20181249 Ver 1_Hearing Officers Report_20190128

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
MEMORANDUM
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
January 28, 2019
To: Amy Chapman, Transportation Permitting Branch Supervisor
From: Jim Gregsonl�krz
Subject: Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations
Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension from NC -55 Bypass in Apex to 1-40 and US
64/264
Wake and Johnston Counties
I have reviewed Cindi Karoly's Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations for the Subject Project's
Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization, and Non -404
Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Permit. I have also reviewed the summary of the verbal comments
provided at the hearing and the written comments received during the public comment period. The
Public Hearing was held on November 16, 2018, in the Ground Floor Hearing Room of the Archdale
Building in Raleigh.
I concur with the Hearing Officer's recommendations and proposed draft 401 Water Quality Certification
conditions. It is understood that phases R-2828 and R-2829 will require a modification to the 401
Certification prior to any impacts to wetlands, streams or buffers in any phases other than R-2721 (NC -
55 Bypass to US -401).
State of North Carolina I Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
910 796 7215

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Sem eran•
LINDA CULPEPPER
Dtre." ror
TO: Jim Gregson ;'--
Deputy Director I /
FROM: Linda Culpepper
Director
NC --a CARO -INA
Environmental Quality
January 28, 2019
RE: Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension from NC -55 Bypass in Apex to 1-40 and US 64/264,
Wake and Johnston Counties (Complete 540): STIP Nos R-2721, R-2828, R-2829: North Carolina
Department of Transportation and North Carolina Turnpike Authority
In due diligence to address any known or appearance of conflict of interest, I hereby delegate any and all
decision making regarding the subject project to you as Deputy Director for the Division of Water Resources.
My husband, Philip Culpepper, worked on this project in his capacity as a cost estimator under his employment
at the Department of Transportation.
Ec: Amy Chapman
Jeff Poupart
North Carolina Department of EmIronmental Quality Division of water Resources
512 North 5alisbury Street 1611 Mai: Service Center Raleiah. North Carolina 27694-16I1
E-- .1 \ /`� 919.707.9000

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
MEMORANDUM
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
January 28, 2019
From: Cyndi Karoly C)<
Water Sciences Section Chief (� /�
Through: Amy Chapman, Transportation Permittin Branc Supervisorot
Jeff Poupart, Permitting Section Chief,
To: Jim Gregson, Deputy Director
Subject: Division of Water Resources Public Hearing for the Triangle Expressway Southeast
Extension from NC -55 Bypass in Apex to 1-40 and US 64/264, Wake and Johnston
Counties (Complete 540); STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829; North Carolina
Department of Transportation and North Carolina Turnpike Authority
INTRODUCTION:
Hearing Officer: Cyndi Karoly, Water Sciences Section Chief
Date: November 16, 2018
Location: Ground Floor Hearing Room
Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina
Number of Attendees: 47
Speakers: 28
On September 12, 2018, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)/NC Turnpike
Authority submitted an application for a Phased Section 404 Individual Permit, Section 401 Individual
Water Quality Certification, Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization, and Non -404 Jurisdictional Wetlands
and Waters Permit for the referenced project. On October 1, 2018, the Southern Environmental Law
Center submitted a single letter to both the US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR), in which they requested at least one public hearing to present issues for further
consideration in the permit review process. At your discretion, DWR conducted a hearing. The Corps of
Engineers did not conduct a hearing, although two representatives from the Corps' Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office were in the audience at DWR's hearing.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
E_ 7> 512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
N(AI IH CJLL�(N Miq
919.707.9000

The hearing was conducted on Friday, November 16, 2018 at 1:00pm in the Ground Floor Hearing Room
in the Archdale Building located at 512 N. Salisbury Street in Raleigh, Wake County, NC. The sign -in
sheet indicates that 47 individuals attended the hearing, with 28 requesting to speak for the record. Of the
47 attendees listed on the sign -in sheet, 9 were affiliated with the Corps, NCDOT, the Turnpike
Authority, or NCDOT contractors. Attendees behaved in an orderly fashion and were polite to the
speakers. The Public Notice for this Hearing indicated that speakers would have three minutes to state
their verbal comments for the record, and that the Public Comment Period would remain open for written
comments for 30 days. For the most part, speakers had prepared their comments in advance and kept to
the three-minute time limit to articulate their points. Robert Ridings of the Transportation Permitting
Branch in the Permitting Section of the Division of Water Resources provided staff support and prepared
the hearing record.
SUMMARY:
At the request of the Transportation Permitting Branch, I served as the hearing officer for the proposed
Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension, which would be a controlled access toll road
extending from NC -55 Bypass in Apex to 1-40 in Wake and Johnston Counties. This segment of the 1540
Beltline would span 28.8 miles on new alignment and includes State Transportation Improvement
Projects R-2721 (NC -55 Bypass to US -401), R-2828 (east of US -401 to 1-40 Interchange) and R-2829
(east of 1-40 to US 64/264). This Permit/Certification/Buffer application captures the entirety of the
remaining incomplete segments of the I-540 Beltline and the project is collectively referred to as
"Complete 540" in short. The Corps requires that these three major sections be captured in this
application, as the interchange locations drive many of the design considerations between nodes.
The impacts to jurisdictional resources are broken down by TIP segment within the application. You
should note that first segment NCDOT would proceed to construct is R-2721. Therefore, the proposed
impacts for R-2721 are based on final design and are highly accurate, although minor modifications might
be necessary as construction proceeds. The estimated impacts for R-2828 and R-2829 are based on
preliminary design and include resources within the slope stake line plus 25 feet, and therefore represent
the worst-case scenario. Final impacts for R-2828 and R-2829 are expected to be reduced significantly as
final designs are prepared, and any permits existing would be modified downward accordingly. The
permit application for Complete 540 therefore includes overestimates of impacts, which are expected to
be reduced as design proceeds. The impact tables for aquatic resources are broken down by project
segment as well as jurisdictional type, riparian versus non -riparian wetlands, River Basin, permanent
versus temporary impacts, and bank stabilization plans. These categorizations are necessary in order to
determine the required and appropriate wetland, stream and buffer mitigation plans. The estimated,
collective permanent impacts for this entire Complete 540 project would include fill in 55,369 linear feet
of streams, 65.63 acres of 404 wetlands, 2.75 acres of non -404 wetlands, 29.53 acres of 404 ponds, 1.75
acres of non -404 ponds, and 6,774,753 square feet of Neuse Riparian Buffers. Within the attachments, we
have included NCDOT's Project History from their Complete 540 web page showing planning, design
and coordination milestones.
VERBAL COMMENTS PROVIDED AT HEARING:
There are entities opposed to the project, as well as project proponents. Twenty-five of the twenty-eight
speakers spoke on behalf of larger groups, businesses or organizations, while three self -identified as
residents of local municipalities. Two entities, including the Southern Environmental Law Center and the
Regional Transportation Alliance (RTA), staggered their comments among representatives in order to
present more verbal comments than could be captured within the three-minute timeframe. SELC had
three speakers, and RTA had eight speakers. Other speakers identified with/as the Upper Neuse

Riverkeeper, Clean Air Carolina, Wake County Economic Development, the Umstead Hotel, Chambers
of Commerce (Smithfield, Garner, Greater Durham), Johnston Company, UNC Rex Healthcare,
Defenders of Wildlife, Research Triangle Regional Partnership, Town of Garner, and Center for
Biological Diversity. One elected official, Greg Ford, spoke on behalf of the Wake County Board of
Commissioners.
The common themes or claims stated amongst those in opposition to the project were:
• Preference for other practical alternatives with less environmentally damaging effects;
• Concerns with scale of impacts on streams and wetlands;
• Concern with impact in important watershed/Natural Heritage Area;
• SELC stated preference for the "red route" through the Town of Garner:
• NCDOT failed to consider improvements to existing roads in the alternatives analysis;
• Concerns related to increased development in southern Wake County, along with increased
traffic and sprawl;
• Preference for improving public transportation;
• Project would conflict with Governor Cooper's climate change initiative;
• Project would increase congestion on existing roads;
• Degradation of water quality standards;
• SELC and several other speakers proposed alternative identified as ACCESS2040 which "relies
on expanding a number of existing streets to become key arterial roads that provide quick access
routes throughout the area";
• One speaker noted objection to conducting the hearing during business hours;
• Road should be elevated above wetlands;
• Project will contribute to carbon loading;
• Negative impacts on protected species;
• Concerns with destruction of wetlands and associated functions;
• Concerns with stream degradation;
• Concerns with impacts to Swift Creek;
• Increased stormwater runoff and sediment loads into sensitive watersheds;
• Inadequacy of mitigation for impacts to threatened species;
• Disappointment with DOT's public hearing/meeting of February 2018 due to lack of opportunity
for input from public.
Broadly, the project opponents did not frame their concerns within the context of their personal property.
Rather, they characterized the project's anticipated impacts in larger terms related to the transportation
network, environmental impacts, and induced development.
The common themes or claims stated amongst those in support of the project were:
• Complete 540 is fundamental to land use plans for Wake County;
• DOT followed due diligence in alternatives analysis to minimize impacts;
• Environmental impacts will be mitigated as required;
• Listed species impacts to be mitigated and DOT is investing in research;
• Project needed to alleviate congestion on I-40 and other roads;
• Project will be safer due to full control of access, while secondary roads cannot handle increased
congestion due to stoplights;
• Corridor is result of comprehensive planning, and represents smart growth;
• Southern Wake is already growing and needs project to address congestion;
• Widening existing roads instead of this new corridor would increase impacts to Swift Creek due
to location of Ten Ten Road on a ridgeline;

• Widening existing roads would increase problems associated with cars idling, such as emissions
and stormwater runoff;
• Applauds DOT's responsiveness to public;
• Road needed to help employees get to work from homes in southern Wake County, and
businesses need these employees;
• Project will not violate Clean Water Act;
• Project will help rural areas by providing enhanced access to jobs in urban areas;
• Project will provide critical time savings for emergency services versus emergency services
stopped by congestion and stop lights;
• Project will provide long term economic viability and infrastructure to support growth;
• DOT's Design/Build process is designed to reduce environmental impacts to the greatest extent
practical;
• Public transportation is not enough to address growth issues in Research Triangle region;
• Project will provide main East/West artery for Wake and Johnston Counties;
• Red Route would cost more and displace more residents from their homes;
As with the project opponents, the project proponents did not frame their concerns in terms of their
personal property. They stated their belief that DOT has arrived at an alternative that balances existing
and future transportation needs and mitigates environmental impacts.
WRITTEN COMMENTS PROVIDED DURING COMMENT PERIOD:
One attendee provided a written comment letter in opposition to the project on the day of the hearing.
After the hearing, the Public Comment period remained open to the public at large until December 16,
2018. Commenters had the option of mailing written materials to Rob Riding's attention at DWR's Mail
Service Center address, emailing Rob Ridings or Amy Chapman (Transportation Permitting Branch
Chief), or submitting comments via a Public Notice Comment Form on the DWR web site. Via these
formats, two individual commenters wrote in support of the project, while three commenters wrote in
opposition to the project. Additionally, SELC submitted a package of materials via email and U.S. Mail
to Amy Chapman's attention. SELC's package includes a copy of the ACCESS2040 proposal referenced
by several speakers during the hearing.
The written comments both opposed and in support of Complete 540 were consistent with the comments
voiced during the hearing, with some points expanded upon in written format.
Additional points articulated in written comments in objection to the project consisted of:
• Disappointment with February 2018 hearing conducted by NCDOT, specifically, lack of back -
and -forth discussion opportunity within hearing format;
• Preference for ACCESS2040 concept versus beltway concept;
• Impacts on poor and minority communities;
• Concern over impacts to wetlands and streams;
• Project will add to sprawl;
• Impacts to urban wild spaces, wildlife and listed species;
• Contribution to climate change and carbon loads;
• Monetary cost of project;
• Project encourages automobile dependency;
• Mussel mitigation plan is not assured to succeed.
Additional points articulated in written comments in support of the project consisted of:

• Project would meet transportation needs and contribute to quality of life;
• Project is an adopted element of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's regional
plan for many years;
• Support mitigation proposals developed by NCDOT as shown in application;
• Fair and equal access to high speed alternate route for residents of southern Wake County.
Collectively, all materials in DWR's project file, including anything related to the planning and regulatory
processes, as well as this hearing, are available on DWR's Laserfiche site for this project at
https:Hedocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=719715 . This project has an
extensive history dating to 1996 in DOT's files. A variety of DWR staff members have participated over
the years in field delineations, planning meetings, and mitigation discussions. NCDOT and the NC
Turnpike Authority followed Section 6002 of the USDOT SAFETEA-LU Act in the planning of this
project, with participation by the various Federal and State agencies included under that umbrella process.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is my opinion that through the SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 process, permitting concerns have been
addressed and impacts to the buffers, streams and wetlands have been avoided and minimized to the
greatest extent practical considering the range of impacts to the human and natural environment contained
in the larger study corridor. SAFETEA-LU is a process to streamline the project development and
permitting processes, agreed to by the US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Environmental
Quality (DWR, Division of Coastal Management), Federal Highway Administration and NCDOT, and
supported by other stakeholder agencies and local units of government. SAFETEA-LU provides a forum
for appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways to facilitate meeting the
regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the NEPA/SEPA decision-making
phase of transportation projects. This project has been vetted through the SAFETEA-LU process.
Furthermore, it is my opinion that the NC Turnpike Authority has proposed to reduce stream and wetland
impacts where feasible during the detailed design phase, going above and beyond the minimum required.
It is my recommendation that the 401 be issued for this project with the attached conditions. Other
attachments include copies ofNCDOT's permit application, public notice of DWR's hearing, the hearing
officer's speech prepared by the Transportation Permitting Branch, all the written comments submitted
during the hearing and comment period, and a summary of the oral comments.
SELC submitted an extensive package of materials during the comment period. I have attached SELC's
cover letter and a copy of the ACCESS2040 proposal, which were included in this package. The entire
package has been scanned into DWR's Laserfiche site for Complete 540. The specific address for
SELC's comment package is:
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=719715 .

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
MEMORANDUM
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
January 16, 2019
From: Cyndi Karoly CK,
Water Sciences Section Chief n
Through: Amy Chapman, Transportation Permitting Branch Supervisor 0 cl
Jeff Poupart, Permitting Section Chie,Q
To: Linda Culpepper, Director
Subject: Division of Water Resources Public Hearing for the Triangle Expressway Southeast
Extension from NC -55 Bypass in Apex to I-40 and US 64/264, Wake and Johnston
Counties (Complete 540); STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829; North Carolina
Department of Transportation and North Carolina Turnpike Authority
INTRODUCTION:
Hearing Officer: Cyndi Karoly, Water Sciences Section Chief
Date: November 16, 2018
Location: Ground Floor Hearing Room
Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina
Number of Attendees: 47
Speakers: 28
On September 12, 2018, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)/NC Turnpike
Authority submitted an application for a Phased Section 404 Individual Permit, Section 401 Individual
Water Quality Certification, Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization, and Non -404 Jurisdictional Wetlands
and Waters Permit for the referenced project. On October 1, 2018, the Southern Environmental Law
Center submitted a single letter to both the US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR), in which they requested at least one public hearing to present issues for further
consideration in the permit review process. At your discretion, DWR conducted a hearing. The Corps of
Engineers did not conduct a hearing, although two representatives from the Corps' Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office were in the audience at DWR's hearing.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
noan� cr�aiw. �'
919.707.9000

The hearing was conducted on Friday, November 16, 2018 at 1:00pm in the Ground Floor Hearing Room
in the Archdale Building located at 512 N. Salisbury Street in Raleigh, Wake County, NC. The sign -in
sheet indicates that 47 individuals attended the hearing, with 28 requesting to speak for the record. Of the
47 attendees listed on the sign -in sheet, 9 were affiliated with the Corps, NCDOT, the Turnpike
Authority, or NCDOT contractors. Attendees behaved in an orderly fashion and were polite to the
speakers. The Public Notice for this Hearing indicated that speakers would have three minutes to state
their verbal comments for the record, and that the Public Comment Period would remain open for written
comments for 30 days. For the most part, speakers had prepared their comments in advance and kept to
the three-minute time limit to articulate their points. Robert Ridings of the Transportation Permitting
Branch in the Permitting Section of the Division of Water Resources provided staff support and prepared
the hearing record.
SUMMARY:
At the request of the Transportation Permitting Branch, I served as the hearing officer for the proposed
Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension, which would be a controlled access toll road
extending from NC -55 Bypass in Apex to I-40 in Wake and Johnston Counties. This segment of the I540
Beltline would span 28.8 miles on new alignment and includes State Transportation Improvement
Projects R-2721 (NC -55 Bypass to US -401), R-2828 (east of US -401 to I-40 Interchange) and R-2829
(east of 1-40 to US 64/264). This Permit/Certification/Buffer application captures the entirety of the
remaining incomplete segments of the I-540 Beltline and the project is collectively referred to as
"Complete 540" in short. The Corps requires that these three major sections be captured in this
application, as the interchange locations drive many of the design considerations between nodes.
The impacts to jurisdictional resources are broken down by TIP segment within the application. You
should note that first segment NCDOT would proceed to construct is R-2721. Therefore, the proposed
impacts for R-2721 are based on final design and are highly accurate, although minor modifications might
be necessary as construction proceeds. The estimated impacts for R-2828 and R-2829 are based on
preliminary design and include resources within the slope stake line plus 25 feet, and therefore represent
the worst-case scenario. Final impacts for R-2828 and R-2829 are expected to be reduced significantly as
final designs are prepared, and any permits existing would be modified downward accordingly. The
permit application for Complete 540 therefore includes overestimates of impacts, which are expected to
be reduced as design proceeds. The impact tables for aquatic resources are broken down by project
segment as well as jurisdictional type, riparian versus non -riparian wetlands, River Basin, permanent
versus temporary impacts, and bank stabilization plans. These categorizations are necessary in order to
determine the required and appropriate wetland, stream and buffer mitigation plans. The estimated,
collective permanent impacts for this entire Complete 540 project would include fill in 55,369 linear feet
of streams, 65.63 acres of 404 wetlands, 2.75 acres of non -404 wetlands, 29.53 acres of 404 ponds, 1.75
acres of non -404 ponds, and 6,774,753 square feet of Neuse Riparian Buffers. Within the Appendices, we
have included NCDOT's Project History from their Complete 540 web page showing planning, design
and coordination milestones.
VERBAL COMMENTS PROVIDED AT HEARING:
There are entities opposed to the project, as well as project proponents. Twenty-five of the twenty-eight
speakers spoke on behalf of larger groups, businesses or organizations, while three self -identified as
residents of local municipalities. Two entities, including the Southern Environmental Law Center and the
Regional Transportation Alliance (RTA), staggered their comments among representatives in order to
present more verbal comments than could be captured within the three-minute timeframe. SELC had
three speakers, and RTA had eight speakers. Other -speakers identified with/as the Upper Neuse
D E Q�./�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
acwr�mieINrm°i V 919.707.9000

Riverkeeper, Clean Air Carolina, Wake County Economic Development, the Umstead Hotel, Chambers
of Commerce (Smithfield, Garner, Greater Durham), Johnston Company, UNC Rex Healthcare,
Defenders of Wildlife, Research Triangle Regional Partnership, Town of Garner, and Center for
Biological Diversity. One elected official, Greg Ford, spoke on behalf of the Wake County Board of
Commissioners.
The common themes or claims stated amongst those in opposition to the project were:
• Preference for other practical alternatives with less environmentally damaging effects;
• Concerns with scale of impacts on streams and wetlands;
• Concern with impact in important watershed/Natural Heritage Area;
• SELC stated preference for the "red route" through the Town of Garner:
• NCDOT failed to consider improvements to existing roads in the alternatives analysis;
• Concerns related to increased development in southern Wake County, along with increased
traffic and sprawl;
• Preference for improving public transportation;
• Project would conflict with Governor Cooper's climate change initiative;
• Project would increase congestion on existing roads;
• Degradation of water quality standards;
• SELC and several other speakers proposed alternative identified as ACCESS2040 which "relies
on expanding a number of existing streets to become key arterial roads that provide quick access
routes throughout the area";
• One speaker noted objection to conducting the hearing during business hours;
• Road should be elevated above wetlands;
• Project will contribute to carbon loading;
• Negative impacts on protected species;
• Concerns with destruction of wetlands and associated functions;
• Concerns with stream degradation;
• Concerns with impacts to Swift Creek;
• Increased stormwater runoff and sediment loads into sensitive watersheds;
• Inadequacy of mitigation for impacts to threatened species;
• Disappointment with DOT's public hearing/meeting of February 2018 due to lack of opportunity
for input from public.
Broadly, the project opponents did not frame their concerns within the context of their personal property.
Rather, they characterized the project's anticipated impacts in larger terms related to the transportation
network, environmental impacts, and induced development.
The common themes or claims stated amongst those in support of the project were:
• Complete 540 is fundamental to land use plans for Wake County;
• DOT followed due diligence in alternatives analysis to minimize impacts;
• Environmental impacts will be mitigated as required;
• Listed species impacts to be mitigated and DOT is investing in research;
• Project needed to alleviate congestion on I-40 and other roads;
• Project will be safer due to full control of access, while secondary roads cannot handle increased
congestion due to stoplights;
• Corridor is result of comprehensive planning, and represents smart growth;
• Southern Wake is already growing and needs project to address congestion;
• Widening existing roads instead of this new corridor would increase impacts to Swift Creek due
to location of Ten Ten Road on a ridgeline;
D EQNorth Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North SalisburySireet 1 1617 Mad Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
A(1FTH C..RCN INA _
DWM.01 ai um�un�u avmm� / 919 707.9000

• Widening existing roads would increase problems associated with cars idling, such as emissions
and stormwater runoff;
• Applauds DOT's responsiveness to public;
• Road needed to help employees get to work from homes in southern Wake County, and
businesses need these employees;
• Project will not violate Clean Water Act;
• Project will help rural areas by providing enhanced access to jobs in urban areas;
• Project will provide critical time savings for emergency services versus emergency services
stopped by congestion and stop lights;
• Project will provide long term economic viability and infrastructure to support growth;
• DOT's Design/Build process is designed to reduce environmental impacts to the greatest extent
practical;
• Public transportation is not enough to address growth issues in Research Triangle region;
• Project will provide main East/West artery for Wake and Johnston Counties;
• Red Route would cost more and displace more residents from their homes;
As with the project opponents, the project proponents did not frame their concerns in terms of their
personal property. They stated their belief that DOT has arrived at an alternative that balances existing
and future transportation needs and mitigates environmental impacts.
WRITTEN COMMENTS PROVIDED DURING COMMENT PERIOD:
One attendee provided a written comment letter in opposition to the project on the day of the hearing.
After the hearing, the Public Comment period remained open to the public at large until December 16,
2018. Commenters had the option of mailing written materials to Rob Riding's attention at DWR's Mail
Service Center address, emailing Rob Ridings or Amy Chapman (Transportation Permitting Branch
Chief), or submitting comments via a Public Notice Comment Form on the DWR web site. Via these
formats, two individual commenters wrote in support of the project, while three commenters wrote in
opposition to the project. Additionally, SELC submitted a package of materials via email and U.S. Mail
to Amy Chapman's attention. SELC's package includes a copy of the ACCESS2040 proposal referenced
by several speakers during the hearing.
The written comments both opposed and in support of Complete 540 were consistent with the comments
voiced during the hearing, with some points expanded upon in written format.
Additional points articulated in written comments in objection to the project consisted of:
• Disappointment with February 2018 hearing conducted by NCDOT, specifically, lack of back -
and -forth discussion opportunity within hearing format;
• Preference for ACCESS2040 concept versus beltway concept;
• Impacts on poor and minority communities;
• Concern over impacts to wetlands and streams;
• Project will add to sprawl;
• Impacts to urban wild spaces, wildlife and listed species;
• Contribution to climate change and carbon loads;
• Monetary cost of project;
• Project encourages automobile dependency;
• Mussel mitigation plan is not assured to succeed.
Additional points articulated in written comments in support of the project consisted of-
North
£
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mad Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
r�nr.�.nr[xna �
919707.9000

• Project would meet transportation needs and contribute to quality of life;
• Project is an adopted element of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's regional
plan for many years;
• Support mitigation proposals developed by NCDOT as shown in application;
• Fair and equal access to high speed alternate route for residents of southern Wake County.
Collectively, all materials in DWR's project file, including anything related to the planning and regulatory
processes, as well as this hearing, are available on DWR's Laserfiche site for this project at
https•//edocs deq nc gov/WaterResources/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=719715 . This project has an
extensive history dating to 1996 in DOT's files. A variety of DWR staff members have participated over
the years in field delineations, planning meetings, and mitigation discussions. NCDOT and the NC
Turnpike Authority followed Section 6002 of the USDOT SAFETEA-LU Act in the planning of this
project, with participation by the various Federal and State agencies included under that umbrella process.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is my opinion that through the SAFETEA-LU process, permitting concerns have been addressed and
impacts to the buffers, streams and wetlands have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent
practical considering the range of impacts to the human and natural environment contained in the larger
study corridor. SAFETEA-LU is a process to streamline the project development and permitting
processes, agreed to by the US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Environmental Quality
(DWR, Division of Coastal Management), Federal Highway Administration and NCDOT, and supported
by other stakeholder agencies and local units of government. SAFETEA-LU provides a forum for
appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways to facilitate meeting the
regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the NEPA/SEPA decision-making
phase of transportation projects. This project has been vetted through the SAFETEA-LU process.
Furthermore, it is my opinion that the NC Turnpike Authority has proposed to reduce stream and wetland
impacts where feasible during the detailed design phase, going above and beyond the minimum required.
It is my recommendation that the 401 be issued for this project with the attached conditions. Other
attachments include copies of NCDOT's permit application, public notice of DWR's hearing, the hearing
officer's speech prepared by the Transportation Permitting Branch, all the written comments submitted
during the hearing and comment period, a summary of the oral comments, and the Water Quality Analysis
prepared by NCDOT's consultant.
SELC submitted an extensive package of materials during the comment period. I have attached SELC's
cover letter and a copy of the ACCESS2040 proposal, which were included in this package. The entire
package has been scanned into DWR's Laserfiche site for Complete 540. The specific address for
SELC's comment package is:
https:Hedoes deq nc.gov/WaterResources/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=719715 .
Q��
DapaNnmi o! k vTronment I Dwkt/�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707 9000

1/15/2(119
Complete 540
Complete 540
NCDOT: Complete 540
(;HAPEL MILL
70
Ck.
64
401
FUTURE
EXPRESSWAY
County:
Multiple
Status:
In Development
STIP Number:
R-2721, R-2828, R-2829
Estimated Cost:
Approximately $2.2 billion
Start Date:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete-540/Pages/default.aspx
70
M.
Donate to Hurricane Recovery
M.
1/4

1/15/2019 NCDOT Complete 540 4
Completion Date:
TBD
Project Overview
The proposed Complete 540 project, also known as the Southeast Extension, would
extend the Triangle Expressway from the N.C. 55 Bypass in Apex to U.S. 64/U.S. 264 0-
495) in Knightdale, completing the 540 Outer Loop around the greater Raleigh area.
Transportation, social and economic demands and mobility considerations are the basis
for additional transportation infrastructure in southeastern Wake County. The Complete
540 project would link Apex, Cary, Clayton, Garner, Fuquay-Varina, Holly Springs and
Raleigh.
In addition to connecting several towns and cities, the project is expected to ease
congestion on area roadways, including 1-440,1-40, N.C. 42, N.C. 55 and Ten Ten Road.
Construction is likely to be completed in segments, and depending on available funding,
each segment will likely have different construction timelines:
• N.C. 55 Bypass to U.S. 401
• U.S. 401 to 1-40
1-40 to U.S. 64/264 Bypass (1-495)
Upcoming Public Meetings
There are no upcoming public meetings for this project.
Project Funding
Complete 540 is listed in the N.C. Department of Transportation's State Transportation
Improvement Program as three projects:
• R-2721 (N.C. 55 Bypass to U.S. 4� Donate to Hurricane Recovery
https://www.ncdot gov/projects/complete-540/Pages/default aspx 2/4

,1 /15/2019
• R-2828 (U.S. 401 to 1-40)
• R-2829 (1-40 to U.S. 64/264 Bypass)
NCDOT Complete 540
The estimated cost is approximately $2.2 billion and will be refined as development of
the project progresses. The project is expected to be funded in phases.
Project Timeline
Milestone
Date*
Design public hearing
February 2018
Record of Decision published
June 2018
Design -build contract awarded for U.S. 401 to 1-40
Fall/winter 2018
Two design -build contracts awarded for N.C. 55 Bypass to
U.S. 401
Spring/summer
2019
Design -build contract awarded for 1-40 to U.S. 64/264 (1-
495)
2027
*Future dates subject to change
Toll -Free Project Hotline
Send Message
Director of Highway Operations
Turnpike Authority
_ 1578 Mail Service Center_
IDonate to Hurricane Recovery
https //www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete-540/Pages/default.aspx 3/4

1/15/2019 NCDOT Complete 540
Last updated Nov. 20,2o18
Donate to Hurricane Recovery
https://www.ncdot gov/projects/complete-540/Pages/default.aspx 4/4

Preliminary & Proposed DRAFT conditions
This 401 Water Quality Certification and Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization is being issued with only the
R-2721 phase having finalized design and impacts. When final design plans are completed for phases R-2828 and
R-2829, a modification to the 401 Water Quality Certification and the Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization shall be
submitted with fees and final plans to the NC Division of Water Resources. Final designs shall reflect all
appropriate further avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for impacts to wetlands, streams, and other surface
waters, and buffers. No construction activities that impact any wetlands, streams, surface waters, or buffers located
in phases R-2828 and R-2829 shall begin until after the permittee applies for, and receives a written modification of
the 401 Water Quality Certification and the Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization from the NC Division of Water
Resources.
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to 15.24 acres of wetlands in phase R -2721A, and 14.64 acres of wetlands in
phase R-2721 B are required. We understand that you have chosen to perform compensatory mitigation for impacts
to wetlands through the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) (formerly NCEEP), and that the
DMS has agreed to implement the mitigation for the project. DMS has indicated in a letter dated August 28, 2018
that they will assume responsibility for satisfying the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation
requirements for the above -referenced project, in accordance with DMS's Mitigation Banking Instrument signed
July 28, 2010.
Compensatory mitigation impact to streams is required. We understand that you have chosen to perform
compensatory mitigation for impacts to 9360 linear feet of streams in phase R -2721A and 8536 linear feet of
streams in phase R-2721 B through the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Service (DMS) (formerly NCEEP),
and that the DMS has agreed to implement the mitigation for the project. The DMS has indicated in a letter dated
August 28, 2018 that they will assume responsibility for satisfying the federal Clean Water Act compensatory
mitigation requirements for the above -referenced project, in accordance with the DMS Mitigation Banking
Instrument signed July 28, 2010.
("NOTE: the USCOE has a more -stringent stream mitigation threshold than NCDWR. This project is
fulfilling the COE's requirement, which means it goes above and beyond NCDWR's. This condition will
likely be tweaked to only reflect DWR's requirement in the actual 401, or it can stand with the higher
requirement ---whichever Management prefers.)
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to 561570 square feet of protected riparian buffers in Zone 1 (at a 3:1 ratio),
and 367666 square feet of protected riparian buffers in Zone 2 (at a 1.5:1 ratio), shall be required for phase R-
2721 A. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to 582622 square feet of protected riparian buffers in Zone 1 (at a 3:
ratio) and 387313 square feet of protected riparian buffers in Zone 2 (at a 1.5:1 ratio) shall be required for phase R-
2721 B. We understand that you have chosen to perform compensatory mitigation for impacts to protected buffers
through use of the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) (formerly NCEEP). Mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers shall be provided in the Neuse River Basin and done in accordance
with 15A NCAC .02B .0295. The DMS has indicated in a letter dated August 28, 2018 that they will assume
responsibility for satisfying the compensatory mitigation requirements for the above -referenced project, in
accordance with DMS's Mitigation Banking Instrument signed June 14, 2016.

The post -construction removal of any temporary bridge structures must return the project site to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. The impacted areas shall be revegetated with appropriate native species. [15A NCAC 02H
.0506(b)(2)
As a condition of this 401 Water Quality Certification, the bridge demolition and construction must be accomplished
in strict compliance with the most recent version of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(d)(2) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(5)]
Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the 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. To meet the requirements of NCDOT's NPDES permit NCS0000250 , please refer to the most
recent version of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Stormwater Best Management Practices
Toolbox manual for approved measures. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(d)(2) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(5)]
Bridge piles and bents shall be constructed using driven piles (hammer or vibratory) or drilled shaft construction
methods. More specifically, jetting or other methods of pile driving are prohibited without prior written approval
from the NCDWR first. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(2)]
No drill slurry or water that has been in contact with uncured concrete shall be allowed to enter surface waters. This
water shall be captured, treated, and disposed of properly. [I 5A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3)
A turbidity curtain will be installed in the stream if driving or drilling activities occur within the stream channel, on
the stream bank, or within 5 feet of the top of bank, or during the removal of bents from an old bridge. This
condition can be waived with prior approval from the NCDWR. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3)
3
All bridge construction shall be performed from the existing bridge, temporary work bridges, temporary causeways,
or floating or sunken barges. If work conditions require barges, they shall be floated into position and then sunk.
The barges shall not be sunk and then dragged into position. Under no circumstances should barges be dragged
along the bottom of the surface water. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3)
Unless otherwise approved in this certification, placement of culverts and other structures in open waters and
streams, shall be placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater
than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less 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
maintained if requested in writing by the NCDWR. If this
required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction, please
contact the NCDWR for guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required. [15ANCAC 02H.0506(b)(2)]
If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural 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.
[15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(2)]
Riprap 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 should be properly designed, sized and installed. [15A
NCAC 02H.0506(b)(2)]
For all streams being impacted due to site dewatering activities, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(2)]

The stream channels shall be excavated no deeper than the natural bed material of the stream, to the maximum
extent practicable. Efforts must be made to minimize impacts to the stream banks, as well as to vegetation
responsible for maintaining the stream bank stability. Any applicable riparian buffer impact for access to stream
channel shall be temporary and be revegetated with native riparian species. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(2)]
Pipes and culverts used exclusively to maintain equilibrium in wetlands, where aquatic life passage is not a concern,
shall not be buried. These pipes shall be installed at natural ground elevation. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)]
A copy of the final construction drawings shall be furnished to the NCDWR Central Office prior to the pre -
construction meeting. The permittee shall provide written verification that the final construction drawings comply
with the permit drawings contained in the application received by NCDWR. Any deviations from the approved
drawings are not authorized unless approved by the NC Division of Water Resources.
All portions of the proposed project draining to 303(d) listed watersheds that are impaired due to turbidity shall be
designed, constructed, and operated with sediment and erosion control measures that meet Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0124). However, due to the size of the project, NC DOT shall not be
required to meet 15A NCAC 4B .0124(a) regarding the maximum amount of uncovered acres.
All portions of the proposed project draining to 303(d) listed watersheds that are impaired due to biological criteria
exceedances shall not discharge stormwater directly to surface waters. Stormwater shall be treated using appropriate
best management practices (e.g., vegetated conveyances, constructed wetlands, detention ponds, etc.) prior to
discharging to surface waters.
Channel relocations shall be completed and stabilized, and approved on site by NCDWR staff, prior to diverting
water into the new channel. Stream banks shall be matted with coir -fiber matting. Vegetation used for bank
stabilization shall be limited to native riparian vegetation, and should include establishment of a vegetated buffer on
both sides of the relocated channel to the maximum extent practical. Also, rip -rap may be allowed if it is necessary
to maintain the physical integrity of the stream, but the applicant must provide written justification and any
calculations used to determine the extent of rip -rap coverage requested. Once the stream has been turned into the
new channel, it may be necessary to relocate stranded fish to the new channel to prevent fish kills. [15A NCAC 02H
.0506(b)(3)
All stormwater runoff shall be directed as sheetflow through stream buffers at non-erosive velocities, unless
otherwise approved by this certification. [15A NCAC 213.0233]
All riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities shall be restored to the
preconstruction contours and revegetated. Maintained buffers shall be permanently revegetated with non -woody
species by the end of the growing season following completion of construction. For the purpose of this condition,
maintained buffer areas are defined as areas within the transportation corridor that will be subject to regular NCDOT
maintenance activities including mowing. The area with non -maintained buffers shall be permanently revegetated
with native woody species before the next growing season following completion of construction. Insert buffer rule
citation. [15A NCAC 213.0233]
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233(6), sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in Zone I of any
Neuse Buffer without prior approval by the NCDWR. At this time, the NCDWR has approved no sediment and
erosion control devices in Zone 1, outside of the approved project impacts, anywhere on this project. Moreover;
sediment and erosion control devices shall be allowed in Zone 2 of the buffers provided that Zone 1 is not
compromised and that discharge is released as diffuse flow.
All clearing of vegetation for purpose of relocating overhead power lines within jurisdictional wetlands shall be
performed without the use of mechanized equipment. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(3)]

If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing
concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to surface
waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills. [15A NCAC 0213.02001
During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
protected riparian buffers. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(2)]
The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing shall not be modified. Disturbed
floodplains and streams shall be restored to natural geomorphic conditions. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(2)]
The use of rip -rap above the Normal High Water Mark shall be minimized. Any rip -rap placed for stream stabilization
shall be placed in stream channels in such a manner that it does not impede aquatic life passage. [15A NCAC
02H.0506(b)(2)]
The Permittee shall ensure that the final design drawings adhere to the permit and to the permit drawings submitted
for approval. [15A NCAC 02H .0507 (c) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(2) and (c)(2)]
All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP measures from the
most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms,
cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water. [15A NCAC
02H.0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)]
Heavy equipment shall be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the introduction of other pollutants into the stream. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(3)]
All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. [15A NCAC
02H.0506(b)(3)]
No rock, sand or other materials shall be dredged from the stream channel except where authorized by this certification.
[15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(3)]
Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface waters is
prohibited. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(3)]
The permittee and its authorized agents shall conduct its activities in a manner consistent with State water quality
standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with §303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other
appropriate requirements of State and Federal law. If the NCDWR determines that such standards or laws are not being
met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is being violated, or that
further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the NCDWR may reevaluate and modify this certification. [15A
NCAC 0213.02001
All fill slopes located in jurisdictional wetlands shall be placed at slopes no flatter than 3:1, unless otherwise authorized
by this certification. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(2)]
A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be maintained on the construction site at all times. In addition, the
Water Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if any, shall be maintained with the Division Engineer and
the on-site project manager. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(2) and (c)(2)]
The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this authorization,
including all non-commercial borrow and waste sites associated with the project, shall be clearly marked by highly
visible fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts to areas within the fencing are prohibited unless otherwise
authorized by this certification. [15A NCAC 02H.0501 and .0502]

The issuance of this certification does not exempt the Permittee from complying with any and all statutes, rules,
regulations, or ordinances that may be imposed by other government agencies (i.e. local, state, and federal) having
jurisdiction, including but not limited to applicable buffer rules, stormwater management rules, soil erosion and
sedimentation control requirements, etc.
The Permittee shall report any violations of this certification to the Division of Water Resources within 24 hours of
discovery. [15A NCAC 02B.0506(b)(2)]
Upon completion of the project (including any impacts at associated borrow or waste sites), the NCDOT Division
Engineer shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of Completion Form" to notify the NCDWR when all
work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. [I 5A NCAC 02H.0502(f)]
Native riparian vegetation (i.e., trees and shrubs native to your geographic region) must be reestablished in the riparian
areas within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing season following completion of construction.
[15A NCAC 02B.0233(10)] & [15A NCAC 02B.0506(b)(2)]
There shall be no excavation from, or waste disposal into, jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this permit
without appropriate modification. Should waste or borrow sites, or access roads to waste or borrow sites, be located in
wetlands or streams, compensatory mitigation will be required since that is a direct impact from road construction
activities. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)]
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design,
installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect surface waters
standards [I 5A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)]:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures must
be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction
sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits
associated with the project.
C. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed, operated,
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining
Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance with the
requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or surface waters, or within 5 feet of the top of
bank, without prior approval from DWR. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)]
When applicable, all construction activities shall be performed and maintained in full compliance with G.S. Chapter
113A Article 4 (Sediment and Pollution Control Act of 1973). Regardless of applicability of the Sediment and
Pollution Control Act, all projects shall incorporate appropriate Best Management Practices for the control of sediment
and erosion so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur. [I 5A NCAC 02H .0506 {b)(3)
and (c)(3) and 15A NCAC 02B.0200]

Design, installation, operation, and maintenance of all sediment and erosion control measures shall be equal to or
exceed the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Manual, or for linear transportation projects, the NCDOT Sediment and Erosion Control Manual.
All devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) sites, including contractor -
owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project. Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of
erosion control measures and stormwater routing and treatment shall be on site at all times.
For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures shall be designed, installed, operated, and maintained
in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual. Reclamation measures and
implementation shall comply with the reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act and the Mining Act of 1971. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(3) and (c)(3); GC 4135]

4-•-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER
GOVERNOR
September 12, 2018
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Attention: Eric Alsmeyer
Regulatory NCDOT Project Manager
JAMES H. TROGDON, III
SECRETARY
Subject: Application for a Phased Section 404 Individual Permit, Section 401 Individual Water
Quality Certification, Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization, Non -404 Jurisdictional
Wetlands and Waters Permit for the construction of the Triangle Expressway Southeast
Extension from NC -55 Bypass in Apex to 1-40, Wake and Johnston Counties. TIP Nos.
R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829.
Debit $570 from WBS 37673. LTA2.
Mr. Alsmeyer:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a total of 28.8 miles of
new alignment for the Complete 540 project in Wake and Johnston Counties. The Complete 540 project
encompasses three NCDOT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects: R-2721 (NC -55 Bypass to
US -401), R-2828 (east of US 401 to I-40 Interchange), and R-2829 (east of I-40 to US 64/264).
The intent of this letter is to request approval for a Phased Section 404 Individual Permit, Section 401
Individual Water Quality Certification, Neuse River Buffer Authorization, and Non -404 Waters Permit
for R-2721 and preliminary (phased) permit for R-2828 and R-2829. Additional information included in
the application package is as follows: ENG Form 4345, stormwater management plan (R-2721 A & B
only), permit drawings, roadway plans, utility plans (R-2721 A & B only), North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) Acceptance Letter for R -2721A, R -2721-B, and R-2828, and Interagency
Project Meeting minutes dated July 12, 2017, February 15, 2018, and May 9, 2018.
PURPOSE AND NEED
There are two primary purposes for the Complete 540 project: (1) to improve mobility within and through
the study area during peak travel periods, and (2) to reduce congestion on the study area's existing
roadway network. A secondary purpose, or "other desired outcome," of the project was also identified: to
improve system linkage in the regional roadway network by completing the 540 outer loop around the
Raleigh metropolitan area- an infrastructure improvement that has been sought by local communities and
planners for more than 40 years.
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 1

-6.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The NCDOT proposes to construct a total of 28.8 miles of new alignment for the Complete 540 project in
Wake and Johnston Counties. The Complete 540 project encompasses three NCDOT TIP projects: R-
2721 (NC -55 Bypass to US -401), R-2828 (east of US 401 to 1-40 Interchange), and R-2829 (east of 1-40
to US 64/264). The lengths of each TIP are 8.6 miles, 8.8 miles, and 11.2 miles, respectively. R-2721 is
located entirely in Wake County. R-2828 and R-2829 are located in both Wake and Johnston Counties.
The new alignment will consist of six lanes, with three 12 -foot lanes in each direction, separated by a 70 -
foot wide median. Proposed interchange locations for the Complete 540 project include the NC -55
Bypass, Holly Springs Road, Bells Lake Road, US401, Old Stage Road, NC- 50, White Oak Road, I40,
US -70 Bypass, Old Baucom Road, Auburn Knightdale Road, Poole Road, and US -64/264 Bypass. The
highway is being proposed as a toll facility.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Complete 540 will be completed in four phases R-2721 (R -2721A and R -2721B), R-2828, and R-2829.
R-2721, for purposes of construction, will be constructed in two sections. R -2721A begins west of NC 55
and ends east of Pierce -Olive Rd (SR 1389) and R-2721 B begins east of Pierce -Olive (SR 1387) and ends
east of Highway 401. Table 1 indicates anticipated construction LET dates.
Table 1. Antici ated LET Dates
Project
Anticipated LET Date
R-2721 A
November 2019
R-2721 B
November 2019
R-2828
October 2019
R-2829
Post year
Permit drawings for the proposed R-2721 (Sections A and B) have been completed. Preliminary impacts
based on slope stakes plus 25 feet have been calculated for R-2828 and R-2829. The NCDOT will apply
for any relevant permit modifications for R-2828 and R-2829 when final designs are complete.
Construction will not commence on R-2828 and R-2829 until permit modifications have been received
based on final design.
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final EIS (FEIS) were approved in October 2015
and December 2017, respectively. The Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on June 6, 2018. These
documents are available at bqps://www.ncdot.goy/proiects/complete-540/Pages/default.aspxo
INDEPENDENT UTILITY
The project is in compliance with 23 CFR Part 771.111(f), which lists the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) characteristics of independent utility for a project:
1) The project connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address environmental
matters on a broad scope;
2) The project is a usable and reasonable expenditure, even if no additional transportation
improvements are made in the area;
3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable
transportation improvements.
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 2

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
For R-2721 A, proposed impacts to jurisdictional areas total 15.24 acres of permanent wetland (riparian
and non -riparian) impacts, 10,428 linear feet of permanent stream impacts (including 1,068 if of bank
stabilization), 441 linear feet of temporary stream impacts, 1.93 acres of permanent surface water impacts,
and 1,166,439 square feet of Neuse riparian buffer impacts. Additionally, R-2721 A has 0.02 acres of
isolated wetland impacts and 0.21 acres of isolated pond impacts. R-2721 B has 12.69 acres of permanent
wetland impacts, 0.60 acres of temporary wetland impacts, 9,443 linear feet of permanent stream impacts
(including 907 if of bank stabilization), 485 linear feet of temporary stream impacts, 14.04 acres of
permanent surface water impacts, and 1,308,419 square feet of Neuse riparian buffer impacts. R -2721B
has 2.43 acres of isolated wetland impacts and 1.52 acres of isolated pond impacts.
Preliminary proposed impacts (based on proposed slope stakes plus 25 feet) for R-2828 include, 19.30
acres of permanent wetland (riparian and non -riparian) impacts, 20,086 linear feet of permanent stream
impact, 5.99 acres of permanent surface water impacts, and 2,031,787 square feet of Neuse riparian buffer
impacts. Additionally, R-2828 has 0.30 acres of isolated wetland impacts and 0.02 acres of isolated pond
impacts. R-2829 proposed impacts (based on proposed slope stakes plus 25 feet) include 18.40 acres of
permanent wetland impacts (riparian and non -riparian), 17,387 linear feet of permanent stream impacts,
7.57 acres of permanent surface water impacts, and 2,268,108 square feet of Neuse riparian buffer
impacts.
Table 2. R -2721A Jurisdictional Resources Impacts
Table 3. R -2721B Jurisdictional Resources Impacts
Perm.
Perm.
Isolated
Isolated
Stream Of)
`Riparian
Impact
Riparian
Non-
Isolated
Ponds
Isolated
Buffer
Type
Wetland
Riparian
Wetlands
(ac)
Ponds
Perm.
Temp.
Bank
(sq. ft.)
Temp.
(ac)
Wetland
(ac)
(acWlk
(ac)
Stab.
Zone 1/2
ac)
ac
Cape Fear
Neuse River
River Basin
0.0
0.01
0.02
0.0
0.21
102
23
10
8,536
(HUC
907
820,102/
(HUC
12.69
03030004
488,317
03020201
Neuse River
Basin
15.23
0.0
0.0
1.93
0.0
9,258
418
1,058
713,620/
(HUC
452,819
03020201)
'
Table 3. R -2721B Jurisdictional Resources Impacts
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 3
Tian
Wetland
Non-
Riparian
Isolated
Isolated
Stream (It)
Riparian
mpact
Temp./
Wetland
Wetlands
Ponds
Ponds
Bank
Buffer
Type
Perm.
Temp./
(ac)
(ac)
(ac)
Perm.
Temp.
Stab.
(sq. ft.)
(acWlk
Perm.
Zone 1/2
ac
Neuse River
Basin
0.60/
0.0
2.43
14.04
1.52
8,536
485
907
820,102/
(HUC
12.69
488,317
03020201
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 3

_. ■. ..a:,.+: ..1 uo .....-pac Imnartc (Preliminary, Desianl
1 able 4. K -GIGO
rMlIanrut
Riparian
aur �u......a....�.,...
Non -
Riparian
-,
Isolated
.... --
Ponds
-
Isolated
Stream
Riparian Buffer
(sq. ft.)
Stream
-
Impact Type*
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetlands
(ac)
Ponds
(ac)
Zone 1/2
Neuse River Basin
(ac)
1.38 7.57
(ac)
917,248
HUC 03020201)
. t _ _
Neuse River
1,279,298/
Basin
19.26
0.04
0.30
5.99
0.02
20,086
752,489
(HUC
03020201)
*All impacts are assumed permanent. Types of Impact ww be quannnea w1ul pe not
nen n__�__,._a I....:..a;..+;....a! Aacnnrrvc ImnArtC (Preliminary Desi<uyn)
1 ante n. K-GnGy ref
u�auuut
Riparian
Non. Riparian
Riparian Bu
Impact Type*
Wetland
Ponds
Wetland (ac)
Stream
-
ft.
(sq. )
ac
ac
1,350,860/
Neuse River Basin
17.02
1.38 7.57
17,387
917,248
HUC 03020201)
. t _ _
*All impacts are assumed permanent. -hypes of Impact will oe quantilleU Willi NA..UM ....�•••��••�
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
The NCDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible. The proposed construction of R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 will result in unavoidable impacts to
jurisdictional streams, open water ponds, riparian and non -riparian wetlands, isolated wetlands and ponds,
and Neuse River riparian buffers. The impact totals per TIP are shown in Tables 8-22. NCDOT is
utilizing NCDMS for compensatory mitigation for R-2721. Compensatory mitigation for R-2828 will
come from a combination of NCDMS and private mitigation banks. Currently, there is no compensatory
mitigation strategy for R-2829 due to it being post year.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) mitigation requirements for permanent stream
and wetland impacts at the 1:1 ratio will be met under the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) mitigation requirement ratio of 2:1. Bank stabilization will not require mitigation for the
USACE and will only require mitigation for NCDWR if the total length of impact on an individual stream
is greater than 300 linear feet. Impacts to isolated wetlands will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio for any impacts
above one-half acre to meet the NCDWR mitigation requirement. In addition, Neuse River riparian buffer
impacts in Zones 1 and 2 will be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio and 1.5:1 ratio, respectively.
RESOURCE STATUS
Water Resource Classifications
The study area lies within the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina. Jurisdictional features
within the project footprint are located in both the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basins (USGS Hydrologic
Unit Codes 03030004 and 03020201, respectively), in Wake and Johnston Counties.
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 4

Table 6. R -2721A Impacted Jurisdictional Streams
Stream Name
UT to Little Branch
Number of Impacted
Unnamed Tributaries
2
NCDWR Index Number
18-7-6-1-1
NCDWR Classification
C
UT to Middle Creek
11
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
Middle Creek
N/A
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
UT to Rocky Branch
7
27-43-154.5
C; NSW
Rocky Branch
N/A
27-43-154.5
C; NSW
Table 7. R-27216 Impacted Jurisdictional Streams
Stream Name
Number of Impacted
Unnamed Tributaries
UT
NCDWR Index Number
M... _ .., ..: _
N5WR Classification
Ar -
UT to Panther Branch
1
27-43-15-9
C; NSW
UT to Mills Branch
7
27-43-15-7
C; NSW
Mills Branch
N/A
27-43-15-7
C: NSW
UT to Middle Creek
6
27-43-15-4
C; NSW
UT to Bells Lake
1
27-43-15-6
C; NSW
Bells Lake
N/A
27-43-15-6
C; NSW
UT to Camp Branch
3
27-43-15-5
C; NSW
Camp Branch
N/A
27-43-15-5
C; NSW
There are no designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW) or water
supply watersheds (WS -I or WS -II) within 1.0 mile downstream of the project area. There are no streams
within the project area listed on the North Carolina 2016 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters for
sedimentation and turbidity. Detailed information about the type and quality of the streams can be found
in the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR, 2014) and the Natural Resources Memo (NRM,
2017).
The reach of the Neuse River within the R-2829 project area has been identified as a North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) anadromous fish spawning area (AFSA) and an Inland
Primary Nursery Area (PNA). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has designated the Neuse
River within the R-2829 project area as Critical Habitat for the Atlantic Sturgeon.
Jurisdictional Determinations
Wetland delineations for the Complete 540 project followed the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region, and the Regional Supplement
to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual:. Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region. Stream
identification and classification followed the NCDWR publication Identification Methods for the Origins
of Intermittent and Perennial Streams.
Wetland and stream delineations were conducted between January 2010 and August 2017. Wetland and
stream delineations were field verified by the USACE and the NCDWR from July 2010 through April
2018.
At this time, the USACE and NCDWR have not provided written verification of the resources within the
Complete 540 project. The project's USACE number is SAW -2009-02240.
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 5

r
IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES
Utility Impacts
Utility impacts associated with relocation of two sanitary sewer outfall lines maintained by the Town of
Cary are included in this application. Both lines are currently located inside utility easements owned by
the Town of Cary which will be inside a portion of the proposed right-of-way and crossing R -2721A and
B in a perpendicular configuration. Both lines conflict with proposed construction. See Table 12 for
utility impact amount and type. R -2721A and B utility impacts associated with the relocation of the
Colonial Pipeline are to be covered under a separate Nationwide 12 permit. No work will commence until
jurisdictional impacts associated with utilities are quantified and permitted with the USACE and
NCDWR.
Jurisdictional Impacts by TIP
Tables 8 through 22 provide individual site impact amounts to wetlands, surface waters, and Neuse River
riparian buffers. The detailed permit drawings for each section of the project, R -2721A, R-272113, R-
2828, and R-2829, provide the station number, structure size/type, and type of impact associated with
each site. R -2721A has impacts in both the Neuse and Cape Fear River Basins, while the remaining
projects have impacts within the Neuse River Basin only.
Impacts associated with R -2721A & B are based on final design. The impacts associated with R-2828 and
R-2829 are preliminary and extend 25 feet outside of the estimated slope stake line. These impacts will be
finalized through a permit modification prior to construction. The impacts stated in this application are
consistent with the impacts presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with the
exception of the stream impacts, riparian buffer impacts and pond impacts associated with R-2721. The
riparian buffer and pond impacts increased from the FEIS as NCDWR has requested that riparian buffer
impacts around ponds and pond impacts be extended to include the entire pond if the pond is being
drained. This was requested during the May 9, 2018 Interagency Meeting. The stream impact increase is
attributed to the request made during the February 15, 2018 Interagency Project Meeting, in which it was
determined that further investigations were needed for the existing 60 -inch RCP underneath Old
McCullers Road near Wake Tech Community College (WTCC). Subsequent field inspections, hydraulic
analysis, and discussions with NCDOT resulted in the proposal to replace the existing 60 -inch RCP with a
2@ TXT RCBC and stabilize the downstream portion of the stream with riprap. The replacement of the
culvert requires additional stream stabilization upstream, and the decision was made to continue the
stream stabilization upstream to the two new culverts underneath the proposed NC 540. This additional
stream impact around Old McCullers Road near WTCC totaled 500 linear feet. Additionally, bank
stabilization was increased based on comments made during the February 15, 2018 Interagency Project
Meeting. NCDOT requested that riprap extend a minimum of 10 linear feet or four times the pipe size,
whichever is greater. It was also requested that rip rap stabilization be extended to the limits of the
temporary channel diversions. These requests increased bank stabilization beyond the assumed slope
stake plus 25 linear feet used during the impacts for the FEIS. These two changes presented during the
February meeting are responsible for the increase in stream impacts for R-2721.
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 6

Table 8. R -2721A Wetland Impacts
Permit
Drawing
Site Number
NRTR
Label
Impact Type
Wetland Type
Permanent
Impacts (ac.)
1 (Y3DET)
WS
Fill
Riparian
0.38
1 (Y3DET)
WS
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.07
2 (Y3DET)
WR
Fill
Riparian
0.09
2 (Y3DET)
WR
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.02
3 (Y3DET)
WAK
Fill
Riparian
0.01
3 (Y3DET)
WAK
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.02
3
WVZ*
Fill
Non -Riparian
<0.01
3
WVZ*
Excavation
Non -Riparian
<0.01
3
WVZ*
Mechanized Clearing
Non -Riparian
<0.01
5
WF
Fill
Riparian
0.05
5
WF
Mechanized Clearing
Ri arian
0.02
6
WG
Fill
Riparian
1.53
6
WG
Excavation
Riparian
0.06
6
WG
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.02
9
WI
Fill
Riparian
0.27
9
Wl
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
11
WK
Fill
Riparian
0.08
11
WK
Excavation
Riparian
0.03
12
WL
Fill
Riparian
0.48
12
WL
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.03
13
WL
Fill
Riparian
0.17
13
WL
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.01
15
WR
Fill
Riparian
1.73
15
WR
Excavation
Riparian
0.01
15
WR
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.09
16
WU
Excavation
Riparian
0.67
17
WV
Fill
Riparian
0.11
17
WV
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.01
18
WX
Fill
Riparian
0.83
18
WX
Excavation
Riparian
0.06
18
WX
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.06
19
WY
Fill
Riparian
0.01
19
WY
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
19
WY
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.04
20
WZ
Fill
Riparian
0.11
20
WZ
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
20
WZ
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.04
21
WAB
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
21
WAB
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
<0.01
23
WAB
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
23
WAB
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
<0.01
24
WAC
Fill
Riparian
1.96
24
WAC
Excavation
Riparian
0.02
24
WAC
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.07
26
WAE
Fill
Riparian
1.24
26
WAE
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.08
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 7

n 1-I'11 A 111,.41.....1 1--f. /runt 1
Permit NRTR
Drawing
Site Number
27 WAE
---
Impact Type
Mechanized Clearing
Wetland Type
Riparian
Permanent
Impacts (ac.)
0.02
28
WAF
Fill
Riparian
<0.01
28
WAF
Mechanized Clearin
Riparian
<0.01
30
WAF
Fill
Riparian
1.42
30
W AF
Mechanized Clearin
Riparian
0.04
31
WAL
Fill
Riparian
0.20
32
WAM
Fill
Riparian
0.04
33
WAK
Fill
Riparian
0.33
33
WAK
Excavation
Riparian
0.05
33
WAK
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.03
34
WAK
Fill
Riparian
0.12
34
WAK
Excavation
Riparian
0.01
34
WAK
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.52
35
WAI
Fill
Riparian
0.01
35
WAI
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
35
WAI
Mechanized Clearing,
Riparian
<0.01
37
WAO 1)
Fill
Riparian
0.31
37
WAO 1)
Excavation
Riparian
0.03
37
WAO 1
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.09
38
WAO 2)
Fill
Riparian
0.32
38
WAO 2
Excavation
Riparian
0.02
38
WAO 2
Mechanized Clearin
Riparian
0.03
39
WA
Fill
Riparian
0.20
39
WA
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
39
WAQ
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.03
40
WA
Fill
Riparian
0.26
40
WA
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
40
WAQ
Mechanized ClearingRiparian
0.04
42
WS
Fill
0.06
42
WS
Mechanized Clearing
<0.01
43
WSFill
taarian
0.19
43
WS
Mechanized Clearin
0.07
46
WAG
Fill
Riparian
0.07
46
WAG
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.03
47
WAH
Fill
Riparian
0.06
47
WAH
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.03
48
WAJ
Fill
Riparian
0.08
Total Riparian Impacts
HUC 03020201:
15.23
Total Non -Riparian Impacts
HUC 03030004:
0.01
* Impacts in HUC 03030004
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 8

Table 9. R -2721A Isolated Waters Impacts (NCDWR Only)
Permit Drawing
NRTR
Permanent
Site Number
Isolated Type
Label
Impacts (ac.
4
WE Wetland
0.02
4
PA Pond
0.21
13
Total Isolated Waters Impacts
0.23
SSF*
HUC 03030004:
10
Total Isolated Wetland Impacts
0.02
6
HUC 03030004:
RCP
Table 10. R -2721A Surface Waters Impacts
Permit
Drawing
Site
Number
NRTR
Label
Impact Type
Permanent
Surface
Water
Impacts
Ponds ac
Permanent
Surface
Water
Impacts
Stream
Temporary
Surface Water
Impacts
(Stream) (If)
Stream
Flow
1
SSF*
Culvert
33
13
Perennial
1
SSF*
Stabilization
10
Perennial
6
SF
RCP
463
10
Intermittent
7
SG
RCP
372
16
Intermittent
8
SH
Fill
2302
52
Perennial
8
SH
Stabilization
64
Perennial
10
Si
RCP
249
10
Intermittent
10
SJ
Stabilization
13
Intermittent
14
SO
(Middle
Creek)
Stabilization
57
14
Perennial
14A
SM
Fill
231
15
Perennial
15
SM
Fill
33
Perennial
18
SS
RCBC
273
21
Intermittent
18
SS
Stabilization
81
Intermittent
18A
SS
Fill
91
Intermittent
19
ST
RCBC
333
11
Perennial
19
ST
Stabilization
122
Perennial
20
Sv
RCBC
277
21
Perennial
20
Sv
Stabilization
87
Perennial
22
SW
RCP
104
10
Intermittent
25
PB
Fill
0.40
N/A
27
SX
RCBC
314
36
Perennial
27
SX
Stabilization
119
Perennial
29
Fill
1.53
N/A
30
SZ
Fill
251
10
Perennial/
Intermittent
31
SAC
Fill
872
Perennial/
Intermittent
33
SAA
RCP
251
9
Perennial
35
SAA
Fill
779
57
Perennial
35
SAA
Stabilization
79
Perennial
36
SAD
RCBC
977
20
Perennial
36
SAD
Stabilization
92
Perennial
38
SAE
RCP
358
10
Intermittent
38
SAE
Stabilization
18
Intermittent
39
SAG
RCP
303
9
Intermittent
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 9

T .. Lit o 1'711 1, 4.: f. . Watarc Imnartc front -1
Permit
Drawing NRTR
Impact Type
Site Label
Number -
39 SAG Stabilization
Permanent
Surface
Water
Impacts
(Ponds) ac _
Permanent
Surface
Water
Impacts
Stream
Temporary
Surface Water
Impacts
(Stream) Of)
Stream
Flow
18
requirements
Intermittent
40
SAH Fill
in .
Requiring
l0
Intermittent
41
SB* RCP
Buffe'
113,200
56
10
Perennial
44
SO RCBC
22,377 452,819
58
30
Perennial
44
SO Stabilization
2
123
Fill
Perennial
45
SX RCBC
2
211
41
Perennial
45
SX Stabilization
4
102
Fill
Perennial
49
SEE RCBC
4
28
Excavation
Perennial
49
SEE Stabilization
4
83
Mechanized Clearing
Perennial
50
SEI Fill
4
128
6
Intermittent
51
SB* Fill
4
13
Mechanized Clearing
Perennial
0.05
Total Impact:
1.93
10,428
441
Riparian
1.12
Total Bank Stabilization:
N/A
1,068
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.18
Total Requiring Mitigation
HUC 03020201:
N/A
9,258
Total Requiring Mitigation
HUC 03030004:
N/A
102
*Impacts in HUC 03030004
T L. " 1^i11 1, o:.,...-:.,., R..ffar Imnartc
Mitigation
e
Allowable
Allowable
Total
Wetlands
Impacts
requirements
with
with
Allowable Impacts
in .
Requiring
(sq. ft.
'tiation*_
82,093
mitiation
592,677
38,850 713,620
Buffe'
113,200
Mitigation
561,570
Zone 1 Impact
Zone 2 Impact
55,446
374,996
22,377 452,819
62,776 b 367,666
* Impacts other than Road Crossing, ** Road Crossing, ^ Allowable, non-mitigable buffer Impacts have en
deducted from wetlands in buffers.
Table 12. R -2721B Wetlana Im acis
Permit
awing Site NRTR Impact Type
Number
1 WAR Fill
Tae
YP
Ri arian
acts act
P ( )
0.05
Temporaryq
Impacts
(ac.)
I
WAR
Mechanized Clearing__
0.01i
WAS
Fill
1.341
WAS
Excavation
0.01
I
WAS
Mechanized Clearin
0.13
2
WAW(1)
Fill
0.87
2
WAW (1)
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.12
4
WAX
Fill
Riparian
0.13
4
WAX
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
4
WAX
Mechanized Clearing
Riarian
0.02
4
WAY
Fill
Riparian
0.06
4
WAY
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.05
5
WBC
Fill
Riparian
1.12
5
WBC
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.18
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 10

Table 12. R-2721 B Wetland Impacts (cont.)
Permit
Drawing SiteImpact
Numbs
6
NRTR
WBE
Type
Fill
Wetland
Type
Riparian
Permanent
Imp (ac.)
0.54
Temporary
Impacts
ac.)
_
6
WBE
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
6
WBE
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.03
7
WBF
Fill
Riparian
0.23
7
WBF
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.02
7
WBF
Tempo Causeway
Riparian
0.39
8
WBG
Fill
Riparian
0.25
8
WBG
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.03
8
WBG
Temporary Diversion
Riparian
<0.01
9
WBH
Fill
Riparian
0.06
9
WBH
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
9
WBH
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.25
12
WBI
Fill
Riparian
0.86
12
WBI
Excavation
Riparian
0.03
12
WBI
Mechanized Clearing
Ri arian
0.15
14
WBN (1)
Fill
Riparian
0.39
14
WBN (1)
Excavation
Riparian
0.03
14
WBN 1)
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.15
14
WBN 1)
Temporary Diversion
Riparian
0.04
16
WBN 2)
Fill
Riparian
0.70
16
WBN 2)
Excavation
Riparian
0.02
16
WBN (2)
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.41
17
WBP
Fill
Riparian
0.50
17
WBP
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.07
17
WBP
Temporary Diversion
Riparian
<0.01
17
WBQ
Fill
Riparian
0.02
17
WBQ
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.02
17
WBS
Fill
Riparian
0.03
18
WBR
Fill
Riparian
0.18
20
WBY
Fill
Riparian
0.62
20
WBY
Excavation
Riparian
2.34
21
WBZ
Fill
Riparian
0.41
21
WBZ
Mechanized Clearing
Riparian
0.09
22
WCB
Fill
Riparian
0.14
22
WCB
Excavation
Riparian
<0.01
25
WBW
Fill
Riparian
0.03
1 *
WAS
Hand Clearing
Ri arian
0.05
1*
WAS
Temporary Excavation
Riparian
0.03
1 *
WAS
Temporary Fill
Riparian
0.02
2*
WAW
Hand Clearing
Riparian
0.03
2*
WAW
Tem or Excavation
Riparian
0.01
2*
WAW
Temporary Fill
Riparian
0.01
Total Riparian Impacts:
12.69
0.60
*Impacts associated with the Town of Cary sewer relocation.
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 11

T L_ , I n V711 a 1 #.A Watvrc Imnacts (NCDWR Onlvl
1 Q.l.l . J. -__JL_
Permit Drawing
Site Number
NRTR Impact
Label Type
Isolated Permanent
T e Impacts ac.)
10
PG Fill
Pond EE1.52
13
WBK Fill
Wetland 0.24
13
WBK Excavation
Wetland 0.03
19
WBV Excavation
Wetland 2.15
26
WWE Mechanized
Clearing
Wetland <0.01
Flow
Total Isolated Pond Impact: 1.52
Label
Total Isolated Wetland Impact 2.43
carne 14. R-L/Liv us la%. ••Nle■J.
Permanent
Permanent
Temporary
Permit
Surface
Surface
Surface
Stream
Drawing Site
NRTR
Impact Type
Water
Water
Water
Flow
Number
Label
Impacts
Impacts
Impacts
Ponds ac
(Stream)(Stream)(1
1
SAJ
RCBC
304
Perennial
1
SAJ
Fill
101
35
Perennia
1
SAJ
Stabilization
77
1
SAK
Fill
18
2
SAL
Fill
398l2
PD
Fill
0.95
3
SAM
RCBC
316l3
l46
Ell
SAM
Fill
1l
l3
SAM
Stabilization
84l4
SAR
Fill
128nt
5
SAQ
RCBC
460
Perennial
5
SAQ
Fill
77
32
Perennial
6
SAS
RCBC
268
Intermittent
6
SAS
RCBC
273
Intermittent
6
SAS
Fill
412
30
Intermittent
8
SAT
Fill
105
Intermittent
9
SAU
RCBC
252
Intermittent
9
SAU
RCP
105
Intermittent
9
SAU
Fill
283
22
Intermittent
9
SAU
Stabilization
38
Intermittent
I1
SAW
RCP
404
Perennial
11
SAW
Stabilization
20
60
Perennial
11
PF
Fill
4.43
N/A
12
SAX
Fill
157
46
Intermittent
14
SAZ
Fill
402
28
Perennial
15
SBA
RCBC
142
Intermittent
15
PI
Fill
2.30
N/A
16
SBB
RCP
315
Intermittent
16
SBB
Fill
18
13
Intermittent
16
SBB
Stabilization
46
Intermittent
17
SBF
RCBC
11
Perennial
17
SBF
Fill
170
46
Perennial
17
SBF
Stabilization
368
Perennial
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 12

Table 14. R-2721 B Surface Waters Impacts (cont.)
Permit
Drawing Site
Number
18
NRTR
Label
SBH
Impact Type
RCBC
Permanent
Surface
Water
Impacts
Ponds ac
Permanent
Surface
Water
Impacts
Stream
256
Temporary
Surface
Water
Impacts
Stream
Stream
Flow
Perennial
18
SBH
Stabilization
in
15
(sq. ft.
Perennial
18
PK
Fill
6.36
Zone 1 Impact
Zone 2 Impact
N/A
20
SBI
Fill
387,313
1,135
Riparian
Perennial/
Intermittent
21
SBJ
RCBC
0.06
977
WCW
Perennial
21
SBJ
Fill
Riparian
181
34
Perennial
21
SBJ
Stabilization
204
Perennial
22
SBK
RCP
490
Intermittent
22
SBK
Fill
202
13
Intermittent
22
SBK
Stabilization
55
Intermittent
23
SBN
Fill
9
11
Intermittent
24
SSI
RCP
1
Intermittent
24
SSI
Fill
13
17
Intermittent
25
SBO
RCP
115
Intermittent
25
SBO
Fill
27
6
Intermittent
I *
SAJ
Oen Cut
15
Perennial
Total Impacts:
14.04
9,443
485
Total Bank Stabilization:
N/A
907
Total Requiring
Miti ation:
N/A
8,536
*Impacts associated with the Town of Cary sewer relocation.
Table 15. R -2721B Riparian Buffer Impacts
Mitigation
Allowable
Allowable
IF Total
Wetlands
Impacts
requirements
& with
with
Allowable
in
Requiring
(sq. ft.
108,386
• ^ **
698,035
impacts
13,681 820,102
Buffers"
223,799
'ti a '
582,622
Zone 1 Impact
Zone 2 Impact
66,522
405,989
15,806 488,317
85,198
387,313
* Impacts other than Road Crossing, ** Road Crossing, ,^, Allowable, non-mitigable buffer impacts have been
deducted from wetlands in buffers.
Table 16. R-2828 Preliminary Wetland Impacts
Permit
Drawing Site
Algftpbej�-
3
NRTR Label
WCE
Wetland Type
Riparian
Permanen a ana
(ac)
0.53
4
WCH
Riparian
0.05
5
WCF
Riparian
0.03
5
WCI
Riparian
0.84
7
WO
Riparian
0.11
8
WCL
Riparian
0.22
9
WCQ
Riparian
0.03
9
WCR
Riparian
0.06
10
WCW
Non -Riparian
0.04
11
WCZ
Riparian
1.80
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 13

Tohln i& R-7R7R Preliminary Wetland Impacts (cont.)
Permit
Drawing Site
Number
14
NRTR Label
WDE
Wetland Type
Ri arian
Permanent Wetland
<0.01
14
WWD
Riparian
0.55
15
WDB
Ri arian
2.41
16
WDF
Ri arian
0.20
16
WDG
Riparian
3.58
17
WDH
Riparian
2.79
20
"1
Riparian
0.41
21
WDM
Riparian
0.42
22
WDN
Riparian
0.02
23
WDO
Riparian
0.70
24
WDP
Riparian
0.02
25
WDV
Riparian
0.62
26
WDS
Riparian
0.08
28
WDW
Riparian
0.12
29
WDX
Riparian
<0.01
30
WDZ
Riparian
0.61
31
WEA
Riparian
0.28
34
WEC
Riparian
2.33
35
WED
Riparian
0.09
40
WEV
Riparian
0.02
40
WEW
Riparian
0.02
42
WFN
Riparian
0.09
44
WFD
Riparian
0.01
44
WFC
Riparian
0.02
44
WEL
Riparian
0.03
47
WEJ
Riparian
0.13
48
WNQ
Riparian
<0.01
49
WQC
Riparian
<0.01
50
WQA
Riparian
<0.01
51
WEF
Ri arian
0.02
Total:
Riparian
19.26
Non -Riparian 0.04
T I-1.. /1 n 1014 DQurfarP Wnterr Imnacts
Permit
Drawing Site
Number
2
NRTR Label
SBP
Permanent Surface
Water Impacts
(Ponds)
(ac)
Hent Surface
Water Impacts
(Streams)
576
3
SBQ
107
4
SBU
218
4
PM
1.36
5
SBR
431
6
SBS
28
8
SBY
493
9
SBX
430
10
PN
0.31
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 14

Table 17. R-2828 Preliminary Surface Waters Impacts (cont.)
Permit
Drawing Site
Number
NRTR Label
Permanent Surface
Water Impacts
(Ponds)
ac
Permanent Surface
Water Impacts
(Streams)
1
I 1
PP
1.04
11
SCC
377
12
SCK
168
13
PQ
0.17
13
PR
0.97
14
SCF
55
16
PU
0.89
16
PV
0.93
16
PW
0.10
16
SCL
1252
17
SCM
330
18
SCN
183
19
SCQ
761
16
Py
0.21
20
SCP
451
23
SCT
442
24
SCV
470
25
SCY
2250
26
SDB
99
27
SDC
79
30
SDJ
442
31
SDK
26
32
SDL
656
33
SDM
1093
34
SDV
777
35
SDW
1051
37
PBI
<0.01
38
SCZ
65
40
SET
919
41
SDO
1129
43
SES
350
44
SDT
1469
45
SDX
209
46
SDQ
792
47
SDR
139
48
SEM
868
49
SNK
456
50
SNO
61
51
SEK
123
53
SEL
183
54
SEV
78
Total:
5.99
20,086
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 15

I AUIC 10. n-coco ■ ■ u■■.....w. w.,......,.
Permit Drawing NRTR
Site Number Labela
WCD
Type
nd
riti
Permanent Impacts
ac.1
0.11
36
PAB
d0.02
Allowable
39
WDR
and
0.09
52
WEG
Fill Wetland
0.10
Buffers^
Mitigation
Total Isolated Pond Impact:
0.02
mitt ation**
719,618 158,938
1,279,298
Total Isolated Wetland Impact:
0.30
Table 19. R-2828 Prelimima
K1 arian nuiier Iw au �
-----
Wetland Type
Non -Riparian
Wetlands
Impacts
Mitigation
Allowable
Allowable
Total
in
Requiring
requirements
with
with Allowable
Impacts
p
Buffers^
Mitigation
(sq. ft.)
Zone 1 Impact
'ti *
400,742
mitt ation**
719,618 158,938
1,279,298
165,456
Ri arian
954,904
Zone 2 Impact
201,606
453,399 97,484
752,489
78,142
576,863
T ...., r -tho. th.- Rnari r'rnecino
#• Rnad Crossine. ^ Allowable, non-mitigable buffer impacts have
been
deducted from wetlands in buffers.
1 au1C LV. 1\-iV4J . ■ I
Permit Drawing Site
mber
1
........... .. - --
ohm&
WFG
-----
Wetland Type
Non -Riparian
_
Permanent Wetlafid
ac
0.02
2
WFJ
Non -Riparian
0.09
3
WFN (1)
Riparian
0.84
4
WFy
Riparian
0.47
7
WFZ
Riparian
0.14
8
WGB/WGCIWGD
Ri arian
0.03
9
WGG
Riparian
0.16
10
WGJ
Non -Riparian
<0.01
12
WGM
Riparian
0.02
13
WGN
Riparian
<0.01
14
WGO
Non -Riparian
0.05
15
WGR
-Riparian
1.38
16
WGR
Riparian
2.10
17
WGS
Riparian
0.27
18
WGS
Riparian
0.03
19
WGR
Riparian
0.26
21
WGX (2)
Riparian
0.21
22
WGY
Non -Riparian
0.21
23
WGZ
Non -Riparian
0.10
24
WHB
Riparian
1.29
26
WED
Riparian
0.56
27
WHD 2)
Riparian
0.29
29
WHH
Non -Riparian
0.14
31
WHQ
Riparian
0.18
32
WHP
Riparian
0.03
33
WIC
Riparian
0.05
34
WIH
Non -Riparian
0.05
36
WIP
Non -Riparian_
0.06
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 16

Table 20. R-2829 Preliminary Wetland Impacts (cont)
Permit Drawing Site
Number
NRTR Label
Wetland Type
Permanent Wetland
Impacts ac
37
WIQ
Non -Riparian
0.06
38
WIR
Riparian
0.05
39
WIW
Riparian
0.78
41
WIU
Riparian
0.11
42
WIV
Riparian
0.16
43
MY
Non -Riparian
0.31
44
WIZ/WJA
Riparian
0.18
46
WJD
Riparian
0.43
47
WJF
Riparian
1.29
48
WJG
Non -Riparian
0.17
49
WJH
Riparian
0.20
51
Wil
Non -Riparian
0.11
52
WJK
Riparian
0.61
53
WJJ (1)
Riparian
3.12
54
WJJ (1)
Riparian
0.33
55
WJJ (2)
Riparian
0.45
56
WJX
Riparian
0.05
57
WJX
Riparian
0.03
59
WJT/WJU
Riparian
0.05
60
WWG
Riparian
0.01
63
WGV (1)
Riparian
0.10
65
WJJ (1)
Riparian
0.55
66
WJJ (2)
Riparian
0.21
Total:
Riparian: 17.02
Non -Riparian:
1.38
Table 21. R-2829 Preliminary Surface Waters Impacts
Permit Drawing Site
Nuiuber
NRTR Label
Permanent
Surface Water
Impacts
(Ponds) (ac)
Permanent Surface
Water Impacts
(Streams) Of)
3
SEW/SEY
542
5
SFH
413
6
SFF
469
7
SFE
612
8
SFB
322
9
SFA
326
9
PAD
0.03
11
SFX
155
12
SFD
468
13
SFC
227
15
SFR
155
16
SFN/SFQ
1191
19
SFS
534
20
SFT
794
24
SGC
681
25
SGD
293
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 17

T�hh- 71 R-2829 Preliminary Surface Waters Impacts (cont)
Permit Drawing Site
Number
NRTR Label
Permanent
Surface Water
Impacts
(Ponds) (ac)
Permanent Surface
Water Impacts
(Streams) Of)
26
SGE
492
27
SGF
513
28
SGG
798
30
PAH
0.03
31
SGK
164
32
f
SGK
500
33
SGO
227
35
SGJ
500
36
SGR
156
37
SGR
448
38A
SGT
99
40
SGV
970
42
SGU
970
44
SGY
289
44
PAI
1.79
45
PAK
4.85
46
SHA
428
49
SHD
1096
50
SHC
212
53
SHC
1417
54
SHH
202
58
PAM
0.87
59
SHM
94
61
SHT
214
62
SFJ
94
63
SFZ (1)
31
64
SGA
197
65
SHL
94
Total:
7.57
17,387
Table 22. R-2829 Preliminary Riparian Buffer Impacts
Mitigation Allowable Allowable Total WeMBINla
requirements with with Allowable acts Im in Requiring
s mitigation* miti ation** p Buffers^ Mitigation
Zone 1 Impact 328,354 916,586 105,920 1,350,860 229,248 1,015,692
Zone 2 Impact 235,382 594,817 87,049 917,248 93,191 1 737,008
* Impacts other than Road Crossing, ** Road Crossing, ^ Allowable, non-mitigable buffer impacts have been
deducted from wetlands in buffers.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation for all remaining
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) planning process and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 18

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 6002 environmental review process. Minimization measures
were incorporated as part of the project design.
Avoidance and Minimization
All jurisdictional features were delineated, field verified, and surveyed within the corridor for R-2721, R-
2828, and R-2829. Preliminary designs were adjusted to avoid and/or minimize impacts to jurisdictional
features. NCDOT employs multiple strategies to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas in all
of its designs. For those impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands that cannot be avoided in their
entirety, minimization efforts were utilized throughout the planning and design process. These are listed
below.
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented.
• Considering environmental, hydraulic, and roadway perspectives, 2:1 slopes are proposed
within the wetlands, where practical.
• Toe protection is being installed in areas where sideslopes intersect with a wetland.
• Energy dissipator pads and rip rap pads are being used near wetland areas to minimize the
potential for erosion.
• No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies in jurisdictional
wetlands or streams.
• NCDOT and its contractors will not fill or perform land clearing activities within
jurisdictional wetlands, buffers, streams or any areas under the jurisdiction of the USACE, or
within isolated waters, except as authorized by the USACE and NCDWR.
• Borrow and waste activities will occur outside of jurisdictional features.
• Horizontal and vertical alignment shifts were analyzed from the functional design to the
preliminary design of the Preferred Alternative. These shifts included multiple interchange
layout options. Interchange layouts that best minimized overall impacts to jurisdictional
features and surrounding residences and businesses, while maintaining effective traffic
operations were selected. Detailed information about the alignment shifts can be found in the
attached July 12, 2017 Interagency Project Meeting Minutes.
• Grass swales, median roadway ditches, and rip rap dissipater treatments have been used
where feasible.
• Proposed box culverts will have a 1 -foot sill and be buried 1 foot.
• Hazardous spill basins will be installed near Swift Creek, as necessary along the proposed
roadway.
• Noise walls will help to minimize impacts to residential and other developed areas.
• Sediment and erosion control devices will follow the NCDOT protocol for Environmentally
Sensitive Areas, where required.
• NCDOT is purchasing a 27 acre parcel (PIN 0770405615) north of Oxford Green Drive to
avoid wetland and stream impacts associated with installation of a driveway for access.
• The box culvert being installed on Middle Creek is being increased to promote wildlife
passage at Station Y3 15+00.
• Countersunk riprap pads will be utilized to minimize sedimentation impacts to jurisdictional
streams.
• NCDOT is proposing to bridge multiple streams and wetlands to avoid and minimize impacts
to jurisdictional features. These include:
o Middle Creek on R-2721 at Station L 85+00.
o Wetland BF on R-2721 between Stations L 345+00 and L 350+00.
o Juniper Creek and associated wetlands on R-2828 at Station L 660+00.
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 19

o Wetland WDV and Stream CY on R-2828, Stations L 832+21 to L 846+71. These
wetlands are hydrologically connected to riparian wetlands associated with Swift
Creek.
o Swift Creek on R-2828 and associated wetlands at Station L 865+00.
o Wetland FN on R-2829 at Stations L 975+00.
o White Oak Creek (Austin Pond) on R-2829 at Station L 1085+00.
o Wetland JJ (1) and Stream HC on R-2829 at Station L 1460+00
Compensatory Mitigation
The NCDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible
as described above. The unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional resources will be offset by compensatory
mitigation. Below is a description of proposed mitigation for each TIP.
TIP R -2721A & B
The NCDOT is proposing to acquire compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts from the NCDMS
for R-2721 A & B (Tables 23 & 24) (see attached R-2721 A & B NCDMS letter of acceptance). These
impacts occur in HUCs 03030004 and 03020201. The total USACE stream and wetland mitigation
requirements exceed the NCDWR stream and wetland mitigation requirements; therefore NCDOT will
request that NCDMS provide compensatory mitigation for R -2721A & B permanent stream impacts,
permanent riparian wetland impacts, and permanent non -riparian wetland impacts at a 2:1 ratio. There
will be allowable with mitigation and allowable without mitigation for Neuse River riparian buffer
impacts. In addition, Neuse River riparian buffer impacts in Zones I and 2 will be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio
and 1.5:1 ratio, respectively. All impacts to isolated wetlands will have mitigation provided in HUC
03020201 only. Impacts to isolated wetlands will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio for any impacts above one-
half acre to meet the NCDWR mitigation requirement. There is a total of 2.45 acres of impacts to isolated
wetlands. Of the 2.45 acres, (0.02 acres — R -2721A and 2.43 acres — R-272113) only 1.95 acres will be
mitigated (2.45 acres — 0.5 acres). Therefore, due to the deduction of 0.5 acres, mitigation for isolated
wetlands is shown only in Table 24.
tableLJ. K-L/Ltorw
Mitigation Type
veru�.vw
Riparian
Wetland
(ac)(ac)
au�uw.
Non-
Riparian
Wetland
Isolated
Wetlands
(ac)
StreamBuffer
(1f)
Riparian Buffer
Calculation (sq. ft.)
Total
(sq. ft.)
Zone 1
Zone 2
Cape Fear River
Basin
0.0
0.01
0.0
204
HUC 03030004
561,570
367,666 x
Neuse River Basin
30.46
0.0
0.0
18,516
x 3.0 =
1.5 =
2,236,209
(HUC 03020201)
1,684,710
1 551,499
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 20

Table 24. R-2721 B Proposed Compensatory MitiLyation
Mitigation Type
Riparian
Wetland
(ac)
Non-
Riparian
Wetland
Isolated
Wetlands
(ac)
Stream
(if)
Riparian Buffer
Calculation (sq. ft.)
Ripariat"
Buffer
Total
Zone 1
Zone 2
ac)
Warm
RES
954,904
-
576,863x
(sq. ft.
Neuse River Basin
.
Neuse River Basin
0.08
0.0
40,172
x 3.0 =
582,622
387,313 x
Poplar Creek
(HUC 03020201)
25.38
0.0
1.95
17,072
x 3.0 =
1.5 =
2,328,836
Stone Creek
Warm
RES
Uzzle
Warm
1,747,866
580,970
Warm
TIP R-2828
Proposed totals of compensatory mitigation for R-2828 are shown in Table 25.
Table 25. R-2828 Pro osed Co ipensatory Mitigation
Riparian
Mitigation Type Wetland
(ac
Non-
Riparian
Wetland
Isolated
Wetlands
Stream
(if)
aria - -
Calculation (sq. ft.)
Ripa n
Buffer
Total
Zone 1
Zone 2
RES
ac)
Warm
RES
954,904
-
576,863x
(sq. ft.
Neuse River Basin
Warm
(HUC 03020201) 38.52
0.08
0.0
40,172
x 3.0 =
1.5 =
3,730,006
Poplar Creek
Warm
RES
Selma Mill
2,864,712
865,294
Selma Mill II
Compensatory mitigation for wetlands and buffers will be acquired from NCDMS for R-2828 (see
attached R-2828 NCDMS letter of acceptance). Compensatory stream mitigation for R-2828 will be
procured by way of NCDOT contracting with private mitigation banks in the 03020201 Hydrologic Unit
of the Neuse River Basin. All streams impacted by R-2828 are within Hydrologic Unit 03020201. Each
mitigation bank will be implemented according to the 2008 USACE Mitigation Banking Rules. Each site
will be reviewed and approved by the regulatory agencies following the procedures set forth in these
rules. All stream mitigation credits to be utilized for R-2828 will be released for use prior to submission
of the phased permit modification application. Sixteen mitigation banks with approved instruments are
being contracted to provide stream mitigation for R-2828, as identified below:
Table 26. R-2828 Compensatory Mitigation Banks
Milburnie Dam
Warm
Restoration Systems
Pancho
Warm
Restoration Systems
Bucher
Warm
RES
Buffalo Branch
Warm
RES
Cedar Grove
Warm
RES
Hannah Bride
Warm
RES
Meadow Spring
Warm
RES
Polecat
Warm
RES
Poplar Creek
Warm
RES
Selma Mill
Warm
RES
Selma Mill II
Warm
RES
Stone Creek
Warm
RES
Uzzle
Warm
RES
Hollowell
Warm
Water and Land Solutions
Falling Creek
Warm
Wildlands H drolo
Grantham Branch
Warm
Wildlands Hydrology
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 21

NCDOT will utilize stream mitigation credits from a combination of some or all of these sites. Projected
credit release from each site was calculated using the standard release schedule established in the 2008
Mitigation Rules. According to the acquired and projected credit release schedule submitted by the
mitigation bank developers, the following annual and cumulative stream mitigation credits have been or
will be released for use by the date indicated:
t 1VI'ti -ion Banks Credit Release Schedule
fable 27. R-2828 Com
ensa ory
Stream
Non-
Riparian
Wetland
Cumulative Stream Credit Release
Release Dat'
I e
Released Credits (In. ft.
( )
ln. ft.
12/31/2017 (Ac uired)
Warm
20,436
20,436
08/20/2018 (Acquired)
Warm
9,284
29,720
12/31/2018 (Predicted)
Warm
13,560
43,280
12/31/2019 (Predicted)
Warm
27,545
70,825
NCDOT will purchase two stream mitigation credits to offset each linear foot of streams requiring
mitigation impacted by the proposed project.
An additional 20,000 if of stream mitigation has been reserved in the 03020201 HUC from DMS to
address any potential shortage in the mitigation bank credit releases.
TIP R-2829
Proposed totals of compensatory mitigation for R-2829 are shown in Table 28.
C t r xMiaation
i able 28. R-2829 Pro
tigation Type
osed .om
Riparian
Wetland
Non-
Riparian
Wetland
Isolated
Wetlands
Stream
(1f)
._ ..-.,lffi�uxpnrx
Calculation s . ft.
an
Buffer
Total
1
(ac)
ac)
(ac)
976,018
..2log
f
712,376 x
Neuse River Basin
34.04
2.76
0.0
34,774
x 3.0 =
1.5 =
3,996,618
(HUC 03020201)
1 2,928,054
1,068,564
Currently, there is no mitigation plan for R-2829 since the proposed construction date is more than 5
years in the future. Mitigation for the R-2829 section will be addressed in a permit modification submitted
prior to construction. NCDOT anticipates using NCDMS to comply with any required compensatory
mitigation for R-2829.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
As of June 27, 2018, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identifies seven federally
protected species potentially occurring in Wake County, six for Johnston County, and three for Harnett
County. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) also lists the Atlantic sturgeon as a federally
protected species in Wake and Johnston Counties, as of June 28, 2018. The NMFS designated the Neuse
River in Wake and Johnston Counties as critical habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon.
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 22

Table 29. Federally Protected Species in the Project Corridor
Scientific Name
Common Name
County
Federal
Habitat Present
Biological
Status
Conclusion
Red -cockaded
Wake/
Picoides borealis
woodpecker
Johnston/
E
No
No Effect
Harnett
Notropis
mekistocholas
Cape Fear shiner
Wake/
Harnett
E
Yes
MA-NLAA
Alasmidonta
heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
Wake/
Johnston
E
Yes
MA -LAA
Elliptio
Tar River spinymussel
Wake/
E
Yes
No Effect
steinstansana
Johnston
Elliptio lanceolata
Yellow lance
Wake/
T
Yes
MA -LAA
Johnston
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
Wake/
Johnston
E
Yes
MA-NLAA
Lysimachia
Rough -leaved
as erulae olia
loosestrife
Harnett
E
Yes
No Effect
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
Atlantic sturgeon
Wake/
E
Yes
MA-NLAA
oxyrinchus
Johnston
MA-NLAA- May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect; MA -LAA- May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect; E -
Endangered; T -Threatened
NCDOT has determined the Biological Conclusion for the both the dwarf wedgemussel (DWM) and
yellow lance (YL) is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. A Biological Opinion (BO) was signed by
the USFWS for the Complete 540 project on April 10, 2018. As part of the formal consultation process
the USFWS did a jeopardy analogy to determine whether a federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. The BO determined the Action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the dwarf wedgemussel or the yellow lance.
The Reasonable and Prudent Measures include funding a mussel propagation facility in Wake County, the
Yates Mill Aquatic Conservation Center (YMACC), and performing a preconstruction mussel survey at
the Swift Creek crossing and potentially relocating or taking into captivity any DWM and YL specimens.
In the BO, the USFWS listed two Reasonable and Prudent Measures and three Terms and Conditions
which implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measures.
The three Terms and Conditions are as follows: 1) Funding will be transferred to Wake County within 30
days of receiving a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit for the Action from the USACE, NCDOT will
transfer approximately $1,958,936 to Wake County for the construction of the YMACC. 2) Funding will
be transferred to NCWRC within 30 days of receiving a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit for the
Action from the USACE, NCDOT will transfer approximately $3,041,064 to the NCWRC Non -Game
Aquatic Project Fund. These funds will be used for North Carolina State University's detailed proposal to
operate the facility, including a facility manager and assistant at the YMACC to oversee the operation of
the facility for propagation of DWM, YL, and other mussels. 3) Prior to conducting the preconstruction
survey, NCDOT must coordinate with USFWS regarding the extent of the survey and to determine
whether DWM and YL will be relocated or taken into captivity for propagation purposes. If DWM and/or
YL are to be relocated, a relocation plan must be submitted to and approved by the USFWS. As of
January 5, 2018 and February 27, 2018, NCDOT has entered into interagency agreements with Wake
County and NCWRC for the establishment of the YMACC.
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 23

In addition to the DWM and YL, NCDOT concluded the Biological Conclusion for Cape Fear shiner,
Michaux's sumac, Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat, and Atlantic sturgeon is May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect while the conclusions for the red -cockaded woodpecker, Tar River spinymussel, and
rough -leaved loosestrife were determined as No Effect. The USFWS BO concurred with the Biological
Conclusion for Cape Fear shiner and Michaux's sumac for the following reasons: 1) There are only two
known occurrences of Michaux's sumac within the Action area, and these two populations will not be
directly affected by the Action. 2) The Cape Fear Shiner only occurs within the Cape Fear River Basin.
Given that the alignment of the Action occurs within the Neuse River Basin only, there will be no
construction related or operational effects to the Cape Fear Shiner. The NMFS concurred in a letter
received May 21, 2018 with the effect determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect for the
Atlantic sturgeon and the Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat designation. The NMFS concurred because all
potential effects to Atlantic sturgeon and its critical habitat were found to be discountable, insignificant,
or beneficial.
Copies of the USFWS BO and NMFS letter can found at: https•//www ncdot goy/projects/complete-
540/Pa ges/default. a spx.
Northern long-eared bat
The USFWS developed a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) in conjunction with the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), USACE, and NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB)
(Myosis septentrionalis) in eastern North Carolina. The PBO covers the entire NCDOT program in
Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. The programmatic determination for NLEB
for the NCDOT program is "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect." The PBO provides incidental take
coverage for NLEB and will ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for five
years for all NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which includes Wake, Harnett, and
Johnston Counties, where the Complete 540 project is located.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register (72:37346-37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and
removed (de -listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. This delisting took
effect August 8, 2007. After the delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protections Act (16 U.S.C. 668-
668d) became the primary law protecting bald eagles.
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water
for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop -GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.13 -mile radius (1.0
mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on June 30, 2014 using 2010 color aerials. The
Neuse River and Lake Benson are the only water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be
considered a potential feeding source. A survey of the area within 660 feet of the project limits was
conducted and no nests were observed. Also, during project -wide natural resource investigations
biologists did not note the presence of nests or eagles. However, a review of the NCNHP database
updated April 2014 revealed one known occurrence of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study
area. A re -survey of suitable habitat in the selected corridor for the project area and all additional access
areas was done by biologists from Calyx Engineers on February 8, 21, 22, and 23, 2018. No eagles or
nests were observed during the field investigations. Due to minimal habitat and minimal impact
anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 24

Moratoria
The reach of the Neuse River within the R-2829 section of the project area was identified as NCWRC
Anadromous Fish Spawning Area (AFSA) and an Inland Primary Nursery Area (PNA). As a result, a
construction moratorium will be in effect from February 15th through September 30th during construction
on the bridge crossing the Neuse River.
The NMFS designated the Neuse River within the R-2829 section of the project area as critical habitat for
the Atlantic sturgeon. There will be a construction moratorium for in water work within the Neuse River
from February 15th through October 31". Additionally, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds along
with Project Design Criteria outlined in the NMFS letter will be implemented. Causeways and temporary
work bridges will be installed/ removed outside the moratorium and construction will not block more than
50% of the stream. A copy of the NMFS letter can be found at:
https://www.ncdot.goy/proiects/complete-540/Paizes/defaulLaspx.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic Architectural Resources
The NCDOT evaluated historic architectural resources for all of the DSAs for compliance with Section
4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act (USDOT) of 1966 and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. A Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report was
completed in November 2014 for all of the DSAs within the Complete 540 project. The report contains
data from three field surveys throughout the DSAs. There were 92 properties/historic districts requiring
an intensive -level investigation. The intensive level investigations determined 25 properties/historic
districts were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). The State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) agreed with NCDOT's finding that the Preferred Alternative (DSA #2)
would have no effect on 23 of 25 properties eligible for NRNP listing. Panther Branch School and the
John Strain House are the two properties that would be affected.
Panther Branch School is currently listed on the NRNP and continues to remain eligible for the NRHP
under Criterion A. This site is within the finalized design corridor. Qualifying Criterion A properties must
retain integrity and must be associated with a specific event marking an important moment in American
prehistory or history or a pattern of events. The property has a No Adverse Effect, with Environmental
Commitments effect determination. The Environmental Commitments are:
Sauls Road is planned to be elevated over the new facility north of the Panther Branch School
site.
Impacts do not show substantial increase in noise levels.
A small (18 -inch) retaining wall required to eliminate the need for permanent easements at the
school and across the street. (Decorative treatments may be required on the wall surface. The
designs for the wall will be reviewed by Historic Preservation Office (HPO) prior to finalization
for construction).
The John Strain House is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Qualifying Criterion C properties must
retain integrity and either 1) embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction; 2) represent the work of a master; 3) possess high artistic value; or 4) represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. It was determined this
property would not experience a noise impact and the predicted noise levels are below the Federal Noise
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 25

Abatement Criteria. The property has a No Adverse Effect, without additional Environmental
Commitments.
The SHPO concurred with NCDOT and FHWA that the Preferred Alternative (DSA #2) will result in "no
adverse effect" to either property. The Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects signed by NCDOT,
SHPO, and FHWA is in the 2015 DEIS in Appendix B.
Archaeological Resources
The NCDOT evaluated archaeological resources for the preferred alternative (DSA #2) for compliance
with Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966. An Intensive Archaeological Survey: Technical Report was completed in September 2017. The
report describes one site as qualifying for the NRHP under Criterion D. Criterion D is defined as a site
that has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. It was
determined that the site contains data of importance but does not require preservation in place.
Alternatives were investigated, shifting the highway and bridging the site. Shifting the road alignment
would result in additional direct impacts to wetlands, streams, and existing residential areas. Bridging the
site could avoid direct effects however; further review of the existing design compared with surrounding
topography showed bridging would require significant design revisions in order to avoid wetlands and a
nearby subdivision. This would increase the footprint of the project and produce an undesirable partial
vertical curve on the bridge, NCDOT concluded to proceed with the existing design. Since this site does
not warrant preservation in place, Section 4(f) does not apply.
NCDOT will establish a Memorandum of Agreement with SHPO in order to take into account the
project's effect on archaeological resources. NCDOT will coordinate with the NC Office of State
Archaeology relative to data recovery of materials in the site eligible for the NRNP. These commitments
will occur during final design and construction.
Section 4(f) Resources
Middle Creek School Park is crossed by the final design corridor along a narrow strip of land along the
northern edge. The impact area is 2.8 acres, of a 105 -acre parcel. It is wooded and has no formal park
functions. The impacts to the area will not alter the function and use of the park use and disturbs a small
percentage of land. FHWA determined it would be a de minimis impact.
The Neuse River Trail is within the final design corridor. The roadway is proposed to cross the Neuse
River Trail. The trail will be realigned to pass under the Neuse River bridge crossing. There will be
temporary construction impacts but the trail would return to the original condition post -construction.
FHWA determined it would be a de minimis impact.
Concurrence letters can be found in the 2017 Final Stakeholder Involvement Report in Appendix K.
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
NCDOT prepared an Indirect and Cumulative Effects Memorandum in November 2017 (ICE Report) as a
follow up to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report in December 2014. The ICE Report describes the
predicted indirect and cumulative effects of land use and water quality in the Future Land Use Study Area
(FLUSA). Three FLUSA datasets were used for comparison: 2010 Baseline (existing conditions), 2040
No -Build, and 2040 Build. The scenarios were analyzed using the preferred alternative (DSA #2) for the
Complete 540 project and the probable effects within the FLUSA. Data used in this analysis are
summarized from the following technical memoranda:
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 26

Memorandum on Local Jurisdiction Outreach and Methodology Updates (Quantitative ICE
Assessment Memo #1).
Memorandum on Land Use Scenario Methodology and Results (Quantitative ICE
Assessment
Memo #2).
Memorandum on Water Quality Modeling Methodology and Results (Quantitative ICE
Assessment Memo #3).
These memos and the complete ICE Report are located at:
https://www.ncdot.goy/projects/coLnplete-540/Pages/defaulLaspx.
The ICE Report found that local planners generally believe the anticipated population growth in the
FLUSA will occur regardless of whether the Complete 540 project is constructed, but the location and
density of development may differ without project construction.
The major findings of the ICE Report are:
• The development patterns anticipated under the 2040 Build scenario are more consistent with
local land use plans than those anticipated under the 2040 No -Build scenario.
• Notable land use changes are projected to occur between 2010 Baseline and 2040 No -Build
scenario.
• The projected differences in land use between the 2040 No -Build and 2040 Build scenarios
are relatively small.
o There is less than a one percent difference in acres of development between the 2040 No -
Build and 2040 Build scenarios due to differences in development densities.
• The 2040 Build scenario is generally an improvement over that of the 2040 No -Build
scenario with respect to traffic performance measures.
o Tier One analysis of FLUSA-level traffic conditions showed a slight increase in Daily
and PM Peak Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) with
Complete 540 in place, the congested Daily and PM Peak VMT/VHT, average Daily and
PM Peak speeds, and Daily and PM Peak congested roadway mileage all improved in the
2040 Build scenario.
o The Tier Two analysis of aggregate corridor -level traffic conditions within the FLUSA
resulted in the same general findings. In nearly all the measures of effectiveness (MOE)
comparisons, the majority of corridors experienced compounded annual growth rates
(CAGR) of less than one percent difference when comparing the 2015 to 2040 No -Build
and 2015 to 2040 Build scenario results. Overall, the analysis showed increased traffic
and congestion in the 2040 Build scenario on corridors that connect with the Complete
540 and reduced VMT and VHT on roads that parallel Complete 540. Although the 2040
Build scenario traffic conditions show more of the selected corridors as congested, the
2040 No -Build scenario traffic conditions indicate congestion on many other corridors
not included in the Tier 2 analysis.
o The Tier Three volume -to -capacity comparisons showed that all areas with a Level of
Service of "E" or worse had TDM daily volume -to -capacity ratios within the same
threshold in both 2040 scenarios. This result indicates that these operational concerns
would exist with or without the project.
• The modeled differences in impacts for most of the water quality parameters between the
2040 No -Build and 2040 Build scenarios are less than one percent. The changes in water
quality measures between the 2040 No -Build scenario and 2040 Build scenario are minor in
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page 27

comparison to the overall cumulative impacts, most of which are likely to occur with or
without construction of the Complete 540 project.
FEMA COMPLIANCE
The R-2721 project will require a total of two Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMR) packages
for Camp Branch and Middle Creek, and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between NCDOT and
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP), Types 2a and2b, for Rocky Branch. At the time
of this permit application submittal; Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and NCFMP
MOA compliance has not been finalized. The CLOMRs and MOA will be submitted to NCFMP, in
accordance with FEMA. The CLOMRs and MOA will be signed and authorized prior to construction
mobilization.
Coordination for impacts within the floodplain will be required for the remaining phases of the Complete
540 project. Four streams will require FEMA and/or NCFMP coordination for the R-2828 project and
four additional streams for R-2829. These will be submitted to and authorized by FEMA and/or NCFMP
prior to either project going to construction. The R-2828 and R-2829 projects will have the required
information submitted at a later date and will coincide with any modifications to the individual permit
(IP) being requested through this cover. The permit modifications will incorporate additional information
regarding the status of the packages for R-2828 and R-2829.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404: Application is hereby made for a USACE Individual 404 Permit as required for the above-
described activities.
Section 401: We are requesting a Section 401 Individual Water Quality Certification, Neuse Riparian
Buffer Authorization, and Non -404 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Permit (IWGPI0000) from
NCDWR. We are providing this application to NCDEQ, for their approval. Authorization to debit the
$570.00 Perin it Application Fee from TIP No. R-2721/WBS 37673.LTA2 is hereby given.
A copy of the permit application and its distribution list will be posted on the NCDOT website. Copies of
the NEPA documents are also available on the NCDOT website at:
htti)s•//www ncdot gov/projects/complete-540/Pages/default.aspx.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. if you have any questions or need additional information,
please contact Deanna Riffey at driffev(@ncdot.gov or 919-707-6151.
Sincerely,
Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., C.P.M
Environmental Analysis Unit Head
cc: NCDOT Permit Application Standard Distribution List
TIP R-2721 A&B, R-2828, and R-2829 Individual Permit Application Page28

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ENG
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB APPROVAL N0.0710 0003
EXPIRES. 28 FEBRUARY 2013
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses. This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO
2 FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4 DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICAN7)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Philip Middle - S Last - Harris III
First - Middle - Last -
Company - NC Department of Transportation- Env. Analysis Unit
Company -
E-mail [e-mail]
E-mail Address -
6 APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
Address- 1548 Mail Service Center
Address -
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip -27699 Country -US
City - State - Zip - Country -
7 APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c Fax
a. Residence b Business c. Fax
919-707-6123
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11 1 hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
TIPs R-2721 (A & B), R-2828, and R-2829 (Complete 540 in Wake and Johnston Counties) WBS 37673.1.TA2
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Multiple in Neuse and Cape Fear River Basins
Address
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N Longitude: -W
City - State- Zip -
16 OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID Municipality
Section - Township - Range-
ange-
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

T DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
gee attached vicinity maps by TIP number.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The NCDOT proposes to construct a total of 28 8 miles of new alignment for the Complete 540 project in Wake and Johnston Counties.
The Complete 540 project encompasses three NCDOT TIP projects: R-2721 (NC -55 Bypass to US 401), R-2828 (east of US 401 to 1-40
Interchange), and R-2829 (east of 1-40 to US 64/264). The lengths of each TIP are 8.6 miles, 8.8 miles, and 11 2 miles, respectively.
R-2721 is located entirely in Wake County. R-2828 and R-2829 are located in both Wake and Johnston Counties. The new alignment
will consist of six lanes, with three 12 -foot lanes in each direction, separated by a 70 -foot wide median. Proposed interchange locations for
the Complete 540 project include the NC -55 Bypass, Holly Springs Rd., Bells Lake Rd., US -401, Old Stage Rd., NC- 50, White Oak Rd.,
1-40, US -70 Bypass, Old Baucom Rd., Auburn Knightdale Rd., Poole Rd., and US -64/264 Bypass. The highway is being proposed as a
toll facility.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
There are two primary purposes for the Complete 540 project: to improve mobility within and through the study area during peak travel
periods, and to reduce congestion on the study area's existing roadway network. A secondary purpose, or "other desired outcome", of the
project was also identified: to improve system linkage in the regional roadway network by completing the 540 outer loop around the
Raleigh metropolitan area- an infrastructure improvement that has been sought by local communities and planners for more than 40 years.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Wetlands, streams, riparian buffers and ponds will be impacted by construction of the new road alignment, upgrades to existing
infrastructure in the vicinity of the new road, and installation of drainage features.
21 Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
See attached permit drawings
22 Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres
or
Linear Feet
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
See attached cover letter
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012

24 Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete) Yes FX No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25 Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc , Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a suoplemen'al list)
a Address- Sce attached mailing list
City - State - Zip -
b Address-
City - State - Zip -
c Address-
City - State - Zip -
d Address-
City - State - Zip -
e Address-
City - State - Zip -
26 List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
NC DWR NW 12 - 401WQC 20181192 2018-08-28 2018-09-10
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27 Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
a
�- b 9 1 ZA18
SI ATURE OF APPLICANT DATE I SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed
18 U S C Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both,
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
December 14, 2018
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Ms. Amy Chapman
NC Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
amy. chapman(d,)ncdenr.gov
Re: Complete 540 Toll Road – Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Ms. Chapman,
On behalf of Sound Rivers, Clean Air Carolina, and the Center for Biological Diversity
(the "Conservation Groups"), the Southern Environmental Law Center ("SELC") submits the
following comments on the application of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
("NCDOT") for a Water Quality Certification ("Certification") for the Complete 540 Toll Road
pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"). For the reasons outlined below, the
North Carolina Division of Water Resources ("DWR") cannot legally issue a Certification for the
Complete 540 Toll Road.
NCDOT's application for Certification invites DWR to commit myriad legal violations.
DWR may only issue a Certification for a project that DWR determines will not degrade or
destroy significant existing uses in impacted surface waters and wetlands. DWR cannot
reasonably make such a determination based on NCDOT's application. The proposed toll road
will almost certainly remove or degrade critical uses in impacted waterbodies and wetlands—
particularly their function as critical habitat for numerous federally and state listed endangered
and threatened species.
NCDOT asks DWR to abdicate its legal duties and allow the construction of the single
most destructive highway in North Carolina history in direct contravention of the CWA and
North Carolina law. NCDOT has failed to provide information for almost two-thirds of the
proposed toll road, leaving DWR, and the public, without any way to determine the full scope of
the project's potential legal violations. To the extent that NCDOT has provided the requisite
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington, DC

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 2
information, it is abundantly clear that the proposed project violates every single one of the six
requirements for Certification enumerated in 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0506.
First, NCDOT has failed to demonstrate that there are no practical alternatives to the
proposed project. Instead, NCDOT's Permit Applications and National Environmental Policy
Act ("NEPA") documents demonstrate that NCDOT has selected the most environmentally
damaging alternative, which will unnecessarily destroy wetlands and impact waterbodies.
NCDOT's choice to pursue the most rather than least environmentally destructive practical
alternative directly contravenes the state regulatory requirement that applicants minimize adverse
impacts to surface waters and wetlands.
NCDOT has failed to demonstrate, as required by state regulatory standards, that the
proposed project will not degrade groundwaters and surfacewaters or cause cumulative impacts
that violate water quality standards. Despite recognizing the serious risks posed to water quality
by highway construction and operation, NCDOT's Water Quality Memorandum uses out-of-date
baseline figures and omits any monitoring requirements. Furthermore, NCDOT unreasonably
relies on unsupported, flawed assumptions about growth in Southern Wake County to conclude
that the $2.2 billion highway it is proposing will have negligible impact on development in the
area, and therefore will cause only minimal cumulative impacts on water quality.
Furthermore, NCDOT fails to include stormwater management plans for approximately
two-thirds of the project, in direct violation of state regulatory requirements. NCDOT's vague
approach to stream and wetland mitigation, which fails to consider existing uses and site-specific
data,,is inadequate to satisfy state regulatory requirements.
Finally, NCDOT has failed to satisfy the heightened requirement that projects impacting
wetlands critical to the survival or rare or endangered species be permitted only when they are
required to meet a demonstrated public need. NCDOT's proposed toll highway, which will tear
through thousands of feet of streams and dozens of acres of wetlands, and jeopardize multiple
endangered species, fails to even satisfy NCDOT's own statement of purpose and need.
NCDOT, in its single-minded pursuit of completing a toll highway along a predetermined
route, has failed to meet any of the legal requirements for Certification. This combination of
severe water quality and informational deficiencies means DWR must deny NCDOT's
application.
During the Complete 540 project's development, NCDOT has exhibited a pattern of
opaque decision-making and lackluster public engagement that runs contrary to the language and
spirit of the CWA and NEPA. NCDOT consistently failed to consider and respond to
2

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 3
Conservation Groups' comments regarding NEPA compliance.' NCDOT undermined the
statutes' public participation requirements by intentionally obscuring the project's timeline from
the public.2 In an internal email, the project manager for Complete 540 warned his supervisor
not to reveal that the environmental review for the project would issue well ahead of schedule for
fear that "likely litigants" would submit additional FOIA requests.3 And NCDOT has been
consistently slow in its response to public records requests, indeed emails indicate that the 540
project team was not even aware of the existence of outstanding public records requests leading
up to the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") public comment deadline.4
NCDOT's issues with transparency have persisted. NCDOT is once again ahead of its
public project timeline, and is currently executing a contract to construct the R-2828 segment of
the project without having released final design plans for that segment to DWR or the public.5
Furthermore, SELC requested public records concerning the proposed project from NCDOT on
April 18, 2018, but only received the documents on November 29, 2018—too late to be
thoroughly reviewed before the December 16, 2018 deadline for 401 comments. SELC therefore
reserves the right to supplement this letter with any relevant information in NCDOT's tardy
document production.
I. DWR's Duties under the CWA
DWR's authority to issue section 401 Certification arises under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act ("Clean Water Act" or "CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., and the
Environmental Management Commission's Water Quality Certification rules, 15A N.C. Admin.
Code 2H.0500 et seq. The Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) provides:
Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity ... which
may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing
or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge
originates or will originate ... that any such discharge will comply with the
applicable provisions of [the Clean Water Act].
33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). State certification or waiver of certification is therefore a prerequisite to
issuance of a federal permit license by the Army Corp of Engineers. Id.
1 Letter from Kym Hunter and Ramona H. McGee, SELC, to Rodger Rochelle, NCDOT 2-4 (Feb. 22, 2018).
Attachment 1.
2 Richard Stradling, NCDOT accused of misleading public about $2.2 billion highway project THE NEWS &
OBSERVER, Jan. 24, 2018, available athhll s://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/articlel96102254.html.
Attachment 2.
3 E-mail from Brian F. Yamamoto, NCDOT, to Tatia White, NCDOT (Sep. 13, 2017 9:35 am). Attachment 3.
4 E-mail from Sophia S. Campbell, NCDOT, to Beau H. Memory, NCDOT (Jan. 2, 2018 12:28 pm). Attachment 4.
5 NCDOT Board of Transportation Projects List: Dec. 5-6, 2018, https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-
offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/201812 Project List.pdf. Attachment 5.

h
Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 4
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission has adopted rules that
control DWR issuance of section 401 Certifications. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0501 et seq.
These rules demand specific information from the applicant regarding proposed impacts and
require DWR to evaluate specific factors before issuing a 401 Certification for wetland and
stream impacts. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 211.0502.
To legally issue a Certification, DWR must first determine whether the proposed project
has the potential to remove or degrade those significant existing uses which are present in the
impacted wetlands or surface waters. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 211.0506(a). An applicant may
demonstrate that designated uses are not present at a particular site using a wetland evaluation
procedure approved by DWR—otherwise designated uses outlined in 15A N.C. Admin. Code
2B.0231(1)-(6) are assumed to exist in all classes of wetlands. 15A N.C. Admin. Code
211.0506(a). Water quality standards and protected uses for classified freshwaters are
enumerated at 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0211 and 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0101
respectively. Certification may only be issued where DWR determines that water quality
standards are met, including protection of existing uses. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0506(a).
If DWR determines that the project has potential to remove or degrade significant
existing uses it may only issue a Certification upon determining that the existing uses are not
removed or degraded by a discharge to classified wetlands or surface waters. 15A N.C. Admin.
Code 2H.0506(b),(c). Before it may issue a Certification for a discharge to classified surface
waters DWR must first determine that the activity:
1) has no practical alternatives;
2) will minimize adverse impacts to surface waters;
3) does not result in the degradation of groundwaters and surface waters;
4) does not result in cumulative impacts, based on past or reasonably anticipated
future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation of water quality standards;
5) protects downstream water quality standards with on-site stormwater control
measures; and
6) provides for replacement of existing uses through wetland or stream
mitigation.
Id. 2H.0506(b). Before it may issue a Certification for a discharge to Class WL wetlands, DWR
must first determine that the activity:
1) has no practical alternatives, or impacts less than three acres of Class WL
wetlands;
2) will minimize adverse impacts to wetlands;
0

M1�
a
Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 5
3) does not result in the degradation of groundwaters and surface waters;
4) does not result in cumulative impacts, based on past or reasonably anticipated
future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation of water quality standards;
5) protects downstream water quality standards with on-site stormwater control
measures; and
6) provides for replacement of existing uses through wetlands mitigation under
U.S. Army Corp. of Engineer requirements or as provided in 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 211.0506(h).
Id. 2H.0506(c). If DWR finds that one or more of these conditions is not satisfied, it may not
legally issue a Certification to an applicant.
The regulations further provide that for wetlands "of exceptional state or national
ecological significance" including wetlands that have been documented "as habitat essential for
the conservation of state or federally listed threatened or endangered species," DWR may only
issue a Certification if the proposed activity satisfies the six enumerated requirements in
2H.0506(c) and the applicant meets the heightened requirement of demonstrating that the
wetland impacts are necessary for the proposed project to meet a demonstrated public need. Id.
2H.0506(e).
The language of the regulations indicates that the burden is upon the applicant to
demonstrate and upon DWR to affirmatively determine that a proposed activity will not degrade
water quality. Id. 2H.0506(a) ("Certification shall be issued where [DWR] determines water
quality standards are met" and "an applicant may ... demonstrate that designated uses are not
present ... using a wetland evaluation procedure"). In the event that an application lacks
sufficient information to make such a determination, DWR must deny Certification.
II. The Proposed Toll Road Will Remove or Degrade Significant Existing Uses in
Streams and Wetlands
DWR may only issue a Certification upon determining that impacted streams and
wetlands lack any significant uses, or upon determining that the proposed project is will not
remove or degrade significant existing uses. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 211.0506(a). Therefore, the
first step in DWR's analysis must be to determine whether the streams and wetlands impacted by
the proposed toll road have significant existing uses and whether the toll road has potential to
remove or degrade those uses. Id. As discussed below, the water resources impacted by this toll
road have several existing uses and at least one critically important existing use: several of the
streams and wetlands support federally -listed endangered species and other rare aquatic

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 6
organisms which would be devastated, and potentially extirpated by the construction and
operation of a highly destructive toll highway.
A. The Proposed Toll Road will Impact Streams and Wetlands
The Complete 540 proposed toll road encompasses three NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Plan ("TIP") projects: R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829.6 Each of these projects or
phases will have serious impacts to streams and wetlands. However, the Permit Application only
provides final, detailed information about the jurisdictional features impacted by one-third of the
project, the first phase, identified as R-2721, which is further divided into sections A and B.7
Below is a map illustrating the proposed toll highway's route along with anticipated stream and
wetlands crossings. A full-sized copy of this map is included as Attachment 27.
r `xi Kr@rMe y
AquaticProposed NC 540
•S
• YNO•CeA Stern Set•m' O UMeAi Mtlg.tlon 91r'
• triP•eea WNW W Afft' NNb B06n
RepmeA NC 540 P_Ae, - NnrtN Ne•bge N•&OW AMO
��•j� NW WMMO t weave -•�,. -_ .
\/ A fir..' Nurupal �OudanPs o,CWbU -
V
- -- 6lftYy N40f RDAs �y
777
GamaApex
• LK
••ter•"• .�""� t^. + myton .
r •
NnrysVNIP OR r i•�—••_� • t t`
' • j �L
wee Gee• � d
•• �
Aooaoon �' q ` .f
p
" Pua%VxYa -
�9b�
�• I
•� •.
Ya➢o•aaw YlaGme"1n<a:no•ytieeq�use�umea'xan•erMi••
'meQ�da�e�eNcean•q.w.y.<4NNo9,��
: '
i 'mhssNdR�aa4 NC SIO ttf�M+gad NMINE•u+s
`'.15Ui}121'1� "imgaQC NC SID e¢t.Mayd�.edGow lkflM�dmay�
-
�yy
� t
1... —��
'NrwoaulNe7•a 4
dR
2}mironmental4
N
agse.nv.omW¢my
aNb ampanaSvn�uM Srvd
I ;w CW -J �
6 Permit Application at 1.
Id. at 5 N. 6: R -2721B Impacted Jurisdictional Streams; tbl. 6: R -2721A Impacted Jurisdictional Streams. The
Permit Application does not include a list of Impacted Jurisdictional Streams for R-2728 or R-2829.
6

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 7
NCDOT's Permit Application indicates that the proposed project will impact 57,344
linear feet of jurisdictional streams.$ Thirteen of the streams impacted by R -2721A and R -
2721B, including Swift and Middle Creek, are classified by DWR as Class C streams, and twelve
of the thirteen streams are also classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters ("NSW").9 The Permit
Application provides only preliminary details about the stream impacts associated with the other
phases of the project, R-2828 and R-2829, despite the fact that R-2828 has been let for
construction first. 10 The preliminary plans indicate that water resources serving several
important existing uses would be impacted by stream and river crossings in R-2828 and R-2829.
The Neuse River, within R-2829, would also be impacted by the proposed toll highway.
The section of the Neuse River which has been identified by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission ("NCWRC") as an anadromous fish spawning area ("AFSA") and Inland
Primary Nursery Area ("PNA") would also be impacted by the proposed toll road.
NCDOT's Permit Application indicates that the proposed project will impact
approximately 70 acres of wetlands. Swift Creek and associated riparian wetlands within the R-
2828 project area, would be impacted by the proposed toll road. Preliminary design plans
indicate that the toll road will cross Swift Creek downstream of Lake Benson. 11 Swift Creek is
classified as a WS -III watershed. 12 WS -III waters are protected as water supplies generally
located in low to moderately developed watersheds, and are suitable for all Class C uses. Id.
2B.0101(c)(5).
B. The Impacted Streams and Wetlands have Significant Existing Uses
The waterbodies and wetlands that would be impacted by the proposed toll highway have
several significant existing uses. All wetlands are assumed to have several uses:
(1) storm and flood water storage and retention and the moderation of extreme
water level fluctuations;
(2) hydrologic functions including groundwater discharge that contributes to
maintain dry weather streamflow and, at other locations or times, groundwater
recharge that replenishes the groundwater system;
s Id. at 3.
91d.
10 Id. at 14-15.
" Id. at 31, fig. 20.
12 NCDENR, Assessment Report: Biological Impairment in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed i (June 2003)
hitps://files.nc.gov/ncdeg/Water%20QualityTIannin TMDL/Special%20Studies/Stressor%20Studies/Assessment%
20Report%20%20Bio%20imi)airment%20in%20Upper%20Swift%20Creek.pdf.
7

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 8
(3) filtration or storage of sediments, nutrients, toxic substances, or other
pollutants that would otherwise adversely impact the quality of other waters of the
state;
(4) shorelines protection against erosion through dissipation of wave energy and
water velocity and stabilization of sediments;
(5) habitat for the propagation of resident wetland -dependent aquatic organisms,
including but not limited to limited to fish, crustaceans, mollusks, insects,
annelids, planktonic organisms and the plants and animals upon which these
aquatic organisms feed and depend upon for their needs in all life stages; and
(6) habitat for the propagation of resident wetland -dependent wildlife species,
including mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians for breeding, nesting, cover,
travel corridors and food.
Id. 2B.0231(a). Class C streams are classified, at a minimum, to protect several uses: secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. Id.
2B.0101(c)(1). Water quality standards for Class C streams provide that "the waters shall be
suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity." Id. 2B.0211(2).
NCDOT's Application and accompanying materials fail to document or even mention
existing uses in the impacted waterbodies and wetlands. NCDOT does not attempt to rebut the
assumption that the aforementioned existing wetland uses are present in the impacted wetlands,
or that the minimum uses for Class C streams are present in impacted waterbodies.
The streams and wetlands impacted by the proposed toll highway serve as habitat for
multiple federally endangered and rare aquatic species. NCWRC has identified the Swift Creek
Watershed as essential for the continued survival of multiple endangered and threatened aquatic
species." Middle Creek is also known to support eleven rare animals: two fishes, one
amphibian, and eight mussel species including the Dwarf wedgemussel.14 This habitat function
constitutes a significant existing use under 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0506(a).
The segment of Swift Creek below Lake Benson is known to support eleven rare,
threatened, or endangered aquatic animals. 15 A population of Dwarf wedgemussel, listed as
endangered under the ESA, has long persisted in Swift Creek within the Complete 540 project
13 Dwarf Wedgemussel Viability Study (May 2016). Attachment 6.
14 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan 404.
15 NCDENR, 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan 402.
httDs://files.nc. izov/ncdea/Water%200uality/PlanninLBPU/BPU/Neuse/Neuse%20P]ans/2009%20PIan/NR%2OBasi
nwide%20Plan%202009%20-%20Final.pdf.

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 9
area. The Swift Creek population of Dwarf wedgemussel is considered essential to the recovery
of the species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") identified the Swift
Creek population as one that must be viable in order for the species to ever be downlisted from
endangered to threatened. 16 USFWS has repeatedly stressed that the Swift Creek Dwarf
wedgemussel population's viability is "vitally important," and that it "cannot understate [sic] the
significance of this issue." 17
The recently federally -listed threatened Yellow Lance also inhabits streams within the
Swift Creek Watershed. USFWS considers Swift Creek a "stronghold for yellow lance in [the]
Neuse basin." 18 Swift Creek and Middle Creek are also included in the critical habitat
designation for the Atlantic Pigtoe, another mussel species, which has recently been proposed for
listing as threatened 'under the ESA. 19 NCDOT's Aquatic Species Survey Report indicates that
live Atlantic Pigtoe individuals were identified in Middle Creek within the last year.20 Several
additional rare aquatic species listed as endangered or threatened by the State of North Carolina,
including the Neuse River Waterdog (state special concern), Carolina Madtom, and Green
Floater (state endangered) have also been identified in the proposed project area, and are
currently being considered for listing under the federal ESA.21
Additionally, the Neuse River, passing through R-2829, has been identified by the
National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") as Critical Habitat for the endangered Atlantic
Sturgeon.
C. The Proposed Toll Road will Almost Certainly Remove or Degrade Impacted
Streams and Wetlands' Biological Integrity and Ability to Support Critical
Populations of Endangered Mussel Species
NCDOT's Permit Application fails to demonstrate that the proposed project will not
remove or degrade Swift Creek, Middle Creek, and other impacted streams' biological integrity
and ability to support propagation and survival of endangered and threatened mussel species. To
the contrary, the Permit Application and associated documents demonstrate that the project will
render the waters unsuitable "for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological
16 Dwarf Wedgemussel 2007 Status Review 5. Attachment 7.
17 Letter from Gary Jordan, USFWS, to Richard W. Hancock, P.E. NCDOT (Nov. 25, 2015), at 2. Attachment 8.
18 Sarah McRae, USFWS, Powerpoint Presentation: ESA Consultation Considerations for Complete 540
Transportation Project (Feb. 3, 2015), at slide 12. Attachment 9.
19 Proposed Rule and 12 -Month Finding for Atlantic Pigtoe, 83 Fed. Reg. 51570, 51585 (proposed Oct. 10, 2018) (to
be codified at 50 C.F.R. 17).
'0 Aquatic Species Survey Report 23 (2017).
21 See N.C. WILDLIFE REs. COMM'N, Protected Wildlife Species of North Carolina (Oct. 2017) at 4,6. Attachment
10.
L.

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 10
integrity," id. 2B.0211(2), and eliminate the waters' important existing use of providing habitat
to federally -listed mussel species.
NCDOT concluded in its Dwarf wedgemussel Viability Study, that the species' "chance
of persistence is very tenuous, especially without active management and increased habitat
protection."22 Nevertheless, NCDOT insists on moving forward with a project the Department
concluded is "likely to adversely affect" both the endangered Dwarf wedgemussel and threatened
Yellow Lance.23 While USFWS's Biological Opinion (`BO") concludes that a captive
propagation program will prevent the project from jeopardizing either species, breeding mussels
in captivity is no substitute for maintaining impacted streams' biological integrity, and there is
significant evidence that the project's impacts will remove or degrade the capacity of the
impacted streams to sustain rare aquatic life.
USFWS's most recent Status Review for the Dwarf wedgemussel verified that the four
main factors listed in the species' 1993 recovery plan continue to constitute key threats to the
species: impoundments, pollution, riverbank alteration, and siltation. 24 NCDOT's Biological
Assessment (`BA") lists as threats to the Dwarf wedgemussel and Yellow Lance: sedimentation,
habitat alteration, toxic contaminants, hydrologic changes due to land use changes, changes in
peak discharge of stormwater flow, changes in runoff volume changes in base flow, thermal
pollution, invasive species, and loss of riparian buffers. Similarly, the USFWS's Yellow Lance
Species Status Assessment highlights the negative impacts of road development on mussels,
including land clearing, habitat fragmentation, increased impervious surfaces, sedimentation,
heavy metal pollution, and changes in water temperatures and runoff patterns.25 USFWS also
identifies the primary threats to Atlantic Pigtoe mussel as road drainage runoff, disruption of
natural flow patterns, and fragmentation of habitat.26 Many of these threats are likely to result
from or be exacerbated by the Complete 540 project.27
USFWS repeatedly warned NCDOT of its concerns regarding the proposed project's
impacts to the Dwarf wedgemussel. In fact, as NCDOT was selecting its preferred alternative,
the Service stated that it "does have an issue of concern, as we have previously stated multiple
times, with the overall project. The likely adverse effects on the dwarf wedgemussel are a
serious concern," and the concerns persisted with the selection of DSA 2 as the preferred
22 Dwarf Wedgemussel Viability Study (May 2016) at ii. Attachment 6.
23 Biological Assessment 77, Tbl. 19 (2017).
24 Dwarf Wedgemusse12007 Status Review 11. Attachment 7.
25 Yellow Lance Species Status Assessment Report (2017), at 42. Attachment 11.
26 USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Service proposes threatened status for declining mussel (Oct. 10, 2018)
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2018/10/fish-and-wildlife-service-proposes-threatened-status-for-declining-
mussel/.
27 Biological Assessment 32-33 (2017).
10

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 11
alternative. 28 A later e-mail in this same chain warned that "it is still within the realm of
possibility that USFWS could issue a Jeopardy Biological Opinion."29 USFWS's comments
emphasized that the route ultimately chosen by NCDOT is "very problematic" due to its "great
potential to adversely affect the DWM since it crosses Swift Creek, tributaries to Swift Creek,
and a significant portion of the watershed all downstream of Lake Benson."30 The comments
also highlight that the interchanges with I-40 and the US 70 Bypass are "at a particularly
unfavorable location for the DWM.""
NCDOT's BA recognizes that mussel species are extremely sensitive to even small
changes in water quality, noting that "early life stages of freshwater mussels are among the most
sensitive aquatic organisms to various inorganic toxicants such as copper,"32 and even
"[s]ediment accumulations of less than 25 mm (one inch) have been shown to cause high
mortality in most mussel species."33 Sedimentation from projects can have far-reaching effects
on downstream habitats34--asnoted in the BA, "[i]n 1997, a large plume of sediment in the
Neuse River near New Bern was traced to a construction site along Crabtree Creek in Raleigh,
over 180 miles upstream. ,35 In Massachusetts, a construction of a bridge devastated a Dwarf
Wedgemussel population due to accelerated sedimentation and erosion.36 For this reason,
"sufficient stormwater controls accompanying future development activities in any given
watershed are essential for conservation of sensitive aquatic species such as DWM and Yellow
Lance."37
Because of mussels' sensitivities, roadway runoff is one of the most concerning aspects
of the Complete 540 project. The BO documents the harmful pollutants contained in highway
runoff, including heavy metals, sediment, pesticides, inorganic salts, nutrients, and petroleum
hydrocarbons—which can prove lethal to mussels, shorten mussel lifespans, and impact mussel
health.38 Significantly, the proposed toll highway would cause "localized increased exposure to
roadway runoff' for the Dwarf wedgemussel and Yellow Lance populations, "originating from
77 crossings draining to occupied habitat along the 540 alignment. ,39
The BA also predicts
28 E-mail from Gary Jordan, USFWS to Kiersten Bass, HNTB (Feb. 22, 2016 2:23 PM). Attachment 12.
29 Id.
30 Letter from Gary Jordan, USFWS, to Richard W. Hancock, PE, NCDOT (Nov. 25, 2015), at 3. Attachment 8.
31 Id
32 Biological Assessment 23 (2017).
" Id. at 23.
34 See MCCORMICK TAYLOR, HEADWATER AND OUTFALL CHANNEL EROSION REDUCTION PROTOCOLS AND
GEOMORPHIC PROCESSES INFLUENCING MS4 AND MITIGATION CREDITING STRATEGIES 20-23 (Aug. 2018),
https://edoes.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/0/doe/715126/Page l .aspx.
35 Biological Assessment at 34.
36 Id. at 23
37 Id. at 28
38 Biological Opinion at 9.
39 Id. at 14.
11

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 12
increased runoff from the existing roadway network "due to induced increases in traffic
volumes" as a result of the project.40 The runoff into known mussel habitat from a massive toll -
highway's 77 crossings, combined with increased runoff from induced traffic on existing roads,
would devastate existing Dwarf wedgemussel, Yellow Lance, and Atlantic Pigtoe populations
and impair the chances of future individual mussels to persist in what will be severely degraded
habitat.
Both the Dwarf wedgemussel and Yellow Lance populations in Swift Creek are also
particularly susceptible to being wiped out by a single catastrophic event given their low
numbers .41 As a high-speed facility that would likely serve much commercial trucking traffic,
Complete 540 poses a high risk of toxic spills that would be devastating to the mussel
populations in Swift Creek.42 The BA states that a toxic spill "event is likely to occur during the
lifetime of the facility."43 The BO obscures this reality, stating that "over time there is a
potential for a traffic accident involving toxic chemicals to occur."44 While NCDOT proposes to
include 1-2 hazardous spill basins within the vicinity of the toll highway's crossing of Complete
540, the BO fails to evaluate the efficacy of hazardous spill basins and to document what level of
risk would persist with the proposed hazardous spill basins. Additionally, while acknowledging
that "it is not possible to accurately predict when or where toxic spills may occur" the BO fails to
discuss what would happen if a hazardous spill occurred outside of the vicinity of the 1-2
hazardous spill basins. 45 The BO also lacks detail about how these basins would be installed,
including whether additional wetlands would be destroyed in order to create these basins.
The crossings of at least three streams within a quarter -mile of known mussel -occupied
habitat will require fill of stream channels, yet the BO fails to account for the likely impacts to
water quality—such as water flow disruption and sedimentation—that will almost certainly
result from filling these streams. One of the identified stream crossings will result in a
significant 443 linear feet of permanent fill in a stream that is less than a tenth of a mile away
from known mussel -occupied habitat.46 While the BA concludes that "[t]he permanent and
temporary st[r]eam impacts associated with the construction of Complete 540 may have long-
lived effects on the DWM and Yellow Lance's ability to colonize these areas in the future,"47 the
BO, glossing over these risks, anticipates only minor impacts.48
40 Biological Assessment 40.
41 Aquatic Species Survey Report 7 (2017).
42 Biological Assessment at 49.
41 Id. at 49.
44 Biological Opinion at 14.
4s Id.
46 Id. at 13.
47 Biological Assessment at 47.
48 Biological Opinion at 13.
12

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 13
The Swift Creek crossing is particularly concerning given its proximity to occupied
mussel habitat. While the BO states that no permanent or temporary structures will be placed
within Swift Creek, structures will be placed on the banks of the stream. An NCDOT engineer
cautioned against making any promises about bank stability impacts as a result of these
structures, noting "[t]here could be unforeseen bank failure during installation of drilled shafts
nearby (i.e. 10 feet) the top of the bank," and "extreme weather events could possibly overtop
erosion control devices at the bridge crossing resulting in loss of sediment into Swift Creek. q149
The BO is vague about the likelihood of areas within the Swift and Middle Creek
watersheds being used for "staging, storing, refueling, borrow pit, or spoil areas," all of which
are likely to negatively impact Dwarf wedgemussel and Yellow Lance by altering water flow,
exacerbating erosion, and increasing possible runoff and corresponding pollution.50 Instead, the
BO states that the locations of these areas have not yet been selected. The BO makes no
commitments about avoiding these impacts—rather than prohibiting the construction activities
within a specific proximity of Swift Creek, NCDOT has merely agreed to "strongly discourage
the contractor" from conducting the activities within .25 miles of Swift Creek.51 No similar
limits for streams other than Swift Creek are mentioned. Indeed, an e-mail between NCDOT and
a consultant reveals that NCDOT pushed to water down the consultant's language about the
borrow and fill sites and limit commitments about locating these sites. 52
Induced growth and traffic from the completed toll highway would exacerbate the
harmful effects of all of the above -discussed threats by increasing impervious surface and in turn
stormwater runoff, increasing roadway runoff and corresponding pollutants, 53 and increasing the
chance of a catastrophic hazardous spill by the simple virtue that there will be more traffic and
more people within the area. As predicted by USFWS: "indirect habitat loss is expected due to
secondary development induced by the new road facility," and "[i]ncreased impervious surface
and storm water runoff from additional development would likely further degrade the water
quality of Swift Creek and its tributaries." 54 In fact, USFWS "believes that indirect effects from
road -induced development are the greater concern," to Dwarf Wedgemussel.ss
49 E-mail from Christopher Murray, NCDOT, to Kiersten Bass, HNTB (Aug. 16, 2017, 7:47 AM). Attachment 13.
50 Biological Opinion at 19.
51 Id. at 19.
52 E-mail from Christopher Murray, NCDOT, to Kiersten Bass, HNTB (Aug. 16, 2017, 7:47 AM). Attachment 13.
53 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Memorandum (Quantitative ICE Assessment Memo #4) (Nov. 2017), at vi ("[I]t
is logical to expect more urban land use changes and larger increases in impervious area under the 2040 Build
scenario in this watershed.').
54 See, e.g., Letter from Gary Jordan, USFWS, to Richard W. Hancock, PE, NCDOT (Nov. 25, 2015), at 3,
Attachment 8; see also Dwarf Wedgemussel 2007 Status Review, at 13 ("Development of adjacent uplands
continues to be a significant and pervasive threat to southern populations."), Attachment 7.
55 Letter from Gary Jordan, USFWS, to Richard W. Hancock, PE, NCDOT (Nov. 25, 2015), at 1, 4. Attachment 8.
13

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 14
As acknowledged in the BO, increased impervious surfaces negatively impact water
quality by changing stream flow, water temperatures, total suspended sediment, and pollutant
loadings. 56 The BA documents the fact that approximately eleven percent of the land area within
Wake County consists of impervious surfaces, well beyond the recommendation of NCWRC to
limit impervious surfaces to six percent of a watershed to protect aquatic species.57 Similarly,
the portion of Johnston County within the Swift Creek Watershed that consists of impervious
surfaces is approximately 8.6%, again above the NCWRC recommendation.58 Complete 540
will only worsen these ratios of impervious surfaces—both directly from the interjection of 28
miles of six -lane highway as impervious surface, and indirectly from land use changes and
induced development.
NCDOT's Permit Application and accompanying materials document a plethora of likely
impacts upon Swift Creek and its watershed, Middle Creek, and other waterbodies that support
endangered mussel species populations. These species are notoriously sensitive to even minor
changes in water quality, and the Complete 540 toll road promises substantially impact water
quality by increasing sedimentation, runoff, and the likelihood of toxic spills. Any of these
impacts alone could devastate Dwarf wedgemussel, Yellow Lance, and Atlantic Pigtoe
populations in the area; together they spell out a death sentence. The impacted streams and
wetlands' biological integrity and capacity to support rare aquatic life—existing uses for Class C
streams and WL -III wetlands—will almost certainly be removed or degraded if NCDOT moves
forward with the Complete 540 toll road as planned. Therefore, DWR cannot legally issue a
Certification unless it determines that the project comports with 15A N.C. Admin. Code
2H.0506(b) and (c)'s requirements for projects that have the potential to remove or degrade
significant existing uses.
III. Because the Proposed Toll Road Would Remove or Degrade Significant Existing
Uses, DWR May Grant a Certification Only if Multiple Safeguards are Satisfied,
but they have not been Satisfied, and therefore Certification Must be Denied
The threat the proposed project poses to rare and endangered mussel species, which are
highly sensitive to even slight changes in water quality, is indicative of a serious possibility that
the proposed toll road will remove or degrade significant existing uses. Therefore DWR may not
issue a Certification without determining that the proposed project conforms to 15A N.C. Admin.
Code 2H.0506(b) and (c)'s enumerated requirements and that all impacts to wetlands critical to
the survival of threatened or endangered species are necessary to meet a demonstrated public
need. Id. 2H.0506(e).
56 Biological Opinion at 11.
57 Biological Assessment at 27.
" Id. at 27.
14

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 15
DWR may only issue a Certification upon determining that the toll road (1) has no
practical alternatives; (2) will minimize adverse impacts to streams and wetlands; (3) does not
result in degradation of groundwaters and surface waters; (4) does not result in cumulative
impacts, based on past or reasonably anticipated future impacts, that cause or will cause
violation of water quality standards; (5) protect downstream water quality standards with on-site
stormwater control measures; and (6) provide for appropriate replacement of existing uses
through wetland or stream mitigation. 15A N.C. Admin Code 2H.0506(b),(c).
NCDOT has not provided DWR with sufficient information concerning the
environmental and water quality effects of the proposed toll road to make any of these critical
determinations. In fact, NCDOT's application and associated documents establish that the
proposed toll road will very likely violate all of the enumerated requirements. Pursuant to 15A
N.C. Admin Code 2H.0506(a), DWR cannot reasonably make a finding that existing uses will
not be removed or degraded, and therefore must deny NCDOT's application for Certification.
A. NCDOT has Failed to Establish that there are no Practical Alternatives to
the Proposed Toll Road that have Less Adverse Impact to Surface Waters or
Wetlands
NCDOT's proposed toll road does not qualify for Certification because NCDOT has
failed to establish that there are no practical alternatives to the project pursuant to 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 2H.0506(b) and (c). 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0506(f) provides that:
A lack of practical alternatives may be shown by demonstrating that, considering
the potential for a reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed
activity and all alternative designs the basic project purpose cannot be practically
accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in less adverse impact to
surface waters or wetlands.
NCDOT has failed to make this showing. In fact, NCDOT's NEPA documents
demonstrate that the Department discarded numerous practical alternatives in its single-minded
pursuit of completing the Complete 540 outer loop around Raleigh. NCDOT reliance on these
NEPA documents to satisfy the requirements for Certification fails in four critical ways. First,
NCDOT arbitrarily rejected studied practical alternatives that would have minimized adverse
impacts to water quality. Second, NCDOT failed to even study practical non -toll road
alternatives that would eliminate or minimize impacts on water quality. Third, in selecting its
Selected Alternative NCDOT employed a flawed methodology that arbitrarily eliminated less
environmentally damaging practical alternatives. Fourth, NCDOT's Selected Alternative does
not meet the stated project purpose set forth.
15

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 16
F
1. NCDOT's Selected Alternative is not the Least Environmentally
Damaging of the Studied DSAS
NCDOT selected seventeen Detailed Study Alternatives ("DSAs"), each a toll road route
made up of multiple route segments.59 NCDOT chose its Selected Alternative from among these
DSAs. None of the DSAs is the least environmentally damaging practical alternative, as several
non -toll road alternatives that satisfy the basic project purpose in a manner which would avoid or
result in less adverse impacts to surface waters or wetlands were prematurely eliminated from
consideration and never studied in detail. Nevertheless even if the DSAs were practical, there is
significant variation in water quality impacts associated with each, and several have less adverse
impacts on surface waters and wetlands than NCDOT's Selected Alternative, DSA 2.
DSA 2 uses the highly destructive Orange Route, which cuts through the southern,
undeveloped portion of Wake County, while DSAs 6 and 7 ("the Red Route DSAs") use the Red
Route, which runs further north, through an already developed part of the county. 60 DSA 2
would cause significantly more stream and wetlands impacts than DSAs 6 and 7 which are
comparable to DSA 2 in terms of cost61, relocations, and other indicia of practicality. DSAs 6
and 7, while still tremendously destructive, would impact significantly fewer acres of wetlands
and fewer linear feet of streams than other alternatives, and are the only DSAs that would avoid
placing federally endangered mussel species in jeopardy.62 NCDOT's claim that DSA 2 has no
less environmentally destructive practical alternatives is categorically false, and therefore DWR
must deny Certification.
a) DSAs 6 and 7 are Practical Alternatives to NCDOT's Selected
Alternative
The Red Route DSAs are comparable to NCDOT's Selected Alternative in terms of costs,
relocations, and other indicia of practicality. The Red Route DSAs were projected to cost only
'9 DEIS at 49-66.
60 Id. at 51, 55, 56.
61 With current litigation over the North Carolina Map Act still pending, the true cost of DSA 2 is not yet known,
and may be significantly higher than previously thought. See Kirby v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 368 N.C. 847, 926
(N.C. 2016) (ordering trier of fact to calculate the value of the land before the corridor map was recorded and the
value of the land afterwards, taking into account factors including the restriction on each plaintiff's fundamental
rights and any effect on the reduced ad valorem taxes); Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 808 S.E.2d 488 (Ct.
App. N.C. 2017) (rejecting state's appeal of motion for summary judgement in favor of 211 landowner plaintiffs
whose property was taken pursuant to the Map Act); Dep't of Transp. v. Stimpson, 813 S.E.2d 634 (N.C. Ct. App.
2018) (dismissing NCDOT's attempted direct condemnation actions on property within Map Act corridors); Dep't
of Transp. v. Chapman, 2018 WL 1286200 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (dismissing NCDOT's direct condemnation action
because of a prior pending action on the same property).
6' Letter from Kytn Hunter and Ramona H. McGee, SELC, to Eric Midkiff, P.E. NCDOT 1, 40-42 (Jan. 8, 2016).
Attachment 14.
16

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 17
marginally more than the Selected Alternative—$2.317 and $2.315 billion respectively as
compared to DSA 2, which was projected to cost $2.178 billion. 63 This is a difference in cost of
less than 6.5%.64 Of the 17 studied DSAS, the Red Route DSAS ranked sixth and seventh
respectively in estimated cost. 65 These minor differences in costs are insufficient to support a
conclusion that DSAs 6 and 7 are impractical.
NCDOT repeatedly cites the relocations associated with the Red Route DSAs as a reason
against selecting DSAs 6 or 7.66 DSAs 6 and 7 were projected to cause 449 and 451 relocations
respectively, while NCDOT's Selected Alternative was projected to cause 281 relocations .67
NCDOT's Selected Alternative Report admits that there is only a "relatively small difference in
required relocations" among the DSAs.68 Given this "relatively small difference," it is arbitrary
and capricious to suggest that the relocations required by the Red Route render DSAs 6 and 7
"impractical" while those associated with NCDOT's Selected Alternative are practical.
Moreover, as noted in Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, undeveloped land will always be
associated with the least number of relocations, "since people do not live or work" there, but this
does not mean that highways should always be built on undeveloped land, rather than in
developed areas. 401 U.S. 402, 411-12 (1971). If the United States Congress and North Carolina
Legislature intended for factors such as cost, directness of route, and community disruption to be
considered "on equal footing with preservation ... there would be no need for" the CWA and the
state's 401 Certification regulations. Id. The CWA and North Carolina's implementing
regulations mandate that Certification only be issued for a project with no practical alternatives
predominates over differences in relocations associated with various practical routes, especially
when those differences are so minimal.
b) DSAs 6 and 7 Minimize Impacts to Water Resources
The Red Route DSAs were projected to impact the smallest acreage of wetlands,
impacting approximately 52 acres of wetlands each .69 By comparison, NCDOT's Selected
Alternative was projected to impact approximately 74 acres of wetlands. 70 The Red Route
63 Selected Alternative Report at 4.
64 Id.
65 Id
66 Id. at 5.
67 Id.
6s Id
69 DEIS at 90.
70 Id. at 108. NCDOT's selected alternative's impacts have been refined down in subsequent environmental
documents. See Permit Application at 3. However, because the original figures in the DEIS were used by NCDOT
to select the selected alternative , the impacts must be compared for the purpose of determining the least
environmentally damaging practical alternative.
17

r
Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 18
alternatives also minimize impacts to streams. DSAS 6 and 7 were projected to impact 52,014
and 51,528 feet of streams respectively, while NCDOT's Selected Alternative was projected to
impact 65,810 feet of streams. 71 DSAS 6 and 7 were also projected to have the fewest stream
crossings of all the DSAs, with 109 and 106 respectively.72 NCDOT's Selected Alternative was
projected to have 139 stream crossings. 73 The Red Route would also impact the fewest number
of ponds, with 28 ponds accounting for 20 acres corresponding to DSA 6, and 25 ponds
accounting for 17.7 acres corresponding to DSA 7 .74 NCDOT's Selected Alternative was
projected to impact 38 ponds accounting for 23.2 acres. 75
Furthermore, while the FEIS states that "there is no practicable alternative to completely
avoid impacts to wetlands,"76 there are multiple alternatives that have fewer impacts on
wetlands. Just because all alternatives would have some degree of impact on wetlands does not
mean NCDOT is permitted to select the most destructive alternative.
c) DSAs 6 and 7 Avoid Harm to Endangered Mussel Species
The Red Route DSAs are the only DSAs that do not cross Swift Creek downstream of
Lake Benson, thereby avoiding all of the most direct impacts to the federally -listed endangered
Dwarf wedgemussel and threatened Yellow Lance.77 As discussed below, this represents an
independent reason for denying Certification because supporting endangered species is a
substantial existing use for surface waters. However, the fact that DSAs 6 and 7 avoid potentially
jeopardizing endangered aquatic species while NCDOT's Selected Alternative does not is also
significant because an alternative that stands to wipe out essential populations of multiple
endangered species can hardly be considered the least environmentally damaging practical
alternative—particularly when other existing alternatives would avoid such devastation. The
Red Route DSAs, as well as multiple non -toll road options, would avoid the most severe impacts
to the Dwarf wedgemussel, Yellow Lace, and several additional rare aquatic species.
d) DSAs 6 and 7 Minimize Cumulative Impacts
NCDOT's Selected Alternative cuts through the southern, undeveloped portion of Wake
County while the Red Route DSAs run further north, through an already developed part of the
" DEIS at 108.
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 Id.
75 Id.
76 FEIS at 54.
77 See Selected Alternative Report at 3.

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 19
county. 78 As a result, the Red Route DSAs pull development less far south relative to NCDOT's
Selected Alternative. The Red Route DSAs therefore are likely to spur less dramatic indirect
induced growth related impacts, as opposed to NCDOT's Selected Alternative, which would
disrupt natural areas and bring aggressive new indirect growth to previously undisturbed areas.
e) DSAs 6 and 7 do not Impact Protected Mitigation Sites
NCDOT's Selected Alternative will unlawfully impact and possibly functionally
eliminate an existing mitigation site that NCDOT was required to purchase to mitigate wetland
destruction during construction of the Northern Wake Expressway—a previous segment of the
same overall project of an I-540 "ring road" around Raleigh. The Complete 540 ROD explains:
Underhill Wetland Mitigation Site — This 84.5 -acre parcel, which is located
adjacent to and south of Swift Creek in the Complete 540 project area, was
purchased by NCDOT in 1998 as part of the wetland mitigation efforts for
NCDOT's US 70 Clayton Bypass project. The parcel has a small arm of land
adjacent to Swift Creek that extends northward, crossing most of the right-of-way
width of the Selected Alternative. The Selected Alternative will span this portion
of the property with dual bridges, which will be built approximately 20 feet above
ground level and designed to prohibit direct stormwater drainage into the
mitigation site and Swift Creek. Approximately one-half acre of this site will be
affected. To further aid in the protection of the Underhill Site and Swift Creek,
NCDOT will follow the design standards established in the NC Design Standards
for Sensitive Watersheds. 79
Similarly, the 2014 Natural Resources Technical Report ("NRTR') prepared for the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") states: "[T]he Underhill Mitigation Site is located
within the Orange (A) corridor which affects all alternatives currently under consideration. This
site was developed to mitigate for impacts associated with Section B of the Northern Wake
Expressway (R -2000B)."80 Almost no other information on the site is provided in either of these
documents.
NCDOT provides a better picture of the Underhill Mitigation Site through its online
Mitigation Site Map viewer81 and associated documents. A cropped screenshot of the site as
shown on that mapper is provided below for convenience.
"Id. at 51, 55, 56.
79 NCDOT, Complete 540 ROD 15 (June 2018), hgps://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/record-of-
decision/C540 ROD June 6 2018.pdf (emphasis added).
80 NCDOT, NRTR 12 (2014),
h!Ws://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/reports/C540 NRTR 0814pdf.
81 NCDOT Mitigation Site Map, AxCGIS, hit
p://arcg.is/TiWK9 (last visited Nov. 30, 2018).
19

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 20
Y
>Y
As the description in the ROD makes clear, Complete 540 will cross the portion of the site that is
both farthest north and farthest upstream, potentially where it protects Swift Creek most.
The mitigation plan for the Underhill Mitigation Site explains that the site was first
identified as a potential mitigation site for impacts associated with Section B of the Northern
Wake Expressway (R-2000 B).82 Accordingly, the ROD is incorrect where it states that the
parcel was purchased in 1998 as part of the wetland mitigation efforts for NCDOT's US 70
Clayton Bypass project .83 Section B of R-2000 impacted 6.82 acres of bottomland hardwood
forest, 18.68 acres of surface waters, and caused a temporary loss of 3.62 acres of wetland
habitat, plus 103,865 yards of sediment storage capacity, and 439,580 yards of flood storage
capacity. 84 A 1992 wetland mitigation plan successfully provided 10 acres of open water habitat,
106,167 cubic yards of sediment storage capacity, and 649,584 cubic yards of flood storage, but
failed to provide a planned 22 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat, 85 thus leaving apparently
unmitigated 6.82 acres of impacts to bottomland hardwood habitat, about 8.68 acres of surface
water impacts, and 3.62 acres of wetland impacts. In addition, "slumping of the I-40 access
ramp" required NCDOT to apply in October 1996 for a permit modification for additional fill of
0.96 acres of surface waters, excavation of 13,673 cubic yards of material from a lake adjacent to
82 UNDERHILL MITIGATION PLAN at PDF 2 (1997),
httvs://connect.ncdot.Qov/resources/Environmental/Mitigation%20Site%2ODocuments/092014 mitnlan Underhill.D
d_f.
" ROD at 15.
B4 Underhill Mitigation Plan at PDF 2.
85 id.
20
k
NCDOT Mitigation Site Polygons: —
(+.
UnderMll
ONEID
09:
SiteName
Un
Alias
n/
TIP
R-
County
Wa
+
Division
5
RiverBasin
Ne
s
CatologuingUnit
03(
Onsite
No
Status
CIC
Zoom to
isw
I
Y
>Y
As the description in the ROD makes clear, Complete 540 will cross the portion of the site that is
both farthest north and farthest upstream, potentially where it protects Swift Creek most.
The mitigation plan for the Underhill Mitigation Site explains that the site was first
identified as a potential mitigation site for impacts associated with Section B of the Northern
Wake Expressway (R-2000 B).82 Accordingly, the ROD is incorrect where it states that the
parcel was purchased in 1998 as part of the wetland mitigation efforts for NCDOT's US 70
Clayton Bypass project .83 Section B of R-2000 impacted 6.82 acres of bottomland hardwood
forest, 18.68 acres of surface waters, and caused a temporary loss of 3.62 acres of wetland
habitat, plus 103,865 yards of sediment storage capacity, and 439,580 yards of flood storage
capacity. 84 A 1992 wetland mitigation plan successfully provided 10 acres of open water habitat,
106,167 cubic yards of sediment storage capacity, and 649,584 cubic yards of flood storage, but
failed to provide a planned 22 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat, 85 thus leaving apparently
unmitigated 6.82 acres of impacts to bottomland hardwood habitat, about 8.68 acres of surface
water impacts, and 3.62 acres of wetland impacts. In addition, "slumping of the I-40 access
ramp" required NCDOT to apply in October 1996 for a permit modification for additional fill of
0.96 acres of surface waters, excavation of 13,673 cubic yards of material from a lake adjacent to
82 UNDERHILL MITIGATION PLAN at PDF 2 (1997),
httvs://connect.ncdot.Qov/resources/Environmental/Mitigation%20Site%2ODocuments/092014 mitnlan Underhill.D
d_f.
" ROD at 15.
B4 Underhill Mitigation Plan at PDF 2.
85 id.
20

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 21
the mitigation area, and temporary impacts of 1.84 acres to bottomland hardwoods and 1.45
acres for a temporary haul road .86
The Underhill site is mitigation for the 22 acres of bottomland hardwood impacts that did
not occur as planned under the 1992 wetland mitigation plan—i.e., for the 6.82 acres of wetlands
destroyed by Section B thus left unmitigated—and for the additional impacts caused by fixing
the "slumping."87 The Underhill site was intended to "provide approximately 65 acres of
bottomland hardwood wetland preservation" and "approximately 10 acres of streamside levee
and the remainder in upland buffer preservation. ,88 It contains "68 acres of wetlands and 10
acres of levee and 1,780 feet of stream frontage."89 According to the 1994 Compensatory
Mitigation Planning Checklist included in the Underhill Mitigation Plan, it was to provide
mitigation at a 10:1 ratio. 90 Accordingly, the Underhill site's 68 acres of wetlands compensate
for 6.82 acres of bottomland hardwood forest (or wetlands) destroyed. The correlation between
the site's other attributes and the acre of surface water impacts and other impacts associated with
fixing the "slumping" is unclear.
The stated goal of mitigation at the site is to "[p]rotect Swift creek [sic] watershed from
land clearing or timbering, preserve wildlife habitat corridor"; 91 and its "target functions" are
"Wildlife habitat, water quality."92 The site experiences "[o]verbank flooding, input from
unnamed tributaries, ground water and beaver dams."93 It is "a functioning wetland on a creek
which is threatened by residential and commercial development. Beaver activity has created a
refuge for wildlife, waterfowl and aquatic species. Protection by preservation will [text ends.]"94
NCDOT planned to accomplish the site goal simply by ensuing that the site continued to exist
undisturbed. There are no success criteria, 95 and no monitoring plan. 96 In the section of the
mitigation plan on site management, NCDOT explained, "NCDOT will contact the Town of
Garner, the City of Raleigh and Wake County to canvass their interest in being deeded the site
for long-term management subject to deed restrictions prescribed by Special Condition `f of the
86 Id.
87 Underhill Mitigation Plan at PDF 3. This does not account for the impacts to about 8.68 acres of surface water
and 3.62 acres of wetlands that appear not to have been mitigated, according to the description in the Underhill
Mitigation Plan.
88 Id.
89 Id.
90 Id. at PDF 15.
" Id. at PDF 16.
92 Id
93 Id. at PDF 19.
94 Id. at PDF 22.
9s Id. at PDF 16.
96 Id. at PDF 20; see 33 C.F.R. § 332.6(a)(1) ("Monitoring the compensatory mitigation project site is necessary to
determine if the project is meeting its performance standards, and to determine if measures are necessary to ensure
that the compensatory mitigation project is accomplishing its objectives.").
21

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 22
Department of Army permit for R-2000. Since the site only involves preservation of an existing
wetland, NCDOT is confident that the site will function as planned. ,97 NCDOT purchased the
site in fee simple for $253,600.98
The Underhill Mitigation Site must be permanently protected. At a minimum, federal
regulations require long-term protection for compensatory mitigation, which should be
established in "real estate interests" such as conservation easements "or other available
mechanisms, as appropriate." 33 C.F.R. § 332.7(a)(1). This is particularly true of preservation
mitigation. Id. § 332.3(h)(1)(v). Whatever the protective instrument, it "must, to the extent
appropriate and practicable, prohibit incompatible uses (e.g., clear cutting or mineral extraction)
that might otherwise jeopardize the objectives of the compensatory mitigation project." Id. §
332.7(a)(2). Either the permit conditions or the protective instrument must identify the party
responsible for ownership and long-term management. Id. § 332.7(d)(1). North Carolina's
current In -Lieu Fee Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") contains similar provisions concerning perpetual
protection: compensatory mitigation sites must "remain within the public domain in fee simple
title in perpetuity and/or [have] appropriate preservation mechanisms, including conservation
easements and deed restrictions," which must be recorded; and must "be perpetual, preserve all
natural areas, and prohibit all use of the property inconsistent with its use as mitigation property,
including any activity that would materially alter the biological integrity."99 NCDOT's proposal
to construct Complete 540 across a highly sensitive portion of the Underhill Mitigation Site is
precisely the sort of incompatible use prohibited under these regulations.
North Carolina state law on mitigation also requires that the Underhill Mitigation Site be
protected. "All compensatory mitigation, whether performed by the Department or by permit
applicants, shall be consistent with the basinwide restoration plans," as well as rules adopted by
the EMC for wetland and stream mitigation and riparian buffers. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-
214.11(b); see also In re Ruling by Envtl. Mgmt. Comm'n, 155 N.C. App. 408, 412, 573 S.E.2d
732, 735 (2002) (upholding EMC's authority to regulate wetlands). Mitigation is "consistent
97 Id. at PDF 5. Accordingly, the Underhill site is "preservation" compensatory mitigation rather than restoration
mitigation. Under the current Compensatory Mitigation Rule, preservation may only be used as compensatory
mitigation if a number of additional criteria are met. 33 C.F.R. § 332.3(h)(1). One of those criteria is that the site
must be permanently protected. Id. § 332.3(h)(1)(v).
98 Deed to Underhill site 1 (1999),
hitps•//connect nedot gov/resources/Environmental/Mitigation%20Site%2ODocuments/092014 deed Underhill Wa
ke 7993 885.pdf. Attachment 15.
99 Agreement to Continue the Operation of North Carolina's In -Lieu Fee Programs Operated by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program Pursuant to 33 CFR Parts
325 and 332 as Revised Effective June 9, 2008 (Federal Mitigation Rule) (hereinafter "ILF Agreement") at 13-14
(2010),
httt)s:Hfiles nc gov/ncdeg/Mitigation%2OServices/Administration/Agreements/ILF%20Instrument%20with%20more
%20signatures.pdf.
22

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 23
with the Basinwide Restoration Plan for the appropriate river basin," if "the project demonstrates
that it advances the functional improvement goals identified in the Basinwide Restoration Plan or
is determined to be consistent by the United States Army Corps of Engineers." 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 2R.0301. DMS manages basinwide restoration planning. 100
Allowing Complete 540 to cross the Underhill Mitigation Site would run afoul of these
rules. According to the Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010 report, for Upper Swift
Creek:
High priorities for this watershed are hydrologic restoration projects including
stream enhancement, dam removal and flow management from impoundments.
Preservation and Corridor enhancement are a high priority for maintaining rare
habitats. Stormwater management projects are critical in the Cary vicinity to
improve water quality in the creek and Lake Wheeler. DWQ developed a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan to guide improvement of the benthic
macroinvertebrate community. This "biological TMDL" is the first of its kind for
NC and is aimed at removing Swift and Williams creeks from the 303(d) list. 101
Complete 540's crossing undoubtedly would hinder the ability of the site to advance these goals.
Furthermore, the Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010 report builds on the 2009
basinwide water quality plan for the Neuse River, which states, "This segment of Swift Creek
below Lake Benson is known to support 11 rare, threatened or endangered aquatic animals: 1
fish and 10 mussel species, including the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon)."102 The Selected Alternative would impair the Underhill Mitigation Site's ability to
protect Swift Creek as habitat for these species.
As set forth above, the Selected Alternative would unlawfully damage the Underhill
Mitigation Site by reducing its capacity to protect water quality and to protect habitat for
wildlife, including sensitive species. The Natural Resources Technical Report misleadingly
states that all the considered alternatives would impact this mitigation site. I03 NCDOT later
100 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.10; DMS Planning, DEQ, https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-
planning (last visited Nov. 30, 2018); Watershed Planning Documents, DEQ,
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershedzplanning-documents (last visited
Nov. 30, 2018).
101 DEQ, NEusE RIVER BASIN RESTORATION PRIORrrIEs 2010 at 34 (PDF 36),
hos://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed Plannin&LNeuse River Basin/FINAL%20RBRP%20
Neuse%202010 %2020111207%2000RRECTED.pdf.
102 NCDEQ, Chapter 2: Neuse River Subbasin 03-04-02 at PDF p. 36 (2009),
haps://files.ne.gov/ncdeq/Water%2OQuality/PlanningBPUBPU/Neuse/Neuse%20PIans/2009%20Plan/Cha tcp r%20
2.ndf.
103 Natural Res. Tech. Report at 12.
23

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 24
clarified that the Red Route DSAs do not cross the site.' 04 This significant difference means
NCDOT's Selected Alternative is more likely to impact the mitigation site and any impacts
would be of greater magnitude. The Selected Alternative's impact on the Underhill mitigation
site further demonstrates that it cannot be environmentally preferred. Moreover, the fact that a
site used to mitigate impacts from a previous segment of the same overall highway project is
already being disturbed only a few years after that segment was constructed serves to illustrate
why mitigation measures should only be used as a last resort, and avoidance of impacts must
instead be prioritized.
2. NCDOT Employed Flawed Methodologies and Analyses to
Arbitrarily Reject Multiple Practical Alternatives without Detailed
Study
NCDOT has failed to demonstrate that there are no practical alternatives "which would
avoid or result in less adverse impact to surface waters or wetlands." 15A N.C. Admin. Code
2H.0506(f). To the contrary, NCDOT's NEPA documents demonstrate that their Selected
Alternative is among the most environmentally destructive options considered. Nevertheless,
NCDOT relies on its flawed alternative analysis to justify its predetermined decision-making and
legitimize its arbitrary and capricious selection of an environmentally devastating toll road over a
myriad of less destructive more cost-effective alternatives.
a) Misleading Metrics Arbitrarily Removed Reasonable
Alternatives
NCDOT's first-tier screening processes eliminated all non -toll road options from
consideration. los This process relied heavily on misleading numeric "Measures of
Effectiveness" or "MOEs" to assess the potential of each alternative concept to achieve time
travel savings and congestion relief. 106 For each alternative concept, the MOEs expressed the
difference between the Build and No -Build scenario as a percentage. 107 Then, the different
concepts were ranked for each MOE from greatest to least percentage change. 108
The different MOEs purportedly helped distinguish the alternative concepts, but in reality
the MOEs only served to illustrate how indistinguishable the considered alternatives were in
terms of their ability to relieve congestion and enhance mobility. For example, the 2035
104 Stakeholder Involvement Report, App. J3, Comment No. 83 ("The DSAs using the Red or Lilac Corridors to
cross Swift Creek would avoid the Underhill Site.").
jos DEIS at 38-40.
106 Alternatives Analysis Report at 2-6.
' 07 Id. at 2-9.
los Id.
24

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 25
projected average daily travel speeds during the evening rush hour ranged between 43.7 MPH to
47.3 MPH for all considered alternatives. 109 Therefore, a range of less than 4 MPH separated the
"worst" performing alternative from the "best" performing alternative. Similarly, an average of
3.5 minutes separated the best performing alternative under the travel time MOE, from the worst
performing alternative. 110
Forecasting future traffic is an inherently uncertain pursuit. Indeed, FHWA's Traffic
Analysis Toolbox warns that " [i]t is risky to design a road facility to a precise future condition. .
. [t]hus it is good practice to explicitly plan for a certain amount of uncertainty in the
analysis.""' Given this level of uncertainty, the minute difference between the respective
performances of the various alternatives were likely not even statistically significant. The
Complete 540 Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum recognized the inherent inaccuracy of
NCDOT's traffic forecast:
The 2009 [Triangle Regional Model] V4 model run data was extrapolated to 2010
and shows daily assignment volumes varying (some higher and some lower) from
existing count data along study area roadways. This can be attributed to a quickly
changing and developing study area and very low base year volumes, which make
it difficult for the regional model to completely account for all existing conditions
and recent changes. 112
Therefore, the minute differences in MOE performance between alternative concepts can
hardly be considered significant. Despite NCDOT's assertions otherwise, the toll road highway
option did not significantly outperform other alternatives. Eliminating the non -toll road options
based on such miniscule differences is arbitrary and capricious and insufficient to demonstrate a
lack of practical alternatives.
109 Alternatives Analysis Report at Table 2-1: Average Daily Travel Speeds in Traffic Study Area (2035) --PM Peak
Period.
110 Id. at Table 2-2: Average Travel Times from RTP to Listed Destinations (2035) — PM Peak Period. When
reviewing travel times, the Alternatives Analysis focused on a "subset of the origin and destination points ... for
closer evaluation of the MOE for project purpose." The origin points chosen were Brier Creek and Research
Triangle Park ("RTP"). As to the projected travel times for an RTP origin during peak PM travel times, the smallest
average change over the No -Build alternative was 3.5% and the greatest change was 13.7%, or stated in minutes
saved, an average of 2.25 minutes saved and 5.75 minutes saved, respectively. The range of difference in travel
times with a Brier Creek origin are similar, with the lowest average percentage change being 3.4% and the highest
being 12.1 %, or a difference of 2 minutes saved and up to 7.5 minutes saved. With this example, unlike the RTP
example, the "best" performing alternative was Hybrid 1 and not the New Location Highway.
111 FHWA, HWA-HRT-04-040, Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic
Microsimulation Modeling Software 74 (July 2004).
112 Traffic Forecast Tech. Mem. (Apr. 2014), at 17; see id. at Table 9. Base Year No -Build Forecast Traffic
Volumes.
25

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 26
b) The Ranking System Arbitrarily Distinguished Between
Successful and Unsuccessful Alternatives
Next, NCDOT used the misleading MOEs to arbitrarily divide the alternative concepts
into two groups: alternatives that purportedly met the project's purpose and need, and
alternatives that purportedly did not. 113 After being ranked from greatest to least percentage
change for each MOE, the alternatives were divided into quartiles according to where they
placed in the rankings. 114 The alternatives in the top quarter were given a score of "4", those in
the next quarter a "3" and so on. 115 This quartile ranking system artificially inflated the
incremental differences between alternatives, creating the illusion that some alternatives were
significantly more successful than others.
Despite the insignificant differences between the best -performing and worst -performing
alternatives, the Alternatives Analysis used the quartile ranking system to eliminate purportedly
under -performing alternatives. Alternatives that achieved a quartile ranking of 3 or 4 were
determined to meet the project purpose and need, while alternatives that were ranked lower were
discarded as unable to meet the project purpose and need. 116 NCDOT's purpose and need
statement did not specify particular numerical values, stating only that the purpose of the project
was to decrease congestion and increase mobility in the study area. 117 NCDOT's reliance on
arbitrary numerical cut-off points to eliminate alternatives that would decrease congestion and
increase mobility is therefore arbitrary and capricious.
Furthermore, given the slight difference in each alternative concept's performance for
each MOE, the quartile system unreasonably divided and eliminated alternatives based on
marginal differences in performance that are likely statistically insignificant. For example, the
Hybrid 1 Alternative received quartile rankings of 3 and 4 in every MOE except Average Speed,
where it received a 2 for a projected average speed of 44.7 MPH. 118 The next -best performing
alternative under the Average Speed MOE which earned a "passing" quartile ranking of 3, was
projected to achieve an average speed of 45.6 MPH.119 Thus, a difference of 0.9 MPH separated
the Hybrid 1 Alternative from "passing" in the Average Speed MOE and "meeting" the primary
13 Id. at 2-9.
114 Id.
115 Id
116 Alternatives Analysis Report at 2-7, 2-17, Table 2-7: Summary of Quartile Rankings of MOEs for Build
Alternative Concepts.
117 Permit Application at 1; FEIS at 7.
118 Alternatives Analysis Report at Table 2-1: Average Daily Travel Speeds in Traffic Study Area (2035) — PM Peak
Period; Table 2-7: Summary of Quartile Rankings of MOEs for Build Alternative Concepts.
119 Id. at Table 2-1: Average Daily Travel Speeds in Traffic Study Area (2035) — PM Peak Period.
�:

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 27
purpose of improving transportation mobility. 120 If the forecast speed for Hybrid 1 Alternative
had been a mere 1 MPH greater—well within the margin of error—it would have received a
quartile ranking of 3 under the Average Speed MOE and advanced beyond the first tier screening
process. NCDOT's elimination of alternatives based on marginal differences in inherently
uncertain future traffic projections is arbitrary and capricious and fails to establish a lack of
practical alternatives.
C) The Screening Process Arbitrarily Used Different Methods to
Assess Non -Road Building Alternatives
NCDOT's first-tier screening process applied the flawed methodology discussed above to
road -building or road -upgrading alternatives, but did not attempt any quantitative analysis to
assess the Transportation Demand Management ("TDM"), Transportation System Management
("TSM"), and Mass Transit/Multi-Modal Alternatives. 121 These three alternative concepts were
not evaluated using the same methodology as road -building or road -upgrading options and were
not included in any of the tables summarizing the numeric differences between the alternatives.
As noted by EPA, NCDOT's approach was "biased towards eliminating [Transportation
Demand], [Transportation System Management], and Mass Transit/Multi-modal Alternative
Concepts." 122 Indeed, the TDM, TSM and Mass Transit/Multi-Modal Alternatives were all
eliminated in the first-tier screening process absent any quantitative evaluation or analytically
sound justification. The use of inconsistent methodology to evaluate and eliminate different
alternatives is a fundamental error in NCDOT's selection process.
d) Flawed Traffic Forecasts Overstated the Need for a Road
NCDOT based its entire, independently problematic screening process on a seriously
flawed traffic forecasting methodology. Instead of generating its 2016 and 2040 forecasts from
the regional Travel Demand Model, NCDOT generated only its 2016 forecast based on the
Travel Demand Model and its 2040 forecasts by applying a compound annual growth rate to its
2016 Base Year No Build volumes. 123 NCDOT's failure to use a travel demand model for 2040
traffic forecasts is highly unconventional. Usually, the regional travel demand model is used to
develop future year forecasts for "build" and "no build" scenarios, which are then
"balanced/adjusted" for more detailed flows at specific intersections or turning movements.
120 Id. at Table 2-7: Summary of Quartile Rankings of MOEs for Build Alternative Concepts; Table 2-8: First Tier
Screening — Ability of Alternative Concepts to Meet Purpose of the Project.
121 See Alternatives Analysis Report at 2-10 (average daily travel speeds); id. at 2-11 (travel times); id. at 2-14
(average daily VHT); id. at 2-15 (congested VMT); id. at 2-16 (congested VHT).
122 Stakeholder Report at 179 (2012 EPA Technical Assistance Comments on Draft Alternatives Development and
Analysis Report).
123 Project Level Traffic Forecast 2 (2016).
27

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 28
NCDOT's methodology here, which applies a compound growth rate to a diversion -adjusted
base year estimate, throws away years of local model development and instead relies on a
projected future growth rate without accounting for interim growth or network changes between
the base year and the future year. Moreover, NCDOT's use of a 10 -year historic growth rate to
predict future congestion is highly unusual. NCDOT's analysis suggests that compound growth
rates within the study area will be 1.5-2 times greater than other areas in the Triangle Regional
Model. 124 The growth rates in these other areas are already among the highest in the state,
therefore it seems unlikely that the growth rates in the study area will significantly exceed them.
Furthermore, NCDOT's methodology failed to account for the phenomenon of induced
traffic. In response to comments by the Conservation Groups and FHWA, NCDOT attempted to
rectify this error by reviewing travel time savings and other traffic forecasts as compared to an
"ICE no build" condition. 125 However, NCDOT should have used this information earlier in the
process when it was screening alternatives, and its late action fails to rectify the Department's
unreasonable reliance on an incomplete traffic forecast methodology to eliminate practical
alternative concepts.
e) Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analysis Obscured the
Availability of Less Damaging Alternatives
The Complete 540 Toll Road would trigger destructive indirect and cumulative impacts
through shifting traffic and land use patterns. Despite overwhelming consensus at all levels of
government that the Complete 540 project will bring significant growth to the project area and
will have a dramatic impact on land use, 126 NCDOT asserts in the Quantitative ICE analysis
attached to their Permit Application that the toll highway will, in fact, have a fairly negligible
impact on growth patterns. 127
NCDOT's counterintuitive assertion arises from the use of a set of flawed assumptions in
the Quantitative ICE analysis. The Quantitative ICE document is based on the assumption that
because Wake County as a whole has grown at a fast rate over the past twenty years, the project
area will see a high rate of development with or without the road. 128 This conclusion is the
product of an unjustified, illogical leap—that the growth that has been documented in the denser,
urban part of the county will naturally extend and continue at the same high pace in the more
rural, undeveloped region even without a toll highway in place.
'24 Id. at 35 tbl. 16.
125 Quantitative ICE Report 12-22 (2017).
126 Letter from Kym Hunter and Ramona H. McGee, SELC, to Rodger Rochelle, NCDOT 62-67 (Feb. 22, 2018).
Attachment 1.
1Z7 Permit Application at 27.
128 See, e.g., Quantitative ICE Report 4.

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 29
NCDOT attempted to quantify how much of anticipated future growth would be
attributable to the construction of toll road by comparing a future "Build" scenario to a future
"No Build" scenario. To do this, NCDOT relied on a 2012 Duranton and Turner study, which
analyzed the effects of major highways on regional employment over a 20 year period. 129 The
Duranton and Turner study found a relationship between centerline miles of highway and
changes in employment in a region. NCDOT used this observation to extrapolate that for every
10 percent increase in highway stock, a region would experience 1.5% employment growth over
20 years. 130 But the Duranton and Turner study was meant to look at overall average impacts to
regions—nothing in the study suggests that it can be applied to reverse engineer the impacts of a
particular highway in a particular region of an individual city as NCDOT has attempted here.
The use of the Duranton and Turner in this way resulted in an arbitrary and capricious analysis of
indirect and cumulative effects.
NCDOT's application of the Duranton and Turner study is further unreasonable because
the study was based primarily on an analysis of non -toll road highways. 131 NCDOT assumed,
with no justification, that the impact of adding non -Interstate, tolled road mileage on regional job
growth is the same as adding Interstate un -tolled roads. NCDOT's Quantitative ICE Report
acknowledges this critical assumption but fails to substantiate it:
Although it will connect to interstate highways and have similar design
characteristics as an interstate highway, the proposed project is a tolled highway
and will not be designated as an interstate highway. Most of the interstate
highways included in the Duranton and Turner study were not tolled. 132
Whether this assumption has the effect of increasing or decreasing the likely impact of
NCDOT's Selected Alternative is debatable, but has not been studied here, and therefore cannot
be used to support NCDOT's representations concerning the project's impacts.
Furthermore, NCDOT acknowledged that the data in the Duranton and Turner study is
historical in nature and ends in 2003.133 However, NCDOT failed to recognize the shifting
trends and preferences related to driving, public transportation, and lifestyle preferences that
have occurred over the last fifteen years, 134 which render conclusions based on historical data
inapplicable to future development.
129 See generally Gilles Duranton & Matthew A. Turner, Urban Growth and Transportation, REV. of EcoN.
STuD1Es, 2012. Attachment 16.
130 Quantitative ICE Report at 14-15.
131 Duranton & Turner, Urban Growth and Transportation at 14. Attachment 16.
132 id.
133 Quantitative ICE Report at 14.
134 See Letter from Kym Hunter and Ramona H. McGee, SELC, to Rodger Rochelle, NCDOT 4-11 (Feb. 22, 2018).
Attachment 1.
al

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 30
NCDOT's ICE analysis is further flawed in its failure to fully explain how projected
growth is allocated in the study area. NCDOT failed to provide any data or description as to how
the asserted reduction in development under the No -Build scenario is allocated in sub -area zones.
This oversight is significant because the distribution of growth within the study area determines
the extent to which the Build scenario increases traffic near the proposed exists of NC 540.
Absent a detailed description of methodology, the appropriateness of NCDOT's chosen
distribution cannot be evaluated. Further, NCDOT fails to explain how commercial
development, as opposed to `jobs' and `household' would be allocated in each scenario. This
oversight is problematic because commercial development, particularly retail trade, has a
significant effect on local traffic congestion relative to housing.
Finally, NCDOT's ICE analysis eliminates almost half of the growth found to be
attributable to the construction of the toll road by arbitrarily excluding areas of impacted counties
that are deemed "outside" the study area to conclude that NCDOT's Selected Alternative will
have just a one percent impact on development. 135 If half of the impact of the project is deemed
to be outside of the defined study zone, then perhaps NCDOT has incorrectly designated the
study area. This result also directly contradicts statements of local planners documented in the
Conservation Groups' previous comments. 136 Moreover, if NCDOT's analysis is correct, and a
$2.2 billion highway project will have such a minimal impact on jobs and development, perhaps
it is neither a prudent nor practical use of taxpayer resources.
3. Practical, Less Damaging Alternatives Exist that were not Studied
NCDOT's flawed first-tier screening prematurely eliminated several non -toll road
alternatives that would have improved mobility and reduced congestion while avoiding or
minimizing adverse impacts to surface waters and wetlands. Each of these alternatives is
practical and would have fewer impacts on water resources than the Selected Alternative.
a) Improvements to Existing Highways
NCDOT eliminated three different alternatives that would improve existing roadways.
These alternatives consisted of widening existing expressways in the project study area,
upgrading a primary parallel arterial road, or a combination of these improvements. 137 Each of
the alternatives would widen some portion of I-40, I-440 and the US 64/US 264 Bypass to 12
lanes. 138 Improve Existing Roadways 1 consists entirely of widening parts of these expressways
135 Quantitative ICE Report 18-34.
136 See Letter from Kym Hunter and Ramona H. McGee, SELC, to Rodger Rochelle, NCDOT 62-67 (Feb. 22,
2018). Attachment 1.
137 Alternatives Analysis at 2-4.
138 Id.
30

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 31
throughout the project study area. 139 Improve Existing Roadways 2 would widen segments of
NC 55 and NC 42 to six lanes in addition to widening eastern parts of 1-40,1-440 and US 64/264.
Improve Existing Roadways 3 would likewise widen the eastern segments of the freeways, and
would widen sections of Jessie Drive and Ten Ten Road. 140
The Alternatives Analysis Report concluded that each improve existing roadways
alternatives would not "result in a comparatively large reduction in travel times relative to the
other Build Alternative Concepts." 141 This conclusion is arbitrary and capricious, because as
detail in previous comments and in this letter, all the alternative concepts performed comparably
for the travel time MOE, and NCDOT's methodology exaggerated minute differences between
alternatives. Upgrade alternatives are more competitive and practical than the deceptive MOEs
and quartile ranking system suggested, and their impacts on water resources should have been
evaluated against the costly, destructive toll highway alternatives.
b) Hybrid Alternatives
NCDOT's Alternative Analysis screened three hybrid alternatives, each of which in
involved "a combination of constructing a roadway on a new location and either widening
existing expressways or upgrading a primary parallel arterial roadway between NC 55 Bypass in
Apex and I-40." 142 The hybrid alternatives performed nearly as well or better than the New
Location Highway option under the travel times reviewed in the Alternatives Analysis, 143 and
Hybrid Alternatives 1 and 3 consistently performed well under the other MOEs.144
Hybrid 1's environmental, human, and feasibility impacts were never considered despite
its strong potential to meet the project's purposes. Because of a quartile ranking of "2" in the
Average Speed MOE, Hybrid 1 was eliminated from consideration early in the screening
process. Strangely, the Alternatives Analysis concluded that this alternative would
simultaneously "result in a comparatively large reduction in travel times relative to the other
Build Alternative Concepts," but "result in a reduction in average travel speeds."las The
Alternatives Analysis does not investigate this counterintuitive result, and instead dismissed the
option because of its apparent inability to improve average speeds in the travel area.
139 Id.
140 Id.
14' Id. at 2-25.
142 Id. at 2-5.
143 Id. at tbl. 2-2: Average Travel Time from RTP to Listed Destinations (2035) — PM Peak Period, tbl. 2-3: Average
Travel Time from Brier Creek to Listed Destinations (2035) — PM Peak Period.
144 Id. at 2-18, tbl. 2-7
141 Id. at 2-26.
31

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 32
Hybrid 1 would also use only the western segments of the toll highway which already
have funding programmed in the North Carolina State Transportation Improvement Program. lab
In contrast, Hybrids 2 and 3 would have included a segment of the toll highway which currently
lacks funding. 147 Given Hybrid 1's secured funding and relatively strong performance, this
alternative should have received greater evaluation to determine whether it could achieve the
project's purposes at a lower environmental and human cost than the expensive, toll highway
alternative.
c) ACCESS2040
The Conservation Groups, working with an expert transportation planner, Walter Kulash,
developed an alternative to the proposed toll road that focused on upgrades to existing
infrastructure. This alternative, named "ACCESS2040", would achieve most of the benefits of
the Complete 540 Toll Road at a fraction of its cost and water quality impacts, and improve
mobility, congestion relief, and regional connectivity by augmenting projects already
recommended in plans adopted by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
("CAMPO"). Mr. Kulash's full report is set out in,full in Attachment 17. The alternative is
however, summarized briefly below.
ACCESS2040 starts with a foundation of 52 projects selected from the 2040
Metropolitan Transportation Plan ("CAMPO MTP") adopted by CAMPO. Most of these
projects are widening of roads to multi -lane divided arterials. To this base of improvements,
ACCESS2040 would add a small mileage of extensions to existing roads and replacement of at -
grade intersections with grade -separated intersections. These widenings and extensions would
create continuous multi -lane arterial routes across southern Wake County in both the east -west
and north -south directions.
ACCESS2040 anticipates an increase in transit travel as projected by the Wake County
Transit Plan and the GoRaleigh five-year transit improvement plan. ACCESS2040 meshes with
projects for non -motorized (bicycle and pedestrian) travel as programmed in the CAMPO 2040
MTP. ACCESS2040 would complement these plans with road designs that immediately
accommodate a wide range of users and anticipates and provides for future increases in non -
automobile travel.
The ACCESS2040 approach of building on a base of CAMPO 2040 MTP projects differs
somewhat from the "IE" ("Improve Existing") alternatives that the Transportation Agencies
eliminated early in the process. The first tier screening selected only a limited ("fiscally
146 See id. at 2-5-2-6.
141 See id. at 2-6.
32

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 33
constrained") number of the planned CAMPO projects, thereby eliminating almost all projects.
with more than a 15-20 year funding horizon.
Nonetheless, Mr. Kulash points to the Transportation Agencies' analysis of Improve
Existing 3 -Arterials ("IE3-A") as an alternative that is most like ACCESS2040. Mr. Kulash
notes that ACCESS2040 goes significantly further than IE3-A. One can assume that
ACCESS2040 will achieve at least the same level of benefit as IE3-A. Specifically, Mr. Kulash
notes that under the Transportation Agencies' analysis IE3-A would yield around one half of the
mobility gains and more congestion relief than the New Location Highway. 148 Tables in the
Transportation Agencies' own traffic analysis show that a new location highway is expected to
reduce congested VMT by just 12.06% in the, study area while IE3-A is expected to improve the
same measure by 22.49%.149 It is therefore reasonable to anticipate that ACCESS 2040 would
likewise do a much better job of reducing congestion on existing roads—one of the primary
stated purposes of the project. At the same time, while not producing the exact same result as a
$2.2 billion new -location 70 mile per hour toll freeway, the alternative would make significant
gains in mobility—the other project purpose.
Coupled with this strong showing by ACCESS2040 in meeting the project purpose and
need is the fact that it would be significantly less destructive to the environment, would cost
significantly less just $294 million over costs already schedule in the CAMPO MTP—and
perhaps most important, would be open to all users, not just those willing and able to pay a
pricey toll. Due to these advantages, and the fact that ACCESS2040 out performs the Selected
Alternative on one of the primary purposes for the project, NCDOT must conduct further
analysis of ACCESS2040, which is a less damaging practical alternative to the Selected
Alternative.
d) Transportation Demand Management
NCDOT's Alternatives Analysis failed to consider and sufficiently study TDM options
that might work in conjunction with other alternatives by reducing demand for the road
infrastructure. The DEIS and Alternatives Analysis report summarily rejected TDM because
"there is no evidence to suggest that significantly larger percentages of area workers will begin
to take advantage of TDM strategies."' so The report, however, provides no contrary evidence
suggesting workers and employers would not be able to utilize TDM strategies. Indeed, a
preparer of the DEIS acknowledged in an earlier draft of the document that there is not evidence
148 First Tier Concepts Screening and Traffic Reassessment at Tbls 2-8 (2017).
149 Id. at Tbl. 3.
]so Alternatives Analysis at 2-20; DEIS at 39.
33

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 34
that reaching 60% participation in TDM strategies is unattainable. 151 NCDOT's subsequent
NEPA documents failed to provide any evidence to the contrary or explain NCDOT's arbitrary
rejection of TDM options.
In fact, NCDOT itself has evidence suggesting that significantly larger percentages of
workers could indeed take advantage of TDM strategies. NCDOT has successfully implemented
TDM strategies to manage traffic in relation to its Fortify 440 project, which is immediately
adjacent to the northern boundary of the Complete 540 project study area. NCDOT recently
celebrated the collaborative effort between "NCDOT and local, transportation, business, and
community leaders", noting "[i]n addition to drivers taking advantage of alternate routes ... they
have also changed their working hours and started telecommuting to help limit the traffic
impact." 152 NCDOT staff attribute this success to a "significant" number of individuals who
have changed when they travel through the project zone, or who avoid the project zone
altogether. 153 Such statements undermine NCDOT's claim that there is no evidence of
significant numbers of workers in the area using TDM strategies. NCDOT even has an entire
website devoted to TDM -style strategies around the Fortify Project, including resources for
employers about flexible work schedules and teleworking, 154 and commuting resources for
drivers in the area. 155 NCDOT cannot now arbitrarily claim that while TDM strategies have
been successful with the Fortify 440 project, such strategies would not be feasible for the
Complete 540 project.
NCDOT's Alternatives Analysis further asserts that "60,000 traffic study area workers,"
or "60 percent of maximum TDM -eligible employees" would have to use TDM strategies "to
achieve a congested [Vehicle Hours Travelled ("VHT")] reduction comparable to the Build
Alternative Concepts." 156 This does not reveal what the VHT reduction would be in such a
scenario—nor does it provide information about what sort of VHT reductions could occur with a
different number of workers utilizing TDM. Instead of using predictive methodologies to
analyze the potential benefits of the TDM alternative, as it did for toll highway alternatives,
NCDOT instead concluded that since the TDM alternative supposedly could not achieve some
151 Draft DEIS document titled "Lochner responses to DOJ comments 14", at 24, Attachment 18 (see comments
NCDOJ 112 and JS 113). The preparer attempted to address this through citation to supporting technical documents;
the final version of the DEIS cites to the Alternatives Analysis to "support" the claim that there is no evidence large
numbers of commuters would use TDM strategies, yet the Alternatives Analysis likewise contains no evidence to
support this claim as noted above. See id.; DEIS at 39 n. I.
152 News Release, NCDOT, Improving Forth Travel Times a Collaborative Effort (Nov. 20, 2015),
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsrcleases/details.aspx?r=11993, Attachment 19.
153 Id.
154See NCDOT.Gov, Employer Resources, Fortify NC, http://www.ncdot.gov/fortifync/employer-resources/ (last
accessed Jan. 6, 2015), Attachment 20.
155 See NCDOT.Gov, Driver Resources, Fortify NC, http://www.nedot.gov/fortifync/driver-resources/ (last accessed
Jan. 6, 2015), Attachment 21.
156 Alternatives Analysis at 2-16.
M

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 35
secret predetermined numeric goal, it could not achieve the project's purpose. NCDOT's
decision to compare the TDM alternative to some arbitrary congestion goal not mentioned in the
project's statement of purpose and need instead of the No -Build scenario is arbitrary and
capricious. All of the other alternative concepts were compared against the No -Build scenario,
and the TDM alternative should have been as well.
This inadequate review of TDM strategies did not provide sufficient justification to
eliminate the TDM alternative from review. The TDM alternative should have advanced to later
stages of study, where its environmental, economic, and human impacts could have been
evaluated. Moreover, it should have been studied as one aspect of a combination of solutions.
e) Increased Public Transportation
The Mass Transit/Multi-Modal alternative was also insufficiently evaluated in the
Alternatives Analysis. After acknowledging that the TRM could not determine travel times for a
mass transit/multi-modal alternative, the only evaluation of this alternative was the
unsubstantiated statement "[b]uses may actually increase travel times due to frequent stops." 157
The Alternatives Analysis Report made a similar fleeting statement regarding average speeds,
conceding that buses could improve speeds, but that they also may reduce speeds due to stops. 158
These unhelpful, vague conjectures are an insufficient basis to determine that a mass
transit/multi-modal option is not reasonable—particularly when considered alongside other
solutions.
The Alternatives Analysis notes that the "number of buses serving the study area on a
daily basis would need to increase from the 50 or so that are currently in use to nearly 600, and
r each would need to consistently operate at nearly full capacity ... in order to achieve a decrease
in study area traffic congestion and an improvement in travel times sufficient to meet the
project's primary purposes.""' Importantly, the project purposes do not contain a threshold
level of reductions or quantitative measures; the purposes are generally to increase mobility and
reduce congestion, and not by any particular amount. Either NCDOT has some preconceived
requisite amounts of congestion and mobility in mind, or NCDOT compared these alternatives to
the specific numbers attainable by building a toll road.
For example, what if increasing bus service to 300 buses would reduce congestion and
increase mobility by a discernible amount, even if not by as much as the toll road? This, in
conjunction with other alternatives' elements such as TDM, TSM, and improving existing
roadways, could combine to better achieve the project's purposes with less costs and fewer
157 Id. at 2-11.
158 Id. at 2-10.
159 DEIS at 39-40; Alternatives Analysis at 2-14-2-15.
35

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 36
impacts than a toll highway. Such considerations are particularly relevant now that Wake
County has released its recent long-term transit plan, which includes quadrupled bus service
within the county and adding a commuter rail line connecting Garner with Raleigh, North
Carolina State University ("NCSU"), Morrisville, RTP, Cary, Durham, and Duke University. 160
Wake County's plan will directly impact the feasibility of a mass transit/multi-modal alternative,
as well as other alternatives, within the project study area.
The NEPA documents also suggest that increasing bus service to 600 buses within the
project study area would not be feasible due to costs: "The cost associated with such a large
expansion of bus service would be high .... It is unlikely that these expansion and ongoing
operation costs could be met by bus fares alone." 161 Such an assertion is unsupportable when
the toll highway alternative will cost upwards of $2 billion.
In its comments, EPA supported the Mass Transit/Multi-Modal alternative, suggesting
that mass -transit would be a reasonable alternative to the new toll highway option because it
would create new, permanent jobs "without the disproportionate requirement for infrastructure
maintenance," as well as with "fewer and less substantial indirect and cumulative impacts." 162
NCDOT's FEIS merely cites to the DEIS and Alternatives Analysis, and fails to address EPA's
comments or provide any support for the notion that mass transit alternatives are prohibitively
expensive. 163 Without more supporting data about bus costs, the comparative cost of increased
bus service relative to a brand new toll highway does not provide a rational basis for rejecting the
Mass Transit/Multi-Modal alternative.
4. NCDOT's Selected Alternative does not Meet the Basic Project
Purpose
15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0506(f) provides that a lack of practical alternatives may be
demonstrated with a showing that there is no practical alternative able to meet the "basic project
purpose." NCDOT's assertion that there are no practical alternatives to their Selected
Alternative is undermined by the fact that the Selected Alternative does not even meet the basic
project purpose. NCDOT has provided two purposes for the Complete 540 project: the first is to
"improve mobility within and through the study area during peak travel periods"; the second is to
"reduce forecast congestion on the existing roadway network within the existing roadway
160 RECOMMENDED WAKE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN (Dec. 2015), at 8-11, Attachment 22; Rebecca Martinez, $2.3
Billion Recommended Wake Transit Plan Would Quadruple Bus Service, WUNC, Dec. 9, 2015,
http://wune.org/post/23-billion-recommended-wake-transit-plan-would-quadruple-bus-service#stream/0, Attachment
23.
161 DEIS at 40.
162 Stakeholder Report at 178 (2012 EPA Technical Assistance Comments on Draft Alternatives Development and
Analysis Report).
163 See FEIS at 15.
36

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 37
network within the project study area."164 The FEIS, however, demonstrates that NCDOT's
Selected Alternative will not meet the second purpose. Not only would the Selected Alternative
not reduce forecast congestion on the existing roadway network, but NCDOT's own forecasts
suggest that it will actually make congestion on a number of key roadways worse than if the toll
road was not built at all.
NCDOT screened for the congestion relief purpose with three different MOEs. The
Conservation Groups discussed at length in previous comments, and reiterated above how this
general screening concept is utterly arbitrary. The three MOEs employed to assess alternatives
for congestion relief were "Total Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) on the major roadway network
in the project study area over an average daily period;" "Congested Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) on the major roadway network in the project study area during the PM peak travel
period;" and "Congested VHT on the major roadway network in the project study area during the
PM peak travel period." 165 Obscured from the public, however, is the fact that these measures
were all assessed on a system -wide basis with the Complete 540 toll road factored into the
results. 166 As such, it is completely unknowable whether congestion relief would actually occur
on the existing roads, or whether the improvements in VHT, VMT and Congested VHT are all
due to the high speeds and limited congestion on the Complete 540 project itself rather than any
relief on existing roadways. Because the purpose and need of the project was to "reduce forecast
congestion on the existing roadway network within the project study area," and not "reduce
forecast congestion on a system -wide basis" these MOEs were completely useless to assess the
ability of the project alternatives to meet the stated purpose and need.
The Quantitative ICE study included with,the FEIS makes clear that the Selected
Alternative will not, in fact, reduce congestion on existing highways. The study shows that by
2040 the Selected Alternative would result in 12 primary corridors with daily congested roadway
mileage whereas under a no -build condition there would only be seven congested primary
roadways. 167 Similarly, in its review of PM congestion, the study shows that 23 corridors would
be congested under a build condition compared to 21 under a No Build condition. 168 Moreover,
when compared to existing conditions, forecasts for the Selected Alternative show reduced
speeds and increased congestion for nearly every road link studied. 164 This revelation is
important for two key reasons. First, the results in the ICE study demonstrate that the Selected
Alternative does not meet one of two primary stated purposes for the project. Second, the ICE
164 Id. at 7; Permit Application at 1.
165 2004 Alternative Development and Analysis Report at 2-8.
166 Alternatives Development and Analysis Report (May 2014) at 2-12 - 2-18 (noting that the measures were
calculated using the TRM).
167 Quantitative ICE Report 75.
168 Id. at 77.
1611d. at 75-79.
37

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 38
study further illuminates the inadequacy of the screening methodology in the DEIS, and makes
clear that a full range of alternatives have not been assessed based on their ability to relieve
congestion on existing highways.
NCDOT may argue that while the Selected Alternative will make key corridors more
congested, overall the entire Future Land Use Study Area ("FLUSA") will see congestion
reduction. 170 This argument is unavailing for several reasons. First, the ICE study notes that the
FLUSA-level congestion reduction is the result of relief on "many minor TRM links not
identified as a major corridor." 17 1 The ICE study does not identify which roads these are, and
there is therefore no way for the Conservation Groups or the public to know who, if anyone uses
these roadways as part of their commute and how the increased congestion on these "minor
links" in a "no build" scenario would impact travel in general, particularly when compared to the
"build" alternative where major links are more congested. It also is unclear whether the project
itself was factored into this FLUSA level forecast, as it was in the MOE screening process.
Second, when the statement of purpose and need was developed for the Complete 540
project, congestion relief on unidentified minor arterials was not discussed. Rather, the 2011
Statement of Purpose and Need report discussed existing poor levels of service on I-40, NC 42
and NC 50,172 and future poor levels of congestion on Ten -Ten Road and segments of US
1/64.173 In the very next paragraph, NCDOT stated that the "second purpose of the proposed
action is to reduce forecast congestion on the existing roadway network within the project study
area." The Report discussed congestion on these same roadways in more detail later in the
report, noting that "several key roadway segments within traffic analysis area operate at an
unacceptable LOS." 174 And yet the Quantitative ICE study shows that the Selected Alternative
will actually result in more congestion on many of these exact roads. 175
While the Quantitative ICE is helpful in demonstrating to the public, for the first time,
that the Selected Alternative will actually lead to increased congestion on area roadways, it is
inadequate for justifying the selection of the Selected Alternative, as it fails demonstrate that the
170 Id. at 74.
171 Id. at 75.
172 Purpose and Need Statement 3.
173 Id. at 4.
174 Id. at 11. In a related, but separate point, the Conservation Groups note that no traffic counts were taken on
Raleigh's Inner Loop, 1440, despite congestion on this corridor being noted in the Statement of Purpose and Need
report. Significant improvements are being made to this corridor which may have a bearing on how congested it is
and how many people would use Complete 540 as an alternative. As such, current and future congestion on I-440
should be studied and a variety of alternatives should be screened based on their ability to reduce congestion on this
road and others.
171 See Quantitative ICE Report 75 (Table 35, showing that the Preferred Alternative will see increased congestion
over a "no build" scenario on a variety of roadways including I-40).

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 39
Selected Alternative is practical, and instead shows that NCDOT's selection methodology is
fundamentally flawed.
B. - NCDOT has Failed to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Surface Waters and
Wetlands
DWR may only issue a Certification upon determining that an activity "will minimize
adverse impacts to surface waters." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0506(b)(5),(c)(5). Minimization
of impacts may be demonstrated by showing that the surface waters or wetlands are able to
continue to support the existing uses after project completion, or that the impacts are required
due to:
(1) the spatial and dimensional requirements of the project; or
(2) the location of any existing structural or natural features that may dictate the
placement or configuration of the proposed project; or
(3) the purpose of the project and how the purpose relates to placement,
configuration, or density.
Id. 2H.0506(f).
DWR cannot reasonably make any of the findings necessary to issue a Certification. As
discussed above, the surface waters and wetlands impacted by the proposed toll road will not be
able to continue to support significant existing uses including serving as critical habitat for
endangered aquatic species. 176 Therefore, to meet minimization requirements NCDOT must
show that the impacts are required due to the project's physical requirements, existing structural
or natural features, or the purpose of the project. Id. NCDOT cannot make this showing because
it has failed to provide final design plans for two-thirds of the project. It is impossible for DWR
to determine whether adequate minimization has been performed without reviewing the final
plans.
C. The Proposed Toll Road will Result in Degradation of Groundwaters and
Surface Waters
To issue a Certification DWR must guarantee that the proposed activity will not "result in
the degradation of groundwaters or surface waters." Id. 2H.0506(b)(3),(c)(3). NCDOT's
application lacks sufficient information for DWR to reasonably reach such a conclusion.
176 See supra Part III.A.2.e.
39

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 40
DWR is responsible for ensuring that impacted Class C waterbodies are not degraded on
either a short-term or long-term basis, and remain "suitable for aquatic life propagation and
maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture." Id.
2B.0211(2). Class C waters have water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, temperature, and
turbidity—all of which would be impacted by construction and operation of the proposed toll
highway. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B.0211(6), (14), (18), (21). For example, highways are
likely to increase water temperature through thermal pollution, whereby runoff from developed
impervious areas has a higher temperature than that of the receiving waterbody system and
increases the temperature of the receiving waterbody.177 Elevation of stream temperature can in
turn decrease dissolved oxygen and alter faunal composition of a stream.178 Despite recognizing
these serious risks associated with highway construction and operation in its NEPA documents,
NCDOT's Permit Application lacks any stormwater management plan for two-thirds of the
proposed project. In emails with NCDOT, USFWS raised additional water -quality related
concerns, stating that erosion and siltation from construction of the Complete 540 project, would
likely degrade water quality. 179
For the protection of wetland water quality standards, DWR must also ensure protection
of "hydrological conditions necessary to support the biological and physical characteristics
naturally present in the wetland." Id. Hydrological conditions must be protected to prevent
adverse impacts on: (1) water currents, erosion, or sedimentation patterns; (2) natural water
temperature variation; (3) the chemical, nutrient, and dissolved oxygen regime of the wetland;
(4) the movement of aquatic fauna; (5) the pH of the wetland; and (6) water levels or elevation—
such that the impacted wetland can no longer support its previous hydrological functions. Id.
02B.0231(b)(5).
NCDOT's Permit Application and associated documents fail to provide up-to-date water
quality measurements or monitoring for water quality standards for waterbodies and wetlands
within the study area. The Water Quality Memorandum relies on outdated land -use metrics from
2010,180 despite the fact that the Lower Swift Creek Water Quality Report relying on 2014 and
2015 data indicates that Swift Creek's copper levels have significantly increased since 2010.181
The impacts of a proposed project must be evaluated based on a comparison to preconstruction
conditions—not decade -old data that is known to no longer be accurate. Absent additional
detailed, current data capable of establishing an up-to-date water quality baseline in the study
177 Dwarf Wedgemussel Viability Study (May 2016) at 15. Attachment 6.
178 Id.
179 Letter from Gary Jordan, USFWS, to Richard W. Hancock, PE, NCDOT (Nov. 25, 2015), at 3. Attachment 8.
180 See e.g. Water Quality Memorandum at 2.
181 Lower Swift Creek Water Quality Report 1, 3-4, 6 (2016). The study yielded copper concentrations up to 4.13
ug/L and 5.91 ug/L.
.EO

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 41
area, and a commitment to monitor water quality in the future, DWR has no basis for concluding
that the proposed project will not result in degradation of groundwaters and surface waters.
D. The Proposed Project will Cause Cumulative Impacts that will Result in a
Violation of Water Quality Standards
To issue a Certification, DWR must determine that the proposed project "does not result
in cumulative impacts, based on past or reasonably anticipated future impacts, that cause or will
cause a violation of downstream water quality standards[.]" 15A N.C. Admin. Code
2H.0506(b)(5),(c)(5). NCDOT relies exclusively on its Memorandum on Water Quality
Modeling, which compares 2010 baseline conditions to 2040 No -Build and 2040 Build
scenarios, to predict changes in water quality attributable to construction of the proposed toll
road. 182 According to the NCDOT water quality modeling, several water quality standards will
be exceeded in 2040 regardless of whether the proposed project is built. 183 For example, the
Class C waters acute standard for copper at 25 mg/l hardness is 3.6 ug/l; the chronic standard for
copper is 2.7 ug/l. Id. 2B.021 l(d). The Water Quality Memorandum projects that copper loads
for eleven out of twenty-three impacted streams will increase by over 50% by 2040 regardless of
whether the toll highway is constructed. 184 Copper loads for parts of Swift Creek are projected
to increase by up to 97% in the 2040 Build Scenario and 94% in the 2040 No -Build Scenario.
Given that NCDOT's Lower Swift Creek Water Quality Report indicates that copper
concentrations in Swift Creek are already dangerously close to exceeding state water quality
standards, 185 these significant increases in copper load are virtually certain to cause future
violation of Class C water quality standards.
NCDOT's Water Quality Memorandum also projects dramatic increases in other
pollutants due to cumulative impacts from the proposed toll highway. The Memorandum
anticipates a sharp increase in total annual suspended sediment—up to a 124% increase in the
Poplar Creek -Neuse River segment in the 2040 Build Scenario and a 94% increase for the 2040
No Build scenario; and a 97% increase for the Mahler Creek -Swift Creek segment in the 2040
Build scenario and 94% increase in the 2040 No Build scenario. 186 The Memorandum also
projects an 18% increase in annual Nitrogen load in the Mahler Creek -Swift Creek segment for
the 2040 Build scenario, and a 14% increase for the 2040 No Build scenario. 187 The
Memorandum projects a 65% increase in annual phosphorus load in the same segment of Swift
18' Memorandum on Water Quality Modeling Methodology and Results (Nov. 2017) (hereinafter "Water Quality
Memorandum"), 52. Attachment 24.
lbs id. at 43-53.
184 Id. at 52-53 tbl. 31, 32.
185 Id.
186 Id. at 43.
187 Id.
41

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 42
Creek for the 2040 Build scenario and a 54% increase in phosphorus in for the 2040 No Build
Scenario. 188
However, the Water Quality Memorandum fails to include any modeling of pH,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, or any metal except copper—despite the fact that the state's
surface water quality standards for Class C waters set quantitative limits for each. Id. 2B.0211.
This omission makes it impossible for DWR, or the public, to evaluate NCDOT's compliance
with state regulatory standards.
NCDOT's grim prediction that water quality in the study area will inevitably decline and
violate state water quality standards regardless of whether or not the proposed project is
constructed is based on the flawed notion that the proposed highway will have a negligible
impact on growth patterns. Despite overwhelming consensus at all levels of government that the
Complete 540 project will bring significant growth to the project area and will have a dramatic
impact on land use, 189 NCDOT continues to aver in its Permit Application, that the highway,
which would be one of the most environmentally destructive projects in our state's history, will
have only marginal indirect and cumulative impacts. 190 This counterintuitive assertion arises
from the unsupported assumption made in the Quantitative ICE document that because Wake
County as a whole has grown at a fast rate over the past twenty years, the project area will see a
similarly high rate of development in the future. 191 As discussed earlier in these comments, this
conclusion is illogical and unjustified because it assumes that growth documented in the urban,
denser part of the county will naturally extend and continue at the same high pace in the more
rural, undeveloped region even without a fast access toll road in place. 192 To the extent that the
Water Quality Memorandum's conclusions rely on this unsupported assumption, they are wholly
arbitrary, and cannot be relied upon to conclude that the project will not cause violation of state
water quality standards.
Because NCDOT's No -Build Scenario projections are fundamentally flawed, the most
appropriate comparator for the 2040 Build Scenario is the 2010 Baseline. This comparison
demonstrates that development and increased traffic associated with the Complete 540 toll
highway would cause a massive increase in runoff to area waterbodies—runoff to Upper Middle
Creek would increase by up to 60%, runoff to parts of Swift Creek would increase by up to 72%
percent, and runoff to Poplar Creek -Neuse River would increase by 96%.193 This dramatic
increase in runoff would likely cause several water quality standard violations; however it is
188 Id.
189 Letter from Kym Hunter and Ramona H. McGee, SELC, to Rodger Rochelle, NCDOT 62-67 (Feb. 22, 2018).
Attachment 1.
190 Permit Application at 27.
191 See e.g. Quantitative ICE Report 4.
192 See supra Part IIIA. Ld.
193 Water Quality Memorandum at 4041 tbl. 23, 24. Attachment 24.
42

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 43
difficult to pinpoint these future violations because NCDOT's Water Quality Memorandum
models only the rate at which pollutants will be introduced into waterbodies (grams per year per
acre) rather than the concentration of the pollutants in the waterbodies (ug/1).194 Since water
quality standards are expressed as concentrations, see, e.g., 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0211,
this means that NCDOT's Water Quality Memorandum cannot be used to support NCDOT's
assertion that the proposed toll highway will not cause cumulative impacts that result in water
quality violations. Moreover, as discussed above, the Water Quality Memorandum does not
even mention several relevant water quality indicators likely to be impacted by a highway project
such as dissolved oxygen concentration and temperature. See id. While the Water Quality
Memorandum is useful to illustrate the magnitude of the water quality impacts the proposed
project will have, it lacks the necessary information to support the issuance of a Certification.
E. NCDOT has Failed to Protect Downstream Water Quality Standards with
On-site Stormwater Control Measures
To issue a Certification, DWR must conclude that a project "provides protection for
downstream water quality standards through the use.of on-site stormwater control measures."
15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0506(b)(5),(c)(5). NCDOT has only developed a final stormwater
management plan for R-2721, and does not provide plans for R-2728 or R-2829.19' Absent any
details regarding stormwater management plans for two-thirds of the project, DWR cannot
rationally conclude that the project as a whole provides adequate protection for downstream
water quality standards through the use of on-site stormwater control measures. NCDOT's
failure to provide even preliminary stormwater management plans for R-2728 and R-2829 is
especially problematic since Swift Creek, which provides habitat for multiple endangered mussel
species, is located in R-2828 and increased runoff associated with the propose toll -highway is a
major threat to these mussel species' continued survival.
F. NCDOT has Failed to Provide Replacement of Existing uses Through
Wetland or Stream Mitigation
DWR may not issue a Certification for a project that will remove or degrade existing uses
unless the applicant "provides for replacement of existing uses through mitigation." 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 2H.0506(b)(6),(c)(6). NCDOT has divided its proposed mitigation according to
the TIP phases within the Complete 540 Project. For R -2721A and R -2721B, NCDOT proposes
to use "the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services ("NCDMS") to provide compensatory
mitigation for R-272 IA and R -2721B permanent stream impacts, permanent riparian wetlands
194 id.
195 Permit Application at 1.
43

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 44
impacts, and permanent non -riparian wetland impacts at a 2:1 ratio." 196 NCDMS agreed to
provide mitigation for the project in three pro forma letters attached to NCDOT's Permit
Application. 197 Some riparian buffer impacts will be mitigated and some will not; and those in
in certain zones in the Neuse River basin will be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio while others will be
mitigated at a 1.5:1 ratio.198 In raw numbers, NCDOT proposes to acquire compensatory
mitigation for the stream impacts caused by TIP phase R-2721 A in the form of 204 linear feet of
stream in the Cape Fear river basin and 18,516 linear feet in the Neuse River basin; for R-2721 B,
17,072 linear feet in the Neuse River basin; and for R-2828, 40,172 linear feet in the Neuse River
basin. 199 For R-2829, NCDOT proposes to acquire 34,744 linear feet in the Neuse River basin;
however, "[c]urrently, there is no mitigation plan for R-2829 since the proposed construction
date is more than 5 years in the future .,,200 Instead, NCDOT proposes to address the future
compensatory mitigation necessary to lawfully obtain this permit through a future permit
modification.201
The mitigation that NCDOT proposes for impacts to surface waters is inadequate. To
satisfy the requirements for section 401 Certification, NCDOT is required to provide information
about the effectiveness of its proposed mitigation techniques to reduce the risks associated with
the proposed project. See Cowpasture River Preservation Ass. v. Forest Service, No. 18-1144,
41 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2018) (omitting information about the effectiveness of mitigation
techniques violates NEPA). NCDOT has not adequately guaranteed that its proposed mitigation
will in fact provide for replacement of existing uses. The contingency and vagueness of
NCDOT's mitigation plans makes it extremely difficult to ensure that its compensatory
mitigation will satisfy this requirement. In order to ensure that existing uses are protected,
existing uses must be catalogued and compensatory mitigation must in fact be able to provide
replacement for what is destroyed or degraded .202 NCDOT's proposed commitments to try to
buy mitigation credits in the same hydrologic basin, without any other guarantee that the credits
purchased in fact replace the uses lost except for this general geographic nexus, are insufficient.
Furthermore, NCDOT's projected credit release schedule for R-2828 which sets release
dates, some of which have already occurred, is insufficient to satisfy state regulatory
requirements. North Carolina water quality regulation state that "mitigation required by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers shall be considered to constitute the mitigation required by
'96 Id. at 20
197 Id. at 4, 32-37; DMS Acceptance Letter (Aug. 22, 2018).
198 Permit Application at 20.
'99 Id. at 20-21.
200 Id. at 22.
201 Id.
202 See also Ohio Valley Envt'1 Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 202 (4th Cir. 2009) ("functional
values lost should be carefully considered when determining compensatory mitigation" in the 404 permitting
context").
44

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 45
certification." 15 N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0506(h)(1),(6). The Army Corps of Engineers is in turn
bound by the Federal 2008 Mitigation Rules, which require that mitigation plans include a credit
release schedule "which is tied to achievement of specific milestones[,]" 33 C.F.R. §
332.8(6)(iii)(B), for example "construction, planting, or establishment of specified plant and
animal communities[,]" id. (o)(8)(i). NCDOT's projected credit release schedule does not
appear linked to any such specific milestones. It is not enough for NCDOT to purchase stream
credits—those credits must actually offset impacts associated with the proposed project, and
NCDOT has not provided any evidence that this is the case.
The existing use of serving as habitat for threatened and endangered species perfectly
illustrates the inadequacy of NCDOT's proposal. As discussed above, Swift Creek is habitat for
multiple threatened and endangered species, including the endangered Dwarf wedgemussel, the
threatened Yellow Lance, the Atlantic Pigtoe, which is proposed for listing as threatened, and
multiple other species that are being considered for federal listing such as the Neuse River
Waterdog and Carolina Madtom. Sensitive species such as these often depend on very specific
habitats, and that is the case here. For example, the proposed rule listing the Atlantic Pigtoe as
threatened designates Swift Creek as critical habitat for the mussel's recovery—habitat essential
to the conservation of the species.203 In other words, when the critical habitat is gone, the
species is gone. Similarly, North Carolina Dwarf Wedgemussel Work Group "identified
`unsuitable physical habitat' as the most important threat to the Swift Creek population, ,204
Providing mitigation in another part of the hydrologic basin for damage to habitat for sensitive
species therefore quite possibly does nothing to replace that existing use.
NCDOT has proposed to contribute money to a mussel propagation program that would
aim to capture these rare mussels from the wild and breed them in captivity. There is a host of
problems with this proposal. For example, NCDOT funded a previous attempt to propagate
Dwarf wedgemussels from Swift Creek, but insufficient brood stock could be found to start the
propagation program.205 Instead, Dwarf wedgemussels from other locations were used, but were
not released into Swift Creek for fear of cross -contaminating different populations. 206 The North
Carolina Dwarf Wedgemussel Work Group determined that three-year old Dwarf wedgemussels
are best suited for release, and a minimum of ten -years' of releases would need to occur in order
to "potentially achieve viability in Swift Creek. ,207 Successful propagation, if it is possible, will
require significant investments of time and money.
203 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A).
204 Dwarf Wedgemussel Viability Study (May 2016) at 88 (2016). Attachment 6.
los Id. at 55.
206 Id.
207 Id. at 105. (emphasis added).
45

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 46
NCDOT's commitments concerning mussel propagation fall far short of the mark. In a
February 27, 2018 interagency agreement between NCDOT and the NCWRC, NCDOT agreed
only to contribute a maximum of $5 million for construction of a mussel propagation facility and
its operation during its first five years .208 The agencies expect that construction of the proposed
facility will cost $1,958,936, with the remainder to be available to fund operation of the facility
"for up to the five (5) year period. ,209 NCDOT has explicitly limited its contribution to a time
period shorter than necessary to establish a successful propagation, if that is possible, and
attempt thereby to replace an existing use. Worse, the agreement specifies that "NCDOT is
responsible only for providing the funding for the Program. NCDOT is not responsible for the
construction, management, operations or success of the Program, [Yates Mill Aquatic
Conservation Center] or its propagation goals."210 Thus, NCDOT takes no responsibility for the
success of the program in replacing this critical existing use. Strikingly, the agreement also
provides that NCWRC is not responsible for achieving the program's goals. 211 With both
NCDOR and NCWRC disclaiming responsibility for the propagation program's success, it is
unclear who, if anyone, is responsible for ensuring that endangered mussels are successfully
propagated, let alone reintroduced.
Most important for purposes of a 401 certification, for NCDOT's propagation program to
successfully replace the existing use degraded by the proposed project, it would have to
successfully reintroduce captive bred mussels into their original habitats. But NCDOT's
agreement with NCWRC does not contain any commitment to release endangered mussels back
into the wild. Instead, the agreement merely establishes a program "to support the captive
breeding of endangered aquatic species."212 Moreover, even if NCDOT had committed to
reintroducing mussels into the wild, NCDOT has failed to show that reintroduced mussels would
have a suitable habitat to foster survival following construction of the toll road. As stated by one
NCSU researcher, it doesn't make any sense "just to throw mussels into a potentially degrading
stream in Swift Creek. ,213 This goes to the heart of the problem with NCDOT's mitigation
plan—even if the mussel propagation program were fully funded and NCWRC could reliably
propagate endangered mussels, it is likely impossible to replace the critical existing use that
Swift Creek and surrounding streams and wetlands currently provide because the degradation in
water quality associated with the proposed project's construction and operation will almost
certainly destroy the waterbodies' ability to support populations of endangered mussels.
NCDOT has quite simply made no showing that it will "provide for replacement of existing uses
through mitigation." Therefore DWR must deny NCDOT's application for Certification.
208 Interagency Agreement 3 (Feb. 27, 2018).
209 Id.
210 Id. (emphasis added).
211 Id. at 2.
212 id. at I.
213 E-mail from Christ Eads, NCDU, to Sarah McRae, USFWS (Jan. 16, 2015 10:51 AM). Attachment 25.
M

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 47
G. NCDOT has Failed to Demonstrate that Impacts to Wetlands Critical to the
Survival of Endangered Species are Required to Meet a Demonstrated Public
Need
Applicants seeking to discharge into wetlands that are essential for the conservation of
state or federally -listed endangered species must meet a heightened requirement in order to
qualify for Certification. Applicants for these project must satisfy the requirements of
2H.0506(c)(1)-(5), must demonstrate that the wetland impacts "are necessary for the proposed
project to meet a demonstrated public need[,]" and must provide "for replacement of existing
uses through wetland mitigation." Id. 2H.0506(e). DWR may not issue a Certification to
wetlands classified as "habitat essential for the conservation of state or federally -listed or
endangered species" that have been designated as such prior to the applicant's date or application
or draft environmental impact statement. Id.
As discussed above, NCDOT has failed to demonstrate that the Selected Alternative is
the only alternative capable of meeting the Statement of Purpose and Need. To the contrary,
NCDOT's DEIS and Alternatives Analysis indicates that several alternative that would not
impact threatened and endangered species—such as Improving Existing Highways Alternatives,
Hybrid Alternatives 1 and 3, TDM Alternatives, the Mass Transit/Multi-Modal Alternative, and
ACCESS2040—were all capable of significantly reducing congestion and increasing mobility in
the project area.214 Moreover, NCDOT arbitrarily rejected other New Highway alternatives
—
DSAs 6 and 7—which used the less environmentally destructive Red Route and would have had
avoided the most egregious impacts to endangered mussel habitat. 215 In sum, NCDOT has
selected the most, rather than least destructive alternative, in direct contravention to the
requirement that applicants impact wetlands critical to the survival of endangered species only
when "required to meet a demonstrated public need."
Furthermore, NCDOT's Selected Alternative does not even meet the public need the
project is ostensibly geared towards resolving. As discussed above, NCDOT's Quantitative ICE
Analysis indicates that the Selected Alternative will actually increase congestion on existing
roads in the study area.216 The Selected Alternative's failure to meet the stated purpose and need
of the project is particularly disturbing given that the project that will seriously impact wetlands
critical to the survival of endangered species. Projects with these kinds of serious impacts must
actually "meet a demonstrated public need." NCDOT's Application demonstrates that the
Selected Alternative will not meet the meet the public's need for congestion reduction, and will
214 See supra 1H.A.3.
215 See supra MAL
L
216 See supra III.AA
47

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 48
in fact exacerbate congestion in the study area. Therefore DWR must deny NCDOT's
application for Certification.
IV. NCDOT has Failed to Provide Full Details on the Proposed Toll Road in its
Application
Before DWR can review an application for Certification, the applicant must provide
specific, detailed information in its application. The required application information includes:
the contact information for the applicant, the nature of the activity to be conducted, location of
the discharge, etc. 15A N.C. Admin.Code 02H.0502(a). The application must also include
"map(s) or sketch(es) of sufficient detail to accurately delineate the boundaries of the lands
owned or to be utilized by the applicant in carrying out its activity; the location, dimensions and
type of any structures erected or to be erected on said lands for use in connection with the
activity; and the location and extent of the receiving waters including wetlands within the
boundaries of said lands." Id. 02H.0502(b).
NCDOT's application only includes the required information for a portion of the
proposed toll highway. Important requirements including final project drawings, stormwater
management plans, and final description of impacts have only been documented for R-2721.
NCDOT failed to include any of the required information for R-2828 and R-2829—the area of
the project that would directly impact Swift Creek and the Neuse River. Instead, NCDOT has
provided only preliminary drawings, and states that the final designs for R-2828 and R-2829 are
not yet complete. 217 NCDOT intends to obtain Certification based on preliminary impacts and
seek a permit modification once the final designs for these segments are finalized .218
NCDOT cannot rely on a future modification of their application to retroactively satisfy
the requirements for Certification. State regulations clearly do not anticipate modifications being
used in such a way, stating that a modification can only take place if there is a violation of water
quality standards, if information in the application is incorrect, or if conditions under which
certification was issued have changed. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02H.0507(d). None of these
circumstances justify NCDOT's attempt to defer review of the most environmentally destructive
portions of the Complete 540 toll road until after Certification has been issued and construction
is underway.
While NCDOT acknowledges that this Permit Application includes only "preliminary
impacts for R-2828 and R-2829" and "will not authorize construction for the R-2828
217 Permit Application at 2.
211Id.; 11-2-2017 Coordination Meeting. Attachment 26.

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 49
project[,]"219 NCDOT is currently executing a contract with Lane -Blythe Construction which
anticipates completion of R-2828 by November 24, 2022.220 NCDOT's Final Request for
Proposal ("RFP") anticipates construction on R-2828 to be 11% complete by June 30, 2019.221
Given that NCDOT currently has no final construction plans, lists of impacts, or stormwater
management plans for R-2828, and acknowledges that this Permit Application cannot authorize
construction of R-2828, NCDOT's plan to start construction of R-2828 in the immediate future
and reach 11 % completion six months from now is alarming. NCDOT appears to be planning
for a modification not yet requested, based on plans that are not yet complete, to be authorized
by DWR within the next two months, to enable construction of R-2828 according to schedule.
But DWR could not possibly evaluate all of the yet unknown impacts associated with R-2828 in
this timeframe, and public participation would undoubtedly be impermissibly curtailed under this
kind of expedited, unlawful approach to permitting.
NCDOT may not rely on a Certification authorizing water quality impacts associated
with R-2821 to initiate construction on R-2828. NCDOT may not rely on a future
"modification" of Certification for R-2821 to initiate construction on R-2828. DWR is legally
obligated to evaluate the final impacts of each segment of the proposed project in its final form,,
and cannot give blanket authorization to NCDOT to construct all three segments of the project
based on the limited information provided in the Permit Application. See Cowpasture River
Preservation Ass. v. Forest Service, No. 18-1144 at 51 (concluding that the Forest Service acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to explain its decision that receiving only two out of eight
site-specific stabilization designs was adequate to determine the environmental effects of a
proposed pipeline project). If DWR cannot ensure that an application guarantees compliance
with each applicable standard for every impacted waterbody and wetland, it must request
additional information in order to "proper[ly] consider[]" the application. Id. 02H.0506(c).
NCDOT's incomplete application precludes a determination that applicable state regulatory
standards will not be violated. Without information demonstrating compliance, the application
must be denied.
V. DWR Must Deny NCDOT's Application for Section 401 Water Quality Certification
As outlined above, DWR cannot legally issue a section 401 Water Quality Certification
for the proposed project. NCDOT has failed to provide sufficient information and analysis
2'9 NCDOT, Final Request for Proposal (hereinafter "RFP") (Oct. 19, 2018)
hgps://connect.ncdot. gov/letting/Design%20Build%2OProgram/R-2828/R-
2828%20Fina1%20RFP%20with%20Add%201 %20-
%205%2000MPARED%20to%20Final%20RFP%20with%20Add%201 %20%204%2010-19-18.pdf.
220 NCDOT Board of Transportation Projects List: Dec. 5-6, 2018, https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-
offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/201812 Project List.pdf. Attachment 5.
22' RFP at 16-17.
M

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 50
within its application upon which DWR can rely to discharge its duties. Moreover, to the extent
that NCDOT has provided sufficient information, it is clear that the proposed project cannot
satisfy the requirements for Certification. Therefore, DWR must deny NCDOT's application for
Water Quality Certification for the Complete 540 Toll Road. We appreciate the opportunity to
express these concerns in this letter, and are happy to sit down and discuss these issues further at
your convenience.
Sincerely,
Kym Hunter
Senior Attorney
Maia Hutt
Associate Attorney
Nick Jimenez
Associate Attorney
CC (via e-mail, attachments on request):
Matthew Starr, Sound Rivers
June Blotnick, Clean Air Carolina
Perrin DeJong, Center for Biological Diversity
Michael Reagan, Secretary, NCDEQ
William McKinney, General Counsel Governor Roy Cooper
Jeremy Tarr, Office of Governor Roy Cooper
James Trogdon, Secretary, NCDOT
Chuck Watts, General Counsel, NCDOT
Chair Michael S. Fox, NC Board of Transportation
Vice Chair Nina Szlosberg-Landis, NC Board of Transportation
50

Ms. Amy Chapman
December 14, 2018
Page 51
Beau Memory, Executive Director, NCTA
John F. Sullivan, III, Division Director, FHWA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Chris Millitscher, USEPA
Chris Lukasina, CAMPO
51

NORT
-
�o
.Yilk-
iT•-
A"t
i�
r
NORT
-
�o
iT•-
A"t
i�
ROLINA
ACCESS2040'.,
bi
,j
r.�
Am

ACCESS2040
AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE
PROPOSED I-540 EXT ENSION
Prepared by:
Walter Kulash, P.E.
Transportation Planning Consultant
P.O. Box 252, Little Switzerland, NC 29748
[e-mail]
Prepared for:
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
February 2018

TABLE OF
1
2
i
1�1
Summary
Background
Objectives of the
Proposed Alternative
ACCESS2040
Concept Plan
n
71
77
Performance
of ACCESS2040
Cost of ACCESS2040
Cost Comparison,
ACCESS2040 and
Complete 540
Cost Effectiveness of
ACCESS2040
Detailed Appendix A
INS Description .131

-- -- ../_ -- i-
FIGURE i f bq�>26<' ;
NCDOT PREFERRED
COMPLETE 540 PROJECT
iKf
APEX
GARNER
1
;���. __y, ,-�k- � p•.�.. CLAYTON ,
1 �
bX401
6 a 11 ;�/�•/. \�
_ 421
42
Detailed Study Alternative No. Z
a.Y^�W 1.000 Mttn.tlu�cs.Yt rt actntmt itwtlrapttotlets.�ltar. ttuy awtrdr.
Tho°SAU tha t odor S(tgT tS. Zac4dN/w/tf�iaFwpvW1lt.qutl IYnI�to gOYbt.lally Iwa tlqu tlwtatldor oitlUt
Iwntm^wMarthitOder cwMet width? Tlr moa tanlAs ttulsatp.s abtt{tM06A
x uW tM naw eywwr. v x,pyt,dtl �tdwnptpodMt.
Source: NCDOT
https://www.ncdot.gov
ACCESS2040 is proposed as an alternative to Complete 540, a planned 28.4 -mile six -lane toll road between the
existing terminus of NC 540 at NC 55 Bypass in Apex and US 64/264 in Knightdale. ACCESS2040 features seven
improved arterial road corridors —three east -west and four north -south —through the study area (southeast
Wake County) established by the Complete 540 project. Most of the improvements to the seven corridors
in ACCESS2040 would be projects identified as either funded or needed by the CAMPO 2040 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP). To this base of CAMPO 2040 MTP projects (predominantly widening of roads to a four -
or six -lane cross section and some grade -separated interchanges) ACCESS2040 would add segments of new road
to extend and connect existing roads, forming continuous routes throughout the study area.
The recommended designs for ACCESS2040 corridors are adaptations of the NCDOT standard multi -lane highway
cross sections. These adaptations, recognizing that the study area is already urbanizing and will continue to do so,
would accommodate all modes of travel and prepare the widened roads to serve as armatures for the expected
growth.
ACCESS2040 would meet the two primary purposes of the Complete 540 project:'
1. It would provide over half of the mobility gains attained by Complete 540. Within the entire Triangle region
(study area included) it would provide MORE congestion relief than Complete 540.
2. ACCESS2040 also meets the Complete 540 secondary purpose of providing direct connections between the
existing NC 540 terminus of Triangle Expressway in Holly Springs and US 64/264 in Knightdale or 1-40 south
with three east -west corridors: Ten Ten Road, Tryon Road Corridor and NC 55/NC 42.
The difference in environmental impacts between ACCESS2040 and Complete 540 could hardly be starker.
ACCESS2040, building on long -planned improvements to the entire network of roads in the study area, has few
negative environmental impacts, few property takings and yields a network of improved arterial roads becoming
armatures for the inevitable growth. By contrast, Complete 540 has major negative environmental impacts (noise,
damage to wetlands), does little to shape the emerging urban growth of the study area and to the contrary
imposes a 70 MPH barrier through the center of the area.
The costs attributable solely to ACCESS2040 are "unfunded" projects (i.e., beyond year 2040) from the CAMPO
2040 MTP and projects not included anywhere in the CAMPO 2040 MTP. These costs attributable solely to
ACCESS2040 are only $ 294 million, or one-seventh of the $2.24 billion cost of the Complete 540 Preferred
Alternative. Even if ACCESS2040 were assessed with the cost of all of its components from the CAMPO 2040 MTP,
its total cost would be only $1.18 billion, or around one third of the total of $ 3.12 billion cost of the Preferred
Alternative similarly assessed with the cost of its supporting components from the CAMPO 2040 MTP.
ACCESS2040 would be a cost-effective use of public funds, yielding a positive benefit -cost ratio. This benefit/cost
relationship stands in sharp contrast to that of Complete 540, which fails to meet criteria for funding from either
"traditional" NCDOT (non -toll) sources or revenue -bond toll financing.

This report proposes ACCESS2040 as a more cost-efficient and environmentally sensitive
alternative to Complete 540, the proposed 18.4 -mile toll road extension of NC 540 (Triangle
Expressway) through Southeast Wake County, NC. This extension of NC 540 has been adopted as
the Preferred Alternative of the Complete 540 project by NCDOT (Figure 1).
In arriving at this Preferred Alternative, NCDOT first identified twelve alternative concepts. In a
first tier screening, three alternatives (TDM, TSM and Mass Transit/Multi-Modal) were dismissed
as ineffective for meeting any of the project purposes of mobility, congestion relief or regional
connectivity. Travel demand and traffic performance for the remaining nine alternatives were
modeled with the Triangle Regional Model (TRM). Of the remaining nine alternatives, "build"
alternatives incorporating segments of new road and/or widening of existing roads, all but the
"New Location Highway" were eliminated as not ranking high enough in a "quartile analysis"
measuring the primary purposes "to improve mobility within or through the study area during peak
travel periods [and] to reduce forecast congestion on the existing roadway network".'
In a third -tier screening NCDOT analyzed 17 different route configurations (Detailed Study
Alternatives, or DSA's) for the "New Location Highway" alternative. Each DSA was built from some
combination of nine color -coded "preliminary corridor alternatives" segments.
In February 2016 the NCDOT recommended DSA 2 as the Complete 540 Preferred Alternative.
DSA 2 calls for 28.4 miles of new 6 -lane limited access toll road connecting the existing 1-540
terminus at NC 55 in Apex with US 64/264 in Knightdale and with 11 intermediate interchanges at
existing roads. The cost of the Preferred Alternative has been estimated by NCDOT at $2.24 billion.
In a 2017 update' of the first tier screening process NCDOT updated the quartile ranking with year
2040 TRM outputs. NCDOT again found that only a "New Location Highway" (NC 540 extension
from Apex to Knightdale) would meet the project purposes.
The objectives of ACCESS2040 are to:
1. Achieve most of the benefits (mobility, congestion relief and regional connectivity) of Complete
540 at a fraction of its cost and environmental impact.
2. Attain objectives of mobility, congestion relief and regional connectivity by augmenting
projects already recommended in plans adopted by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (CAMPO).
Important secondary objectives of ACCESS2040 are to:
1. Create transportation solutions for a wide range of users.
2. Guide the suburban growth in Southern Wake County into sustainable patterns.
Cost Effective Congestion Relief and Regional Mobility
In its first tier screening of alternatives, treatment of all "ER" (Existing Road) alternatives, NCDOT
appears oblivious to the concept of cost effectiveness. Instead of assessing alternatives on the
basis of their benefits compared to their costs the NCDOT dismisses all of them except New
Location Highway for simply not being in the top quartile of the applied measures of effectiveness
(MOE's). The results suggest that the quartile ranking is inadequate as the sole measure for
screening alternatives. For example, the alternative Improve Existing 3 -Arterials (IE3-A) yields
around one half of the mobility gains and more congestion relief than the New Location Highway.
Yet NCDOT dismisses it in the quartile ranking as not accomplishing project goals. In fact, the
reported performance of Alternative IE3-A suggests a promising and affordable (fiscally and
environmentally) alternative to Complete 540. ACCESS2040, an improvement over alternative
E13 -A, should be considered as a strong, cost effective solution.
Build on Foundation of CAMPO Projects
ACCESS2040 starts with a foundation of 52 projects selected from the 2040 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (hereinafter 2040 CAMPO MTP) adopted by the North Carolina Capital Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). Most of these projects are widening of roads

to multi -lane divided arterials. To this base of improvements, ACCESS2040 would add a small
mileage of extensions to existing roads. These widenings and extensions would create continuous
multi -lane arterial routes across southern Wake County in both the east -west and north -south
directions.
The ACCESS2040 approach of building on a base of CAMPO 2040 MTP projects differs somewhat
from the "IE" ("Improve Existing") alternatives that NCDOT eliminated. The first tier screening
selected only a limited ("fiscally constrained") number of the planned CAMPO projects, thereby
eliminating almost all projects with more than a 15-20 year funding horizon.
It should come as no surprise that an assembly of projects from the CAMPO 2040 MTP and
including Complete 540 would meet the travel needs of the study area. The CAMPO 2040 MTP
vision of "patterns of development that contribute to a distinctive place" and its goal to "manage
growth by linking land use patterns„ steers the resulting plan toward more, improved and better -
connected local roads. The single limited- access 70 -MPH spine of the Triangle Expressway
Extension in Complete 540 does little toward meeting this goal, and may even obstruct its
attainment. The travel demand forecast ("traffic") model underpinning the CAMPO 2040 MTP
project selection reflects travel desires of the residents of the area. The Triangle Expressway
extension, not emerging from this modeling process but rather superimposed on it as a "given,"
adds little to the ability of the other CAMPO projects to meet the forecast travel demand. The
cost-effectiveness test ("payback" period) for each CAMPO 2040 MTP project assures a plan that in
its entirety meets needs with projects whose benefits outweigh their costs.
All -Mode Travel
ACCESS2040 anticipates an increase in transit travel as projected by the Wake County Transit Plan
and the GoRaleigh five-year transit improvement plan. ACCESS 2040 also anticipates and meshes
with projects for non -motorized (bicycle and pedestrian) travel as programmed in the CAMPO
2040 MTP. ACCESS2040 would complement these plans with road designs that immediately
accommodate a wide range of users and anticipates and provides for future increases in non -
automobile travel.
By contrast, Complete 540 is concerned solely with a 70 MPH toll road completing a freeway or toll
road ring around the greater Raleigh area.
Future Urban Fabric
ACCESS2040 is designed to provide southern Wake County with a connected network of arterial
roads and streets serving as armatures for growth anticipated by the cities (Apex, Holly Springs,

Fuquay-Varina, Garner and Knightdale) within the study area. Further, ACCESS2040 would equip
these armatures for sustainable growth with design features such as street connectivity, attractive
routing for transit, large mileage of new sidewalk and selected grade -separated intersections. These
features would help guide suburban growth in Southern Wake County into sustainable patterns.
By contrast, the sole alternative seriously considered in the Complete 540 project is a six -lane 70 MPH
limited access toll road with no value as an armature for urban growth and no ability to transition
into a more useful form as growth occurs. To the contrary, as southern Wake County continues to
urbanize the Complete 540 increasingly becomes a barrier, separating the communities and their
population into "inside the beltway" and "outside the beltway" contingents. Rather than fostering
the growth of a dense network of local and collector streets that is essential for "smart growth",
Complete 540 would permanently restrict the development of north -south local and collector streets.
Table 1: Summary of Site -Specific Improvements
ACCESS2040
Corridor Widen to Widen to New Grade -Separated
(Figure number) Four Lanes Six Lanes Roadway Interchanges
Qty Miles Qty Miles Qty
Tryon Road (3)
5
6.23 2 6.50 2
Ten Ten Road (3)
13
34.92 3
INC 55/NC 43 (3)
8
15.66 1 5.95
Holly Springs Road (4)
8
12.31
Lake Wheeler Road (4)
5
10.98
US 401 (4)
NC 50 (4) 3 12.39
4 11.56
Miles
2.65
2.24
2
All Corridors (2) 42 92.59 7 24.01 5 4.89 5
Notes: Corridor improvements are summarized in Figure 2 and shown in detail in Figures 3 and 4
Qty—Number of road segments with improvement type indicated
Source: Appendix Tables A.1 through A.7
The overarching concept of ACCESS2040 consolidates and extends improvement projects identified
in the CAMPO 2040 MTP to form seven arterial (road or street) corridors (Figure 2).
The proposed improvement to these corridors would yield both: (1) increased all -mode capacity for
local trips (within the study area); and (2) increased connectivity for external travel (trips with origin,
destination or both outside the study area). East -west regional connectivity, an important purpose of
the Complete 540 project, would be served by three corridors.
In addition to improving capacity and mobility, the seven corridors would all serve as armatures of
continued growth.
For the seven corridors in ACCESS2040, site-specific improvements (Table 1 and Figures 2, 3 and 4)
are:
1. Widening of roads, generally to a four -lane divided cross section
2. New road segments, extending and/or connecting existing roads
3. Replacement of at -grade intersection with grade -separated interchanges
In addition to the site-specific improvements identified in Table 1, three general improvements apply
throughout all corridors:
1. Provision on most widened roads for all modes (pedestrian, bicycle, transit) of travel
2. Incorporating subarea plans as developed in the CAMPO Southeast and Southwest area studies
3. Managing access, following the guidelines in the NCDOT Access Management Manual.
4

r
FIGURE 3 . 1L't
EAST -WEST CORRIDORS.
& FUNDING SUMMARY t R
k '
x(4)6 ��y(4{jy fl�WVR4 WNC�l RD .i. .•w -_ ��/ •'N+.... e
Ft 4 FISA2I—E i9RD
�t1E . I• �� � ,4 a• •a � ✓
° 1.Ahq,
"Y .'.•s AIx �..,�.. g, c, /al RO�+D �$i40R
i
d �z1�. q 3� rFNTF �•� it r�``•.;.0 8 _� __ �.^�..
/DOR ( _ t-' NA... -
Y
0) 4t
t�
(?)q2•_ f (214 'ArNER� RD
�;s ; �•�� ' feta
q 2 3f
�.M --• i f IVB -I ., f; f�i ! � ��" ° t �� �„ `. �__ s r.\� �`�,.
ACCESS2040 R�gSj
FUNDING
A6n"
RQAD SEGMENT. EXISTING �.... % QJ4 ` 1 .i7,q A�.ep1 o'i 14 r •"' IN CAMPO 2040 MTP
ROAD SEGMENT. PROPOSED . ',- fit- p6Y, A40h t qqp�... - THROUGH YEAR 20/0
YEAR 2060
NTERCNANGE. EXISTING - ✓ `, / , i f ,
NOT IN CAMPO 2040 MTP
INTERCHANGE. NEW
% t - . ! CAMPO 2040 MTP A407a
'..
RECONFIGURED INTERSECTION ..��D ! _Or �'� _ `I� `, PROJECT
(EXISTING) PROPOSED LANES 12)0 ' r �, � / ` f �.a, ..- ..�, iTO IMPROVEMENT NEEDED �@J
East-West Corridors
Figure 3, Table 1 and Appendix Tables A.1 through A.3 summarize the three east -west corridors in
ACCESS2040.
Ten Ten Corridor—The Ten Ten Road corridor in ACCESS2040 would provide a continuous east -
west four -lane arterial route through the study area, connecting the existing Triangle Expressway
terminus at NC 55 Bypass in Apex with US 64/264 in Knightdale. With its connection to the Triangle
Expressway to the west, the Ten Ten corridor would accomplish a key purpose (accommodating
work trips between southern Wake County and the RTP) of the Complete 540 project. The Ten
Ten corridor would also meet the Complete 540 objective of providing a continuous route for
"external" trips (trips with neither origin nor destination within the study area).
At its western end, the Ten Ten corridor would begin with two spurs: (1) a new segment of Jessie
Drive connecting Ten Ten Road to Old Holly Springs Apex Road (Veridea Parkway) just north of its
interchange on the Triangle Expressway near Holly Springs and (2) a segment of Center Street in
Apex, transitioning into Ten Ten Road thereby connecting to US 1 and the Apex Peakway. The Ten
Ten corridor would continue eastward along Ten Ten Road to its intersection with Rand Road. The
corridor would then follow Rand Road to NC 50. After a short run on NC 50, the corridor would
follow the proposed extension of Ackerman Road, then onward on the existing Ackerman Road to
its intersection with White Oak Road. The route would then follow White Oak Road to Hicks Road,
where it would intersect with and follow a new segment of road taking it to Raynor Road. The route
then follows a sequence of Raynor Road, Auburn Knightdale Road and Hodge Road to just north of
Poole Road, where it would join a new road segment connecting to an interchange on US 64/264.
Tryon Corridor—This corridor, comprised mainly of Tryon Road and its extensions, would cross the
northern edge of the study area. At its western end, it would connect to the Triangle Expressway/
US 64 interchange in Apex, thereby accommodating work trips to and from RTP. At its eastern end,
the route would join the Ten Ten corridor, which would then connect with an interchange on US
64/264 in Knightdale. With this connection, the Tryon Road Corridor, like the Ten Ten Road corridor,
would meet the Complete 540 objective of regional linkage, by providing a continuous route for
trips between the Triangle Expressway in Apex and the US 64/264 interchange in Knightdale.

�
ROAD SEGMENT. EXISTING FUNDING
(AE 2
CC SS C
AD SEGM NI
Q IN CAMPO 2040 MTP
ROAD SEGMENTPRoposED THROUGH YEAR 2040
ANGE
INTERCHANGE. EXISTING i I YEAR 2060
I NTE
RCHANGE. NEW CC, NOT IN CAMPO 2040 MTP
RE ON R
RECONFIGURED INTERSECTION 'N MTP
CAMPO 204
(EXJSTING� PRO, OSED LANES PROJECT # A407
NO IMPROVEMENT NEEDED
From its western end atthe Triangle Expressway toU51'the Tryon Road corridor would follow U5
64, which would be widened and upgraded to a six -lane freeway with interchanges replacing the
at -grade signalized intersections atLaura Duncan Road and Lake Pine Road. Between U3 1 and
Rock Quarry Road, the route would follow a combination of existing four -lane Tryon Road and new
four lane extensions. The route would then follow a combination of Rock Quarry Road and Battle
Bridge Road, intersecting with the Auburn Knightdale Road segment of the Ten Ten Corridor, in turn
connecting to an interchange with US64/264in Knightda|e.
yUC55/NC42Corridor—At its western end this corridor would connect directly with the existing
terminus of the Triangle Expressway, thereby accommodating travel from the southern study area
to the RTR Durham and 1-40 west. At its eastern end, the corridor would connect to 1-40 and US 70,
thevebyaemingexterna|rogiona|east'westtrave|throughtheotudyanea'foroxannp|ebetweenthe
Triangle Expressway and |'40to/from the south.
From its interchange with the Triangle Expressway at its western end to Dickens Road, the NC 55/
NC 42 route would follow NC 55, widened tosix lanes. Within this segment ofNC55' two at -grade
intersections (at Old Holly Springs Apex Road and Ralph Stevens Road) would be replaced with
grade—separated interchanges. From Dickens Road southward the route would follow the existing
four -lane NC55'then Judd Parkway eastward, continuing onNC43and US4O1tothe grade -
separated intevchangethatwou|dnap|acetheyigna|izedintersectionaattheUS401/NC42/NCSS
junction. The route would then follow NC 42 widened to four lanes to its interchange with 1-40 and
beyond to US 70 Business in Clayton. The eastern end of the corridor in Clayton would include a spur,
a four -lane extension of Guy Road between NC 42 and US 70, bypassing the center of Clayton.
North-SouthCc»rridors
Figure 4, Table 1 and Appendix Tables A-4 through A-7 summarize the four north -south corridors
in ACCE352040. In addition toserving local trips (i.e.. entirely within the study area) and serving as
armatures for growth, the north -south corridors would serve two regional travel needs: (1) connection
between residential trip origins (households) in southern Wake County and the major employment
destinations to the north (among them downtown Raleigh, NCSU and Rex Hospital) and (2)
connecting links to the three east- west corridors (Figure 3) all of which would connect directly to the
Triangle Expressway onthe west and either US64/264or|'4Utothe east.
Holly Springs Road Corridor—This corridor would link Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina to large
employment centers, among them NC3U and Rex Hospital, in western Raleigh. From its southern
end at NC 55, the route would follow a combination of Holly Springs Road and Jones Franklin Road
toWestern Boulevard.
'

Lake Wheeler Road Corridor—This corridor would connect the center of the study area to
employment, state government and commercial destinations in Downtown Raleigh, including the
state capitol area. With its interchange with 1-40, the Lake Wheeler corridor would also comprise part
of a route between the center of the study area and the RTP.
The Lake Wheeler corridor is parallel to and serves much of the same area as US 401, and would
become increasingly important as a reliever to US 401.
Beginning at Hilltop Needmore Road, this corridor would follow Lake Wheeler Road northward to
South Saunders Street.
US 401 Corridor—This major arterial road would connect Fuquay-Varina and areas to the south of it
to Garner, Downtown Raleigh and 1-40. The corridor would begin at NC 42 and would continue to
the US 401/US 70 interchange in Garner.
NC 50 Corridor—This corridor
would serve as an alternative to
1-40 for travel between the eastern
part of the study area and US 70, in
turn serving Garner and downtown
Raleigh. The corridor would begin
at NC 42 west of 1-40, continuing
northward to the Timber Drive.
Cross Sections
The proposed cross section for
segments of road widening (49
segments) and road extensions
(three segments) included in the
seven ACCESSS2040 corridors
would be adaptations of standard
NCDOT cross sections for arterial
roads. Reflecting existing and
expected land use conditions along
these corridors, one of three cross
section options (Figure 5) would be
fitted:
Urban Raised Median—An
adaptation of the standard
NCDOT "raised median"
cross section to account for
anticipated future urban
conditions°. Adaptation would
involve: (a) substituting enclosed
drainage ("curb and gutter")
for the open swale drainage,
(b) verges of 10 feet outside
the curbs and (3) sidewalks
outside the verge on both sides
FIGURE 5
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS, ALTERNATIVE ACCESS2040
114'
3'S' 10'
24' 30'
24' 10'
S' 3�
Y
F
URBAN
SIDEWALK OR
MULTI-USER
sIDEPATH
148'-155'
23'-30'
30'
8'
24'
24' 8'
15'
16'
Z w
N 0J
W
Q
Z
00
Z
o
N
V N
J
U
RURAL, RAISED MEDIAN
30' 8' 12'
12'
46'
12' 12'
8'
1s' 10'
W W
0
W ?
0 3
W
9
O
0
�
0
J
i
,
_
to
�aa
O J
In
fA
RURAL
of the road, with the possibility
on selected road segments of substituting a multi -use trail for one or both of the sidewalks.
Indicators for the choice of the "Urban Raised Median" cross section are surroundings that are
already developed, proximity to commercial areas, fronting commercial destinations, school
zones, incorporated areas and areas zoned for intensive development.
2. Rural Raised Median—The standard NCDOT cross section recommended "when widening [an]
existing two lane -two way facility to four lanes with very restricted R/W [Right of Way]".' Although
there is no firm definition by NCDOT of "very restricted" right of way, much of the road frontage
in the seven corridors included in the ACCESS2040 would likely require the "Rural Raised
Median" cross section.
3. Rural 46' Median— The standard NCDOT cross section for "widening or resurfacing" for "Use
when there are existing right of way constraints11.6 This cross section is best for open country in
unincorporated areas, with minimal year 2040 projected development.
7

Figure 5 and Table 2 summarize the proposed cross sections.
Table 2: ACCESS2040
Cross Section Summary
Cross Section Element
Cross Section Type
Urban Raised
Rural Raised
Rural
Median
Median
46' Media
Right of way (R/W) width (ft)
114-124
148-155
171
Number of lanes
4
4
4
Lane width (ft)
12
12
12
Median width (ft)
23-30
23-30
46
Median cross section
Raised
Raised
Swale
Roadside drainage
Curb & gutter
Swale, ditch
Swale, ditch
Sidewalks
Both sides
No
No
Multi -use trail
In place of one
Not in standard
Not in standard
or both sidewalks
R/W
R/W
Speed limit (miles per hour) 45 45 55
Median plantings greater Permitted Permitted Prohibited
than 6" dbh
Roadside planting greater Permitted in verge Prohibited in R/W Prohibited in R/W
than 6" dbh
Notes: Cross sections adapted from NCDOT Roadway Design Manual, 1-21B
For six -lane cross section, add 24 feet to Right of Way (RNV) width
Property Takings and Relocations Required for ACCESS 2040
Components of ACCESS2040 not included in the CAMPO MTP could require around twenty
residential relocations. Most of these relocations would be near the proposed extensions of Ten
Ten Road and some segments of new road in that corridor. ACCESS 2040 would not divide or
require access reconfiguration for any neighborhood developments.
In addition to relocations needed for its CAMPO 2040 MTP components, Complete 540 would
require 217 relocations (209 residential, five business and three non-profit) to accommodate the
proposed six -lane toll road and its interchanges. Complete 540 would also bisect or require access
reconfiguration for five neighborhood developments.
ACCESS2040 meets the two primary objectives' of the Complete 540 project "to improve mobility
and to reduce traffic congestion in the project area" and its secondary objective "to improve
system linkage in the area roadway network."
Improving Mobility and Reducing Traffic Congestion
The ability of ACCESS2040 to meet the primary objectives (mobility and congestion reduction) of
Complete 540 can be gauged from Alternative IE3-A (Improve Existing [Highways] 3 -Arterial). IE3-A
is the first tier concept alternative that most closely resembles ACCESS2040, and can therefore
serve as a surrogate. Although Alternative IE3-A lacks some of the important components of
ACCESS2040, it nevertheless establishes a reasonable basis for gauging the minimum performance
of ACCESS2040.
Table 3 compares the attainment of Complete 540 objectives by Alternative IE3-A and therefore
the minimum attainment by its surrogate ACCESS2040 to that of the "New Location Highway".'
P�

Table 3: Minimum Attainment of Measures of Effectiveness
Alternative IE3-A and ACCESS2040 versus New Location Highway (Complete 540)
Project Purpose Year 2040 MOE
Region Wide
Study Area
PM Peak
Daily
PM Peak
Daily
Improve Mobility Travel Speed
62%
57'i�
52%
50%
Travel Time, RTP
59%
Travel Time, Brier
44%
Creek
Reduce Congestion Reduction, VHT
58%
40%
Reduction,
85%
IE3-A and
87%
IE3-A and
Congested VMT
ACCESS2040
ACCESS2040
Outperform NLH
Outperform NLH
Reduction,
63%
IE 3-A and
59%
IE3-A and
Congested VHT
ACCESSO40
ACCESS2040
Outperform NLH
Outperform NLH
Reduction,
87%
IE3-A and
IE3-A and
IE3-A and
Congested
ACCESS2040
ACCESS2040
ACCESS2040
Roadway Mileage
Outperform NLH
Outperform NLH
Outperform NLH
Notes: MOE - Measure of Effectiveness
VHT - Vehicle Hours of Travel
VMT - Vehicle Miles of Travel
IE3-A - Alternative Improve Existing [Highways] 3 -Arterial, as defined in first tier screening
NLH - New Location Highway (Triangle Expressway Extension)
MOE data from First Tier Concepts Screening and Traffic Reassessment, December 12, 2017, Tables 2 through 8, and tables
titled "2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times" for "Origin: Research Triangle Park" and for "Origin: Brier Creek"
Percentage attainment for ACCESS 2040 is the ratio of improvement over "No Build" attained by Alternative IE3-A (referred
to as "Improve 3 - Arterial in Tables 2-8 referenced above) to that attained by "New Location Highway ("NLH)"). Attainment
is difference between "No Build" and subject alternative.
ACCESS2040 would deliver more than half the mobility benefits of Complete 540:
• For all time/area categories of the most broad-based mobility MOE (travel speed)
ACCESS2040 would deliver over half the benefit of Complete 540.
• For the most comprehensive time/area category (daily, region -wide) of the travel speed MOE
ACCESS2040 would deliver 57 percent of the gain attained by Complete 540.
• For the more narrowly defined MOE's measuring travel times to/from RTP or Brier Creek
ACCESS 2040 would deliver 59 percent and 44 percent, respectively, of the reduction in travel
time attained by Complete 540.
The accomplishment by ACCESS2040 of at least 50 percent of the average speed increase
of Complete 540 is significant, despite what at first might appear to be low percentages of
attainment. Complete 540 gains much of its increase in average speed through the single measure
of a lengthy segment of high-speed (70 MPH) Triangle Expressway extension. That ACCESS2040
would accomplish around half of this speed increase should not be interpreted as a shortcoming in
ACESS2040, but rather more as an indication of the extensive improvement that could gained from
simply improving arterial roads, as does ACCESS2040.

In attaining the congestion relief purpose, ACCESS2040 would outperform Complete 540:
• For all three MOE's that directly measure congestion', ACCESS2040 would provide more relief
than Complete 540, for both of the most wide-ranging time/area categories: daily within both
the region and study area.
• For the three congestion relief MOE's in the PM peak ACCESS2040 would attain from 59
percent to more than 100 percent of the Complete 540 attainment. That Complete 540
outperforms Alternative IE3-A and ACCESS2040 during the PM peak in no way indicates
overall superiority of Complete 540. Rather, the daily MOE's which include the peak period
indicate overall superiority of the Alternative IE3-A and ACCESS2040, confirming that the
small PM peak advantage shown for Complete 540 comes "at the expense" of a net daily
gain in congestion. Reducing congestion for only the PM peak could, in proper context, be
a reasonable MOE. However, reducing congestion during only the PM peak while increasing
it by a greater amount for the entire day is neither technically supportable as transportation
planning nor likely to be acceptable to the public.
The inclusion, in ACCESS2040, of some major improvements not included in its surrogate
Alternative IE3-A assures that ACCESS2040 would perform even better than indicated above in
Table 3:
Extension of Ten Ten Road corridor with new segments of four -lane divided road which would
provide a continuous four -lane route between Apex and Knightdale
Grade separations at some locations on NC 42 and widening it throughout, which would
provide a continuous and partially grade separated route between Holly Springs and Clayton
Widening of some segments of north -south routes on the Lake Wheeler Road and NC 50
corridors.
Improving System Linkage in the Area Roadway Network
ACCESS2040, with continuous multi -lane (four -lane or six -lane) roads in its Ten Ten Road and Tryon
Road corridors, would provide the same signature improvement in system linkage as Complete
540: arterial road connection between NC 540 in Apex/Holly Springs and US 64/264 in Knightdale.
In meeting this overarching goal of continuity between NC 540 and US 64/264, ACCESS 2040
would provide many more ancillary opportunities for system linkage than Complete 540. Complete
540 would add to regional linkage with one limited -access toll road connecting to a single point
at either end (NC 540 and Us 64/264) with eleven intermediate access points (interchanges). By
contrast, ACCESS 2040 would provide three east -west multilane road links between numerous
origin/destination points (see Figure 2, 3 and 4). Each of these east -west routes would connect to
all north -south intersecting roads, rather than at just eleven interchanges as in Complete 540.
Table 4: ACCESS2040
Cost Summary
Project Costs ($ millions)
Corridor
In CAMPO
2040 MTP
Not in CAMPO
ACCESS2040
Through Horizon
Beyond Horizon
2040 MTP
Total
Year 2040
Year 2040
East-West Corridors
Tryon Road
87.5
14.8
1.9
104.2
Ten Ten Road
200.7
112.5
48.5
361.7
NC 55&NC 42
;260.9
51.0
0
311.9
North-South Corridors
Holly Springs Road
99.6
0
0
99.6
Lake Wheeler Road
88.3
8.6
0
96.9
US 401
112.7
0
0
112.7
NC 50
36.8
56.4
0
93.2
Entire ACCESS2040
886.5
243.3
50.4
1,180.2

The total cost of ACCESS2040 is $1,180 million (Table 4)
Three quarters (75 percent) of the entire cost of ACCESS2040 ($886 million of $1,180 million) is from
"financially feasible" projects (i.e. included in horizon years 2020, 2030 and 2040) in the CAMPO
2040 MTP. Another 21 percent ($243 million) of the cost of ACCESS2040 is from horizon year 2060
projects (planned but not yet funded) in the CAMPO 2040 MTP. Only four percent ($50 million) of
the cost of ACCESS2040 is from projects not included at all (i.e., neither funded nor unfunded) the
CAMPO 2040 MTP.
Two corridors account for over half of the cost of ACCESS2040. At $361 million (31 percent of
total cost) the widening and extension of Ten Ten Road is the costliest of the seven corridors in
ACCESS2040. This cost reflects widening of around 35 miles of road to four lanes, 2.2 miles of new
four -lane road and four reconfigured intersections (Appendix Table A.2). The NC 55/NC 42 route
is the second most costly at $313 million (26 percent of total cost). Most of this cost comes from 23
miles of widening and three grade -separated intersections (Appendix Table A.3).
The $50 million for projects in ACCESS2040 that are not included in the CAMPO 2040 MTP is
mostly for new road segments on the Ten Ten corridor.
The "financially feasible" components of the CAMPO 2040 MTP are common to both ACCt55Lu4u
and Complete 540. In comparing the costs of the two alternatives (Table 5) the appropriate cost
measure is therefore the cost increment beyond that of the CAMPO 2040 MTP projects common to
both alternatives.
Table 5 : increment of Cost Beyond Horizon Year 2040,
CAMPO 2040 MTP
ACCESS2040. and Co�r>pl,"efe 540
Cost Increment
ACCESS2040 Complete 540
($ Million) ($ Million)
CAMPO 2040 MTP,
243.3
Horizon Year beyond 2040
Not in CAMPO
50.4 2,240.0
2040 MTP
Total increment beyond
293.7 2,240.0
CAMPO 2040 MTP Horizon
Year 2040
Although the documentation for Complete 540 offers no analysis of cost effectiveness for any of
the alternatives considered, project data does support a simplified approximation (Table 6) of such
analysis for ACESS2040 and Complete 540.
The ACCESS2040 Benefit/Cost ratio of 2 10 indicates a project whose benefits would far outweigh
its cost, indicating a sound investment. A Benefit/Cost ratio this high is not surprising, given that in
the CAMPO 2040 MTP, source of much of ACCESS2040, typically have ratios around 2.0 - 2.5.
The Complete 540 Benefit/Cost ratio of 0.47 reveals a project whose benefits would fail to cover
even one half of the project cost. Transportation project analysis guidelines recommend that only
"projects that can demonstrate a benefit/cost ratio equal to or greater than 1.0 can be regarded as
economically suitable".10
11

Two other approaches confirm that Complete 540 would not come close to being a financially
feasible project:
1. NCDOT Strategic Transportation Investment
(STI) Prioritization and Programming
Process—This process includes a benefit/
cost component that compares monetized
travel time savings over a 10 -year period to
the NCDOT share of the cost. For Complete
540, this 10 -year benefit of travel time saving
would be around $530 million", indicating
that the NCDOT share could be at most
around one-quarter of the project's cost of
$2,200 and that toll financing would have
to "write down" the NCDOT cost to $530
million. However, as noted below nowhere
near this level of toll financing is anticipated.
2. Planning Level Traffic and Revenue Study,
May 2017—This report, the first projection
of revenue for Complete 540 as a toll road,
projects a Net Present Value (NPV) of toll
revenues of $1.155 million for the first 25
years of operation. These revenues are 52
percent (around one-half) of the Complete
540 cost of $2,200 million, affirming earlier
admissions by NCDOT that the project is
far from feasible as a toll road unless heavily
subsidized by public funding.
Table 6: Cost Effectiveness, ACCESS2040
and Complete 540
ACCESS2040 Complete 540
Travel Benefits, 60.3 102.4
Year 2050
Travel benefits, 36.5 62.0
Year 2025
Net Present Value 617.3 1,048.4
(NPV) of Travel
Benefits
Project Cost 293.7 2,240.0
Benefit/Cost 2.10 0.47
Notes: Travel benefits, Year 2050 - increased from year
2040 benefits as per Traffic and Revenue Report,
Table 4.16, Scenario 1
Travel benefits, Year 2025 - reduction from year 2040
based on reduction over same period, Traffic and
Revenue Report, Table 4.16, Scenario 1
Net Present Value (NPV) computed for 30 years, IRR
3.5%
Project Cost - Cost increment beyond CAMPO 2040
MTP projects, from Table 5
Results of the three above approaches to cost
effectiveness— cost effectiveness analysis in Table 6, the NCDOT Strategic Transportation
Investment guidelines and the Planning Level Traffic and Revenue Study—converge on two
findings:
1. Complete 540 is a poor use of public funding, falling far short of NCDOT STI and CAMPO
guidelines for cost effectiveness
2. Complete 540 is far from feasible as a toll -only project, earning revenue of less than half
that required to cover its cost. Inability of the project to offset its cost was foreseen in the
Alternatives Development and Analysis Report which concluded that "A completely non -tolled
(traditionally funded) scenario would not be reasonable" and further that "Traditional (non -
toll) transportation funding sufficient to fully fund this project is not likely in the foreseeable
future" .12
As the mileage of proposed toll roads increases throughout the US, funding schemes that use
tolls to pay for part of the project and therefore "write down" to acceptable levels the remaining
publicly financed part are regularly claimed to be "innovative" public/private partnerships. In
reality, rather than innovative funding this type of "partnership" is an accounting device to mask
a project's lack of feasibility for either toll financing or for meeting cost-effectiveness criteria of
transportation agencies.
12

APPENDIX A
The following seven tables provide a link -
by -link description of the seven arterial road
corridors comprising ACCESS2040.
13

Table A.'l., ACCES-S2040,
Tryon Road Corridor -
Segment
From
To
Miles
Improvement
US 64
1-540
US 1
5.70
Widen to six lanes
US 64
Interchange, US 64/01d Apex Rd
Interchange
US 64
Interchange, US 64/1-ake Pine Dr
Interchange
Tryon Rd
US 1
! Kildare Farm Rd
0.80
Widen to six lanes
Tryon Rd
Kildare Farm Rd
Lake Wheeler Rd
2.49
Existing four lanes
Tryon Rd
Lake Wheeler Rd
Norfolk Southern RR
1.30
Widen to four lanes
Tryon Rd
Norfolk Southern RR
Existing Tryon Rd
0.50
New four lane road
Tryon Rd
Existing Tryon Rd
S Wilmington St
0.09
Widen to four lanes
Tryon Rd
S Wilmington St
W Garner Rd
1.34
Existing four lane road
Tryon Rd extension
W Garner Rd
Rock Quarry Rd
2.15
New four lane road
Rock Quarry Rd
Intersection, Rock Quarry Rd/Sunnybrook Rd
Reconfigure
Rock Quarry Rd
Sunnybrook Rd
New Hope Rd
1.09
Widen to four lanes
Rock Quarry Rd
New Hope Rd
Battle Bridge Rd
1.40
Widen to four lanes
Battle Bridge Rd
Rock Quarry Rd
Auburn Knightdale Rd
1.85
Widen to four lanes
14

Table A.2: ACCES52-040
Ten Ten Road Corridor
Segment
From
To
Miles
Improvement
CAMPO STIP (year)
Jessie Dr
Old Holly Springs Rd
NC 55
1.64
Widen to four lanes
A218b (2040)
Jessie Dr
NC 55
Ten Ten Rd
1.58
Widen to four lanes
A218e (2060)
Ten Ten Rd
Apex Peakway
US 1
1.04
Widen to four lanes
A166 (2030)
Ten Ten Rd
US 1
Holly Springs Rd
3.40
Widen to four lanes
A114 (2030)
Ten Ten Rd
Holly Springs Rd
Bells Lake Rd
1.95
Widen to four lanes
A113 (2040)
Ten Ten Rd
Bells Lake Road
Old Stage Rd
5.10
Widen to four lanes
A400a (2040)
Ten Ten Rd
Old Stage Rd
NC 50
3.43
Widen to four lanes
A400b (2060)
Ten Ten Rd
Ten Ten/Rand intersection
Reconfigure intersection
Rand Rd
Ten Ten Rd
NC 50
1.70
Widen to four lanes
Rand Rd/
Rand Rd/NC 50 intersection
Realign intersection
NC 50
Rand Rd
Ackerman Rd ext
(r A.7) Widen to four lanes
A228a (2040)
NC 50
NC 50/proposed Ackerman Rd extension
Realign intersection
Proposed Ackerman Rd
extension
NC 50
Bryan Rd
0.50
New four -lane road
A577(2040)
Ackerman Rd
Bryan Rd
White Oak Rd
1.14
Widen to four lanes
A577(2040)
White Oak Rd
Ackerman Rd
Hicks Rd
4.46
Widen to four lanes
A143a (2040)
ACCESS2040 new segment White Oak Rd
Raynor Rd
0.63
New four -lane road
Raynor Rd &
Auburn Knightdale Rd
ACCESS2040 new segment Hodge Rd
7.58
Widen to four lanes
A203(2060)
Hodge Rd
Auburn Knightdale Rd
Poole Rd
1.90
Widen to four lanes
A403c (2060)
Hodge Rd
Hodge Rd/ACCESS2040 new segment
Realign Hodge Rd
ACCESS2040 new segment Poole Rd
1-540/US 64
interchange
1.11
New four -lane road
1-540/US 64 interchange
Interchange modification
Add ramps to/from S
15

Table A.3: ACCESS2040
NC 55/ NC 42Corrid'or
Segment
From
To
Miles
Improvement
CAM PO 2040
MTP # (year)
NC 55
North Main St
Dickens Rd
5.95
Widen to six lanes
A98 (2030)
NC 55
NC 55/01d Holly Springs Apex Rd
0.20
Grade separated
interchange
A163a (2030)
NC 55
NC 55/Ralph Steven Rd intersection
0.20
Grade separated
interchange
Al 60c (2060)
NC 55 (Broad St)
Dickens Rd
Judd Pkwy
Penny Rd
continue as four
lane rd
2.22
Judd Pkwy
NC 55
Products Rd
1.50
Widen to four lane
A207a2 (2040)
Judd Pkwy
Products Rd
US 401/NC 55/NC
42
0.60
Widen to four lanes
A207a3 (2020)
US 401, NC 55, NC 42
Judd Pkwy
US 401/ NC 55/NC
42 Intersection
1.18
Add median, access
management
A619c (2030)
US 401/NC 42/NC 42
US 401/NC 55/NC 42 intersection
0.20
Grade separated
interchange
A637(2030)
NC 42
US 401/NC 55
Old Stage Rd
4.10
Widen to four lanes
A407a (2060)
NC 42
Old Stage Rd
John Adams Rd
0.95
Widen to four lanes
A407b1 (2060)
NC 42
John Adams Rd
NC 50
4.39
Widen to four lanes
A407b2 (2040)
NC 42
NC 50
1-40
2.17
Widen to four lanes
A407b3 (2030)
NC 42
1-40
Amelia Church Rd
4.27
Widen to four lanes
Jhns2b (2030)
NC 42
Amelia Church Rd
US 70 Business
2.07
Widen to four lanes
Jhns2a (2030)
South connector (Guy
Road extension)
NC 42
US 70 Business
I
2.33
New four -lane
bypass
Jhns3 (2030)
Table, AA ACESS2040
Holly 5prlings R,oad! Corridor
Segment
From
To
Miles
Improvement
CAM PO 20401
MTP (Year)
Holly Springs Rd
New Hill Rd
Kildare Farm Rd.
Connector
4.44
Widen to 4 lanes
A163a (2030)
Holly Springs Rd
Kildare Farm Rd
Connector
Ten Ten Rd
0.84
Widen to 4 lanes
A71 (2030)
Holly Springs Rd
Ten Ten Rd
Penny Rd
1.22
Widen to 4 lanes
A70(2030)
Holly Springs Rd
Penny Rd
Cary Pkwy
2.22
Widen to 4 lanes
A69(2030)
Holly Springs Rd
SE Cary Parkway
Tryon Rd
0.61
Widen to 4 lanes
A72(2030)
Jones Franklin Rd
Holly Springs Rd
Dillard Dr
0.67
Widen to 4 lanes
A73a (2030)
Jones Franklin Rd
Dillard Dr
1-440
1.22
Widen to 4 lanes
A560b (2040)
Jones Franklin Rd
1-440
Western By
1.09
Widen to 4 lanes
A560a (2040)
16

Table A,5-. ACCES5,2040,
Lake Wheeler Road Corridor
Segment
From
To
Miles
Improvement
CAMPO 2040
MTP # (Year)
Lake Wheeler Rd
Hilltop Needmore Rd
Ten Ten Rd
3.40
Widen to 4 lanes
Al 36c (2040)
Lake Wheeler Rd
Ten Ten Rd
Penny Rd
3.55
Widen to 4 lanes
A136b (2040)
Lake Wheeler Rd
Penny Rd
Tryon Rd
1.79
Widen to 4 lanes
A136a (2030)
Lake Wheeler Rd
Tryon Rd
1-40
1.30
Widen to 4 lanes
A43(2040)
Lake Wheeler Rd
1-40
Centennial Pkwy
0.32
Continue existing
four lanes
Lake Wheeler Rd
Centennial Pkwy
S Saunders St
0.94
Widen to 4 lanes
A136e (2060)
Table A,6- ACC15,SS20'40
US 401 Corridor
Segment
From
To
Miles
Improvement
CAMPO 2040
MTP # (Year)
US 401
NC 55/42
Scott Rd
3.32
Widen to six lanes
A619b (2040)
US 401
Scott Rd
Tech Rd
1.58
Widen to six lanes
A619a (2040)
US 401
Tech Rd
Ten Ten Rd
1.07
Widen to six lanes
A480b (2020)
US 401
Ten Ten Rd
US70
5.59
Widen to six lanes
A480a (2030)
Table A,7. AC-CESS2040
NC. SO Corrfdo,r
CAMPO 2040
Segment From To Miles Improvement MTP # (Year)
NC 50 NC 210 NC 42 5.63 Widen to four lanes A228c (2060)
NC 50 NC 42 NC 1010 (Cleveland Rd) 1.85 Widen to four lanes A228b (2060)
NC 50 NC 1010 (Cleveland Rd) Timber Dr
17
4.91 Widen to four lanes A228a (2040)

' FEIS, Chapter 2
'Alternatives Development and Analysis Report, May 2014
'First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening and Traffic Reassessment, December 12, 2017
NCDOT Roadway Deign Manual, 23'- 30' Raised Medians, 1-2B, Figure 5
' ibid., 30'- 36' Medians, 1-2B, Figure 1
6 ibid., 1-2B, Figures 2A and 2B
'Alternatives Development and Analysis Report, May 2014, Section 1, S-1
e Synonymous terms for the extension of 1-540, used as appropriate at various stages of the Complete 540 project, include
"New Location Highway", "Build Alternative", Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension", "DSA 2", "Preferred
Alternative " and recently simply "Complete 540". The terms are interchangeable.
"Reduction, Congested VMT", "Reduction, Congested VHT" and "Reduction, Congested Roadway Mileage" are direct
measures of congestion. "Reduction, VMT" can indicate congestion reduction but also measures uncongested travel
that is simply faster or more direct.
10 Martin Wohl and Brian V. Martin, Traffic Systems Analysis for Engineers and Planners, section 8.4.2
"Travel benefits first ten years (2025-2035) from year 2040 benefit, First Tier Reassessment, Table 2 scaled to years 2025-
2035 as per traffic growth from Traffic and Revenue Study, Table 4.16, Scenario 1
"Alternatives Development and Analysis Report, May 2014, pages 2-5
CARO
2: �� •7
4 SEAL ;
044814
i

PUBLIC HEARING
NC 540 TRIANGLE EXPRESSWAY SOUTHEAST EXTENSION (COMPLETE 540)
PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) has applied to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) for a 401
Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Water
Quality Commission rules in 15A NCAC 213 .0101, 15A NCAC 2B .0231 and 15A NCAC 2H
.0500.
The activity for which this Certification is being applied for is to construct the 28.8 miles of new
alignment for the proposed NC 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 540)
project in Wake and Johnston Counties (DWR #2018-1249). The Complete 540 project
encompasses three NCDOT TIP projects: R-2721 (NC 55 Bypass to US -401), R-2828 (east of US
401 to I-40 Interchange), and R-2829 (east of I-40 to US 64/264).
For R -2721A, proposed impacts to jurisdictional areas total 15.24 acres of permanent
wetland impacts, 10,428 linear feet of permanent stream impacts (including 1,0681 f of bank
stabilization), 441 linear feet of temporary stream impacts, 1.93 acres of permanent pond impacts,
and 1,166,439 square feet of Neuse riparian buffer impacts. Additionally, R -2721A has 0.02 acres
of non -404 isolated wetland impacts and 0.21 acres of non -404 impacts to ponds constructed in
uplands.
R-2721 B has 12.69 acres of permanent wetland impacts, 0.60 acres of temporary wetland
impacts, 9,4431 inear feet of permanent stream impacts (including 9071 f of bank
stabilization), 485 linear feet of temporary stream impacts, 14.04 acres of permanent
pond impacts, and 1,308,419 square feet of Neuse riparian buffer impacts.
R-2721 B has 2.43 acres of non -404 isolated wetland impacts and 1.52 acres of non -404 impacts
to ponds constructed in uplands.
Preliminary proposed impacts (based on proposed slope stakes plus 25 feet) for R-2828
include, 19.30 acres of permanent wetland impacts, 20,086 linear feet of permanent stream
impact, 5.99 acres of permanent pond impacts, and 2,031,787 square feet of Neuse riparian buffer
impacts. Additionally, R-2828 has 0.30 acres of non -404 isolated wetland impacts, and 0.02 acres
of non -404 impacts to ponds constructed in uplands.
R-2829 proposed impacts (based on proposed slope stakes plus 25 feet) include 18.40
acres of permanent wetland impacts, 17,3871 inear feet of permanent stream impacts, 7.57 acres
of permanent pond impacts, and 2,268,108 square feet of Neuse riparian buffer impacts.
NCDOT is proposing payment to the NC Division of Mitigation Service In -lieu -fee Program
(NCDMS ILF) for compensatory mitigation for R-2721. Compensatory mitigation for R-
2828 is proposed from a combination of NCDMS ILF and private mitigation banks.
NCDOT will develop a compensatory mitigation strategy for R-2829 when the
anticipated contract timeline is within five years.

Please note the date for the public hearing has changed.
The public is hereby notified that that the Division of Water Resources will hold a public hearing
on November 16, 2018 starting at 1 n.m. in the Ground Floor Hearing Room in the
Archdale building located at 512 N. Salisbury Street in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The public is invited to comment in writing on the above-mentioned application as well as
speaking during the Public Hearing. Speaking times will likely be limited to 3 minutes maximum
per speaker, with the final time limit to be determined on the day of the hearing depending upon
the number of speaking slots requested. Those wanting to speak will need to register at the
hearing and speaking sequence will be in the order of registration. Written comments may be
forwarded at any time before or after the hearing provided they are received by the Division no
later than December 16, 2018.
Please submit your written comments electronically via this link:
https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/Forms/Public Notice Comments?Public _ Notice Name2=DWR%20-
%20NC%20540%20Triangle%20Expressway%20Southeast%20Extension%20(Comalete%2054
0)%20%2011/8/2018%20%2012/8/2018&Folder ID Passed=752314
You also have the option of supplying written comments via regular mail to the N.C. Division of
Water Resources, Water Quality Permitting Branch, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1617, Attn: Amy Chapman, or emailed to [e-mail] (919-707-8784).
Comments may also be hand -delivered to the physical location of the DWR Central Office at 512
N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC, 27604. Please be sure to identify the Complete 540 project in the
subject line of your correspondence to ensure proper routing.
Copies of the 401 application are posted online at:
hMs•//edocs deq_nc gov/WaterResourcesBrowse.aspx?startid=294248
(Username: public, Password: password) Original physical copies of all public comments
received will also be available online.

PUBLIC HEARING FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED NC 540
TRIANGLE EXPRESSWAY SOUTHEAST EXTENSION (COMPLETE 540) PROJECT
WAKE AND JOHNSTON COUNTIES
Ground Floor Hearing Room in the Archdale Building located at 512 N. Salisbury Street in
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Friday November 16, 2018, 1:00 p.m.
Cyndi Karoly: Good afternoon. I would like to call this public hearing to order. My name is Cyndi
Karoly and I will be the hearing officer this afternoon. I am the Section Chief in the Water Sciences
Section of the Division of Water Resources. First, I would like to recognize Division of Water Resources
staff members who are present. If anyone needs any help during this hearing, please contact a staff
member who will be glad to assist:
Rob Ridings, Amy Chapman, Robert Patterson, April Norton, and Kristi Lynn Carpenter from the Central
Office in Raleigh.
The purpose of this hearing is to solicit water -quality related comments from all interested parties
regarding the proposed fill of 58,270 linear feet of streams and 68.98 acres of wetlands to construct the 28.8
miles of new alignment for the proposed NC 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete
540) project in Wake and Johnston Counties in North Carolina.
I realize that this may be an important issue for many people here this afternoon. Please realize
that as the hearing officer I can only consider comments that are directly related to Water Quality impacts
expected to result from this project. In order to conduct this hearing in a fair and orderly fashion, I am
asking that everyone observe certain rules. The hearing's purpose is to hear your comments related to the
issuance of this proposed 401 certification and is not a question and answer session. Cross examination of
any speaker will not be allowed. Before we ask for comments from the public and the applicant, I will ask
Rob Ridings to explain the 401 Certification process as it relates to this project.
Rob Ridings: In order to put this meeting into perspective, I will briefly describe the 401 Water
Quality Certification process. Any project which adds fill to waters or wetlands of the United States
requires a 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This application is proposing to

permanently impact 58,270 linear feet of streams and 68.98 acres of wetlands to construct the 28.8 miles of
new alignment for the proposed NC 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 540) project
in Wake and Johnston Counties. in North Carolina. The applicant currently proposes payment to the North
Carolina the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and some private mitigation banks to mitigate for the
proposed wetland and stream impacts.
Please note that the following important dates with regards to the Complete 540 project:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published October 2015;
The Preferred Alternative Report was published April 2016;
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (includes Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment.) was
published December 2017; and
The Record of Decision was issued by the Federal Highway Administration in June 2018.
This project requires an Individual Permit from the Corps of Engineers since the applicant proposes to
impact more than 500 linear feet of streams. The Corps of Engineers issued a Public Notice for this project
on September 25, 2018. According to the Clean Water Act, each federal permit (such as this 404 Permit)
must have a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Resources. A 401
Certification is a Certification by the Division of Water Resources that the project will not violate any
relevant water quality standards and regulations.
According to the Clean Water Act, a Corps 404 Permit cannot be issued until a 401 Certification is issued
or waived. The basic review process is as follows. DWR must first determine whether significant existing
uses are present in the waters or wetlands and whether the project would remove or degrade those uses.
Next, DWR must determine whether 1) there is a practical alternative to the project, 2) whether the impacts
can be further minimized, 3) whether the project will result in degradation of groundwaters or surface
waters, 4) whether it results in cumulative impacts, 5) whether it provides for protection of downstream
water quality standards through stormwater controls, and finally 6) whether the wetland and stream
mitigation plans (where required) will replace the existing uses of impacted streams and wetlands.
For Individual Permits, our rules require that DWR will not duplicate the site-specific application of any
guidelines used for review by the Army Corps of Engineers. Also, our mitigation rules state that mitigation
required by the Corps will be that required by DWR as long as there is at least a 1:1 replacement of

wetlands acres and stream length through restoration or creation. The provision for DWR to consider
Corps requirements during our review was adopted to reduce duplication during the permit review process
between the Corps and DWR.
Cyndi Karoly: With this background information, let me discuss the schedule for this afternoon.
We will then take written or oral statements from every individual who signed up to speak at the front
table, in the order of registration. I request that you limit your speaking time to 3 minutes in length. A
DWR staff member will hold up signs indicating that you have one minute left to speak as well as when
your time is up in order to keep this hearing on schedule. More lengthy, detailed comments can be made in
writing to the following address:
Mr. Rob Ridings
NC Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
Again, please realize that as the hearing officer I can only consider comments that are directly related to
Water Quality impacts expected to result from this project. The hearing record will remain open until
December 16, 2018 for this purpose. Anyone wishing to make a written statement is welcome to do so by
that time. After that time, I will evaluate all the information and statements and make a recommendation
regarding the 401 Certification to the Interim Director, Linda Culpepper of the DWR Central Office. If she
decides to deny the Certification, NCDOT will either have to modify their plans to make them acceptable
to the Division or appeal the decision through the NC Office of Administrative Hearings. If Mrs.
Culpepper decides to issue the Certification, NCDOT will have to obtain a 404 Permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers before filling wetlands or waters. Any conditions that the Division of Water Resources
includes in the Certification will become conditions of the 404 Permit as well. Finally, we will be
recording this meeting and 1 ask that you speak clearly into the microphone in front.
Now I will ask any elected officials that would like to make a statement to do so now after I call their
names.

Now I will call on citizens who have asked to speak. I will also call the number of the next speaker and ask
that she or he be ready to speak promptly. DWR staff will assist me in keeping the speaker to 3 minutes.
Please be considerate of other speakers and keep your remarks to 3 minutes.
MULTIPLE SPEAKERS
Cyndi Karoly: Thank you for your respectful attention during this hearing. As I mentioned before, the
hearing record will remain open until December 16, 2018. After that time, I will make a recommendation
regarding this Certification to the Interim Director of the Division. This concludes the Public Hearing for
the 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed Complete 540 project in Wake and Johnston Counties.

Complete 540 Public Hearing
November 16, 2018
Speaker's Comments
Elected official: Greg Ford with Wake County Board of Commissioners
In favor of the project. The Complete 540 is fundamental to land use plans and future planning in Wake
County. Believes this project has bi-partisan support.
Matthew Starr: Upper Neuse Riverkeeper
Easy to see that this project will have a large impact on 11 miles of stream, 65 acres of wetlands in one
of the most important watersheds. This watershed houses 13 protected species and is a Natural
Heritage Area. This project will increase sediment loads and continue to impact the watershed. DEQ
should not issue the 401.
Will Price: SELC
DEQ should deny the 401 because there are more practical alternatives with less environmentally
damaging effects. DOT failed to look at improving existing roads. He prefers the red route through the
Town of Garner.
Daniel Parkhurst: Clean Air Carolina
Air pollution and water pollution are tied together. Worried about the negative effects to the resources
due to increased traffic and sprawl. DOT should look at improving public transportation and existing
roadways. This project goes against Governor Cooper's initiative to combat climate change. DEQ should
deny the 401.
Maia Hutt: SELC
DEQ should deny the 401 because there are more practical alternatives with less environmentally
damaging effects. DOT failed to look at improving existing roads. This project will increase congestion on
existing roads. Southern Wake County will see development like Raleigh. Water quality standards will
degrade due to this project.
Nick Jimenez: SELC
Access 2040 should be considered which is improving existing roads and less cost and impacts to the
environment. He showed this map at the hearing:
https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/news-feed/Figure 3 NC 540.ipg
He also stated that the timing of the public hearing was not favorable for public comments. He wants
DWR to have future public hearings.

Geoff Lang: RTA (Regional Transportation Alliance)
Vital to complete 540. He's confident that DOT did its due diligence for environmental protection and
that they are fully mitigating the impacts. He applauds DOT for spending $5 million on endangered
species mitigation and research.
Joe Miuzzo: RTA
Need to complete 540.1-40 is congested. No other way to get around unless 540 is completed. The
project will be safer than widening existing roads due to the lack of stop lights on the freeway.
Secondary roads can't handle the increased congestion. This project compliments Wake County's
transportation plan.
Michael Haley: Wake County Economic Development
This project is a result of a planned corridor. Important to complete 540. Smart growth like this is
critical. He's confident that DOT did its due diligence for environmental protection and that they are
fully mitigating the impacts. South East Wake has large growth and needs this project.
Joey Irby: RTA
Vital to complete 540. He's confident that DOT did its due diligence for environmental protection and
that they are fully mitigating the impacts. South East Wake has large growth and needs this project.
Mike Krannitz: RTA
Resident off Ten -Ten Road since 1984. Supports 540. Widening of Ten -Ten since it's a ridgeline, would
impact swift Creek. Any corridor with idling cars will increase air and water pollution due to the stop
lights.
Jim Beley: Umstead Hotel
Supports 540. Applauds DOTS responsiveness to the public. Umstead employees 340 people that must
get from their homes to work. This is a challenge without 540 being complete. He's confident that DOT
did its due diligence for environmental protection and that they are fully mitigating the impacts. He's
sure this project will not violate the Clean Water Act.
Pete Marino: RTA and Smith Anderson
This project is a result of a planned corridor. Important to complete 540. Smart growth like this is
critical. He's confident that DOT did its due diligence for environmental protection and that they are
fully mitigating the impacts. South East Wake has large growth and needs to project.
Mike Mancure: Smithfield Chamber of Commerce
He represents 470 companies that are dependent on 540 being completed. He supports the project and
trusts that DOT did their due diligence.

Chris Johnston: Johnston Company
He lives in Johnston County. There are 200,000 people in Johnston County and this is just increasing. In
10-15 years there will be more than 300,000 people. This project is about jobs and the quality of life.
This will help the rural areas because they can better access the jobs in the urban areas.
Kerry Heckle: UNC Rex Healthcare
Supports the project to alleviate congestion. This project will be a time savings and is critical for
emergency services to have quick access. The alternatives being proposed will not help emergency
services because they will be stopped by traffic congestion and stop lights.
Natalie Griffith: RTA
This project is a result of a planned corridor. Important to complete 540. Smart growth like this is
critical. She's confident that DOT did its due diligence for environmental protection and that they are
fully mitigating the impacts. South East Wake has large growth and needs to project.
April Wood: Garner Chamber of Commerce
Vital to complete 540. Will allow for free flow traffic to access jobs. This project will provide long term
economic viability.
Michael Greenspan: Resident of Cary
Area is going to continue to grow. Believes DOT will mitigate the impacts. Approves the project.
Anne Runyon: Resident of Garner
Disappointed in the hearing that DOT had in February of 2018. The hearing had no discussion or input
from the public. She believes that DOT could elevate the road above the wetlands. Also, she supports
the Access 2040 plan as an alternative.
Jackie Gray: Resident of Raleigh
Against the project. Believes it will contribute to the carbon load. She believes this happened when the
portion of 540 was completed near Apex. This project goes against Governor Cooper's initiative to
combat climate change. She supports upgrading existing roads and the Access 2040 plan as alternatives.
Heather Clarkson: Defenders of Wildlife
This project will have a negative impact on the protected species. She believes this project will destroy
wetlands and their functions (she went into the explanation of wetland functions).
Will Lechworth: RTA
Growth is here and more coming. Supports the project. He's familiar with and has been a part of DOT's
design/build process. He knows this process is designed to reduce impacts to the environment to the
greatest extent practicable.

Bryan Fox: Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce
Supports. There is a rich history of balancing development and environmental impacts. DOT is not
ignoring the environment with this project.
Ryan Combs: Research Triangle Regional Partnership
Raleigh native. 100 people a day move here. Fastest growing region of the state. 300,000 people drive
along this corridor. This project is vital for the State. Public transit is not enough. Keep the region moving
and build the project.
Roger Friedensen: RTA and Forge Communications
Complete 540 will bring Wake and Johnston Counties a main East/West artery. People are coming and
we need to provide transportation. This project is responsible and sensible.
Rodney Dickerson: Town of Garner
Supports 540. Has used this planned corridor to plan. He can see congestion from Wake and
tremendous growth in the area. We need the infrastructure to support the growth. The red route would
cost Garner millions of dollars and displace many people.
Michelle Myers: Center for Biological Diversity
This project will degrade streams. The increased development that this project will cause, will impact
Swift Creek and will escalate the sediment impacts to the species' habitats. There will be increased
stormwater run-off into the sensitive watershed. DOT is unable to mitigate for the impacts to the
threatened species.

Public Notice Name
DWR - NC 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 54
To see related documents to the Public Comment request click her@
Check all that apply:*
p 1 want to provide my contact information
r I am submitting on behalf of a third party
First Name
Rick
Last Name
Savage
Phone Number
9194129754
Email *
[e-mail]
— The intent for collecting an email address is to allow us send you a receipt for submittal of this corm-eM.
Please pick the response below that represents your stance on the above mentioned project? *
C Yes
C Yes with Comments
C Yes with Attachment(s)
f No
C No with Comments
r No With Attachment(s)
Comment
First there are sevearl endemic species of mussel that live in the affected area and I strongly believe that the
plan to "transplant" them is far too risky and is not assured of success.
Second, the Neuse River Waterdog, endemic the Neuse and Tar, is also affected. Alvin Braswell, well known
herpetologists has submitted comments to the Environmental Impact statement that discusses these concerns
in detail.
Third, there are 60+acres of wetland impact. Wetlands provide many ecosystem services (water filtration to
improve water quality, flood control, habitat to endemic and endangered species, environmental education,
bank stablization, etc.). Wetlands are also tremendous stores of carbon and they are one of our most important
ecosystems for mitigating global warming and the resulting change in our climate. Impacting wetlands in any
way will releast carbon into the atmosphere and given the seriousness of the IPCC report, I know this is NOT
being takine into consideration. And any wetlands mitigation plans probably will not address carbon storage.
Our Planet cannot afford to have more carbon put into the atmosphere and we cannot wait for mitigation
projects to try to put some of it back into the ground and the vegetation.
There were several better routes to choose from and even better plans were submitted by the Souther
Environmental Law Center that would deal with the traffic problems in a more direct way.
Completing a circle is not required!
Any information (e.g., personal or contact) you provide on this comment form or in an attachment may be publicly
disclosed and searchable on the Internet and will be provided to the Department or Agency issuing the notice.

Public Notice Name
DWR - NC 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 54 0) - 11/8/2018 - 12/8/2018
To see related documents to the Public Comment request click
Check all that apply.*
R 1 want to provide my contact information
r I am submitting on behalf of a third party
First Name
Seth
Last Name
LaJeunesse
Phone Number
Email *
[e-mail]
— The intend for collecting an erred address is to alkm us send you a receipt for sutxrittal of this corrrrerd.
Please pick the response below that represents your stance on the above mentioned project?*
r Yes
r Yes with Comments
r Yes with Attachment(s)
r No
G No with Comments
r No With Attachment(s)
Comment
We are at a time when we need to significantly reduce automobile dependency in the US and NC. Widening
540 would serve to induce car traffic and ameliorate our collective output of greenhouse gas emissions. I'm
aware that not everyone believes in the unfolding changes in our climate, yet the most reputable, international
organization formed to date and focused on understanding and communicating about the grave dangers of
nonlinear atmospheric warming have sounded a clarion call to drastically reduce our carbon output. We at the
local government level can only contribute so much to this eAstential fight, yet large, powerful agencies like
NCDOT have an enormous impact on our climate and transportation future. Though design of our state's road
network, DOT must correct course and facilitate and promote more active, healthy, and sociable forms of
transportation. Seismic change in strategy is needed, not more of the same useless and evermore reckless
highway -widening!
Any information (e.g., personal or contact) you provide on this comment form or in an attachment may be publicly
disclosed and searchable on the Internet and will be provided to the Department or Agency issuing the notice.

Public Notice Name
DWR - NC 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 54 0) - 11/8/2018 - 12/8/2018
To see related documents to the Public Comment request click here
Check all that apply:*
Q! I want to provide my contact information
r 1 am submitting on behalf of a third party
First Name
Melissa
Last Name
McCullough
Phone Number
19193570333
Email*
[e-mail]
— The intent for collecting an errail address is to allow us send you a receipt for submittal of this coiTnent.
Please pick the response below that represents your stance on the above mentioned project?*
C Yes
C Yes with Comments
r Yes with Attachment(s)
r No
r No with Comments
r No With Attachment(s)
Conune nt
My favorite quote from a smart growth conference I regularly attend is "trying to solve congestion by adding
lanes is like trying to cure obesity by putting another hole in your belt."
This extension of 540 isn't going to solve any problems, it will only exacerbate the problems and expenses that
sprawl has saddled us with in the Triangle. And this at a cost of 60 acres of valuable, stormwater-absorbing
wetlands, disturbing more than 55,000 feet of streams and cutting right through some of the last remaining and
irreplaceable urban wild spaces critical to rare, endangered wildlife. These losses of carbon -sequestering
natural land just for MORE pavement also means more air and water pollution and a giant step backwards from
the solutions we need to enact to try and minimize the damage of climate change. NC has a LOT to lose with a
changing climate, and we need to step up, as the Governor has said.
Finally, this is incredibly expensive at a time when we need to spend money on useful things serving many
more people. $2.213illion to shave 10 minutes off some people's commutes. REALLY?!? With all these negative
externalities?? The toll would not begin to pay for it.
The Southern Environmental Law Center has provided a proposal, Access 2040, that would serve the same
purposes at much more reasonable costs, and much less burden on the environment. And maybe we can have
some more money to put into workable mass transit!!
So, please, spend our money wisely, protect our remaining natural areas and their critical functions, and do
something that looks toward NC's future needs, not counterproductive patterns from the past.
Melissa McCullough
Any information (e.g., personal or contact) you provide on this comment form or in an attachment may be publicly
disclosed and searchable on the Internet and will be provided to the Department or Agency issuing the notice.

Strickland, Bev
From: Chapman, Amy
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2018 2:01 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: [External] NC540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Input
-----Original Message -----
From: Dennis Barletta <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 12:27 PM
To: Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dennis Barletta <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] NC540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Input
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
I strongly support the completion of the NC540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension and would urge the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources to swiftly approve the North Carolina Department of Transportation's mitigating
strategies for all 28.8 miles of new highway alignment project.
It is time to move these geographical portions of Wake and Johnston Counties int he 21sth Century of highway
infrastructure. For too many years the residents of these areas have been denied fair and equal access to a high speed
alternate route to around and into the greater Raleigh metropolitan area. The network of 19th Century two-lane
highways can no longer support the growing residential populations of Northwest Johnston County.
Please don't let fringe organizations continue to hinder progressive transportation planners and continue to oppose and
block the forward progress of these regions.
Approve the NCDOT mitigation strategies and let's move forward with the completion of this long overdue and much
needed infrastructure project.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit my thoughts to this hearing board.
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Barletta
134 Lake Point Drive
Clayton, NC 27527

Public Notice Name
DWR - NC 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 54 0) - 11/8/2018 - 12/8/2018
To see related documents to the Public Comment request click h@fr3i
Check all that apply:*
p I want to provide my contact information
r I am submitting on behalf of a third party
First Name
Last Name
Phone Number
Email *
[e-mail]
`"" The intent for collecting an errail address is to allow us send you a receipt for subrrittal of this corment
Please pick the response below that represents your stance on the above mentioned project?*
r Yes
F Yes with Comments
* Yes with Attachment(s)
r No
r No with Comments
r No With Attachment(s)
Comment
Completion of the NC 540 corridor will continue to be an essential part to meeting statewide, inter -regional, and
intra -regional transportation needs now and in the future, including continued high-quality mobility, economic
health and well-being, and quality of life in the Triangle region and the state of North Carolina. Support for the
completion of this corridor from the local jurisdictions has been in place for many years and has been
reaffirmed many times. Completion of the 540 corridor has been an adopted element of the Capital Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) regional transportation plan for many years. Completion of the 540
corridor has historically been one of the highest priority projects in both the MPO's Transportation Improvement
Plan and the State Transportation Improvement Program, and has received numerous resolutions and letters
of support over many years. We supports the completion NC 540 in a location that meets the needs of area
citizens and requirements of federal law. Over the years many alternatives have been evaluated and we
believe that the selected alternative has demonstrated that both of these have been substantially met based
on the findings of the final environmental document.
Any information (e.g., personal or contact) you provide on this comment form or in an attachment may be publicly
disclosed and searchable on the Internet and will be provided to the Department or Agency issuing the notice.

November 16, 2018
Dear North Carolina Division of Water Resources,
I hope you will listen to the concerns expressed today for the health of our water quality and
environment here in Wake County and down river, in eastern North Carolina. I want to share my deep
disappointment about the NCDOT hearing that I attended back on February 2S, 2018.
NCDOT held several informational meetings in our area (where this project will be constructed)
but did not allow any discussion from the audience during these meetings. Logically that should have
been a time for public input and honest discussion. Then the February hearing allowed us 3 minutes to
present our thoughts. No meaningful discussion took place at any of these public meetings.
What made me so sad was listening to all of the speakers.
First came Nick Jimenez, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, SELC. He
expressed concern that roads like this usually harm the often poor, often minority, communities through
which they are built.
Next came a number of business people, including many realtors, from Wake County and
Johnston County - all praising this project. Then an array of our Southern Wake County and Johnston
County mayors. All were very happy about this project. All of these officials got up and left after they all
had their say. They had no interest in hearing what others thought.
A man with some trouble speaking made a clearly thought out protest about the effect of the
road on the environment - urging wetland protection and suggesting that NCDOT elevate the road over
sensitive wetlands. A woman spoke simply and intelligently in favor of Access2040, which is an
alternative road plan designed with southern Wake County's good, healthy growth in mind.
Several southern Wake County landowners complained about communication or lack thereof
from NCDOT. The project began 20 or more years ago and they have been sort of in limbo for many of
those years. How will they be affected? There were 21 registered speakers. Plus a few additional
speakers after all the registered ones. I was #20 out of 21 registered speakers. I attach what I read, and
later put into the NCDOT comments box. There were not many left in the audience by then, but I got a
hearty round of applause!
Ramona McGee, another attorney with SELC, spoke after me and held up her copy of the
ACCESS2040 plan as she spoke. She spoke well, and I think if she had been able to actually show the
maps and present the Access2040 plan up on the big screen, folks would have really applauded.
(Especially since the Mayors had left the room by then.)
Please act on behalf of the people, animals, and plants living in Wake County and further
downstream in Eastern North Carolina. Deny certification for this costly and damaging road. We deserve
better.
Sincerely,I
Anne Runyo
1116 Poole Drive
Garner, NC 27529

Anne Runyon
1116 Poole Drive
Garner, NC 27529
Dear NCDOT staff,
February 22, 2018
I am a natural science illustrator and long-time resident of Wake County. I have
completed many illustrations used throughout North Carolina in our county and state
parks, in museum exhibits, and in publications like Wildlife in North Carolina magazine.
Through this work, I have learned how important it is to protect the integrity of the
natural resources, especially our streams.
I appreciate your work on Complete 540. The planning for mussel propagation as a
mitigation effort may prove very useful as we continue to build structures where we will
damage streams in North Carolina.
But we do not need to add this six -lane toll road, 540, to improve transportation
here in Southern Wake County. We should stop, reconsider, and study the Access 2040
plan. Improving the roads that we already have in place, with some new connections
added, seems a much better plan than building this 540 outer -loop.
I also want to see better mass transportation developed for our region.
I appreciate the work you do to maintain and improve our roads, and bridges, and
ferries here in North Carolina. Please seriously consider the Access 2040 plan. Find the
time and the courage to make wise decisions for our present, and our future, transportation
needs.
Sincerely,
Anne Marshall Runyon