) to 3: a)
' ..?
-1
O E
M
E
> •
O c
c te
a)
'c _
m }.
{
p cO 4n z
to ,L- o m O
p
'
S
a) `
.?..
.b O) O O N x
C
S p t7 m -
t5. m= a)
0-0-o ° p V
,
p
c O. U Q) c
m
O c ,. C
E
E ...
.
a) a) u
i
m N$ to 0
a)
N
>j >y
w a)
roro_ m a)p ° cto °)
-S U) a)a15
'
a) O a)
°-c c
in 0
(n O
c6 C t)
or2? mm Lm
u
a) cos o 3 0 ?i a)
Omc _
2:F=
R Ot- > (D
c t?o7 CL:3 CL
?
p
= En a' ? at°i o
0- _ ?"a
a? o- a) vp)To
in - _ID
0
-
,
a)
y???p?3ca
? O mOU
a EE-0 a'
b
M 0) wp
o EO
a)m o
a
cO
Lwm-nc
? pce
=?
?E
0
a2 - c ?c 0 c rn o c
U v -°.0 -S2 = c
E
O-
N m?
? N4n
a)
mw O a)
3 `)
tl7 m a
mn
m _O
O o
C O O
a)
d
E._-52 O c
n
(Dromomv
O
z
- Uc?sa
in o
(D
n >
o v OE d o io20
mEro?mv

o
.
6
' a) 'C
M c(1) > ? m c-0 3: m w

O O 21 O L
Cl) c Q D Q Q a) 'c C N 'p E O

E
0 :3
c C: L)
0 10
m m . N
H
(n _
•- U a) O) U)

c
°)
m _m

oY
r-

H

H
m O m a)

c d
22 E y E
v?
W 0) ._ N c c,
)
3 Z m? o m

27
Z - c
z c
w C to Z
(M a) o
Z C
Z H _ c.
c c
Z Zy - m O a) E ? co

a
a)??E
?
soE
??sm Ulm

cD?
c
ro

i
g

cc

E(D

a)
0 L

m

u)

2

-
g>?c°a ? OO?
oo
N
'
c
?
zS pa)a)o

O
U co 3 ?'- m5 3 E =

i
O- m
v
C? E c= (D C.
p
cam c c

v
i ma)a) O

oh

O a) p 2 6

O p '_
S pa
k w
a? o o s ca
O
3 °7 p
- Um C)? Uc=3omU
co
Q 00
Q co
°
0 00
co
Q
00
Q
a o
a)
m a)
m a)
m
sx )
O
rY 0 0
m m m

v ?r2
-7 T
0
0
?
o

i
c`Zv
r`v m
c?v m
t'?
Z
6 Z
6 6 6 O
z 0
z 0
z 0
z
C c
E C C
E p pE E
?y E E E E
U U 8
j 8 °
U 8
O O O O O O p

0 a>

c W

C O a)
c
c
c

CL o
a p p C C
a C
a
00. a?
(n
ai
(n
a
)
? ? ? ? v
in v
in v
rn .
v
sari
'U
1 uvi m M p -
0 O C N :3
' N m
a
Y "
S Q 'L3 ' T t7 aY
-114 p O ycu ° D° o° ?c cvi
Q) a) 2
a7
L L o c
N L m
i `n c
a)
N c
2 N
0 N c

.c
Q) - C4
Q Z m 0 O N
Z T L-Co r
. =
o CL a) C
)
C C
r-
°
O
j cT3

ca C '°O E O N a Rf O
C
J {a

O?
?
o t43

O?
4
t?3 v

?=

`t a)

O
4

3 o E a0i o m 'p -cy OS
> sc-5 v c v a
m
0 O
= °'v ca) 0) ?
U = a>) p 0)
o.c ° a a) ° °> 0' • tl5
v(Y o 4)
v? o U tU
vIY o U a)
v?
U u) E C
<u m N p a) u i 'a C
m
N M ?- d5 - L C V) N=
U 'p _O O= O) o O c x u7 0)
ti7 N N -.! m- m C a)
o o
O 0
O o
o o
mtL o
4) '"
Z5 c
_'u ° a) °io v a cu m °? ccn
3:
c t_ apa
:3 fl Q aQ n a
m
vF o c?
v1 C -O o-.- p v p

C C )u L,C -_ :n

°
m a) E2 (a 0) 0
c c U
v v °? v co
>= a) ? a) C
0 -
E
n CL (n
E v 'O 6
o CL (n
E v `0 6 =3
Q aN
E v '0 6) :3
Q a0
'g
E

ams?')naN
U c a) a)-
v" °•z3O0
EO S, ° U U
?c
2,°°a
i
m Y y L2 0-0 °- -
M
0°cv ?°oc?0-
o v w ::3 Q) v w- ?-
E v_??E
-p C
v?cviC
E ,.- 'p c
v cvi?
E ,,.. •? c v
C3J
vYt?c
,s- p 'c
C E o N L C N w U« °c)
v ' m 0 fill C m a) a 05
v T U O u) a) Z Z O a7 m O°> 'p
. 6°>
' °°>
. O°> -O
L
°> 80 c w
-? =3 v .O Y
p8 E m c m m
E co L-.o C6 C
a m o>? m N 4- ° 6. O o ° °
-0 3 o us 5 _ ° co ?
m 3
..T. p s
v r°ti
>+ o 2
? v .?"?,' p -C
§
? ? v o
as =?
v
oc
p = E mT) o:
2E S 2
w L E e N
'
L 'S? voT
T7 - m E C m?
0)vtiu ?'m=o
co Y
•'?-
LL
C °
a) my=c
v)
L m
L c
my=
U) L m ? =c
to v L m m =c
)n v L t0
p

a)M?L a
-.
C O .C2
a) oN 0- 10 Icl
m
0-
O)o mL O C yL p
,
L
w N
L
m •O C
..?.}w'>3 U" cU?x' :E O-C
o
U
.
-.
-0O a)?
U
O v(o
+L. U
O 0
LF, U
p a)(O
M N ° N m N
v v
= ?- a) ? C C
= STf
T 75 c 3 a m a) m
m 27 a)
'
c ?
C . i3 C y} Q
5 C O ,vf c- Q) U)
0 w. O v g
C
o
L E° L' @
"° ?` y C o G 0
`` `+° "` .L
+ C O .L.. a)
w
` O G a)
E J
a)
t- a
cr
m mo v o
acv 0-
M"o
cu 70 tom
}
.
v c c 0 v_r
L-.
o
`? o m
L t
i)
.
p c Ey 0) o u
?Y cu Ley v
v o
00-9 -
v o
002 -
c
u o v
U v a =
_o
U v o
zr

* CO
T
O 'p = =
=?U
T u) a> O v
0 v
m
C CT
O
m a
? cnE
E v
a c= i v v
°yv- me
N O = >>: ,C
_
O Z-
c c
)
o m p c

? O
U
pp m C
o
U
o
cu c
) c o
c C
O
c c
oc-cuo
O
_
S
p )u o )
C to
} to C
G
m
m L N L
2 4) U 'O U E L .
o
(?
o l Q
.0 m 'S L m
Ul ,
-0 m
C ' ,_
.o c6 .
m :R U
m
'
3
= T
v cr) c 0 E.0 0 p
o
U)_c -0
c
v-0 (1) c
m `K7 C= p, w
E 5 E
_ c
U a) V) = F- `
o• m m f2 o a)
0
?
' p
c X '
vv N X C (n
o
v
a
v a) X c

U
-a o U)
a
)
p
o
-
o =
m -0
?' = TE
m _
in vL v v
- m °-)`u v v m
0 ov 3 0
m c N a)
m o
-mo o a
a) o> ,
0
°'ai ° c c v o n
vv
a
" _
.
°-0 ? a a
>c U0
_
a
o v a
°
>c(30 ._
u
a
°•o 2 a
>
U0 _ a)
o
a
0?? a
>
U0
8
t 0)c r° 0
m
co 4-
C my
to a0) c u) o ro u
m u)
ti c? a`) (n a° N
'0 a) .o a
c
n=
v
fa m? °? as p c) °)©?
C
CD Q?

u) Qm

)n c
Q m ?
U C
mh
o
Q
pp C a
- C w m
F- CS N
cl)
.- -c7
C E- - a) Q
(- T O 0 Q)
0 a3 .L-. 0
a) m OZ)
F C

)n
e=
oo m v o)
O L >
m = C C ? m a) N
`
ap o
U
O>
t
N
rn o
c.9
t N °
0
p o )n
o
O U
°

W ;O .C N 'c
N L -c a)
(Zyj
C v
U L" ?C v E2 .O m
q
)
Z -C 2 O L = m om E t
n
Z a) U
Z 0 a) t- tl}
>
Z O a) 7 U
>
Z O
a) 'O d O E ?
7
C m
=3 E a) {
p ° `3: `3: C 8 _i 2 .-. L a) V) p " a) i ,O a)
? 'mod" a) -0 Z5 T G .O 0) UJ L .O 0) o
'g a) .O QI
to m O L E
O° T to O
U C C 0 E a
u v p O o a) ° N O v N= c...
N o
Z) p 0 '
` 0 U m L L7 a) U "O m O.L..
O ,_ 0 v "..' .m m 0 L L L C g L C a)
o 'E E .a) _
O «. E a) L •C v
Q w O n N
(? ..-? O
C Of L N U U N N CL U U) Q N
U (6 E in io T. U m : v) L E G U m O U 'g o U y _0 } (> y C y () 3 L
M
O tlQ
O
O
co
O
co
p M
O M
O M
O M
C7 ?
v
m

.o
p

° _ C L
C m N i

o C
C fn 2 C L
C (n .N 2 C L
C cn (n U C
(5
fn N i
=3 m
m L
°
?amU o a) m L
2CLmU O a) o• L
2i amU O a) m L
3; 0- m0 O
a) N L
?am0
T 25 Y
m >
m m
c Q
>
C
0

CO

a-
0
U)

n
c
Y
m _ ')
O) O) a
? r N N
r? N

m c) a -p

C
c

C

c 4
c
d
N q'
N ,{
N d
4 d
N R,
N ¢tt5 ca t4 C? ';,

V! N N N
, v ;i C
f
O Z O O O o vvyy
C7 O ,)
O L a) t r}

p p C
a)
Q) C
67 C
C _?. m
C T3 U cll?

EE U
E
E
E _
?r
u U o
E P)
E p
C) E
8 E
8 p O 2
p C rll cU 2 O _

? U ?
U
U c? N m?
O O O p O O O 4 M O o vi ru ?'
ups rOra tOn vOi spn 0 W N ?? o
m O m c m c

c
a
c
o
C
p
C
p
c
c
c
c n
ru
c °?oa, a s

co C
l C
l C
l a
co ti
p c°).
u) DL
to O. ? as
W N to
u
W N N )
c ?ry
u
4)
? m a) d ai p 4
7 r
U
?
'ter
v
a
U) U)? C7
U) U) U)? U) p
U) pp
Ct) p
im
3
0 a
wp
?
U) a) O .O C 'vJ o
p 4 m O
°
p N
2
:3 m m 'S
cu >i U 'a o `i •a m a)
U
m `"r ta_5 C .c >
(D m >au°i9 o
0a)
c
p
mm
°
a) ts3 n om20cm -oc cc5u)S p pCmczos
o c
cC? 5^
t) N u) a) c
N .Lp. Cp?T o 0 > a E 'O -o •a c
m p 0 'S
c m 0
w 0'
o c
(D 4
:O w- -?

t3
6 a) .O ay
O ?' '?t p
O fY c
p
° m2
*L-' at
3 p
' m
o W <1• _ rn a3
0 O

_
c
C7
o

cu °

¢??

c N-
Cn
_ C a)
0
c
° as -°cl=°>

(f) o

2
Q3 C

is
c

LO -E
0a

N U > .C
O .L) p '?
N O
p .° q)
N O
N OS 'L7 a) - '?+ fa Cl - N •*_'S
'
N -
'c O
0 L Q) '? a) a•
6
p
0)
N
3 C
l
E CL
° ° i ?
)
-3
0 O a) a
o 8 m> n m ? 2 ?
E o ? C
c
)
a (D m e

C a) t0
O 0 p O p
c ?y o r- N a) C a) C aY
`° 2] ° N
0 p u)
`
)
L
U) U 'a °
f9 to > °- >•
C
°? m L
a? mo,cy A
0
r o N
07
?zF aa
' a) .
..
C
moaU)
' o ao??i pc

a) C

.C] c
o m O
tm)y d> c _
(n c
a) a) .a
O U
C
= o p m- a
o> 0

M
.
> U p

O-o a} C}?
c o5 a- c
° -co o .a m
O u) C
O
c p
o o ..?
a, n
0
? in 0
> m
_ O °
=
• E .Lp.. 0 Lp,
?
• Z7 lL o o ° C .? .
?
i
3:
°c) Q
1
ftl m api N
o ?
m
p

.0

)
O '
V

E -5 qq
??
U

m
'D
N

a)
O N (n 0 N
E :3
??

A -C

.a a c, ? CU

M ,

N if
a m C1 >i a,
O c 0 c o 0 M
.:.=L„ cp o a)
U'?L„ O
r> N t? `- u7 a) C
C? Q) N p? >,E O 43
C O C
p"-Lp
`-°
?
w
c (p m U O
o
OU) a,
U L .0 N 'a c o (D
p co '0 c o
a) m a, p
O C 0-- E 0 r C y
U m p 0 E m 'a
N ,
'CS a) w- co
p c o o u) p
p C .
?, C, 'Q
a)
)
p p E U Cl

'C? a)

a'
p
°
°°)a8
°o
o`roo
a°)4 u)
m2?o??o-as
cu
omQ?
:3
a) ,
a)mu)??
o?c
m
C >
u) M 'y' X C C > X `? CG
0 - ° C 0) = U a)
m > y 2 CL tY 'a m m .u > O
N° M
u) ca
v a :°
to 10 ?o

-
f?0

n U 0) N c N o 0 'a
L

a C O
:
-a -

Q
'

Q p a
°

a>Y
Q
N u)

O. N a) 0)

F C N C a) u)

?- C., Q N C m

1- U N O

F- C1 .) 'a m
N p C > t
;-
N p m p 0 u) co
_
o
N p u)
m- O C
C)
N o
C1 0 Cl
O L '
M ` 'a -
U p to
L
-
.
W z L •> W o g z o v z a. z o m m a) `-° °3 = z o i s z a. 0 ?"
z s
N
z 3
g?c? c:-o wNc ga w?5E L`?LO°
2O gv'ico go L
WUnc?p W
Oo -14 a)
OUCN O, O
' 0a)?o 0a) Oo a) 6 paEio
°n?? ??? doom
" gc 2' Eac)o g
m
U> U
cx a U? n> U? n U> -
r_
U E o.d m m co L)- n a
Uw
n> U> Um n 3 ° U
. ai
O d O O O 4 d O O O
O cl) N co N N co
? ? C7 p

C (n .? U

O m 0 'a
O

'a C _
C fN V

0 (0 Q C _
C N .? U

"
0 m C _
C .? U

O m O C
m fA i
C p.
C M L
`
N
M o L
C p

O a) a) L

?amc)
a)

co O
O () m r-

?FL mC) C
.l >
O 0 Mr
co . 0
o a) m L

?am? O m o_ 0
o m m L

!5 o.mc? 0
m O. 0
o a) m r
??mc O m o. 0

a) L
O m
?n mc)

n

`+-

a)
ca
-p
N ' cn
p
N a)
.0
m
N
a)
a)

•
a)

p
a N
U mm p O
2 O
W N
J N a)
p m
U07
C o t
C u) u) U U U U

L
L
7
C
7
c
°
N
0

0

0

C 8

0

N N N N Lo co
N
N co
N
N
co

C7
N
O
Z Z z O
Z
E E
E
8 E
8 E
8 E
8
G7 O
O
p
0 C C
p m
C.

E O
fl.
00
} O
SZ
N
O. 0
£3.
0
(D
co 0 ?

m

tl)
U)
N
U) U)
T3 to
C co
p> O O 23 C)

G N d -0 -

v0) m m

0-0 w .m .O

a) o L
.OG.x' a) in
.a Emv?Emm0m ca0E m ¢`?am mr m ..
m~D ° a)-0'0
0
.0 m c?a m 00 a) is f C: n
`m '0 07 'It 3 Z w L 0 c°u a) a) 8 a -o
N U L L -' ai oL t° o
0 .?- 'K7 C ? > so p
O a) ? O m w = O
:g C N o p$ 1C
m
ca?a as' a)
0
ID Y -°
0 > C) o 3 m
a) 0
U N
° =O
O a) ? 0 v c a)
D 0 t° C .p 0
vii = C 0 C E
o » OU
C
v
0)
.Q C 0 ? c = m .a
m a) CTy a) CS. a-0 ,
a) qy 0- 49 't
t
>y
0 ., p
E U =
>. Z m p_ t6 .CZ
p z7 70 Qt 10 °C 10 0
c Z 0 c a) o O +? m a) C5 = `, di m
d .mac > L -
nm
.C ,F, a) N N= "O
::3
0
-
R
O 9 G
E TJ O 'a p C o `? 7r

C c
C .C N TC) _? U C
0)
' C a N C C
C >i
O 8 0 m m 0
_q a W C p 0- RCS
- CL Zy N o
? L
0 C 2 O 'a L0 K
`' =
>
O
O '6
03 m 0 O C? _S O '0 CL
>
°- ?
L
i U N .G r 0)
'
C t=
C 0
Y X
? 'a 'C C X
a)
`>
r-- ...
6 CO U
t
IL c 0 S1
3
a
ur 0
N C
m - «. p *y m v) a)
ar
$ 0-10 o
L a)cc
> =>
a 0)
O G'o 0- ...°o ,y M C=
0=
Z O 3 R
S
a?
ro m p C c
O m a
m-C
0)
in L C .....OO
E a)
C
70
?o
d -0 O •w F c

(n
.?- ? ca 0 H p w
O P a
E C`7 m m 0
E>
p o U a) '[1 O? R)
=>
mt!)oc O
n C O C c 0- -a
ccn 010=3 -a N -
T N a) 0 oo c
ho c
C 0 L>? -p = L
U
03m c 0)
?
mL
ty
0 O) a) 0 0) a) 0
CZ.
M a
0 .c a)
m y C Cfl C m _? - .0
a)
0 c C py _'
o
CO to m m d =
m iU vj S'
a
L m N O 'w -,C LL
y' > Z Of N 0 `?° C
>, ?Y' .a N CUD) O)
m ca
'd V
M 4)
S aS
( 'C) iC4 p
,.m, Y U .2 ? O C_ s a)
a) .
m = :C' C > C
O m .?
a) m a)
m R{ w m o m -
L O° >
o N c 2) U-) an d
O +? 0)
M C
O .
O =
C "a aa)) c Z m 0 a7 p
m E
2 s 1 O L
t=
O
?
0 v
'
,
=
0 Q)
C O
O
m
.O
> a N ? d - L
o
OL-+
SmG 0) t7 _
v
)
p
" )
O
C
C
U
N 5- L
L t..a a)
N
.L.,
Y t7 0 C C
M rry
0 'a 8 m
£L.
a
O a) 0
E .
:G v- C m T3 E n
p
.
.C
p Q) >+ U w y N 0 m
0
omOw?
,3ao'a
c a a)
?
1 om Nc)
3" x'o 'a
a) 0 mw
C: a) >c ?'cQ
) 0m o 3
0
0 - YSp
O
0
d m
m
i p 0) 0 L G) a) r- C o t N
m
N 'C ' 15 O
?
U
O
L a) m -C _
b
a) U? Q N
a) 0.
-C
0 41 "7' 0) E C N
Z
"
- C
t=
v) ._ c-,C U L
-
C° 0 M.-
O
C)) = N d m
`x
> ? -O tT 0
m m m Vi L
0 0 E
- a) t0 ..Q O -
a)
L
F- C CL O p w ,.. •i
c
0
m a) a p
et a °
6 O d
N m o CO m CL ?x a)
m
23
01 Q

m Q d m-L >

C m O m
y L a) 2a c m>

m c L H O C
a)
'n C a) to
V= N a .- a) C
.
IF-- O C O L L
O
N 0
M In O Q0a}} `s p)
L t?
H -.
t o O m t a) - CD
~
m th O>? U m
m M Z O tL c m- p C
m E
Z.
C 3 ,.,. N .?-
N
m Om O
W
a) Z U C
'
W Tmmo) N

W C O 0 >,.
a
W aa)u)o Q) ~ (9 C Y

w0 mpo C) Lm
I- t= o
zC_cm j5 m
-C
ac)0-0 ?d)m~ ` m
)-O
M ? nmS?
0E ?>1 LL
?
`
E
m
g
cmwco
EC
=
O 2 2 m m m c
m o
d.
O
a °
E - O 2
O ac 0 O
c x
a
)
rn
°
O a) o o a aa))N
_
a? 0 o
)
t
U n acaU m U E
F
U tY_ c? U m
U m N m 'v,
U c) alc m 0 0= F
U a?w M 3 c c`oIDw
co
O
00
0
M
Q M
O M
O
0
m
d
>
N
0 N
0

C m
= N
°7
C
m
m
U

Q Q
?
?
C Ur
U
co Cl) co M

c
co
U
r r 2
z 6 O
z

E c
E c
E c
E
ro
8 E
8 E
8 8 8 8 8
s o o 2 s

O

O

c CD

C
v
C a)

C
a>
a
W
CL 7
Q O
a. O
o. O
a,
cn O
a.

n
a
i
a) a> CO
CO
ro
4
O
(D
N© aso
t

c O

N
m 0O
O

O ??

-01
O
E E C UI
(D >
p
p M
CD a)
to a? O
rt 3 U- C
i. CA 4:; C p
O U) 6 C
O
01 O S m ? 0)
y M a) ?
c '
O `
O E>
N
GM1Ol. aY O cll O O
q7 a)
C
a. N tS!'i v S,
E
y¢ O c ?N O .c .Ll
a>
= m
.`U ? a) "6

C) C c o? o° a c?
0
o 0 3 m
> a
41
>A
o
3 n,?
-

zs
° > cu
°a) a>
3
o :t
- 0 c
O o CO 'C c
o 'a ? m N m 0) ro
c x o c Q o
E = o ,o o»
> o or °> a) 0
a)
V)rocam>nr- °

a E > s m m

a)
N m ?m ao• `°

O %`+ C oomcnmE3w

m w C
W
=

CL
'Om
52
° O
O
= C 'a
m a n -a Y
/7
a) p
O
} .
3:
O q1
O 43 m° O

E= °-°?E?a `°
t- N.

a-0 CU
Z, y
m O
3v a`)iac
a) -0 N Q5 U

?Mm us.acco

m c 0
M-
aC:
c 3 ccn ? o
76
E i
"" ' O
a)
a> a? c
m
2
C -0 c
C
co o oam o a0 m
?
c
'
0)
a) E Q)
O
-p
N
r
n cj, a)
'6 . °
oc`i- mmc'0EJ' m
u
i
oacna) o ?' h `° c
-
? > mcn °
O,
m C .'?...
aC: -6=a)? O C
6
>
?aas
3 y E- } nm c
V) 07 O 'C Cn o-
? `-" ay c
c6 .c cU v m a) a) E
.C N a O N o a f co co.ap
in O 3 O O
' N
O m
Z3 ?c ' N .c
'
-' ?, to ''°
•-.., +
ro3°croomO
°m a3 >
muimo 0-0- m ._.
ro?ro>c C c p IZ
c 0 0
mo
=ca?'`c a
° ?lJ O
E m 'CS
m°WEo
n
aS--O° o?? a. 'o- m a3
b1 p N 7, •- C 3 = E
07 a? m v E
.
a) c CL a.
'c7 u! E C
E °
`° ? a? a? uoi
E} d
- ° 3 ns h
N
.?,
m= CO c E c 0 ay : o

- o c O = ° m .-
-c q .-
c O-
h .- cs? ° N ,
c? ro- w

<C S

a)
E T
m= m e° n o a>
roa o a a? :3

>
p

n c n i >

a)

Q a,NM ° m-°? m

cn a) a>
m n'? 5 a)
Ln
°'
'
0 o? n.c N
0
< fnm m 0-r
E
m o
Q ro
Q E?= o
w ro o cr
c9 E N: :2 ' Va cn O E
LL
5 o
M .a m CA 0 R5
M U
7 u> c m
M Y m gyp. c
= O _
a
cq Q CL - 60 °
>
u)
O N
M
00 ° 0 Cl
c
.-2 .,,.,.
c U) a
(- C aS
-0
w.c3c°aicoanioc .
Z moN
ui M, c a)
z?m°?m
O _
, .c
zm30~n=n z z=Emm
oo m to v ~ ? 'in }
a a c to c ?'- '- a) o
> 3 mm
71
M QS c?
,E te a
ro m tll Q U O
OE
? W W E ?' c

pro= oo= n?
ro n? a c m c osn cn
?oEa
O as O m o
o c
`?a33cw
O m° o °' °Y c
:-
m
?c?mn?vy
U a
m o
m a
?n
U
v>?roa
O m v °o
°
Uacaaoama = w N
Un?c °
U>roaa n c
°
Uf?_?°waa m
tJ? ?
0
co
Q
CC)

°
00

0

0

co
Cl) M
O M
O M
? M
O
n N N N N
c c L
° O
° O
p
E
p F-

c ?
E T
E
(D
z a)
z
z
z
co co co MC`) Cl)
C) L)
-O
c .c c? q
? ?=
m
N ?
CV i? s, iu
c N
Q
CNN
z z z° t 0 CU z
c
E E 3 o a
E
U .c•o a° E

°
8
v
4)

° 9
O
d
m
p
O
c

?
N
O

c
4)
N
C
?,
,p
27 c -
N
..
c

a)

)

O

p
w

O 4)

Q a)
ro a°r y c
E E
0

U @ a)
in N
rn a)
cis :
m '
0 '
d
2 N
5)
-8 CO

_
c
a) `)
N
' o' o

O a7 O „? U
.D
w api -v m co o >a)
d
5
0 v+ c
zs

u p Oa

'C7
u? c

O)
c O = 2q

O B E
X N m a) m
f
m
I p
a)
a) N '? C
R
M D > .? [2 m
p
d C
d a) c
O N a) ?
(1) ° .G
U?
O
U- ()
)
'd
a
c p J m + p m 'd - N
CA N ca O C >
c 0)d N p O- O
E2 C O U N
O CL O N "O N
O U O S5 .?
N E 0) v) U) c
Q1 :3 c
:s °j to c
°
C N J = E-p
O E 'O U O =
() c „O O m m? O) N '} m E
c-
a) '
C O 'E N S) U
N M
0 -C' O
'C N
O ?•. q `
d S m
wa) a) C
m E o m V -0 E
m t)
c

O
t3 m m O C C
a ti., ) c m ro a) a)
t5. p
O U c
.
0
3 - to a) 7, w to .
O = m O O m -o a) > 'y
a)
a) x -q 7
" m e c c ' a) CL
t? Q. O.
E n a) C
d. s m
? p »
-
a)
c
:F; O° aY 1 °' ID
U tai) -0 V)
o x ' m a)
"It
m
O O QS 2 a)
> E D a) [2 °
? p
+ tq try
C3
O N N G. m
Z v O o p m •-• m
E m L7) i 6
E N .C a) a) m Crol'a u
)
.D C n) q) ?
° c 0 `
z ai c ° a)
0) n :
0) -d ° ro" v?.cr'U o q > ¢? `1) UC
_
E o

O
E a) E a) o E

0
0 ?'-•` ° p q m
FF C C:
'C C ° p Q) N
o
M 3:
b q- ii c a) a) 0. 0 0 w C .?- cO m O.
3
a)
° ? ° `* "m(7
C
' c
p ° :is
co .
? O Off-
a N N E } m _N
<
0
ca) a5
ca -0 E °
m
I) D? 0)itoo)
oC:ireW?°
0) a)m
m
p l c E.° ° t4 a) °) > m m 0-c >
' >
c
§
a) 0 ? a) >
o ro
° c'v c
m
E q to ?>
-Em
d
y co ° Emma)
°cijO
°
(3U aa'im" 275 °
ca:)
o?
E S?°°roma)
maa))?$ D?c
oo
0 0 a) -
'
°
4 ma)?m
w ° mo°n
u)-c c Q casa)mc
ay 0 C? ° ? Eav??pa)a)
Vi m=
c
o
S,
c'dC3> o
a)
O U J
p 3o h
c
a
i E o a)
c' C O O m m
.
ua)
a)ia3?m
-.
c O a) m
E O °
Ez a)
v) cm
d L O m
m
°

L m

T})
G Zc
p

'O C CD
E m > °
ca
u)
v
.q •U Q) .""i a) m T3 O
°
-Q 0 ° .?
p
.C
?
O
-q m a)

:F;
Qi}
o° ,q
i.Y a)

a) ,.- U.- U

15 E E .d
(D o
U '0 O' ?w
?
Y_ N '> 'L3
c p '
U
.
N
.c
E CO O a 0
V) LL
_
U d
m .
o
r
n
f7
'
m
SS p c m - t a) O c
<
O
?
) O
U
c c U m E O

C: C: m
a7 w m m
- O cca
-c) p .O O
X
'O
d p C
O
ro Q1 u
N Z.)
) a)
y c. 41 ?
° N° a
O U) C
N
'z7
a) c 'a 'D Q a) c L' c- ., O
c
'
° O M O c
U w- O
N
E m
c Q)
( p 'aj a) >,
2) m
L E a)
.? c m 7, N
m .c
O
Q)
0)
O.
d-
aa)miaro
U >
C D N 'S
oa) a)
.C
q C
' m
'? ro "
6 a) 0 m d M '
Q j, _?
to ai3s op?mm
O
E m a)
m C
N
X O
C
'O C
-p N
vX c
U
N p S
U
a) a3 O 12
w
.C O
Z,r_ccua) p
'D n=
O..Q C,.}
Q ? m ? c N
J .
L
-°i iv m° o? c O O L
'S
? ?? 3 ? 0)o ? m mia c ? a)
O_
> ? 0 o > a) .0
c ?
H °.?cm, o a)
W 'err ?O pp tri
)
o E w?
> Q? Q'S_
} d d au)i o roc c p m5 - :1 E
o
c ?( camp
Z
U _m c o
a
-
c umi 4y o'er
m '? m °
p a) c E
0 2
>
m +
d Dmm
•_ L m D
O
.
E- O C 0'r "'.
O° pE
a C N m
m (
N O Q c p U(n a a. c -ac) U
O a)
~ c M
Ul
' O O
tn
0 m
ee
t?
°
rt
N

> "'" c
O
ro
C
M
.
3
a) t3 Q .c 7
m Q1 O
12 °
z
a) 0 c U
tU m uJ
- :t
c Q7 .-
w O .« ~ J d m c) (D
a) _
=)
z W' 2 U C:p 0 a) W o p O Y .? O? ° H p U
`z O H
O
W O O, c
H
-
z to c N C O
H
W n Z6 C
tmt) ° U
+??,
J
LI; L N U E
L
L •o N m a) d) m (a ac)
L;
a
O
°
2 C •C
2 .C 'D O
T
?L Y U N
2 C) 750
°
'
O C N?
U M
m 0 0? N
c n
i
i -c
E m C 9 .
) E- (n O- m_ '
0 U
E
?qz
%
°
m O
-0 L c C fl
0 m o D 12 a U U
O O c
6
0
0
Z X)
i > c o 3v
iy?
3 a U 3 Q S X
.3 O N
Zn
° V w ac
a m ? a ? nv
?0
00
°
` co
° mO 0

2 0

2
°O
t°
o r
O m 00 m
o C7
c,
°
m°
c E
-C -FD
YQ m w L
c u)- m c
c n? c
E
m 0'S= O? o 2 m
GdmC) o aa)i mL
'5dmU D
Q

a
- c croa o
'

s

d

) s
U

m
N
93

E
c
2

E

m

m
m o
m -
3 -
3 c

ri
a
a
a c°
m
v co to
Q
r-
C
ro
Q ? d
¢ ¢
a N c
v c7
Z Z Z N
(D

E

E

E a)

E
c
E

E
c°i t°} 8 8 c°s 8
0 o p ° o 0

o a>
c
c (D
c
c
N
u°i a
v°i ro
N °
N
a a
Q) ? p
?,r ?
? N
a
in in sn ) (n n

a) a

Z5 a
(D C: a)

a

N o
E 2
0°. m L 10 cu
- c O >, 0 -
0 4) a)
CD O
C
_ r N

c c (5 w-
p
O a N

a ° m (? m -Cu N U) s

3z?
a _
w N 3 Cr. i is
E° a U ? a) M O a

a'
° _
a F- N O? E
O
O 0)
y`+ O °U, m Cl. N N
'
m
? °
a.
?aprn
>tsa ap
aQ
m°Z>a4 Uaa'
pr
E
° C yr
as
-xwro U T?
cm
m ma?c_r
T
° C aj
-a0
om?Cm?
a OmOL:s?
Ur
°)
a O Oma?a n=
a mE
m
?
E
sm _
m mN T
E
E?cC
p a
, m m ac mu)
Eva
s
-C ?5
°) aw??a >a
N m 'O O p
NO>N»
ma
O N a m C m T
N
O
O
O m
O
C
O U a s C O
N
m N a3 'O_ a C
(D a)
° °) a m07 N U) K«
'
.G
N Cj U a O N 0)0) V)
a, :a O,- c •p
12
O
m
=
m
O m
E .O E
J -I a
0-0 'C1
C a aC O ,
.-• E ._.+ N m >
'O ..
.
N a
L U C p O O m
(6
=
L
O
m C Z m O
X C .Q M ..1 m a
a s .
-r- T
N a
O E -OY E c
E
m
- =
.
T= C7I C a
° E
w V
O w E
3
T
m° d
O C m
U -
.
a O T
co O
m C C a m a 0 O a
"'N
N O c a to m -.S ? N O
T m
a '_
=
?
a
m =a
_ 0 _
O
O. m O. ro m J m=
E C
- `` 25
,. a >
N ?,
m a, fl. a a)
N O a a) = O m
a) T M 'C as to
to < m
E a
-
L= !n "? p a
a)
-.
.C p O
a °
{? w O. Q. =
m U M
U a M O «
O) O ?O ? N
= 'It Q
a C N Cb .?- U- 0) ?O 'S
C a
6 N m a
O N
N mot, C m O) a a _ a .C O
? p C
3 C
T3 a
M
> Q
-C a L O LT) ?- a
O
to = N C
N
3 O
Dy m 0> O

> .O m p
° C
E C
"SG m

a U _
S N a 60-
a m
O C 'S fl.
> a
0=
?- C'= O' M a o
O> p - w a T
C
w
N m

C>cu
27 w- ?} t"
.C C
Cl.
COEa? .O
m a
O
O O a
E E cE
?
O'
' C: 5 L Lam" m
C .0 L
a
? O m
m C 'O
N
->0C
M
¢ a)
L
o m
C N E "O O .X Cl
_
urn mC?
a `
"

m a)
" C qq?? O 2 >
O
CL 0) Q c U U a> 'O
- O
E (m pp
O ,M.. U C O_ 4? O O
O CD 0 C O p>y 0 N m
O O)'V) O 0 m
' a C O O ,
y> O M E 0
°
- O
? w U' O
>vc
'O m E O' N M
0 O) C
C Ea>c O
N w O m a U m .C
0O)N p v
C O T +-' >> - >- O?
N' ma oo
= L U) U) °) O O
S p a m
pp a
_? L= a co m N= U a >, O ° ar
ao -E Z w
m L m `? CL
n? c

v C a a? c 0
N
0 a Et-- J ca'r?u? o N
y m a a =-E
c-QZ? -° a
°= ? C a caa
E S 0,2 ar C: -I-- c
°
CO m a
?' cc o ao N a) a) c
° m o vain o v a°? N
= w° m 6? p ro m
ro ?
¢ a) a '= .O = - 1 a) a La a
-(n
a- E
_ _- p Cf Cm O
U> O 0? N U) ?_ CL 12 .a
O) a
t- p O O C "= T °7 = = m -C G CO ? °?
' 3 a? 0 0 O
N N Q C m - > C
O
c
E ? U°
N
?
U N
a)
N „
_,
O .O a M
0 En 0
=N N O
taG = T a s
-0 O a .0
¢ m LL U ? C U= T o 0
Q •O r° c p a) O
- O o p J- ._ ._
'? Y a U a N m
, M
c
c
- C
- O a O E a +'
¢? O O H N ¢ N O m ',.....
c
V N
v m
?-
L E .
co
v c4 °°-aT
F. CL CA Val Q
> U
??omo =
N C O
CO00) ...a 5,ac
'C c O T ?O 3: w

m
rn-o)aap
?
0.0)0 ,
aM °Cwu(iCo 0=)
in 0- ?O a O-0 a) O a N CO
O
c
c
O I- N
Y
w ,
a m°
Z >. 12, CA
= C C- 3. N a ?- Oc

Z" • a T m 3

m cmc
F-3
O=
Z N 01 ..-. 3: co F-a w
.'CS- Q a E
a O C p) N r
E- C K ?S N m a o =
Z O O _ N L a a
-
CA -
Y m~} w p¢ i s 0- N
N V) N „a S' :3 w v > ( C?pp w L)
-C G5 N w _O N_ C p O) c
Oc
m W C m c N a o
O
U N 2 ? = w O` O) m
.? ° m y_ C ?
? ~ N ?
-0
(D
0
C
3 (D a) E OL C 0)
V C: c
r fl .G
°
° -- "
6 N N X N
E
C: C
Q Co m
CL :3
O
0
° 2
0
a
N
0 u
i c ?
>
N w M c
w U
C) N O
m N> s 'S Q C i N
Q L
/_) (C6
00
° 00
o co 00
0 w
0

O
O
O
? M
0
N
N
=
E O O
Z5 ¢ a ¢
¢ U) tlj ?0 Q-i0
E m

E _ a a

in
d c
U C
a
C?

O
C
m
.C
m m
U
C
U
C
m
?
w
w
a) CD

U)
(0 fl- co 0)
O
.
o
?4;n
N c
r m
s m a tU O
E- Qw° c
N 'aQ7 c? tt}
Z O a) a C
t] N N z
a) 8
= 2
.--
E
=
'0 E E E

O N N vY ?? a) 0 "O p p
a0o
U) V r- ° _
of
'O
M
m
C: c C: c
0
0
¢) co > 0 ° (n a=i uu)
a)ca N E N
0) p C) c p c) `o 0 O N N
U) C N F c (7 rn (? U) U)
a)
-0 c
66 > Om t3

m

s c

0) m0
'

0
m Os 3?
m
' -
4)
?O(D
a
00

.C (>y E c CL E2 m a3 N O
Eni a)
j1
CL
o
0

U

E 0

m c E

a)' cc Ca)

a)
c U ca 0
to im >

p
>zs
C m m a) w

v)
a. vI-
a)
n

-0 p "O N ? ? ?0

0 O
co?
p?p)m
o

N Q E
p
t
:
m
a) 0 7 a) a = o = a
o o -
- >, >: a
.- c:
m
O c os-?
C m
m co Q0 02
U m
a)s m 3
.0 3: a) v
F 8u?Q p? a)- p
0 u) : a) cu to a) jc a) ci
O C co m
a r
?
.
C)..
0 ell O
p Es g; m10
c2) O U 0) R) C 2:1 >1 m o a`)

c )
N V
>,m m a)
'C C a) q
a)
co
3: L, i .-..O
c 3
m a p .t.3 N 'U > N ?
=. C: =i c 0 OF
m W 3: o o p
-
2 -t= s
45 :L) a)
O
w •- L 0 0 cu a) C O CL N
d
cu
L
0 = m >
°
a to a)=
a)
Q
Q N ?) O m° c. So
"O
=
o
M
1 o .n fY4 a)
m C-
V) p
O E to
N m a to C U a 0)
t3' = o 'U _ ° Lam' G
N ° N cU
a' t43 •Q •? (D U >
, O '0
43 = C C - E m
C
a) U) = > Q .
t
6 0 pp
a)
U 0) c . U L5
tU f a
o
?._ Q m E ay q`y O to
o.o E C E ._ 'O a p N '
w a) m a ° UU 17 = N N v T) C =_
.D a) 41 m
O O
CO O = C m 0
U a) >, •c 0 0 CX) U a)
O
m .
-0-0 N.U.• C= O) N
m m U a pp C
= a) M N m ` Q -' •a r- a) V) a)
o
E
- C W 'O 0 O
c _
C (U O C
c
m°c ? a) ._+ . L E-
3
? 0
p
N N C?? a) m w6 Q) Y
m N s C d a) U 'O C
om'
) o-
N a)=
u)
L
°
a o o
(0
c a) s m N
0 O 0
>
"
- ' s ue,

? c°s
m 3 m

O
23 t .

0)
m N o m
[) Y
d W ',_ E
=poi

0
o 0 w Q ,< E toy
m o cu 'S

S` N C o v) vi >
° O N
a

>
m 3
E v o
c
m
N m
U
S
q 0
n
m
'0
a
co
a
mm
E q
w
?ccu .
m
E°5O? o v-
0?maa)-0 E
, u
m00 -0o0 .
Q)
m
s
2
mig
'
`'n
n
2Um.pwN
v_)
O a) - CD U N° U C

ma`)
C). N

3E
N p ?'

.
c3 ui .
a) •0 N E O

?u)GOm
cu -o N m
N C1 o

v)pUx>?Op a
a3
'd m
U °
3t

49
W e i
s c
-->
O •?
a m
G 4? 4 cc '
a'
O CL N
U .-? . _ '.' E m= C Y om-
U N E - N
41
_
° N m
O 4) •r O O •- '
V a_ o O O)
?0
O
0 .
W O d o O N 0 s?
N
O
x
a - I 'S m ?'O 0) _O
m ? tan '0 sue- s .?
) C C .
S
O
'0 '0 = N m > C O •c
o .
.
C +C 0 C7
o
E5 75
a) E N O p '
-d 'n C _ W a) o) +0) O N
- ,? C
N m m ?0 21
Q- N U o -'
C
'E N -1 _ a O m m N
j a) 0 CO
a) m 0 0 0 u)
> m E O p N N W C
O C
m en w
N Q)
ame
U U ?+ a)
co a) E t) C U
O 0
=
'
>
> to 45
a d >s `+-
p X 'U = O
c-- Z
N 3 .tn.. y' 0 p a-
?
N U CO N N 9} 3: 2Z
ul .Et
c
=
O C
o
s ',..
a Of a) >,z E
s
U
m ro m L
a)
_ _
3
>
O
~ L) > m L p
? a
ca cu E -
Q (0 _a A
O co
-F, ca cu
4- ,G
.
a)
E .p
>a) iv cv 0)
> a) a) E 0 .0 a) »- O
i"' a) L O U
a)
° E a©
0 t
n O
Q to Mt m m oZ a a N
d C O
v) .
Q ° 3 >, O° U N M
Qs ='v'>o L-. Q• U
GO (n cE2 s a) C Q) L C L
a) ? E
V 0).°• Ea) m d3 0 0)
i o
n m m N _ ? C .;n U "CS
m
0
o
a
~u °
? N
F U N Q to N
s O O N N
to
W a)
a) N O a) "?- >
"
Q m
It a) C ? O 3 a) _ .O
v m
O)
? °
? t
)n > '0
r _
v C rn
o
c
c
?
v'
°a
Z- m a m a m= S o m
W m
m
?
?
z m

o
W -o
!-ci
Z m
W
' ?'
c v) m
Z c=
Wmmm ?
Q
Z a) .; a)
W E ?t
i a
m
a
Z o E m w° .c E o N
a) v '
ai
i- ai
Z m p ca
E '3 p m
m
oms
p
mpv
oN(3)G)ais0a)_-0 C
'c
=
`
> .

? -
a

_
zo

u (0
° m

g°oE o

g tn
W (1)w
2cl))cNacuivioaccu
N

3m
(D a)

gp >3 a c

o?
?
cw
vY>?oU
-
c
m
UiL
°
t
?°3?°o o
V? OO
0o
= N
0E °ct
E ?ww mo
V
?? m?
2co?anam0
co
U
x ai
?2a)
m
V
c
etw
w
u
i Nc
o c
o o
u))N ?a
i333
? u
io3 3w3>
co
0 0
o 0
Q 0
o
cl) d O cl)
O M
O

ai
um)
ai m
u)

m
iv
`
p
m

m I
c
a tp U
U U W co
cr,

>
> m
3 a
m
s m
s s
p m
U U) U)
t() uNj LO LO
E c v -0O n C ?O O 3: C o
o m ro o
C
t
C1
`
Q)
•C
'LJ O
(
?
_ .,
_-.
C
o w U ?
'} (5
n Z3 0 :3 Q) (D c
?-+ °° O m .C "a (D C O E
Q? y n} m m
Z3
C) Q).a a) N° Z Q7 C O O. w ' O O a CD O C a) 0
h
E
Z 4) .O w O tD Q t5)
O m m
Nrn N E
U N_ O T "- C N
a)
U
°
44

N
so to
- ?i o
a)
N. O N O N
O d7 ) u)
? N ti
w
1E
CD_ M O (n w a) O U m},. fpA w-- a) Q F•- N O
E
C:
G

a)
C
C
c
er-
C C m o U 7' .fl Q '0 m 'CO-. 4 tTE O a)
,
E E
E E
E E
N }t
N CL m to t O m o O C a
?
c
x c
r
iv v coaocv-mm
u
v -? Ea
a) -p O
a c U o 0 o
N
*0 ?o .0+ m
L -?> > O "CO. a x a) c to 'O .S2 O O. a) t?9 u a) p L tU O)
r
e
l3 .,
s, m
c2 t0 a ©a a` c m N 0 o Z o
() N O O) io m b
N 0
"?
O N O
O. d
CL O
C2 O
O
_
p)
v a)
?
p o? o a) U
° r m z, N C C N
O
L)
N
a)
N
N .
N
)
r C:
C (D 8
°
o O O N N O (U
y
°
0 O
K
N
c
N
N
.
t
fl
.
i
5U i? c? ?r ? o m o °) a)_.a'a Utz C no m T cx a)
to v? cn v5
N O O O T
1 C C> f4 a) 'D C .a N p
a) O C 'V` a) 'Fn O C m a) C
m C .,T. () vi
O a) {)y 73 C t6
8 4.-
m U
<n 0 to
) to
C
m to - s - O C >, 4-
Y C a) oa
?° _
a) S° O a7 O O m tl
° O a
N
O N
> N a) > }°+
09 .
+
U °° C 'O C N "-? C m
a 4) .a a) C M in a) m Q. a)
O. try O Q)
C o C
O't7
° U
i
N m
. .C) UY p
s o a) y O a) O Q 0.9 a) N t!) N
+-F'
4__ Z a) " V C Om .Q > _ .C N O C U C) O
U is O
. m E ° O a) in :.-`
o 'C y CD ..
O
'°
N.
'0 iA
C
..-
m p o Q) C s C

>
to O_ 2
' '
p "O C 00 QCLS m 11) U O 7-, (n "a (1)

E U) C a) N O

() ff

a)
p C N a) N O to .C 3:
-O O O E- = 80

O.

O. .
..
a)
0 =_ 'O p

U

N
n)c°
° o
°
?° o
Oa) a) _ E0)N0' m 0
E
q) O m
(L) G - m .Q
v uSmtsocna 00
m 0 CC
c
°
0
a
C
s
N
'a m +° ° m
C 70 o 0)'a m or ? O Q)
s W C N_ O .O C O a C°
2) ? ? ? C -y ? ? .= Y ? O N C o a) N _ O,
SCi- ? Q) ? taq ° m C ? Q. O a)
°
p 8
N
? O Q 'L
?
Y
.
N y, C N 0
a) oY T= O Q) T..... m CD' O
-0 E°T(0 as c=a) O a) O o 2-a
s° yy cam
a) } "
°O.- p .O

"
..... 401 N fl. `fI
N
'v
N U)
(a
O O ' N O L) N >, O to . N 'O m (n N

E c a) > O m y"'c 0 0 6) = a) U F= O O w Co C

o O E m .a a) N
o 'c s °) C

N V1

c O y„ O

O' a C

O
O
O
r-
"a)c ?c'u?oEa,m m`mso>c ? ? ma`)-(nnm'v wv
cu _
U°`°oo`)° nN CO m m`o0- °
0 ms o E°

S o- m o a) ° C
O w
3 o ?ss o ?.m c o m
o a) v 3 ? ?' mss
0
2,- o? O)o)Q) o C m

mo ° cs y c a) °

C

`o
0 >?
75
O O. O

w
U O C> h' O 'V :
3_ U 'L
c0 'a Q3 O- =0
) t0 •a N
E N O m p~ 2 ° O E? a)
°
s O - ? y? S U
c vccvs ai c)? m °
p)
E m
CL u
n m? U ?a p (6
`m o' 0n
0 m o c
x a °
ro ° O'n qu E? c°a
° o
U
o?
L 'y o
O 0s c
ms p C
p c
C? 0
N s
o - m
?
? ° o
m
?
Cn a O C
U .C C Q a)
'7 a
i
' _U
a
?
d L!_ C O !n
a)
m Q

a L
f2
-C
°
'O
°
a
? 0
oo
-0 2
T .?
Z
0I U) °
n a)
+
a
s C .: m m
ca) ?oN0oR.QOV 0>,>?,n
my
"c "V a) p
C O C
G a'
N Z 0) a) F m t-
cn m
> =c'E mo--2-mo
_
o N
Z o
= =
O

a)
m I-
U ?•°_

O''(0
N c) t a)
to

Q)
O
°) p? °)
:3
o:G r
`
.
_
°)' > a)co c°i
)a
s
0-
. o
?
Q.
°" L) ocr p
O
`)
U
0
°
o D
v'n UO
.
°

9 ?$ m
~ M a m m m.??
C
d to N
(,n N
0 3 mm
c a
°
ai o ?
O fn 'a N d S' -O T d)
4) t
Q
p
? (n °-? c U.-
o
o q) O_
a)
E

}

}

Q °.v
a
} m m a) C
E

r C
p
o m u) o
o a) m ° o _Q) E
ro
°
D Q Q Q °
'0 Q
oos acup?6 1-t) m° mma-i ? M(D cQ,v c)
-
"
` >,0
mom c°c ca°n o? °) in (3) hm p.
z a)Lsmm
z
W 'a E Y (n p C m zo
o~ m
a
)0) °
W C C' .? - ? a) .C Q) N C C m
C)
O zX mo o m
lt! r p m> L c''j Q)
-
O
O
?
z
z m
z c O a) U
Z C
m O '? N
O
O
O "
> 2 .0 S
N N m a)
S O N N
a) :E
O O
E t
0 :3 N O '
a
n m0
ft)
O
Q
'
a C Q.C O Td`' O
> v
i
O m
O U)? °
t? o m c
u)s m m E O
N c m to `0 ? N N N C
O
t3tYas m 0- 10 0"0 s czo a O N>
Z
a
p a)
O
cs0 cs a -pU 0 mo o O

U O C

t? m O n E m

U° o ?w O O

U?
co
a 00
a 00
a co
o co
0
M
a co a r N

77-

C tmn !n U

C m a-3
C U) U

a m
C c
in V m
O C
m C
(D
n n 0
Gc m C? a
TL d m (} n aC
m U CL 2
Y
m Y
m
o
U)
c
U)
-? -? m U
} Z S'

s
s c

p
° 2
U) c
tm c
Fm C
Fm o
F?-
LO
n
LO
LO
?
L
c°o
c
m
m

v v
z z Zo
E E E E E E

f}
° 8 U 8 S p U
'Q
w O O 0 •ty
w O O C7
d
c
O
C
C
c
c
N

c
0

c
O (3)

c
0
C
w
E w
E u5 O N O- n. q. 0

O
N N
w
0
' E
0 N
w a1
w w
w °
0)
U co .1
a
U) 6
Y
U) M U U) U) U) a) 0)
IY
ui m> 4 N
C7
ZJ
'
° its C c 0) >
.-
a ° w
'C7
f; Ccn =
'C d O
S E zl m
0
d)
c
-C ?. U- =
? C o
'r .`t== a w m E uj N
'd C ;
c d
°
c O O. c U m Cl. 05
.0 w o

ly C: 0
)
d. m (n a)
Q. 0 4 0
°
,0 pc

r?

'o

O
.+
.
tcE Of ©Z p h C
p ..- ' w ;
m 8.0 ? O 0 m
? g,
:3
? f6 Z ?' ?
? U >, m
.,gy,
0
m
m
.
0 O c C ?+ w E p >.,-o +?s
O
° O O O
.c.c p O 0
O
''- w E p° 47.'?-?
to O m
1 C
w c
7 w
4=
-p c
:3 QS -
c w
w p w o >O?? a)- m °
c
Z 0 E w c m C

> ?? m
? ? n c?° N
c ?• c
' O . Z to
o
c)

> cr ur m ?n c

?u
v

m Om o

O

. 0)

? a)
'0 (
?

c
c
o - a m N w m °o,° aw, ams ?
tr o
`o-0 U)=-0 3) 1 '}- c
(n m
- ?
2 cu m
6)2
° a`) 0)
0) ro,
c ?
m?
a
64
L2-8 c° ° c n a-' E
Q dso w of c vi t? p.cn m"=
> m-
U ,
c- c aX o >"r.
' 5 3m m
C w
O
m .G O O.
fry
i
OC
?
?U)dw? c d5 .c w 'LS y;
r T3
0
mrom> w?
a)
Z -
°5? c CO O m d
?? _ ?
ac
n m m .ti .
L
p
=
t
as pm y: Ea,
w .o
m
w
O.omm?to °m c mE?
o- >
mE = x mrv m
w t m= > a)
y Ca :3 O N .C °
Zro, 'o°?cwmE > _ c
V; 6 'Lwi `? O p '+ O w

E
?N w 'x-to
2 O?

u

"-,,,
C cu : O p

S
? W
m C=

C)
.0
0

c'

U
-
co O

c

"
a)

w
Z
L75 C 2 M w- Cl O

??>
t Qa 0
C u) .c VY p to
U w w m
ro(nwo?cs? y .

o O

v `°E N c
g
> Q.

m
C
5
o
(V
°)o
O
v,
?
c> MncoN°' 0
w w G Q '
d isad-csOO" ww
c c
m
a) c
w
O
CO O
?=
0 'a r- N Oc0a
0 m
O w o?
c
2
O m?
0
0 m
W
w E w 4 m
tl5
u) >, N> E c N
-
° p
-
m
C
'<j N >, N° c O LA c .... w !1
' N N
O
O _
.0 E O m
. 'O .
.: to
- c
'.? -
c
6
w °
O
w O w l s E m c
>
Z
0E > E C N
CF-2
> w
ou?ow
Tmo
u
? ? uflj
O
a E L
to
a CU U m
3 to O } C
6 m
U d
L co
2'
O to
d.
O Z
O
=
.a
c0) _
Y=oco oEmaiEm ? 0
?
m
c
Mr=?
-Z °0Y a°s p
oc a--:
u?i?E°Q az
)
0020)
° CL
0 cio
o° d.
0 h
01 ? w „Q + E = ?7 -

??
cv0 ?
c' w ft6 c w (00 E c "0 c a w
)
w°
.
: ro' o 'd c .- •

=cwn
'` -d
c>a Q.
?o
'd
'O y
-d
w
0 >
O
ro Om
E ??va?a`wi°uac a
-5e 1
d
0 m
Y
m`
c°v>0
my
Eo
Q ,
°oa°'cc
oc -D c
s
oo
.oo
o
u?iv
N O 'c., w E} w F
-
ro
3
w w c w
w t6 N
to -c .
} } 0 O. 07 Y }° 0.2 F- c } c } }
<( N
fe cinEEw may
° „
m
m °?w o` U°'v0 a Mme E-
o 2
a of a)
E
Q co
Qc
m°
U
N0
mc
iro
N w m^ r N CA p
fn d
Z o 2-0 c = c rr ° i
ca
a) ro E p w- C O. w i1.
' w a C: w U' c >
t- c `

Cw.t
F-

tC E 0 p Y C
5 . o

tG 'Ll 07 °
F- O c ? y
j
<o E
F-

Gam. m
F-

d O
F- 3
c

a

a.
°
° mc" :
g
? o
W :3 c o m a w o=
a
~ Z} ZwZ o?-
g Z E w o Z c p
Z" a
i
Z I E t-
Z F-
Z.
Y
w=?
r c'
?a>
M> ?v
m m m v° o?a`ni
m E :3 a)
?
c
m w ? o o o'n N ?y o g°
0
a10
vyo
-
m
U 2rdF- c?? E w w d ?=
r
O
a=wc`cwop°
U d
m E m
-v (>
a O`-°o

U 0oct00*W

U Om>cg O 0-00

' 00>
a) 0 O

?
?
.
v} m . w? ua m U 3 o m U° U
N U mU U U
00
° 00
0 CO
0 00
0 co
0
M
a O G5 O M
a
m
O O
ai uwi 00
0
M
O

N -°
> w
-0
1 C
._ Q
Q D U C? O
w
rn

c w
U O
M
U
V c
6
S 'S M1I N

N
(O
M
(O

(?D (D
-
n.

d3
d
0
u' -(0
(n .T a 0
?? ax 2
vaciacimE?E?a)
mEERSEoOEN 00 E
U
'pro c0c
r<>U
U
U Q
G
co E
N Qm.?yc
E
c m

°
a_0ayat°E
Ezz ,-o a7 o arC)

.c
u) c
s -
p
(n m R
o c c
U
0
EE?oo -0c?
EE
?+6 `i c
>
uia
-a 0
Z
0 0 0 p
0
0
O
C O O U *`' CL CL's
ns = t
i9
''
aa?a? o00ou,°?
c c W c in ai E O
OL
(n
_
' Uf O a) Q 27 V O v

a
T
12 v2a oE`, .m0 )

C O N v- 0
Q
O
X
O
2 0-0 ov--0
N _? N
o
_
`Co N .E i6 O C1. (fY f6 '00 2 a> N
3v E
rn >, c6 N .fl _O O -C 0 0 :3
.c w- N
? 'E o'cmw3(o m m - 0a)

?" om mCL mma) ID
om
i
c_,E
c p n pya> o
ur
c:E= cvop m a)0-:[ p
1
co
16
N O M tit a) 4) RS 0 C o
•
a3
a
)

O
a) E _
m co (n
?i fII a)O 65 0 N 0 .§ 0 ca
N m
_
c c6 ' m N c Q) p
c 3
w Cc
? r
_
I- c a
Z a ? I-- U C: n a) m rnw -- ?
O o m o CL C -O
t7cm ?
ar if

a
,
:3 w Z, '6 0
O- o
V) C> M y
0
O N C
CL p +0
a
j
C
0 C p C Et .? •? ... ? Oi C~ O p Z
O ( p E
. 0ccoo?= ?h
0 ?0
?
W a 0 was Et; .0 (n
E o w n
(D C=
LL
N 4)
Q C O
3 o N?a) a ?o? a0)
z?o ? ? ZX0(D (n
z
w c E 6s cm"' Nm c o G m W o ?i
y u, u, t 3
04--
o
°
° g vm ui
om
c
?o
,OOOW_O
0
U) m 0 6 .O C U z LL 0 (D C Ooo
U Q 00
cr m
y
•
s? rnh
O p
o
?
,2 or-
a cj?
Ca 0 co

o 0)
:

00
w
070
c

vi
-ID
o

_
Y
to cu -o°
O
0
m
0
. m
E._

zs
o E o '}
•a
N
CL
c
'
oQ?
o
m 'a m
O c6?3 m
Q L °Y cu
_ ?$ a
U E a -0 m
O E o p
Z ULL> m

M
M a
Attachment 5 Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Petition

-/-Ik -.1 ate, A11)1v
FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING
S TI P Pit OJECT NU. U-4901
_Please-r-etur-n-your-comments-al
this meeting or deliver by
November 18, 2008**
_N- M.i :_
ADDRESS:
r
EMAIL: TELEPHONE te:
COMMENT ANDIOR QUESTIONS.
-- --- ------ -
November 16, 2008
PETITION FOR FALLS OF NEU5E I F,, LIGNMENT AN`D WIDENING
STIP PROJECT NO. U- 4901
We the undersigned members of Mount Pleasant Baptist Church strongly request:
That a barrier be constructed in front of the church for protection against out-of-
control vehicles and that the size of the construction project be limited to four lanes
and a median instead of siz-hues.

TC??ta J ??
November 16, 2008
PETITION FOR FALLS OF NEUSE REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING
STIP PROJECT NO. U- 4901
We the undersigned members of Mount Pleasant Baptist Church strongly request:
That a barrier be constructed in front of the ch,ureh for pr_otection_aga nst_out_of-_
control vehicles and that the size of the construction project be limited to four lanes
and a'cuedian instead of six-lanes.

November 16, 2008
PETITION FOR FALLS OF NEUSE REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING!
STIP PROSEC;T NO. U- 4941
We the undersigned members of Mount Pleasant Baptist Church strongly request:
i
That a barrier be constructed in front of the church for protection against out-of-
w.eonfr251 vc}ticles and-tharthe size o`f"tli'e consfuc`tion pro?ecf Ke I m-i-e `fomfour l"nes - j
and a"median instead of six-lanes.
November 16, 2008
PETITION FOR PALLS OF NEUSE REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING
STIP PROJECT NO. U- 4901
We the undersigned members of Mount P'leasaut Baptist Church strongly request:
That a barrier be constructed in front of the church for protection against out-of-
control vehicles and that the size of the construction proaect?be ti7cnitccte? four lanes
and a median instead of six-lames.
? Y
?? _.... ._ . 6t.
Lam: nrL tJ
//3 C4
-tD t,? 1
h i-??3 /
Attachment 6 aaltons Ridge Community Petition
Jurac? priritiid l-hu, -',0 Oct 2008 14-5505 . tsa r: 1
F mrn r 40cirr.e E Mr..r' regor , ge_,mm rn r juno. orn

t',,bi:e ,"4,I-c 4?;,,1,
Sylvester Percival,.'roject Engineer--Falls of Neuse Road Widening
City of Rrileigh, 222 w, tiargett s_X F:aleigh, tic 27602
FA Edtni5, Project Manager
UNS, 1t k0 Perimeter Park Dr-Ste400, Morrisville. NC 27560
G= eritlenien: Below is the mail I sent to our 41 Daltons Ridge neighbors on Tuesday. Within 48 hours, I have
received Vie iattache:d 22 responses tin addition to my own stance on the matter), ALL of which Oppose the
sidewalk, and NO responses in support of the sidewalk. Please: take this into consideration. Many of us who
live here: now will have moved to nursing homes or carneteries by the time there is any real need for the 5th
6th lanes of roadway, or annexation of areas to connect to DR for use of a sidewalk, As of now Daltons fridge
is the ONLY property IN the city, along the west side of Falls of Neuse Rd. All citizens of Raleigh should
;;l)ose yraur use of City funds ( out taxes) for a sidewalk for those who are NoT in the (,,ity!! In the meantime,
atould be allowed to keep the privacy, beauty, and sound barrier we have been paying to maintain outside our
`1Vail, alrang Falls of Neuse RD. I have taken photos of our plantings all along there, 6 hope that you intend to
bear the oast of replacing what is torn out, with whatever plantings will M in.the strip cif land that
i I the widening.
Marilyn mc_Cregor, Daitons Midge HOA President 10-30-08
01014 Lake Villa Way, Raleigh, NC 27614
Un Tue, La oc:t 2008 15:33:26- -oboC) George E McGregor c?err?rnvrn?junc?.com= writes:
Neighbors, below is in regard to my call to the City about the proposed sidewalk outside our Wall. It is
W, Oth of the efifirea project (including the sidewalk) that would cause thf, clr~aring of tress etc, from the
?? o outside our Wall.
I did gall S Percival about the sidewalk. 1-i:; -,iid it is planned for the entire
ength ,torn Raven Ridge
Rd. north to the connection to New Fads of Meuse Rd so people from Wakefield can have access to
'ewirk' !'own this way, i said I douuiku that 411yoflE ironl +i°vraltz0i,'ilj v,Vcki;ia'vLaik that Si,urly rnileS f0,-, ny
PURPOSE, such as going to Kohl's, while their car sat in the garage. It they are just walking for
there are plenty of sidewalks within Wakefield. I gi.restioned using City money to provide sidewalks
fear
those north & south of us who DON'T live in the Gity or pay Uty 13xes. Said I'm tired of hearing
People
L-ilk of moving out into Ifle County to avod City faxes, but then using city parks, tennis courts, etc
+:hat VVE
pay for, so I'm not happy to provide thorn sidewalks that likely won't even be used--don't really need
Mom
on BOTH sides of the street. He said there MAY be future annexation, but t said we could worry :about
sidewalk then; in the meantime we should be able to pleserre ozsr tier & other plantings outside Dili
'Wall, I raid I doubted snore than three of our neighbors would use the walk; with our Wall, DR folks
n't
even access the walk from their own yards, and those who've wanted to vialk O!S the Wall already do,
just fill('-
He said traffic situations are really under Eric Lamb, & that he would ask Eric to call rne.
I would be interested in your fs, si lings on this topic, ,o that in ftrrihe r Communication with the City, 1
have -actual data on how many of you favor or oppose losing our trees for the sake of a sidewalk. Please shorat
rt7e do saying whether ;ou'd want the , dcl walk of not, We may have no choice, but f.-In voice our
preference. Marilyn 10-28 08
On Wed. 29 Oct 2008 10,45:28 -01400 xxxxxxxxtu?nc.rr coin > wines:
M anlyw I believe it was brought up at one of our HOA meetings that Bred talkea with Percival and they
talked about
the s:deva alk with Percival ._?aying that it would prove access to the dam area, now to me this is absolutely
u area l istic,
if you wraik to?,vard the tr?aific.r,s most ,N;jlkers Ind runners do, frc>;n ifie North how are you going to crass a
4-6 lane highway to get to the dam, and what other reason would you be walking along the highway?
?l he road widening project is so frustrating sand a debacle. I certainly do oppose taking our beautiful
landscaping outside the wall for a sidewalk.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13--139.'24 +0000 [e-mail] writes:
We rare also against itl I good paint. Perhaps we do
need to lef our opposition known as others have done
On Wend. 29 OcI 2008 10.58:07 -0400 (GMT-04 00) xxxxx,,`_rnindspring.corn writes:
hi.
C
?n the subject of the sidewalk, i am also again5t it
On Vved, 29 Oct 2008 10:4542 -0400 xxx'X)ccxxxx a cox.net} writes:
Y(?
's, we waUki like to have more space so as to keep the trees - also, stjilxwould like for them tD
tare idea of taking so rnUch space to callow for 0 lanes s©tretlme in the distant frrture_
?)n Wed. e?9 OCA M08 I `) 57-41 C400 xxxxxxxtir??ric .rr_corti> writes:
> Marilyn-we also are in tav±)r of supporting No sidewalk on Fails ref
11?anba,
(?'n 101ed ".19 (:)(-,t 2008 11 10 12 -0400 x)(xxx,xx nc_rr coma writes:
we support: no sidewalk also. we will be at the ineeting on rrirnday,
thanks
%;rr We-d, 29 Oct 20013 20 ' 3 24 ED i xxXx.Xx(Iark1 corn writes:
that interested in sidewalk.
tan I ue, 28 Oct 2008 17.34.23 xxxxxxCg7aol.cam writes:
> vlarilyn,
do not %Irant the sidewalk. 'T'hank you for your effort,
On Tue. 28 Oct 2048 1':53:46 -0400 xxxxxxxxxx(_nc.rr corn> writes:
-3ve the it r:!
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17.4 1.01 EBT [e-mail] writes:
> NO SIDEWALK! Thanks for all your work Marilyn
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:09:09 0400 xxx=x;c{@nc.rr.corn> writes: r. _.
> I sent Percival a detailed letter attached to the form from the previous meeting (Tim has a copy since I
can't make the Nov. 3rd meeting). it included the "sidewalk to nowhere" and covered all the objections
overyone else has raised.
, 1 believe we, ,ire united in our opposit€on to it, but, will that make any diffenence, who knows? I (JOUbt it,
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:05:27 -0400 xxxxx@la gmail.com> writes:
Marilyn, I support the saving of our trees outside our wall and do not support the sidewalk to nowhere'. _
On Wed, 29 Out 2008 08:38:1 1 xxxx?sxxi?aol_rOrn writes:
> Marilyn,
I ,:agree with the rationale you describe and do not support removing our tree and shrubs for a sidewalk,
On 1 ire, 28 Oct 2008 12:02:08 -0400 (F astern Daylight Time) :,( :xxxxt mir,&,,! r;cf.com> writes:
} > We are not in favor of the sidewalk. > >
4 On 'due, 28 Oct 2008 21:18:31 -0400 xxx)ix(u-)earthlink_net> writes:
> I do walk to the park on the grass and never have encountered anyone else(except Phillis) along that path.
The preservation of the trees seem much more logical in light of the ;arguments about runoff and pollution
:slues. Trees
are nature's way of cleansing the air. I can't see anyone just "walking along„ FefN in light of the amount of
Iratfic and speeding czars it incurs.
On Tue 28 Oct 2008 20:14:40 40400;4XXxxf?frnrealty.r:orn> writes'
)t > Marilyn.. do not see the need of 2 :sidewalks/tivalking-bike trails on r or I of the widened Falls of Nr use
Q, d.
We want our trees & p1mifings to STAY in place for their beauty & the- noise control th€zy provide. "Less is
more" is
out npin on. Wakefield is not gain to wik a here!! tfet real! Use the bike ? :ai1 ' r.- ary.
-ijbiec;t_ F'n_ hC)i3(a Widening
C n hue, 28 Ort 2008 16:54:34 -0400 mo tx J?aol.com> writes:
NO SIDEWALK! Those FF_W people that would use it can look right into
our .the wall is it waist hriight! Also, when we bought here 3
years ago no-one told us this was going to happen! There is a
-m-lewalk on the ether side of the road..ONE is (anoughl From Raven
Ridge south there isn"t a sidewalk on our side of the road-how
some? NO TREES TAKEN DOWN! Thanks Marilyn.
I am apposed to the sidewalk for .all the reasons that you have related
mentioning to Sylvester VJ e pay for others to play, which is doubtful that
'hey would for the very reasons you ,,tated. We the taxpayers are
gffectiveiy paying for this road for the benefit of those living outside
;lrsigh and now they want to put in the ,idow i and assess th owners
;some) for it. Not very much justice I would say. The sidewalk will leave
the outside of DR looking just plain bare and unattractive. i cannot
imagine anyone from Wakefield walking this distance to begin with and what
?.vou}d they do it for. There is nothing here that they don't have already
with very little walking it any.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:20, 10 -040 Oxxxscxx(?earthlink, net> writes:
NO '.lC?PA/AI.K Makr:s HO :surnse espt-rcI-illy if they ari:; going to have a
> walkway
can the rather side of F= ills
Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:38:59 10000 xxxxx writ-'s-
Marilyn
..
> Our feelings: NO ?,ideu aik and NO tos of trees autside the wall!!!
ouf e-ftaaii io S- Percivai was right on track. in our ieder to
him, 1 said "many of the current residents v.,ould not even be here
try tho time they are ready to (,onsider the next phase, as most Of us
> are seniors, retirees, or empty nesters. Why should Dalton`s Ridge
<<;sidents have u lesser duality of life created by the cumant
widemrq plan for Falls of Neuse when completing the project is not
n'-ti d until the 2030s?" Additionally, 1, too, made a point of no
t_ ,,aaik and iii? lass of tre s outside the wiali.
On Ti 20 Oct '2008 17.40 41 -0400 xxxxxtja-)nc.rr.com> ,wit[
11 . Marilyn,
here ir, NO doubt that a Ofd NOT need a sidewalk outside our wall. #`heir points rsre not ?Aiell 11iolight out.
Fhe trees are a buffer for the noise and also enhance the appearance of our doveioprrient. There is much more
morn on the other ?;ide of the road to put in a r;idewaik if one is required. it sounds as if there is rttoney
m the coffers and someone wants to spend it.
> Totally ridiculous on way too iri any levels.
NO on-,-- frorn Wakefield would ever use a sidewalk in front of our property,
Where they got that one 1 do not know.
> if you need any other support, please lot me knout.

Attachment 7 NORCHOA Communities Resolution
r.
t,..` .{! 'na trot.? ''ie
P;ot :Lls of Nf:.u;`e
boat I 3.shed
2?e.a , t>fit Vest _:tti a'taii _, a.
it is very clear t'. vc r i.. a si -laric commuter lti0hway
) it has to take T ? orn hoii:, ?.)wners to have enough room.. to create a.
:'?.:- _ right of way through oa ?;;? This may, r,?,-- ,n nothing to the City, but will
be c mating to not the' s .,'to are r?icir yards (and the c ;rent
tc-_ for t :.,c's.SOnv,. _ ntl_ o
motto
I n8; sy and vti?: is goin } ?:.. ?-)T)crty`? I?i??.?t'
iJential bar, only likely buyers will be commercial cl?vG?',s ? ?cl
once; they 1 t- _ =1d. Once they buil _i the chalet . ° ;idential at will be
lost fore:v,--t.. a ?; f _-n that the tiara ?::, t?, val es of ?_? }oin.in1
rol:. r, :; a "cion; .o lime" effect t .., ner impaact ti 'Lite residents' investment
and miality
I, it

f r

IS 4
road.
:qty, Mak , I!;_ ; all odds

fo,lc;. Goa _.. .tl
i 3ad t€3 ;
ict true xie only for local deliveries.
?,ts a .? „ of v. o.:; be sufficiently wide and aligned in such a
« Two a.; th a continuous tl
I' o so ;i .. A a continuous t' two 'Y'
1 ?awin cca ;???c;
r stalled for the protection
}
. _ -:s aiong the r ?adway and
!? y= treys a-tight be negatively ?_Ictcd with trees of
Prot?.;ted cre<- s, ;shall be installed at each traffic control signal,
f A protected bic\,-'<Vpedestrian (multi-use) path shall be installed o. , i le
cast side ofFalls of Nc_:s.2 Road, connecting to the existing path
currer ends at Rav,
0 Two ..? -ia.tc;d bicycle :_ nes, each two in. width to be created by
lac lae Width ofthe grater traf ., i - each direction from l_ 1 to
0 No sic.,:walk is needed or desired. on the west side:. of Falls o:fNeuse road..
Respectfully submitte :
Eugene Senecal, President
PiverOak?: HOA
M r.rk Hobler, Pr,:sii:ent
Bedford HOA
Marilyn Inc reg ,r, President
Daltons Pidoe HOA
Bobby Rclo?3h, Pi,-?sident
Woodbridge H©A
Michael Paul, PrcSIUa 11
Oakcro`I HCOA _
r?
Falls HOA
Sarrruel r- bon, ;'Nesident
kiturnn Hill HOA
Robin President
Woodsprin:q HOA
F andy Fitt' 1-
ndeuendent Landowner
Appendix B
Agency Comments on Environmental Assessment
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS -
?a `f aUk'r? FALLS LAKE
11405 FALLS OF THE NEUSE ROAD
WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA 27587
November 17, 2008
Mr. Sylvester Percival, El, Project Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Mr. Percival:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed City of
Raleigh Falls of Neuse Road Realignment and Widening Project. The following
comments are provided from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Falls Lake office. Note
that the project involves Corps of Engineers Regulatory matters as well; however this
letter does not include comments relating to those matters.
1. The area of direct impact to Corps property fee owned property is located at the
entrance to the Falls Lake Dam and Visitor Assistance Center or the "Falls Management
Center Road" as shown on the drawings. Under the proposed plan, the existing. parking
area would be obliterated and it appears that a new parking area would be constructed.
From review of the drawings, it also appears that the existing entrance sign and gate
would have to be moved back from the road to allow access to the new parking area.
The document should also indicate that City will work with USACE to acquire
any necessary easements to cross public lands at Falls Lake.
2. The intersection with Falls Management Center Road as proposed would be right in-
right out. While we recognize that the design attempts to maximize traffic flow and
safety, we have concerns over the routing of incoming traffic to make a u-turn to access
our facility. We regularly have tractor-trailer deliveries and large equipment (such as
cranes) entering our area, as well as vehicles pulling boat trailers to access our boat
ramp. Both large equipment and vehicles trailering boats will have difficulty safely
executing u-turns. Several emergency and law enforcement agencies such as the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission, Wake County Sheriff's office, and local fire departments
utilize the boat ramp. The public use of the location also occasionally requires access
by emergency vehicles. We request consideration of full-movement access and a traffic
signal to allow for safe access to this facility.
3. On page 80 - Section 4.4.2 references the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976. The FLPMA only applies to Corps lands that were withdrawn from status as
public domain lands. Since the Corps lands at Falls were purchased from private
landowners by the Corps and were not public domain lands the.FLPMA does not apply.
Suggest that-all sentences references to FLPMA be removed .from 4.4.2 be eliminated.
4. The preferred bridge alternative Option.1 includes bents in.the river..We expect-that
this would result in requests for prior notice or coordination: of releases. from.. Falls Dam
into the Neuse River and perhaps changes to our releases during construction. Suggest
that they address any issues, anticipated requests and proposed method of coordination
regarding releases in section 4.20 construction effects.
5. Page 132 shows agencies that were asked to participate in scoping - note Regulatory
is included but no comments are shown. Please ensure that Operations, through the
POC of the Falls Lake Operations Project Manager, is included on scoping for the bridge
replacement.
6. The preferred alternative drawing shows an 8' multi-use path on the east side of Falls
of the Neuse. It is likely that users (bicyclists, runners, walkers, etc.) of this path would
be interested in accessing the public lands and trails at-th-e-F-a1[s C-am-arad.-\Listior
Assistance Center. We request consideration of a crosswalk or some other method of
allowing the multi-use path users to safely cross Falls of the Neuse at the Falls
Management Center Road.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions,
please contact me at telephone [phone] ext. 226.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Freeman, Jr.
Operations Project Manager
11/04/2006 13:53 9197159068 NCDENR PAGE 02/10
tvM-row F. Easley, t3ov@rr10r
- Q ar 1+11 ? 0 _ Wj4rn_G..RomJt. Set??C
North woana D"GrOWt of FA*0rmcnt And Natt"' Rbsouroas
p Commn Stuns, fAmow
t^ Dh+lelon otWaler QuslitY
>, =t
October-16-240$-
MEmgm-NDUIV?
To: Melba McGee, DENR 1~nvirwmental CoordinatOf
From: Rob Ridings, Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit
Subject: Commcnts on, the Etivirotitzrenta ssetsment relatsd ty"osed realigtnnent and-
widening of Falls ofNcuse Road ($R 2000), City of RAlcigh, wake County, Federal Aid
Project No. STPDA-0520(25), Stato Project No. 39949.1.1, TIP No. U-4901, DBE R
Ciearivnghousc No. 09-009 l _
This office hay reviewed ttre referenced document dated received October 8, 2008. The Division of• Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
- aetivitics-that-u>tpact Watcra-of-the_U.S..,.including wetlands. It A our understanding that the project as
presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, strewlm9, ripuian buffers and surface witers:
The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Prof ect-Speei e-Comments:
1. This project is being pla"ed as pwrt of the 404/NEPA Merger Proctw- As a participating tem
member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. The Neuse River and its unnamed tributartes are class WS-TV, NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very
concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ mconrocrids that
highly protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of tmtricrt runoff
-to these-waters. -DWQ requests-that-road-design-plans-provide-treatment-of_the-storm wat-cr rmoff _
through best managemcnt prachoc9 as detailed in the most recent vemiou of NC DWQ Starnrwater Best
Management Practices.
3-Um?at»ed ttihutsries to Fa}1s-L-a.kc may be present-in-the-project-study-area These_watcxs-are_
classified as Water Supply Critical Area (CA). Give?1 the pote»tial for impacts to these resources during
the project implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to Nartb Carolina regulations
entitled "Design Standards it Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B 0124) throughout design and
construction of-the project-'This would-apply-for-any-area-that drains-to-stream-having-CA-
ctassifications.
4. This project is within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts shall be avoided and minimized
to the greatest extant possible pursuant to t SA NCAC 2B.0233. New development Activities located in
the protected 50-foot wide riparian arras within the basin shall be limited to "uses" identified Within and
constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B,0233. Buffer mitigation may be required.for buffer
impacts resulting from activities classified as "allowable with mitigation" within the' Table of Uses"
section of the Buffer Rules or rc4uirc a variance wider the Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plea.
including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhanorment Program, must be provided to DWQ prior to approval
of the Water Quality Certification.
Ark+c
rracnsrwr*jr
T-Portelon Pearaft LM
1630 LUJI Senwto Carer, Releloh. North Carolina 27599-IW
2321 CmWo f3oufwm. 9uM t3D. R*0 North GmMA 21644
Phone. [phone] /FAX 09-733a9§ l Wwnet hr4n:rm2aenr , tA•n C,U•/7S+'?tlDnda
An EWaf oppogty*JA fimI 0& Acton Emp>oyor- SO% Reeydad/14°h.POSt.Gorbtxner?agar
11/04/2068 +3.53
319715,WJt;6

PAGE 03/10
+Ge99x21 Comments'
The cnvironmGnial document and permit applications shall provide a detailed and iterntzed
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with con-c-tponding tSlapPing. U
mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a
conceptual. (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environrnetttal documentation. Appropriate
mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2, Environmental assessment alt/. mativeG shall consider design criteria that re#+ace the impacts to
streams and wetlands from scoot n3tet-tuOff-Theme altornati?+es shall-inctuderoadslesigns that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff" thmugh "hest management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Storntwater ,8esr Managemenr Practtees, such. as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour hales, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance
demonstrate Water the Quality t?idance
Certification, the applicant is tcspectfully reminded that they will need t
and minimization of imp" to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the lvnvironmerdal Managctnent C'CimTrtission'sLLRules-f 1SA 1?TC-A.C-2I3=t750Er(la)}.,_
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. Tn the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace approlrriate lost functions
_end_values. The NC l;eosystem Enhancement program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
4. in accordance with the Bnvironmettttxl Management Commission's Rules fl SA NCAC
21-1.0506(h)), mitigation will be requited for impacts of greater than 15©lirtear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values, The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
5, Future dom mentation, including the 401 Water Quality Ccrtibcation Application, shoulrf continue"
to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mapping.
6. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. Thy _
applicant shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic ertvirortmeatts and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
?. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required-
The type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts elated April 10, 20+04.
S. The applicant is respectfully reminded that oil impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excovarion and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 441 WateT Quality Certification Application,
9, Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. Rowwever, we
reali2g that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
11/04/2018 13:53 91S715?n6t) NCDFHR Pty 04/10
culverts shall be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organistns.
Morcover, in areas where bigb quality wetlands or streams ate impacted, a bxridge may prove
prerLrable. Wl cn applicable.-the-applicant-should-not install-the-bridgc_bents in the creek, 10 the
maximum extent practicable.
10. Sediment and erosion control measares shall not be plated in wetlands or streams-
11. Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. hMacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste arms will need to be presented in the 401, Watcr Quality Certification said could
pKtoipitate eQmpensatory mitigation.
12. The 4+01 Water Quality Certification application wilt need to speeifically address the proposed
methods for ston-pwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to
tiischaree directly into streams or surface waters.
1.3. Based on the information presented in the document. the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an ztndividual Permit (1P) aPO-Cation to the Corps of Engineers and
4cgrresponding 401 Water Quality Certification, please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification foquires satisfactory protection of water quality tzsensvre-thrst-water-quality-standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal
of a formal application by thb applicant and written concurrence frordr the NC.DWQ. Please be
-awarethat-any_apprgval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimizzdon of wetland
and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of atti acceptable-stoTmwater-
managemmt plan, and the inclusion. of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
14. Bridge supports ('bents) shall not be placed in the stream when possible.
15. wheneverpaesible, the AWQ prefers spanning structures- Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the strearnbanks and do not require streams channel
realignment, Tbe-borizcmtal and_v_ertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage hweath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block Wsvigetion by
canoeists and boaters.
Bridge deck drairl3 shall-not-discharge_direclly_into tbc-stream. stormwater shall be directed across
the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes,
vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream- Please refer to the most current version of NC
DWQ Stormwater Best Management Preedees.
17. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direst contact
between curing concrete and stream water. Want that inadvenentty contacts uncured cot Crete shall
not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated PH and possible aquatic life and
fish kills.
18. if temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstructson
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabili2e the soil and
appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary Ftructures the area shell
be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs} or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and mini.rnizes soil disturbance.
11/01/2008 13:53 9197153060 NCDENR F'41E 05/10
19.. Placement of culverts and atfier sisuctvrres in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be p f aced below
the elevation of the streaYnbed by one foot-for-all-culverts with-a-diatoeter'-greater than 48 inches,
and ZO percent of tb,c culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 49 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design placement of culverts and other structure$
including temporary erosion control Ytteasures shall rtoC be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-tquilibr;um of wetlands or strcambcds or banks, adjacent to or upstream anal down stream of the
above structures, The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
Maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this c6ndition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
_other limiting featur a encountered during ceinsttruction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance
on hour to prc7 eed and tea determine whetl? ar nora-peznnit modification-will-bc_requized._ _ _
20. If multiple pipes or barrels arc requited, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section
_ -as-closely-as possible including pipes orbarrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel shall-be avoided: Stsearn-chminel-widening at-the-intex oz'_ _
outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires
increased maintenance acid disrupts aquatic life passage.
21 If foundation test borings are ztccesswy, it shall-be noted tn`the dc+cutsi ?t.-Geotecht7ical-woxk-is-
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nati"wide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
22, Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water res6utces-must-be-impl nted-
and maintaim.ed in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. .
23_ All work in or adj acs to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area- Approved BMP
measures friom the rrnost current version of NCDOT Constmction and Maintenance Activities
manual such as sandbags, rock berrns, cofferdan-15 and other diversion structures shall be used to
-prevent-excavation-in-flowing-water.-
24.. Whilc the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC C42stai ft.egion Evaluation of
Wedand Significance (NC-CREWS) snaps and soil sunny romps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies-require-that. qualified-nenormet-perform cm.sitc wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
25, Heavy equipment shall be operated from the bank rather than in stream cl' gnnels in order to
ininirnize-sedimen-ration and-tcduce-the-likelihood-of-inmaducing other j?olluta Tinto sit earns. This
equipment should be inspected daily and tnaiiimined to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaping fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
26. Ripra,-p shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures shall be properly designed,
sized and installed.
27. Riparian vegemtion (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserve d to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within d t annstruction lirnits of the project by flit end of
the growing season following completion of construction,
11/04/2000 13:53 9197153B60 k7iFt R PAGE 05/10
The NCbWQ ag ciates the opporMity to ptovidr. comments On your project. Shall you bave any
questions or require any addi.tioul information, p1c:ase contact Rob Ridings at [phone].
co-, 'Eric Alsmeye7, C1S Army Corps of Eng7neess, R,leigh Held Office
-C-larence Coleman-lr.,_Ecdrr'al_H?ghu'?y gcimiaistrafiors
Dean Fox, city ol'Ralcigh
Gregory J. TboVe, NCDt}T` FDEA
Chris MilitsCber, Epvironmental Protection Agency
1--ravis Wilw,-NC-Wildlife Resources_Qg nn i-S iOn
File Copy
11/04/2008 13:53 9197153050
NCDENR
_ ? i ?3at2Be9-15:"32 ?}195299839-
PACE 07/19
PA68 05
artb Carolina Wildlife Resoulces Commission
RflN
mEMC UM.
To. MCC=
-Office of.?islstive_and Intcrgovemmantal Atfxizs. D£N?
'Crania W loon, Highway Project Coordin&or
FRbM
Habitat Conservation Progmm
DATE: bctober 24, 2008
SUBJECT: Reapoase to the Erviros ==W Assessment from the North Carol=
eat of Transpartatian (NCDO'T) Md the City Of M$igh regv&ng
h9i ? wildlife can Cosmty??? Caro[inag'>"Iand P Nr?-490 of
Falls of Neese Road, Wake
SCH# 09-005 I.
MS me;rmorntd= responds to a request from the City of Ralti h ana ?cDU 1
fox air conctrns regarding meta on fish an4 wildlife resattrces resulting from the
su 'ect ect. Biologists on the sta.Pf of the N. C. Vildlife Resources Commission
(itit? -41a6.revieewcci th-t-p t?sm improvements. Our comments are provided in
accot+daaee with certain pror;swns of the Nona1-btlvirarnn'oiicy tLct-(4 U.S.C..
4332 ,)(e)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (As Stud.. 401, M amended; 16
v.?.C.661-6674).
The City o-f and NCD4T Ytsv? 4electe?al>xr +ve 4 wi.tk? thF tfuee sett
bsidg ng option over the Neese River as their preferred sherr ative, The document
addresses oo wmw and eorarattnts fmtn prior coordination with. NCWRC. At this time
we do not have any specific comm4Sym• we concur with tiw EA for ttlis pr6cct Thank
you iar the opportunity to comment. if we can be of any further aMtS=ee please call me
at (919) $28-9926•
Thank you for the opportanity to provide input in the early planning Stages for this
project. If we can further es3ist your offiee, please contact Inc at (90) 528-9886,
MAftj;.?ddrest: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Ceosci •• Rntciply CZ76991731
Telcpbiotte: [phone] • F, M [phone]
11/0412008 13:53 X3197153060 NCIDEtR PAGE 08/10
Air -VA-
M _ _
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G: Ross.Jr.,.Se=tary_ _
November 3. 7009
WIV QRAnUm
TO: Melba McGee, DM 1~nvironmental C00rdi=10r
PROM: Harry LCGT d -3tural Heritage Program
SUB3ECT- EA - falls ofNeuse Road OR 2004) Realignme0t 0.78 miles) and Widening (l A
milesyfrom ou'th of Raven-Ridge-Road-to-Meuse-River-including-nevr bridge over the
Neuse River ending at New Palls of Noose; Wake County
REFERENCE: Project No. 09-0091
The Natural Heritage Progtatn has already commented on this project, during the scoping phase, with a
letter sent to Mr. Sylvester Percival of the City of Raleigh Public Works DcpVnent, dated June 4, 2007
(letter-in-Appcndix.T3-of.theLEA). We have nu additional comments on the project
Please des not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-9697 if you have questions or treed further in£ormertion.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27693-1al _ ' .
Phone, 919-733-49841 FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.sta*.nc.uStENRI
An Equal 0pxr1un41 Affra&e A46n E m" w - 60 % Recycled 110 % Past ConsumO Pepe!
11194 1 C13.53 91971530s o
NC7ENR
PACE 09111
State at North Carolina
Departmellt of Environment tend NAtttrul Keaosircts Sevsaw ng pa a: &z'_suv? ¢e?IQ±? s
(TERGOVUNNIENTAL RE'YIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS throjamNu-tllpl? 1 DucDM' -
rn rcvirvrofd%ispm;ert it h u been deimntncd that the LNR prMOJI) muvor +gprnvalg'ind camd may.tmxl tn.be.o?alned it+ ibr LM3 project to e61"ply with Norte}
xoll»a taw. Quettlom me xrdin.Z O" parnitl shofrid bt aMncnod to the Rce'.urtal O iCk !}td}tatenf an the rsvesae Of dot term A$1 rep icatlnnc infbnrunion and guldallttas
st}ve to thtvsapfetusnd pcrmty arc avAilabic norm Che s.mt Reg)orud UfIkz.
Normal Protases Time
PERMfTs SPECULL APPi lCATtt7Y PROCEf}iJR! S or RBgUTt?EhfENT5" pmnrrery tip llntlt)
PerrAlt th ratntuttct A own* wsstr*aaer ucaerrient ? Appil ?on 90 dew bt&m bcgM emtructloo or awa•d 6f a tttnntctlrxt
f}
t
nti
f
s
lll
e
d 30 days
e
t
t sw.,tx sy.
on, ttteswsyrrxm
ona
t
A
e+ra wrarbo - tart-a}te insptaiat. Poa4pplicxkon tnchnkal coafaaries usual,
not 41JO rging Into Sude ssiffatt man, (90403)
WOES - permit is dixh'Voc ultosurfmc xttttt andlot Applitaiian 110 days btfofe bctin semity. On-site id6ptcwk Praspptlostiar
avibrenoe usual. Additionally
gtratfa permit to oottsttuct watAvmzr
go-110 days
,
"Mff to.OPMC7 end CoNmsn 14VtM%saf 11*01ititt
diactss ryiin¢ into n eszt sut(es:C vmtats traetme w tatility4ftncd lift ift t NPDES. Reply time. 30 days rata ra"lpt of (NIA)
plans or low ref' NPDBS,pamit-Mittiam k Mcr.
:3 Woad Use Pettnit Pte-appltoN+Sn teeklieat oottlarwsa osualy necenavy _ 3p days _
(N!A)
Wall Cortstttrctian "it - r? lpleWepplkadoo ,neat be fmceived Arun permit warred prier to the 7 days
ias# 1orion of a v+cit. (15 days)
Appiicadon copy man be 4cPvM am cWh a4pzftt riparian prupttty o*rpa,
!.:(- -Drcdgo send Fill-Pamh_ Ur-tfGt htspeaton, Pre+ppl}catlon canfettacd weal. Filling may requite 5S days
E.atrm m to Pill from N.C. Departmixu of Adminiaftatiat and Rtderal (90 days)
DMIP't and F I; Pentair
Pamir to Imnbtiliet k apartur Air Pollution Abnatssent APPlicsttian must be subMitsed OW prrm}t rtcvvgd prior to
t?l l3ti}}tles ondtar 6ittisaieo Sources as pct 1 S A NCAC eonrtruetiass"operstion of ft sonata tf a ptrinit is mqu}ted itt an go der
M.0100 duu-2Q.OMD)_ nice vrAartt urea) fxtnitt& ihap lkre are OW41WMI tagttitcntants and
_timelides {2cj.al 13)
par A tanat D aptssl2 ,0601 trtestitrn trathity tie Applkation range be gUbmkw MT-eatf 4t) G's nexto Duna l"Oft ar
p
pet 15 h NCAC (1D.08o0, 2{2.040})
40 days
modification of the souru. -
Any! open bufaing, maciseed witit subjtci prapeeal
rttM be lo
m
lim
c
e
with } 5 A NC
0
C 2
4
t
p
s
o
a
A
0
0,1
Demolition or t+bltovationt otsvuctures c6menting
sabestos matmal trierr be in u»Dplian= with f S A
40 NCAC 20.1110 (Al (1) wh}eh tag Ores notificafivn and N/A 6ay
- MmOviel.ltfior_to dcnrvlsttan. Conoact Atbaffma CvptmA (90 days)
coup g19-707-5450. _
•) Cemp}es 5oarot Permit nrgutrod under 13 A NCAC _
2t3.r)ft(?
the 5adlrr+ tttatlen'Pol}rsdM%-(!osttroi-Act of 1473.must-bo.pro potty addressed for any land di*uabung aeslvity. An ttraior a
L _I scdirnenW- CW&W plan will bo rtgarttesd ;font or mitre aorea to b0 dMahrrtted: Plan flits! with propet-RxpJOnef_ONiee (t.ttnd QuoHty Zp dew
Scefigo) At leas 30 day% bofbtc beginning a0ivity. A tae of S65 far the first curt or My past of an Hero. An ocpn-u taview ape iron is
-(3o days)

avallsbk "01 additional toes _
Sedtmts WM tarsi agaiM OMMN-muse be eddrotsad In aerotdarme whit NCDOT's approved ptogrem, Partiadar aurmitm shad)d be given to (3o droll,
design end itutailatio t of appropriate ptrtmertr sedimad ttsp}ring devitxs t,eli asstabla.smimwatar oortvq"cm wW out)es3.
On-slot inspcdlOn usual. Surety band flied wO EMI 8mtd amount varies
w*h
mining Perm it
o s
th
ou unt
ncrc Mud be permitted.. The appropriate band must tot total )
(0 day
be-fort lha Permit sat be hotrod.
(° i N9rth Cwvllna Burning permit 00-fil>t tnspmoon by N.C. Division Persist R"ourm itpemrtt exaods 4 days 1 day
(NtA)

(j SM60} Ground Ciexrsttea Burning Pmm}t , 22 Om-c- inspection by N.C. Division f3orcrt P4*% as required " ff more than
f
(tfay
ive aotem of ground eltltkg tatMtiO am blvd ou. tospudow thould be
anurMeg in Coastal N•C with orgaic toiig (NIA)
requested at toast tat days bere," storml bum is Pleased '
i cfmiciVA 90.120 days
(N/A)
T ifperrntt repaired, applleakh 60 door before ttcttin ?
must hire N.C. r 941111fd +mgiater tw pfepare phase, InVect construction.
t&MfN eobstnution is aaaOMiryt tts ENR appmred pieties. May gko regttire
-3afay-PetmSt permit under mosquuo coouol program. And a a84 permit from Carps of
o 30 days
_ ilrsgll+eers. An irtsptafon of silo is nteesseaY to ve rity gi=rd Cinsg}ftoetitsn. A
`
`- (60 days)
+an f?r
min
of 3200.40 must tawhpast)r do appticatttm,. An OdWorwal
w. rty sntd maim coat wiU bt resatrr-d
1110412008 13:53 9197153060
NCDENR PAGE 10110
pExm rrs
Normal Process Time
(3mmo'y timrJlrrtR)
SPEML APPLICATION PROCEDuars or PxQutft£AmENr3
File surety 660 of S5,ikl0 with EN tt running to State of NC Conditional that - to drys
I:) Parma to drill exploratory oil or gat well any wcl I oprnad by dr;t1 vpttrttar shall, upon sbaadanrnem be plugged N/A
_
_ according set EN R rules ales reg.1166ons.
Applkation filed with ENlt at least M days priorto issue of putmit, 10 dey
(jppphyaicat Exploration Pettnit Appitestetm by letter. No uwdard application Perm. N/A
Applitadon fees based an structure size is chat`;ed )Aunt includt daseript'rana 15.20 days
State Uka+Cannturtian Pennlt drawings errstructure & 0roar0 f aWncrab ip of Tip Arian NIA
r at

1-1
401 Water QualityCmillodon
NIA 66
dgVs
{11t1 der

I-]
CA MA P" I kr MAJOR devcoptq *
3210.00 The must accornpow appikedon 55
50 d ays
{1t5 days)
22 days
r- CwA Permit Cui Ivtr»t'?tt developrr>Ent S50,00 fct tNt19 *x0? teeny Apptiembom-
Scvcxal geodedc monumenu are tocaecd or ow the project area. If any motwrrmt heeds to be maned or de eyed pteesa notify:
I. 1 KC. Qewleik Suivry, $ox 27697 Raleti t, NC 27611
" Abai onmeot of any welly. t(regvired must be in amordimc w{9i7ttk I SrI S? 2C:Ot00.-
G.) Nott6crtiosh arthe proper regional ogee is mquettad if'orphan' underground swmr tanks t1IM) are diacovated during any c comation operalign,
C_l- .Cwnpii$ncs with.i3ANCAC2N.1000{Co.1.Stottnwattr_Ruies?.is.requkcd. 45dya
? ax Paml:ca w Ncedc Rlp6tian $uft§r RWas requittxL
• corrtrnCnts (heath additional pages as n=stary, being certain to cite cutdrurd ailhortty)
Miter
REGIONAL OFFICES
_QueStians regarding these permits should"bc ads3r sc cd-to the Regional-i:1frice-marked-bplow.
rl Asheville Regional Office Ci MoorerAlle Regional Office r7 Wilmington Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70 610 East Center Aven uet Suite 301 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Swarimmoa, NC 28778 Mooresville, NC 29115 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone] [phone]

0 Fayetteville Regional Office Rh Region;?l Office
X
2
"
i' 0 Winton-Salem-R?egiionlal Office
225 North Green Street, Suite 714 Harne tt Drive, Suite 101
3B
0
O 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043 Raleigh, NC 27609 Winston-Salem, NC 27107
[phone] (919) 791^4200 [phone]
_ El Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
_ (252)_946-64$1_
14OR`IH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERG0VF1-d2 1t::JTAL_REVIEW-
-MS___RENEE-GL-EDHILt -
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURC
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
-CC&-P-S-- DEM-,-GT-MO
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
-DEPT-OF-TRANSPbRTA-T-1 t0N-
TRIANGLE J COG
STATE NUMBER; D9-E x224-009
DATE RECEIVf:D: 10/02/2008
AGENCY RESPONSE: 1.0/29/2008
REVIEW CLOSED: 11/03/2008
Ek- v1- I t40
!i

PU2 'Lz PROJECT INFORMATION IO?ap?ag
-K PUIGANT- City of- Raleiel
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Environmental Assessment
_DESC_i Fa1-1`s of-Nuse Road-{SR°2fl00}°Realirnrrient-{0-1? rnil-es} and-Widensnr-('1:46-mi-les-)
from south of Raven.Ridge Road to Neuse River including new bridge over the Neuse
River ending at New Falls of Neuse Road in Wake County. TIP No. 4901
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
_indi_ca,ted_date-to-:.30.1_Mail_Ser_v_ice Cente.r_,. Raleigh-NC 27699-1301. _
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at {519}R07-2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY, DATE:
Qc i .2 2008
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4 RALEIGH OFFICE
TERRY SANFORD 1? 1 I FRAL COURTHOUSE
310 NEW 131 ;RN AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601
Date: November 8, 2008
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJECT: EPA Review Comments of the Federal Environmental Assessment for U-
4941, Falls of the Neuse Road Realignment and Widening, City of
Raleigh, Wake County
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the
subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City
of Raleigh, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to realign and widen Falls of the Neuse
Road in Wake County for an approximate distance of 2.24 miles, with 0.78 miles on new
location.
The proposed project has minimal direct impacts to jurisdictional wetlands (i.e.,
Less than one acre) and streams (i.e., 879 linear feet to Unnamed tributaries to the Neuse
River) and was not placed in the Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 process. From the
discussion on Pages 114 and 115 and impact tables presented in the Environmental
Assessment (EA), the specific estimate of wetlands to be impacted by the 4 build
alternatives is not clear. There are 0.77 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in the project
study area.
NCDOT and FHWA considered 4 build alternatives and have identified
Alternative 4 with Bridge Option 1 as their preferred alternative. The proposed project
would be 6 lanes with 23-foot raised medians, curb and gutter sections, a 13-foot wide
outside lane for bicycle travel and sidewalks. EPA notes that the two inner travel lanes
are proposed for l I feet in width and the outside lane is proposed for 13 feet in order to
accommodate bicycles. EPA also prefers Bridge Option 3 (i.e., 336-foot bridge with
70!166!100-foot spans) as it keeps the new bridge bents out of the Neuse River.
EPA notes that there approximately 34,969 square feet of Zone 1 and 22,307
square feet of Zone 2 Neuse River Buffer Impacts. There are 4 residential relocations
and 71 noise receptor impacts. I?, PA does not fully understand the discussion concerning
the use of noise barriers on 1'a c 102 of the LIA and that noisy: ;Ibatement on partially
controlled access highways is `usually' not a feasible option clue to multiple property
owners. There are numerous near roadway receptors located in and along subdivisions
that could be benefited from noise abatement walls. EPA does not fully concur with the
discussion concerning vegetative `barriers' and noise abatement. Even minimal
vegetative `evergreen' (landscape) screening along the right-of-way can slightly
minimize near roadway traffic noise in residential areas without the need to purchase
additional right of way. Terrestrial forest impacts are estimated to be 7.5 acres to Mesic
Mixed Hardwood from a total of 41.5 acres of all community types. EPA could not
ascertain the `disturbed' classification for the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest type.
The EA includes a full evaluation of prime farmlands in accordance with the 1981
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS) regulations at 7 CFR Part 568. The Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form
AD-1006 was prepared by NRCS and included in Appendix E to the EA.
EPA acknowledges the preliminary information on hazardous material sites
contained on Pages 92 to 94 and Appendix F. From the discussion, there is potentially
one property containing a registered above ground storage tank that could be impacted by
the proposed project (i.e., Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church). Table 14, which includes the list
of all recorded hazardous material sites within the project study area, does not provide
clarity on this issue.
EPA notes the general qualitative analysis on Mobile Source Air Toxics
(MSATs) provided on pages 102 to 106 of the EA. The MSAT discussion in the EA does
not address potential near-roadway, sensitive receptors along the existing or new routes,
such as daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. As previously identified by EPA
and in past FHWA interim guidance and studies, MSAT emissions are primarily a near-
roadway exposure issue and not a `region-wide' problem. The Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) should identify potential near roadway sensitive receptors to MSAT
emissions. EPA also notes that the proposed project is located in non-attainment areas for
the 8-hour Ozone standard and Carbon monoxide standard. The current State Air Quality
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures for
Wake County.
EPA found that Summary of Impacts Table S.1 and 4.19 were not especially
helpful in ascertaining the magnitude or intensity of the proposed project's impacts. This
`qualitative' type format in the form of symbols for `positive impact', `negligible to low
impact', etc., is somewhat subjective and not consistent with other FHWA or NCDOT
EA impact summary tables. EPA acknowledges the discussion on Federally owned land
on Page 80 of the EA involving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The
proposed project would remove part of the entrance and parking area immediately
adjacent to the existing Falls of the Neuse Road. The EA discussion does not include
relevant information regarding the `negotiations' and permission required between
FHWA and USACE regarding the `taking' of Federally owned land from one public use
to potentially another public use.
Plca.,c provide us with a copy of the FONSI when it becomes available. EPA also
requests that Ms. Kathy Matthews of the Wetlands Section be included on any future
hydraulic or permit review meetings for the project. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment.
Sincerely,
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
Merger Team Representative
NEPA Program Office
For: Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
EPA Region 4 NEPA Program Office
Cc: E. Alsmeyer, USACE