The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20181249 Ver 1_Comp540PreferredAlternativeReport-1_20160401PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT For ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT � /, �� :^ CO��'�E�'� ��;. --- � Trlangle F�rpressway Soetheast Fxtensfon Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 State Project Nos. 6.401078, 6.401079, and 6.401080 Federal Aid Project Nos. STP-0540(19), STP-0540(20), and STP-0540(21) WBS Nos. 37673.1.TA2, 35516.1.TA2, and 35517.1.TA1 Prepared for: � N6RTH rCAR4LINA ;`�� 7'rurr�pike Authority Prepared By: H.W. Lochner, Inc. LO►CHNER April 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Preferred Alternative Report NCDOT STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 Wake and Johnston Counties 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................1 1.2. Project Purpose .......................................................................................1 1.3 Project Status ..........................................................................................1 1.4 Detailed Study Alternatives .........................................................................2 1.5 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................2 1.6 Additional Considerations ..........................................................................6 1.7 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................6 2 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................... 9 2.1 Public Meetings and Public Hearing .............................................................9 2.2 Public Comments .....................................................................................9 2.3 Previous Public Comments ....................................................................... 11 2.4 Public Comment Summary ....................................................................... 11 3 OVERVIEW OF OTHER LOCAL INVOLVEMENT .......................................... 12 3.1 Local Government Comments ................................................................... 12 3.2 Previous Local Government Comments ...................................................... 13 3.3 Comments from Other Organizations .......................................................... 14 4 OVERVIEW OF AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ................................................... 15 4.1 Agency Coordination Meetings .................................................................. 15 4.2 Agency Comments on Draft EIS ................................................................. 15 4.3 Agency Comments on the Draft Preferred Alternative Report ........................... 15 4.4 Previous Agency Comments ..................................................................... 16 5 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................... 17 6 MINIMIZATION EFFORTS AND IMPACT REDUCTION ............................... 19 6.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Ponds .................................................................. 19 6.2 Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area ........................................................... 20 6.3 Dwarf Wedgemussel ............................................................................... 21 7 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................21 Preferred A/ternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Comparative Evaluation Matrix ................................................................... 4 Detailed Study Alternatives - Constraints and Benefits ................................. 7 Public Participation at Public Meetings and Public Hearing .............................. 9 Local Government Comments/Resolutions on DSAs .................................... 12 Previous Local Government Resolutions .................................................... 14 Summary of Resource and Regulatory Agency Meetings .............................. 15 Federal and State Agency Review Comments on DSAs ................................ 16 Federal and State Agency Review Comments on Draft Preferred Alternative Report.................................................................................................. 17 Impact Reductions Associated with Bridging ............................................. 20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Detailed Study Alternatives ....................................................................... 3 APPENDICES Appendix A Individual Maps of the Detailed Study Alternatives Appendix B Comparative Evaluation Matrix Appendix C Correspondence ii Preferred A/ternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROPOSED ACTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes transportation improvements in the project study area and surrounding region to address transportation needs as defined in the project's Purpose and Need Statement (Lochner, 2011). The focus of these improvements is a potential extension of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540) from its current terminus at the NC 55 Bypass in Apex to the US 64/US 264 Bypass in Knightdale. This action, known as the Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Extension project, is designated as three projects in the NCDOT 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): R- 2721, R-2828, and R-2829. Together, these STIP projects would combine to complete the 540 Outer Loop around the Raleigh metropolitan area. NCDOT established a protected corridor for the project (R-2721 and R-2828) between NC 55 Bypass and I-40 in 1996 and 1997, under the State's Transportation Corridor Official Map Act (Map Act) (GS § 136-44.50). The Map Act permits the preservation of a highway corridor when specific conditions are met; however, it does not require the selection of that corridor following the NEPA process. For purposes of ineeting the requirements of NEPA, all three projects are being examined in the current study as a single and complete project. It is likely that the Complete 540 project would be constructed in phases, depending on the availability of funding. 1.2. PROJECT PURPOSE Two primary purposes have been established for the Complete 540 project, based on general transportation problems in the Raleigh area and specific, more localized needs. The first purpose is to improve mobility within ar through the study area during peak travel periods. The second purpose is to reduce forecast congestion on the existing roadway network within the project study area. A secondary purpose of the project is to improve system linkage in the regional roadway network by completing the 540 outer loop around the greater Raleigh area—a goal sought by area planners for more than 40 years. It is expected that construction of this remaining 5401ink would benefit local commuters living south and east of Raleigh as well as motorists making longer trips through the Triangle Region to and from points south and east. 1.3 PROJECT STATUS In January 2014, NCDOT and FHWA selected the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSA) for the project. This selection was made after extensive agency and local government coordination as well as much public involvement. The development and selection of the DSAs is documented in the Alternatives Development and Analysis Report (Lochner, 2014). A full range of alternatives was developed and evaluated against the purpose and need for the project. This included build options, widening of existing routes options, hybrid options, and non-highway transportation options. Through a tiered evaluation process the various options were screened and those that best met the project's purpose and need were retained for detailed study. In conjunction with this screening process, agency and local government coordination was instrumental in determining the alternatives that advanced to more detailed study. Additionally, public opinion was received as the various options were considered. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Complete 540 project, was signed on November 2, 2015, and subsequently made available for public and agency review on the NCDOT Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 website on November 6, 2015. A notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on Friday, November 20, 2015 (Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 224, Pg. 72719). Copies of the document were distributed to public review locations and agencies between November 7 and 13, 2015. Public meetings were held on December 7, 8 and 9, 2015, and a Public Hearing was held on December 9, 2015. The public comment period for the Draft EIS ended on January 8, 2016. A Draft Preferred Alternative Report, identifying DSA 2 as NCDOT's recommended Preferred Alternative, was submitted to the environmental resource and regulatory agencies in February 2016. Two Interagency Meetings were held to discuss the recommended Preferred Alternative, in February and March 2016. No Issues of Concern, as defined in the project's Section 6002 Coordination Plan, have been raised by any of the agencies on the recommended Preferred Alternative. DSA 2 is now the Preferred Alternative for the Complete 540 project. Next steps in the project process include: • Design refinements to the Preferred Alternative • Publishing the Final EIS, including responses to comments on the Draft EIS • Publishing the Record of Decision • Award of Design-Build Contract 1.4 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES As shown in Figure 1, the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) for Complete 540 consist of 10 colar- coded corridors that can be combined in various ways to form 17 different end-to-end project alternatives. Five of the color-coded corridor segments are generally located west of I-40 (Orange, Red, Purple, Blue, and Lilac) and five corridors are east of I-40 (Green, Mint, Tan, Brown, and Teal). Each of the DSAs would be a controlled-access toll facility on new location. An individual map of each DSA is shown in Appendix A. Each DSA would consist of six lanes, with three 12-foot lanes in each direction of travel, separated by a 70-foot median. The proposed mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph). Proposed interchange locations (depending on the DSA) include: • NC 55 Bypass • Holly Springs Road • Bells Lake Road • US 401 • Old Stage Road • NC 50 • White Oak Road • I-40 • US 70 Bypass • Old Baucom Road • Auburn Knightdale Road • Poole Road • US 64/US 264 Bypass 1.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Appendix B includes a detailed impact summary table from the Draft EIS (pages 107-109). More information about the potential impacts of each of the 17 DSAs is available in the Draft EIS (Chapter 5, page 69). Table 1 highlights the potential impacts for each of the DSAs for several key impact categories. While many other impact categories were examined and are addressed in the Draft EIS, the categories listed in Table 1 are those categories where there was a notable difference in the relative impacts among the different DSAs or that are typically considered a key impact category. In addition 2 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 Corridor Segments 'm m 0 �' � r '�- O R G O R G EG 0 L G O L G G O L B G O � B G 0/ LENGTH I I ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVE miles $M ALTERNATIVE 1 28.3 2,195 ALTERNATIVE 2 28.4 2,178 ALTERNATIVE 3 29.1 2,188 ALTERNATIVE 4 29.4 2,189 ALTERNATIVE 5 29.3 2,191 ALTERNATIVE 6 25.2 2,317 ALTERNATIVE 7 25.3 2,315 ALTERNATIVE 8 30.9 2,566 ALTERNATIVE 9 31.0 2,547 ALTERNATIVE 10 31.6 2,550 ALTERNATIVE 11 32.0 2,549 ALTERNATIVE 12 31.9 2,559 ALTERNATIVE 13 27.6 2,362 ALTERNATIVE 14 27.7 2,344 ALTERNATIVE 15 28.3 2,346 ALTERNATIVE 16 28.7 2,346 ALTERNATIVE 17 28.6 2,356 Corridor Segment Key Q Orange � Purple Q Lilac Q Green � Blue Q Red % 4 from lowest 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.6 6.4 6.3 17.8 ��.o 17.1 17.0 17.5 8.5 7.6 7.7 7.7 8.2 m Teal � Tan Table 1 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX DSAs and Key Impact Categories DEGREE OF VARIATION IN IMPACTS ACROSS THE ALTERNATIVES Percent difference from lowest value in category, illustrated by color gradient 135 % LAND I I ACQUISTION PARCELS RELOCATIONS I I STREAMS acres %4 from number � � from lowest lowest 1,830 4.5 741 3.1 1,823 4.1 744 3.5 1,802 2.8 754 4.9 1,818 3.8 719 0.0 1,843 5.2 737 2.5 1,753 0.1 993 38.1 1,752 0.0 995 38.4 2,135 21.9 1,213 68.7 2,128 21.5 1,216 69.1 2,092 19.4 1,230 71.1 2,108 20.3 1,195 66.2 2,148 22.6 1,209 68.2 1,960 11.9 984 36.9 1,953 11.5 987 37.3 1,917 9.4 1,001 39.2 1,933 10.3 966 34.4 1,973 12.6 980 36.3 QBrown Mint number �� from linear feet �� from lowest lowest 278 14.4 67,967 31.8 281 15.6 65,810 27.6 265 9.1 68,130 32.1 243 0.0 61,322 18.9 272 11.9 65,180 26.4 449 84.8 53,014 2.8 451 85.6 51,582 0.0 566 77,724 50.7 569 75,566 46.5 556 78,087 51.4 534 71,278 38.2 560 - - 74,936 45.3 481 97.9 68,604 33.0 484 99.2 66,447 28.8 471 93.8 68,967 33.7 449 84.8 62,159 20.5 475 95.5 65,817 27.6 L"; WETLANDS acres % 4 from lowest 75.6 47.1 74.3 44.6 73.5 43.0 71.6 39.3 74.2 44.3 52.0 1.1 51.4 0.0 57.5 11.9 56.2 9.4 63.0 22.6 61.1 18.9 56.1 9.2 66.7 29.9 65.5 27.4 72.3 40.6 70.4 36.9 65.3 27.1 to the quantified impacts shown in Table 1, there is an indicator of the degree in variation in impacts or a yes/no indication of impact as appropriate. The green through yellow to red color scheme provides a visual gradient to view relative impacts. Some of the key conclusions from Table 1 include: • There is a wide range in the potential relocation effects of the different DSAs. o DSAs 1 through 5, which use the full Orange Corridor, would require substantially fewer relocations than the other DSAs. DSAs 8 through 12, which use the Purple and Blue Corridor, would require over twice as many relocations as DSAs 1 through 5. o DSAs 6 and 7(Red Corridor) and 13 through 17 (Lilac Corridor) would all require almost twice as many relocations as the DSA that would require the fewest relocations (DSA 4). o The corridor segments east of I-40 have relatively small differences in required relocations. For this reason, there is a relatively small difference in relocation impacts among the DSAs in each group using a particular corridor segment west of I-40 (Orange, Red, Purple/Blue or Lilac). • The percent difference among the DSAs in potential effects on wetlands and streams is notably smaller than the percent difference in relocations. o DSAs 1 through 5 would affect the largest amount of wetlands, affecting an average of 43 percent more wetlands than DSAs 6 and 7, which would affect the smallest amount of wetlands. o DSAs 8 through 12 would affect the most linear feet of streams, averaging about 44 percent greater linear feet of stream impacts than DSAs 6 and 7, which would affect the lowest amount. o The corridor segments east of I-40 have relatively small differences in wetland and stream impacts. For this reason, there are relatively small differences in wetland and stream impacts among the DSAs in each group using a particular corridor segment west of I-40. • The estimated cost of the most expensive alternative (DSA 8) is about 17.8 percent greater than the least expensive option (DSA 2). • DSAs 6 and 7 are the only options that would affect the Swift Creek Critical Watershed Area. • DSAs 6 and 7 would affect the largest total acreage of historic sites in the project area affecting two separate sites. DSAs 3, 10, and 15, which use the Tan Corridor east of I-40, would each also affect an historic site. • DSAs 6 and 7(Red Corridor) would have greater than de minimis (minor) effects on four Section 4( fl resources (two historic sites and two planned parks). The Tan Corridor (DSAs 3, 10, and 15) and the Purple Corridor (DSAs 8 through 12) would each also affect a Section 4(� resource. Tan impacts an historic site and Purple impacts a planned park. • DSAs 8-12 (Purple/Blue Corridor) would likely shift development farther to the south into more rural areas, possibly increasing the overall effects of the project on induced land development, and leading to development patterns that would diverge more notably from those envisioned in local plans. DSAs 1-5 (Orange Corridor) have the greatest potential to support growth and development in accordance with local plans. Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 In addition to examining an impact matrix, it is also useful to review a qualitative summary of the potential benefits and constraints of each option under consideration. Table 2 provides this summary, breaking the description into the corridor groupings west and east of I-40. 1.6 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The following are impact areas that have been identified as potentially important for recommending a Preferred Alternative. Each of these has been addressed in the Draft EIS and pertinent technical reports. None of these impacts are primary differentiators in recommending a Preferred Alternative. While there are two communities in the DSAs that qualify as environmental justice communities, these would not be disproportionally impacted. o All of the DSAs except those using the Purple/Blue Corridor (DSAs 8-12) would require 17 relocations from a mobile home park on Rhodes Road. o All of the DSAs would require 6 relocations from a mobile home park on Knightdale Estate Drive east of Hodge Road, near the eastern terminus of the project. All 17 DSAs would provide nearly identical levels of service in the design year (2035). The analysis conducted for interchanges and intersections shows that each would provide at least a level of service of D or better. This suggests that the project would provide acceptable levels of service on the study area's future roadway network during peak travel hours. Each of the DSAs would meet the need for the project by improving mobility and providing better connections between other transportation routes in and near the project study area. Qualitative assessment of the project's potential indirect and cumulative impacts indicates that each of the DSAs would likely lead to induced land development and higher concentrations of high-density and more intense land uses in the vicinity of the DSAs, especially near interchange areas. Planners interviewed for this analysis almost universally indicated they anticipate a continued strong market for development, regardless of whether the Complete 540 project is built. In other words, the area is expected to experience growth and land use change under either the build or no-build scenarios. Compared to the no-build scenario, however, the build scenarios could lead to more rapid growth and more intense development in some areas near proposed interchanges. However, given that local land use plans anticipate that the Complete 540 project will help concentrate higher-density, mixed use development in key locations, it is possible that the no-build scenario would promote future development patterns that differ from those envisioned in local land use plans. 1.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Based on the information available to date (including the Draft EIS and comments on the project from agencies, local government, other organizations, and citizens), the FHWA, NCDOT, and NCTA recommend DSA 2 as the Preferred Alternative for the Complete 540 project. This alternative follows the Orange Corridor west of I-40, and then follows the Mint Corridor east of I-40 (using the southern and northern ends of the Green Corridor to complete the end-to-end alignment). Factors that influenced this decision are detailed in Sections 2-7 of this report. Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 Table 2: Detailed Study Alternatives — Constraints and Benefits Corridor Constraints/Issues Benefits Alternative Corridors West of I-40 • Broad public support • Formally supported by nearly all local governments Crosses Swift Creek downstream of Lake Benson dam (dwarf • Substantially fewer relocations than other options Orange � Wedgemussel habitat) • Limited development activity since corridor was protected Corridor . Impacts more acres of wetlands than other options • Extensive public awareness (DSAs 1-5) . Foundation of several local land use plans • Higher stream impacts than DSAs 6-7 (Red Corridor) . Avoids non-de minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources . Fewest involvements with potential hazardous material sites • Least costl . Nearly twice as many relocations as DSAs 1-5 (Orange Corridor) • Crosses numerous established Garner subdivisions Red • Impacts Greenfield South Business Park . Shortest option Corridor • Only option that crosses Swift Creek Critical Watershed Area . Crosses Swift Creek upstream of Lake Benson dam, avoiding/minimizing (DSAs 6& ' Formally opposed by Raleigh, Wake County, Garner and CAMPO impacts to protected dwarf wedgemussel habitat �� • Broad public opposition • Minimizes total wetlands impacts . Impacts four Section 4(f)-applicable resources; more than other options • Minimizes total stream impacts • Greatest impacts to historic sites • Would limit the abilit of Garner to achieve its land use lannin ob'ectives • Over twice as many relocations as DSAs 1-5 (Orange Corridor) • Impacts more linear feet of streams than other options • Requires the most land acquisition • Crosses Swift Creek downstream of Lake Benson dam (dwarf wedgemussel habitat) Purple- • Greater potential for induced development Blue-Lilac • Formally opposed by Wake County, Holly Springs, and Fuquay-Varina Corridor . Broad public opposition • Potential to serve traffic in growing areas near Fuquay-Varina (DSAs 8- . Is the most costly alternative 12) • Bisects planned Sunset Oaks Park, a Section 4(f) resource • Has the potential to impact the Southeast Wake County Park • Crosses water treatment facility sprayfield area and impacts a portion of one 25 acre holding pond • Would limit the ability of Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina to achieve their land use lannin ob'ectives Preferred A/ternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 Table 2: Detailed Study Alternatives — Constraints and Benefits Corridor Constraints/Issues Benefits Alternative • Crosses Swift Creek downstream of Lake Benson dam (dwarf wedgemussel habitat) Impacts slightly fewer acres of wetlands than DSAs 1-5 (Orange Lilac • Nearly twice as many relocations as DSAs 1-5 (Orange Corridor) • Corridor) Corridor . Impacts 27% more linear feet of streams and 32% more acres of wetlands Crosses a narrower portion of Swift Creek and adjacent wetlands than (DSAs 13- than DSAs 6& 7(Red Corridor) � DSAs 1-5 (Orange Corridor) � 7) • Crosses water treatment faciliry sprayfield area and impacts a portion of Avoids non-de minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources one 25 acre holding pond � • Formall opposed b Ralei h and Garner Corridors East of I-40 • Bisects the Randleigh Farm planned development of Raleigh and Wake • Avoids Clemmons Educational State Forest Green County • Avoids non-de minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources Corridor . Formally opposed by Raleigh • Avoids wastewater treatment biosolids facility sprayfield area (DSAs 1, 6, � Alignment is in close proximity to an anchor and guying wire for a • Avoids police training center on Battle Bridge Road 8,&13) communications tower . Formall su orted b Wake Count • Shifts impacts on Randleigh Farm property further to the east . The least costly options Mint • Impacts Randleigh Farm property but less than Green Corridor (DSAs 1, Formally supported by Raleigh Corridor 6, 8, & 13) . Avoids Clemmons Educational State Forest (DSAs 2, 7, . Alignment is in close proximity to an anchor and guying wire for a Avoids non-de minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources 9, & 14) communications tower � • Avoids wastewater treatment biosolids facility sprayfield area • Avoids police training center on Battle Bridge Road Tan • Impacts Randleigh Farm property but less than Green Corridor (DSAs 1, . Shifts impact on Randleigh Farm property to east parcel area 6, 8, & 13) Corridor Impacts a historic site, subject to Section 4(f) protection • Avoids communications tower anchor and guying wire (DSAs 3, . Formally opposed by Raleigh, and Wake County and CAMPO • Avoids wastewater treatment biosolids facility sprayfield area 10, & 15) Im acts Clemmons Educational State Forest • Avoids police training center on Battle Bridge Road • Impacts wastewater treatment biosolids facility sprayfield area Brown • Impacts police training center on Battle Bridge Road • Avoids impacts to Randleigh Farm property Corridor • Has the greatest impact on the Neuse River greenways trail • Avoids communications tower anchor (DSAs 4, . Impacts Clemmons Educational State Forest • Fewer relocations than DSAs using other options east of I-40 11, & 16) . Impacts the Watershed Extension Loop Trail in Clemmons • Has the lowest impact on floodplains • Formall o osed b Ralei h Teal to • Alignment is in close proximity to an anchor and guying wire for a Brown communications tower . Avoids impacts to Randleigh Farm property Corridor • Impacts wastewater treatment biosolids facility sprayfield area Avoids Clemmons Educational State Forest (DSAs 5, . Impacts police training center on Battle Bridge Road � 12, & 17) . Formall o osed b Ralei h Preferred A/ternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 2 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 2.1 PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARING NCDOT held three public meetings and a formal Public Hearing in December 2015 to present details on the DSAs under consideration for the project and the findings of the Draft EIS and its associated technical studies. The meetings and the Public Hearing served as opportunities for the public and other project stakeholders to review the project DSAs and the findings of the Draft EIS. Displays at these meetings included maps showing the preliminary functional designs for each of the DSAs, information summarizing the potential impacts of each DSA, an illustration of the proposed typical section, and information on the project's purpose and need. A brief informational video providing an overview of the study process and the project DSAs was shown on a continuous loop at each meeting. A handout brochure with information about each of the DSAs, potential impacts, the study process, and the project schedule, was distributed. All displays and meeting materials were, and continue to be, available on the project website (www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete540). Table 3 summarizes public participation for the meetings and Public Hearing. 2.2 PUBLIC COMMENTS During the comment period for the Draft EIS, from early November 2015 through January 8, 2016, comments addressing the DSAs, the Draft EIS, or other substantive project issues were received from 1,476 commenters. The comments included 255 individual written comment forms plus one completed comment form photocopied and signed by 527 different individuals, 387 emails, 6letters, and a petition with 239 signatures. The petition received was signed by residents of Holly Springs, Apex and Cary expressing support for the Orange Corridor and opposition to the Purple and Blue Corridors. The photocopied completed comment form supported DSA #1 (Orange Corridor/Green Corridor) and opposed the Red Corridor and was individually signed by 527 area residents associated with Springfield Baptist Church. Table 3: Public Participation at Public Meetings and Public Hearing Number of Number of Type of Number of Written Oral Date Meeting Location Time Attendees Comments Comments Received Recorded at Meeting at Meeting Public Barwell Road 12/7/15 Meeting Elementary 6:00 — 8:00 pm 210 12 School, Ralei h 5 12/8/15 Public Holly Springs High 6:00 — 8:00 pm 264 37 Meeting School Public 4:00 — 6:30 pm Meeting Wake Technical 12/9/15 Community 532 85 34 Public College, Raleigh 7:00 — 9:30 pm Hearing Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 There were also 34 people who gave oral comments during the Public Hearing and 5 people who gave oral comments at the public meetings on the preceding days. There were also 23 people who submitted comments via NCDOT's mySidewalk site. Most of the comments expressed support for andlor opposition to various project alternatives or specific color-coded corridor segments. The written comment forms included check boxes for commenters to indicate their preferred DSAs. Commenters could indicate more than one preferred DSA. Most commenters did indicate preferred DSAs; two comment forms indicated a preference for improving existing roadways instead of building a new roadway. While selection of a Preferred Alternative is not by popular vote, it is notable that DSA 1(Orange Corridor/Green Corridor) was preferred by the most respondents (680 of 782 comments forms indicated support for DSA 1). This includes 153 individual comment forms and the 527 identical, photocopied comment forms. Emailed comments, letters, and the petition generally cited only particular color-coded corridor segments, rather than end-to-end DSAs, when indicating preferences and opposition. Some comments indicated both opposed and preferred corridor segments, while others indicated only one or the other. Many comments indicated more than one corridor segment that were preferred or opposed. Key conclusions from a review of expressed preferences and opposition in all of the comments include the following: • There is overwhelming support for the Orange Corridor west of I-40. About 93 percent of submitted comments (those stating support for a color corridor west of I-40) expressed a clear preference far the Orange Corridor. • Support for the Red, PurpleBlue, and Lilac Corridors was at 2 percent, 4 percent, and 2 percent, respectively. • There is widespread opposition to the Red (58 percent of those stating opposition to a color corridor west of I-40) and Purple/Blue Corridors (34 percent of those stating opposition to a color corridor west of I-40). • There is also notable opposition to the Lilac Corridor, with 7 percent of those stating opposition to a color corridor west of I-40. • Only 1 percent of those stating opposition to a color corridor west of I-40 are opposed to the Orange Corridor. • There is less of a clear pattern of support and opposition to corridors east of I-40, with most comments not specifically addressing these options. However, among comments that specifically addressed the corridors east of I-40, the Green Corridor was most commonly preferred. The Brown Corridor and the Tan Corridor were most commonly opposed. While some of the written comments indicated only route preferences, without citing specific reasons for those preferences, most of the comments that gave specific reasons cited concern about potential effects on their neighborhoods, communities, and homes, in indicating support for the Orange Corridor and opposition to other corridors. Many of these responders cited the fact that communities have planned around the Orange Corridor and residents have made location decisions based on the Orange Corridor since its protection in 1996 and 1997. Many responders also indicated an opinion that minimizing impacts on homes, businesses, and neighborhoods should take precedence over minimizing impacts on natural resources. For the smaller number of responders that specifically mentioned considerations east of I-40, many also indicated that since a route similar to the Green Corridor has been shown on planning maps for the past two decades, they have also made location decisions based on that assumed location for completing the 540 outer loop. 10 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 Among the small number of respondents (4 percent) expressing support for the Purple and/or Blue Corridors west of I-40, many typically mentioned that growth and traffic patterns have resulted in a greater need for the project farther south than the Orange Corridor. Among the respondents who expressed support for the Red Corridor (2 percent) and those who expressed support for the Lilac Corridor (2 percent), many typically cited potential environmental and/or neighborhood effects as their reasons. While the large majority of public comments dealt with preference for or opposition to certain DSAs or color-coded corridor segments, other issues were cited in some of the public comments. Some of the more common issues raised include: • Questions about whether traffic/to11 revenue on the existing portions of NC 540 is meeting the 1evels predicted by NCDOT. • Concern about the perceived unfairness of tolling the extension of the 540 Outer Loop into southern Wake County when the northern sections of the Outer Loop are not tolled. • Statements citing the fact that, since the mid-1990s, the decisions local residents have been making about where to live and local governments have been making about future land use plans have been based on the belief that the project would be constructed along the protected corridor (Orange Corridor). • Questions about why the project has taken so long and why NCDOT didn't start the environmental documentation process after the protected corridor was established. • Questions about why NCDOT can't just widen existing roads (e.g., NC 55, NC 42, Ten Ten Road) instead of building a new road. • Questions about where noise barriers will be constructed and when a noise impact study will be done. 2.3 PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENTS There have been two previous series of public meetings held for the public to review potential routes under consideration and other study materials. Large numbers of public comments were submitted around the time each of those series of public meetings were held. The first series of ineetings was held in September and December 2010; over 2,300 comments were received during or following those meetings. Like the current public meetings and Public Hearing, most comments from 2010 addressed route preferences or opposition, with about 90 percent of comments expressing support for the Orange Corridor and large numbers expressing opposition to the Blue, Purple, Red, and Tan Corridors. The second series of ineetings was held in October 2013; over 1,100 comments were received during or following those meetings, with most expressing support for the Orange Corridor and opposition to the Purple, Blue, Lilac, Red, and/or Tan Corridors. In addition to comments submitted during comment periods following these public meetings, local residents used many other methods to stress support for the Orange Corridor and opposition to the Purple, Blue, Lilac, Red, and/or Tan Corridors. These included submitting e-mails to complete540@ncdot.gov, calling the project's toll-free telephone hotline, and submitting organized petitions. More detailed information about public comments generated prior to November 2015 can be found in the project's Stakeholder Involvement Report (Lochner, 2015). 2.4 PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY When considered together over the iive years of soliciting public comments on potential routes under consideration for the Complete 540 project, there is a clear pattern of overwhelming support for the Orange Corridor west of I-40. There is also a clear pattern of opposition to the Purple, Blue, Lilac, Red and Tan Corridors. Throughout this time, comments have continued to cite concern about potential 11 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 effects on neighborhoods and communities in indicating support for the Orange Corridor and opposition to other corridors. Comments have continued to cite the fact that communities have planned around the Orange Corridor and residents have made location decisions based on the Orange Corridor since its protection in 1996 and 1997. Commenters have also often indicated an opinion that minimizing impacts on homes, businesses, and neighborhoods should take precedence over minimizing impacts on natural resources. 3 OVERVIEW OF OTHER LOCAL INVOLVEMENT 3.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS Several local governments in the Complete 540 project area submitted formal comments and/or passed official resolutions concerning the project. Copies of these comments are in Appendix C. Most of these comments and resolutions specifically addressed the project's DSAs. Local government comments and resolutions addressing the project's DSAs are noted in Table 4. Most of the comments from the local governments expressed clear support for project overall and specific color-coded corridors. Table 4: Local Government Comments/Resolutions on DSAs Local DSA/Corridor Opposed Government Preference? DSAs/Corridors Other Information Holly Springs Orange Corridor None noted . Purple and Blue Corridors would be (Resolution — more disruptive to Holly Springs and 6/16/15) Fuquay-Varina and would eliminate parkland. • Town has utilized the Protected Corridor (Orange) to plan for existing and future development. Fuquay-Varina Orange Corridor None noted . Purple and Blue Corridors would have (Resolution — greater expense and human impact 6/16/15) on the residents of Fuquay-Varina. • Town has utilized the Protected Corridor (Orange) to plan for existing and future development. Garner Orange Corridor None noted . Town has utilized the Protected (Resolution — Corridor (Orange) to plan for existing 7/7/15) and future development. Wake County Orange Corridor Blue, Purple, Red, . County has utilized the Protected Board of and Lilac Corridor (Orange) to plan for existing Commissioners Corridors and future development. (Resolution — • County landowners have relied upon 9/8/15) the protected Orange Corridor for many years as they have made investment decisions. Wake County Orange Corridor None noted . Purple and Blue Corridors would Mayors' appear to be more disruptive to Association residents of Wake County and (Resolution — eliminate parkland. 9/23/2015) 12 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 Table 4: Local Government Comments/Resolutions on DSAs Local DSA/Corridor Opposed Other Information Government Preference? DSAs/Corridors Garner Orange Corridor Red and Lilac . Red Corridor would negatively impact (Letter — Corridors a large number of neighborhoods and 12/16/15) residences in Garner. • Red Corridor would negatively affect town parks and other facilities. • Red Corridor would negatively affect existing and planned commercial areas, thereby negatively affecting the town's tax base. • Lilac Corridor would cause a large number of residential relocations in Garner area and would affect the City of Raleigh Wastewater Biosolids facility. Raleigh DSA #2 Red, Lilac, Green, . Red Corridor would directly affect the (letter — 1/5/16) (Orange Corridor Brown, and Tan Swift Creek Watershed Area, a critical and Mint Corridors water source. Corridor) . Lilac Corridor would directly affect water treatment sprayfields and an associated holding pond. • Green Corridor would affect the proposed school sites in Randleigh Farm and would affect more of Randleigh Farm than other options. • Brown Corridor would negatively affect the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant and a City/County Law Enforcement Training Center shooting range. • City opposes Tan Corridor due to communit impacts. Benson Orange Corridor None noted . Orange Corridor would decrease (letter— 1/7/16) commute times and would better serve truck traffic heading west from Benson than existing I-40. Note: NCDOT also received e-mail correspondence from the Town of Cary on 1/7/16, but this did not specifically address support far or opposition to project DSAs. City of Raleigh staff inet with USACE representatives and members of the project team on March 3, 2016, to discuss the relative impacts of the Orange, Lilac, Teal, and Brown Corridors on city-owned wastewater and water treatment infrastructure in the project area. During this meeting, City staff provided detailed information on the potential for the Lilac, Teal, and Brown Corridors to jeopardize the current and long-term ability of the City to provide both potable water and domestic wastewater treatment services. Following this meeting, the City of Raleigh submitted a letter to NCDOT on March 17, 2016, summarizing this information. A copy of the letter is in Appendix C. 3.2 PREVIOUS LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS Local governments have provided comments relating to the project's DSAs at various points in the project study. In particular, local governments provided comments throughout the project development process and following release of the project's Draft Alternatives Development and Analysis Report 13 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 (Lochner, 2012). Local governments have passed numerous resolutions and sent numerous letters addressing the project's DSAs throughout the study. Table 5 summarizes this local input during the project development. Consistently there has been local government support for the Orange Corridor and strong 1oca1 government opposition to the Red, Purple/Blue, and Lilac Corridors. More detailed information about the previous agency comments generated can be found in the project's Stakeholder Involvement Report (Lochner, 2015). Table 5: Previous Local Government Resolutions Local Government DSA/Corridor Opposed Preference? DSAs/Corridors Holly Springs Orange Corridor None noted (Resolution — 9/21/2010) Garner Orange Corridor Red Corridor (Resolution — 10/4/2010) Wake County Board of Commissioners Orange Corridor Blue, Purple, and Red (Resolution — 10/18/2010) Corridors Fuquay-Varina Orange Corridor None noted (Resolution — 10/19/2010) Knightdale None noted (Resolution — 10/20/2010) (general project None noted support) Capital Area MPO Orange Corridor None noted (Resolution — 10/20/2010) Capital Area MPO None noted Red and Tan Corridors (Resolution — 3/16/2011) Capital Area MPO None noted (Resolution — 5/16/2012) (general project None noted support) Holly Springs Orange Corridor None noted (Resolution — 10/1/2013) Wake County Board of Commissioners Orange and Green None noted (Resolution — 10/21/2013) Corridors Garner Orange Corridor None noted (Resolution — 10/22/2013) Capital Area MPO Orange Corridor None noted (Resolution — 11/20/2013) 3.3 COMMENTS FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS The Regional Transportation Alliance and the Morrisville Chamber of Commerce submitted comments expressing clear support for project overalL The Garner Chamber of Commerce has stated its formal opposition to the Red Corridor. The YMCA of Garner has stated its formal support for the Orange Corridor and opposition to the Red Corridor. The Southern Environmental Law Center submitted a letter detailing their concerns about the analyses used in the project, indicating a clear opposition to a new location roadway alternative for the project, 14 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 and suggesting that NCDOT give greater consideration to other options, such as improving existing roadways. 4 OVERVIEW OF AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 4.1 AGENCY COORDINATION MEETINGS Agency coordination meetings have been held throughout the project development process to present information about the project, receive comments on project studies, and solicit issues and concerns from the federal, state, and local resource and regulatory agencies participating in the Complete 540 study process. Table 6 summarizes the resource and regulatory agency meetings that have been held for the proj ect. Table 6: Summa of Resource and Re ulato A enc Meetin s Agency Meeting Date Purpose December 8, 2009 Introduce project, draft project study area, Notice of Intent, and draft Section 6002 Coordination Plan February 16, 2010 Scoping meeting — discussed project study area environmental features and community characteristics and potential issues of concern August 10, 2010 Discuss draft Purpose and Need Statement, alternatives screening process, preliminary study alternatives, and draft Section 6002 Coordination Plan September 8, 2010 Continue discussion on draft Purpose and Need Statement, alternatives screening, and preliminary study alternatives November 2, 2010 Continue discussion on alternatives screening and discuss results of Public Informational Meetings, including public comments January 20, 2011 Continue discussion of alternatives development and analysis August 22, 2012 Discuss project advancement December 12, 2012 Discuss project status September 19, 2013 Discuss revised Draft Alternatives Development and Analysis Report and recommended Detailed Study Alternatives December 12, 2013 Finalize Detailed Study Alternatives November 13, 2014 Discuss appropriate locations and lengths of bridges over natural resources along the projecYs DSAs December 2, 2014 Field review meeting to reach agreement on appropriate hydraulic conveyance structure at four sites August 19, 2015 Discuss project status and reader friendly format for Draft EIS February 17, 2016 Discuss Draft Preferred Alternative Report March 16, 2016 Informational meeting on development of functional preliminary plans for DSAs 4.2 AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS Following publication of the Draft EIS, NCDOT received formal review comments from several federal and state agencies. Table 7 lists each of the four agencies that submitted comments specifically addressing the project's DSAs, notes whether the agency indicated any preference among the project's 15 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 DSAs, and indicates other key information the agency provided about its perspective on the DSAs. Copies of all the comments received from federal and state agencies are in Appendix C. Table 7: Federal and State Agency Review Comments on DSAs Agency pre e ence? Comments • DSAs 6 and 7(Red Corridor) have lowest impacts on wetlands & streams and the least direct and indirect effects on the dwarf wedgemussel (DWM). • USFWS understands the intense opposition to the Red Corridor due to its disproportionate impacts on the human environment. • DSAs 1 through 5(Orange Corridor) greatly minimize impacts US Fish & to human environment; however, they have great potential to Wildlife None noted adversely affect the DWM. USFWS finds the Orange Corridor Service very problematic. (11/25/15) • DSAs 8 through 17 (Lilac Corridor) would have very similar, albeit somewhat lesser adverse effects on the DWM. • Ability to propagate DWM and augment the population in Swift Creek will factor significantly in analysis to determine whether the Complete 540 project will jeopardize the continued existence of the species. • USFWS would prefer that the Clemmons Educational State Forest not be impacted. US • Notes that DSAs 6 and 7"appear to most closely meet the Environmental Complete 540's `Purpose and Need." Protection None noted ' Environmentally prefers DSAs 6 and 7 as having least impacts Agency to jurisdictional streams and wetlands. (1/4/16) • Finds DSAs 8-17 problematic because they would have the most potential to induce indirect effects. National Marine • Prefers DSAs 6 and 7 because they avoid impacts to shad Fisheries DSAs 6& 7 and striped bass and their habitats in Swift Creek, would have ServiCe smaller impacts to the Neuse River, and would impact the 12/15/15 smallest amount of wetlands and streams. • Indirect and cumulative effects of the project on induced land NC Wildlife development will be a key aspect in selecting the Least Resources Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). Commission None noted . NCWRC has concerns about the effect of continued (12/9/15) development in the lower Swift Creek watershed, below the Lake Benson dam, on long-term viability of the DWM and other sensitive aquatic species. Note: NCDOT also received comment letters from the U.S. Deparnnent of the Interior, U.S. Deparnnent of Agriculture, North Carolina Division of Water Resources, and North Carolina Division of Waste Management. These comment letters did not specifically address support for ar opposition to project DSAs but they are included in Appendix C 4.3 AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT Following distribution of the Draft Preferred Alternative Report, NCDOT received written comments from several federal and state agencies. Copies of these comments are in Appendix C. Table 8 lists each of the agencies that submitted comments on the Draft Preferred Alternative Report and summarizes those comments. None of the agencies identified any Issues of Concern relative to selection of DSA 2 16 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 as the Preferred Alternative for the Complete 540 project, either in written comments or in oral comments at Interagency Meetings. Table 8: Federal and State Agency Review Comments on Draft Preferred Alternative Report Agency Comments NC Wildlife Resources • Concerned that potential negative effects in area watersheds will continue Commission to degrade aquatic habitat 2/23/16 • Concerned about high wetland, stream, and buffer impacts. NC Division of . Avoidance of Water Supply Critical Area watersheds by DSA 2 is a Water Resources positive. 2/25/16 • Concerned about high wetland, stream, and buffer impacts. • Would like to see information on impacts to forested land, floodways, and US Environmental 500-year floodplain. Protection • Would like to see preliminary designs for DSA 2 and DSA 7. Agency • Would like to see quantitative information on indirect and cumulative (3/10/16)* effects. • Would like to see information on predicted pollutant loading and avoidance/minimization measures to reduce this effect. US Army Corps of Engineers • No objections to proceeding with DSA 2 as the Preferred Alternative. 3/18/16 * Preliminary designs were presented to the agencies at the March 16, 2016, informational Interagency Meeting. A quantitative assessment of indirect and cumulative effects is being prepared to compare the build to the no-build scenario; the results will be included in the Final EIS. Impacts to forested land, floodways, and the 500-year floodplain were not a notable factor in comparing the project DSAs; these items, along with more information about minimization of pollutant loading, wi11 be included in the Final EIS. 4.4 PREVIOUS AGENCY COMMENTS Agencies have provided comments relating to the project's DSAs at various points in the project study. In particular, federal and state agencies provided comments following release of the project's Draft Alternatives Development and Analysis Report (Lochner, 2012). More detailed information about the previous agency comments generated can be found in the project's Stakeholder Involvement Report (Lochner, 2015). 5 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE All comments were reviewed. The comments related to the recommendation of the Preferred Alternative or include a request for additional information by a commenting agency are included below. Other substantive comments that were received, including those related to purpose and need, alternatives development, preliminary designs, construction, the study process, Draft EIS format, project finance, neighborhoods, natural resources, traffic, and interagency coordination will be addressed in the Final EIS. There were also editorial comments received about the Draft EIS — these will also be addressed in the Final EIS. 17 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 The following additional studies will be completed and discussed with the agencies prior to completing the Final EIS: • Updated traffic forecast and analysis for the Preferred Alternative. • Findings of detailed archaeological field surveys. • Additional findings of dwarf wedgemussel viability studies and related research. • Mainline and crossroad design refinements and associated changes in right-of-way and impacts in response to comments on the Draft EIS, as well as addition and modification of service roads. • Quantitative study of the indirect and cumulative effects of the Preferred Alternative on land use and water quality. Comment: Climate change/greenhouse gas emissions should be addressed, incorporating scenarios froin the National Climate Assessment. Response: This topic will be investigated further for possible inclusion in the Final EIS. Based on current understanding, this topic would not have a marked impact on the selection of a Preferred Alternative as all DSAs would have comparable results. Comment: Insufficient information is provided about demographics, including presences of and effects on environmental justice communities. Response: Pages 74 and 75 in the Draft EIS report a summary of potential relocation effects to communities meeting the criteria for environmental justice consideration. The Community Impact Assessment (Lochner, 2015) fully documents the community demographics within the project study area. FHWA and NCDOT consider the methodology used to identify potential environmental justice communities to be sufficient. These standard study procedures have been used on all recent and current studies of this nature. Two mobile home parks would have relocations impacts. One is located along all corridors except the Purple/Blue Corridor and the other is located along the Green Corridor where it is common the all DSAs. The relocation impacts are 17 and 6, respectively. These impacts have been shown to not be disproportional with other communities along the DSAs. Comment: Address impacts tofloodways, the S00 yearfloodplain, terrestrialforests, uniquefarmlands, soils/minerals, and community cohesion. Response: Floodplain impacts are described on pages 93 and 94 of the Draft EIS; potential impacts to the 100-year floodplain are reported in the Comparative Evaluation Matrix on page 108. Impacts to the floodway and the 500-year floodplain will be addressed in the Final EIS. Pages 29 and 94 in the Draft EIS address terrestrial habitat, which is addressed in greater detail in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Mulkey, 2014). Pages 98 and 100 in the Draft EIS summarize potential impacts to farmlands and prime farmland soils are included in the Comparative Evaluation Matrix on page 109. This topic is further discussed in the Community Impact Assessment (Lochner, 2015); Appendix F of this report includes the farmland conversion impact rating forms, developed in collaboration with the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). NRCS did not distinguish between prime and unique farmland soils. Other than farmland soils, no other soils/minerals are included in any applicable Executive Order or regulation, and these have not been raised as an issue that will affect project decision making by any agency or the public. For this reason, it was not included in the Draft EIS. 18 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 Community cohesion effects are described on pages 80 and 91 of the Draft EIS, with greater detail in the Community Impact Assessment (Lochner, 2015). Comment: Address study area population 's use and consumption of environmental resources. Response: Use and consumption of environmental resources is not included in any applicable Executive Order or regulation, and has not been raised as an issue that will affect project decision making by any agency or the public. For this reason, it was not included in the Draft EIS. Comment: Address impacts to future land use and transportation plans, commercial corridors and nodes, emergency services, and relocations (ability to secure affordable housing), mobility, and access. Response: A11 of these items are discussed in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS, with much greater detail presented in the Community Impact Assessment (Lochner, 2015). Comment: Impacts to planned Holly Springs Park should be considered Section 4(�. Response: As described in the Draft EIS, impacts to the planned Sunset Oaks Park in Holly Springs are indeed considered Section 4(� impacts. Comment: Address impacts to Neuse River WWTP guardhouse and City of Raleigh solar array (Brown Corridor). Response: These potential impacts will be verified and applicable information will be updated in the Final EIS and on project maps. However, the current preliminary functional plans for the Brown Corridor do not impact either of these resources. 6 MINIMIZATION EFFORTS AND IMPACT REDUCTION All 17 DSAs already incorporate some measures to avoid and minimize impacts. As would be expected with the placement of a six-lane divided, controlled-access highway in an urban or urbanizing setting, complete avoidance of resources is not possible. However, alignments were adjusted for each color- coded corridor segment to avoid or minimize impacts. Additionally, interchange configurations were developed and reviewed to meet trafiic needs as well as to avoid and minimize impacts. Further measures to avoid and minimize impacts will be incorporated into the final design of the highway facility to the maximum extent practicable. Measures to mitigate for unavoidable impacts will also be incorporated into the project. 6.1 WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND PONDS Initial alignments for the 17 DSAs were established to avoid known, mapped natural resources as much as possible. As technical studies generated more detailed information for these resources, preliminary functional designs were further adjusted and refined to minimize impacts to these resources. Various configurations were considered for each planned interchange location. Avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands, streams, and ponds was a key factor in selecting which interchange configuration to incorporate at each location along with traffic operational characteristics of the interchange and its ability serve traffic needs. 19 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 There are a total of over 1,200 natural system sites, which include wetlands, streams and ponds, inside the study corridors along the roughly 100 total miles of the DSAs. To further address avoidance and minimization of impacts to the sites along the 17 DSAs, the study team met with environmental resource and regulatory agencies at interagency meetings on November 13 and December 2, 2014, to discuss bridging decisions and review alignments. The alignment modifications and bridging changes made to the DSAs as a result of this coordination further minimized impacts to streams and wetlands beyond the basic requirements for hydraulic conveyance. Table 9 shows the 17 locations along the various color- coded corridor segments where bridging has been incorporated to avoid or minimize stream and wetland impacts, along with the estimated impact reductions for each bridge. The additional bridging along DSA 2(recommendation for the Preferred Alternative) reduces wetland impacts by 24.5 acres and reduces stream impacts by 5,289 linear feet. Additional impact reductions will be examined during final design of the project. This effort will be coordinated with environmental resource and regulatory agencies. Table 9: Impact Reductions Associated with Bridging Hydraulically Agreed Stream Wetland Site Number and Corridor and Impact Impact Stream Crossing DSA Structu e Str cture Reduction Reduction (linear feet) (acres) 1 Middle Creek Orange DSA 1-17 Culvert Bridge 136 — 1A Middle Creek Orange DSA 1-17 Culvert Bridge 164 — 8 Tributary to Middle Orange DSA 1-7 & Culvert Bridge — 2.3 Creek 13-17 16 Juniper Branch Orange DSA 1-5 & Culvert Bridge 451 1.8 13-17 21 Tributary to Swift Orange DSA 1-5 Culvert Bridge 2,411 6.4 Creek 24 Tributary to Swift Orange DSA 1-5 Culvert Culvert and 1,846 10.4 Creek Brid es 33 Tributary to Neuse Green DSA 1-17 Culvert Bridge 281 2.7 River 35 Yates Branch Red DSA 6-7 Bridge Longer _ 13.9 Brid e 41 Mahlers Creek Red DSA 6-7 Bridge Longer 387 2.1 Brid e 43 White Oak Creek Red DSA 6-7 Culvert Brid e 1,126 6.4 45 White Oak Creek Brown DSA 3-4, gridge Longer 722 2 4 10-11, & 15-16 Brid e 46 Little Creek Brown DSA 3-4, Culvert Bridge 147 4.2 10-11, & 15-16 49 Tributary to Neuse Brown DSA 4-5, Culvert Bridge 565 2.2 River 11-12, & 16-17 54 Swift Creek Lilac DSA 8-17 Bridge Longer �6 0.5 Brid e 63 Tributary to Swift Orange DSA 1-5 Bridge Longer _ � 9 Creek Bridge 68 Terrible Creek Purple DSA 8-12 Bridge Longer 106 2.0 Brid e 74 Little Creek Blue DSA 8-12 Culvert Brid e 434 0.1 TOTALS 8,853 58.4 6.2 SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA DSAs 6 and 7(Red Corridor) impact the Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area. All other DSAs (1-5 and 8-17) avoid impacting this watershed critical area. Efforts have been made with the preliminary 20 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 functional plans for DSAs 6 and 7 to minimize this unavoidable impact. Bridges are proposed at Swift Creek both for hydraulic conveyance as well as reducing impacts to the watershed critical area. Lengthening these bridges has also reduced this impact. DSA 2, the recommendation for the Preferred Alternative, has no impact on this critical watershed area. Water quality impact minimization will be achieved through effective use of appropriate best management practices during construction and operation of this highway. Details on these best management practices will be developed as the project development process continues through coordination with appropriate environmental resource and regulatory agencies. 6.3 DWARF WEDGEMUSSEL The recommendation for the Preferred Alternative (DSA 2) as well all other DSAs except DSAs 6 and 7(Red Corridor) have direct impact to suitable habitat for the federally protected dwarf wedgemussel (DWM) in and along Swift Creek. Coordination efforts are in progress with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on suitable mechanisms for protecting the viability of DWM in Swift Creek. DSAs 6 and 7 cross Swift Creek upstream of the Lake Benson dam, avoiding direct impacts to DWM habitat. DSAs 6 and 7 do cross streams that feed into Swift Creek below Lake Benson, such as Mahler Creek and White Oak Creek, but these crossings are near the headwaters of these streams near the limits of the Swift Creek watershed. Based on DWM and water quality analysis performed for this project, the long term viability of the DWM population in Swift Creek appears to be threatened. However, active management and increased habitat protection may increase the chances for long term viability. Management being considered to promote long term DWM viability include in-stream habitat monitoring, population augmentation using captive propagation techniques, continued targeted water quality monitoring, and establishing a DWM- focused stakeholder group in the lower Swift Creek watershed. Appropriate management strategies will be determined through continued coordination with USFWS. Water quality impact minimization will be achieved through effective use of appropriate best management practices during construction and operation of this highway. Details on these best management practices will be developed as the project development process continues through coordination with appropriate environmental resource and regulatory agencies. 7 CONCLUSION The key considerations in identifying DSA 2 as the Preferred Alternative are listed below. This list does not represent all the bene�ts or effects of DSA 2, but instead focuses on those elements that differentiated DSA 2 compared to the other DSAs. • Because DSA 2 follows the Orange Corridor west of I-40, it is part of the group of DSAs that would require substantially fewer relocations than the groups of DSAs following the Red, PurpleBlue, or Lilac Corridors west of I-40. DSAs using the Red, PurpleBlue, or Lilac Corridors would result in 60 to 100 percent more relocations than DSA 2. • DSA 2 would avoid all historic sites and all non-de minimis impacts to Section 4(� resources. • DSA 2 would avoid the Swift Creek Critical Watershed Area. • DSA 2 would avoid impacts to the Neuse wastewater treatment sprayfields in the project area and would also avoid impacts to the Raleigh police training center on Battle Bridge Road. 21 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 • DSA 2 would affect a smaller number of linear feet of streams than 11 of the other 16 DSAs. • The Orange Corridor has broad public support and has been formally supported by nearly all local governments. • Because it follows the Orange Corridor, DSA 2 would have a lower potential to induce development conflicting with local plans than options using the PurpleBlue Corridor. • By following the Mint Corridor, DSA 2 would result in slightly smaller impacts to streams and wetlands than the similar DSA 1. • While both the Green and Mint Corridors would affect the planned Randleigh Farm development, the Mint Corridor would shift the impacts closer to the edge of the property, allowing more of the property to be developed according to existing plans. • The Mint Corridor is the only option east of I-40 that has not been formally opposed by any of the local governments in the proj ect area and has been formally supported by the City of Raleigh. • DSA 2 would be the least costly alternative. • None of the environmental resource and regulatory agencies has identified any Issues of Concern with respect to selecting DSA 2 as the Preferred Alternative. 22 Preferred Alternative Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — April 2016 APPENDIX A Individual Maps of the Detailed Study Alternatives Appendix A - 1 1 , _ � , � _ , �� ; � � �- — ' _ � � � --- - , ,� � : � �� ,_ � ��. L I r . _ . � r � , �I � � o � �- � �+` ,�� ` _ ��-', � �` KNIGHTDALE I � � ;- � -- � . - - 1 . � ��--� _ _ � �� '-- � "'�� - � , . .. � � � , �� ,�. � �� , � RALEIGH � ,� �� --. u . _ , �, � � � � � � - — _ �� ` �� — — �--- �----- � � , , „�, � � ,— , �'`,; � , .�. ,� - ---- — i -� �� r�. �� -� �- � � - . ,�'- " C A R Y � � � --� ! � � ; ; � 64 � 264 , � � �� . � �. �� . �r. � �� -�Tt� �'-- 64 � = � �. -, � _ '�, , � �, _, � � �� I -�� _� � . _ , - - , , � , i ' � ��,' , � � -�- � . �' � c� .._ - � �� `- � �� i rr L � � � . -`--�- � f� � . , � � �., � � � : � �,�,� � , - -�; � � � � �- > <_� � �� 5 5 -�_-.r ' � J t �" �,/- ! ��- P J y ' � I . . � 7' � � � .�- , a _� � '�' i i APEX ��C "i�-� � - �' A � �r%' �' '� � ,, - 1 , ,, ;� —� 1 ' � ��' '� ` � � � � � ,M„ „ � = �� -r'= � � g T � � �.'� - � � I � � �� ' � '� � --� �� I r �, , , � � —s� _ — — � 4 ' _ �� — I , —� � � L — — " O1 ' 7� , . � ' °� ose R' ; , � ` __— ,*__��—�u�-- > � � Ne �. � �, � - �,i La �... GARNER � _ / � P r� / i k �TOLL i �� , L� l�.-. vhee` - � �L� ' , �;� er � > L - � � � � 540 �� , ; , �� " =� ' _� � � � ��_ -" � � -;<. � / '-� � e�. � Rd �. � � ,,� �d , � ,.� ��- �� '�....�� ` J � � � ; � 1 ! p � Te 'v` �, � . � J I_� � � � � ��e�� ._:_�.� � �� —/ � �� J �. � �� i nsot�., . � ` ,�/4. � I �, , , � \ �, � HOLLY -� '�� '� >�; � � A�. � j �'�� , � � , �n ,� �; i__ � �� + z, u, �< �. �� , � . — I � . SPRINGS ��, s L Ten'Te� � rjQ ;% � j CLAYTON I � C _. - L� L' a . QO, � � ; � , � . � __ �- '� � / ��r .` '_ �� I t � ` , r} - J � � � � � i � � � t� - _ , � �- � � � �� ° . � , r �� ` - �, ; ao� ,- � , � ��-. � 5 �' , �� s �� ;� r � 55 - , _. d� , �'o�, � � s ' , ' � 70 �� °', � I , r ! � �.� �. � � ;J '�. ...... ♦ �'� ° � —�� 'reek �� V �� s� �� - _ � �,ek �i N � � �` '� � � 42 �� `�. I � w., � �' �� . �` , �� ,�� 42 � ,, �: ��—�' 0 1 2 s a -� Q � � � � ' r t �-� � � i i VARINA , t � . J _ _ _ ,. FU UAY- —, _ ---- — _ , . / � �� miles - _, � �_ _ p � � .. I u ^ ., . � ._ � . �� (approximate) � 401 � � i 55 ��-- �� ; I ��` � � � . _ Ji �� ' L ,��`.' t � 5 r' �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 1 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 2 1 , _ � , � ' r ��- ' ` `�� i � , °� ; i �- -- _ � —. _ ,i � . , �� _ , i - z:; � �� I - � � _ _ - � �- � r;� _ -� � � �� ; ��-,, �� ` KNIGHTDALE i � �, ; � o _ I , , , � � _ �,� . � 1, _ _ u .; - , � .�. ,�-� � , �� ,�. � � �� , � RALEIGH � �� -- � _ , � �, �. � � �� - �,---- ' __ — � _ � � � � :< ,� � ;� , „� I � , .�. - -- -- � � `,, � , .�. ,� - — — - — i -' . �r�. �� -� �- � ...� � CARY � � -- ! ',, , �� . 64 �264 , � � , ,� � : , � � � � � . �` -� � I � �'` �r. � �� ' � -� � / `-- 64 - � - - ' �', - , i � � � � --, L, � � .� � - � _ti ., _� � , �` i � � I �` I � , � �� _ �� _ � � � �� , . _ � �'t ',_ �` �� „ �_ . 1 r r' �_ � � u � � � � i ,, -----�7, � , _ � � � � .� � �t, �r—r . � � _ . �,n ' 5 5 �- + ' � � J t �" �-� -��- P „y`�"`'� � � "' I � , ` .� ��. - . , :� _� � , � -� _ , � �, ; 1 � � � APEX `� � t � -� �'� _ � � • � �� ' � � � , �. - � 1 , -i � � �J.�% � � _ ' , � � � -� � � � ' "�_� � �� s,= +' � S T U� �,,,� � _ ; � � " ,� � , , _ _'� � �� _j �, �, � �� ►�� —� �--� , � � � � '�� J. ,—� - �, iL � � � - 401 ' 70 , ' � -' Ne�se Ri � , - - ' . � � r� � �� - _ �' � � � � '� �i� i ' ,.� Lak `�`� �� GARNER � ' _ / �� / P y y .. � TOLL i �`i L L� � �Y" hee� �, '` � / �/i , � , � • er � � - - � 540 —E� � � �� ,� , ��-� / - f� � ��_ -_ ,. � � ��< � �� / --� �� —��1 �_� p �eo.TenRd y� ' � '`�� I� � j� ' � `J � ,.� -; ; a �� z � � � � � � —�� eens�� l \ �?�✓ � � " � —� i �� , ,�� \ � i �� I �,�� HOLLY =�. �_ �� '��, � „, /�� L�"' � . �. � z- �n ,�. ` i _ : � — u, <' ,. , � SPRINGS � � ��0'Te� � rjQ ��;% � j CLAYTON � i � � C �� o �QO, � . � .. - � , �_ � s� :� � � �� , l� I r� � r-~ � �� _� ^I'� - � f ' � ��'�� ` �_ ♦ 4�� q �' �• � � � � �., , �� . � i � �� : � ` +�"fi � 55 ,._ d� � ; �'o�, � � s i� � i °� � � _� � ; � �� ,� � � 70 � � . . ..., J' � ....,. � J f �' o --�`' i�'h �' '� � �, �1 S7 � � � L�li �� e ek �� ' � i � � �� , - _ � Pek �� N � ,. , � �` '� �� 42 �� . � �� w" - n � ` � � I � 42 �� ` ``� � f, }, s: —�� 0 1 2 3 4 � -� Q � r �-� � � i i VARINA , t � � . J . �� ( PP a ) � " . i � �� . ,, . ... .. �� ',�,. . � miles � u� � � � � � — 42 _ 401 J �J�J � �4� J - --, a roxim te '� e, �\`' � � � � �, L ,��`.'- t �5 r- �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 2 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange 0 Green 0 Mint indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 3 1 , _ � , � _ , �� ; � � �- — ' _ � � � --- - , ,� � : � �� ,_ � ��. L I r . _ . � r � , �I � � o � �- � �+` ,�� ` _ ��-', � �` KNIGHTDALE I � � ;- � -- � . - - 1 . � ��--� _ _ � �� '-- � "'�� - � , . .. � � � , �� ,�. � �� , � RALEIGH � ,� �� --. u . _ , �, � � � � � � - - _ �� ` �� - - �--- �----- � � , , „�, � � ,- , �'`,; � , .�. ,� - ---- — i -� �� r�. �� -� �- � � - . ,�'- " C A R Y � � � --� ! � � ; ; � 64 � 264 , � � �� . � �. �� . �r. � �� -�Tt� �'-- 64 � = � �. -, � _ '�, , � �, _, � � �� I -�� _� � . _ , - - , , � , i ' � ��,' , � � -�- � . �' � c� .._ � �`- I � - i r r' 7�� ... .. _ � _ ._ .. : �. . r . � ,� —_.. 7 � �- i . , ' ' � � � �,�,. � , �y � � 1 � �, � � � , � � r�, �,` � � r F � � � ��.-� ��=�� ,.�'� ' ; � ;-r, �� 1 s �� ° -=-� 55 �-�- ��1,. � ,,� �-- t P 1 APEX � �� — > � � � �, .� � �� %' ! : ,� , � -, � � 1 . ` �� '� �� S T � �`'� � . ' `�� `� � � ;� � �,- +� U� _ ' � `"� � � r �, � � � � a �� ► �," � �, � � � � ��-s� �,��-►�� - � � / -� —� � iL, _ � � � _ 401 ' 70 -' � ' Ne°Se R�� _, � _-- , ,� _ � _ -„ - - � �> � � r� l j�-- � J�- - '�;.i tak T... GARNER � _ / � � P � TOLL - �� L� �.�� Y• ��ae(e � - �� p _ � / � ' � r �� r� � , r1 / 540 �� , / s � -� �� _ -" � � -;<. � � '-� , I� � � ; � 1 - p �eo.Ten Rd ;y `_ � ,� � „ -� , � ' � � ` J I � f °� . � d �� d ' � � � � `� � � , l �_ �� . ��—�— - � ( �e�eenso�, .l `, � � �� . � -, - - , , I f I � , � I � � � I �✓ ' ,�� r =,, %� �/ �,� � ��1 `� � HOLLY �' �_ ' ;�� - � �� , � � �� z, u ��. � � SPRINGS `� � �- TenTe � , �� , � � • � � � _ � � ,,� � 50 r �� j CLAYTON I � . � �� ` ,, a � — / , � I � �� --� � � � �. - � , > > � � _� � � �4� � � �� ` �, ' �, - � - � '�`- �`-' - � �. � � � � � �� , ♦ � � , r � ♦ � �f 4 � t ; � , ; . _ �� 55 - ,�_ d �� , �'o�, '� � � s ' 70 �� i� � ` . ' � � ., � � ��, � _ ��-J .�l � '� ' � .�, � C�� ...�. � � � �� ...� y � _t�, ♦ � � � e�k �d � �' i� � �C� `1 r _ L�1� � r , - � � �� — � eek i� N ,. , � ' ` � �" � 5 � „ � �. ' ,�. �`�� -� � � -w� �-� , .� ��, _ 42 � � � � �-' � � . � �� `-`� � 42 � ,, }. �: ��-� 0 1 2 s a � -\ Q � � ' � �� - i i VARINA , t - � . .._ . ( PP a ) / J , �---- -- -' _ ----- -- ,, � � miles — 42 � � a roxim te T u ,, J ' 401 i 55 ��-- �� : � I �� , � � _ �� , L ,��`.' t 5 r-' �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 3 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange � Brown 0 Tan 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 4 1 , _ � , � _ , �� ; � � �- — ' _ � � � --- - , ,� � : � �� ,_ � ��. L I r . _ . � r � , �I � � o � �- � �+` ,�� ` _ ��-', � �` KNIGHTDALE I � � ;- � -- � . - - 1 . � ��--� _ _ � �� '-- � "'�� - � , . .. � � � , �� ,�. � �� , � RALEIGH � ,� �� --. u . _ , �, � � � � � � - - _ �� ` �� - - �--- �----- � � , , „�, � � ,- , �'`,; � , .�. ,� - ---- — i -� �� r�. �� -� �- � � - . ,�'- " C A R Y � � � --� ! � � ; ; � 64 � 264 , � � �� . � �. �� . �r. � �� -�Tt� �'-- 64 � = � �. -, � _ '�, , � �, _, � � � �;� � I -� _� , �` � �- �� ,� �,�' ., � i � ' � �� . �� .. . _ .f:_ .� I �� .� � i r~ '_ " �` . J '.�7 ' � _ . . �� '�� 'I "� ;, � ^ ' 5 5 �-�+ ' � � J t �" � -�� - P_y y�t � , ' � �, j � , � � ; $ - a � � � �, � � �� - �, , a� � APEX . " ,t -� A � � � , ,�__; "� �'1__ � � �� u�''� � �� _ �� ' � � 1 . � _._.� -r,� �' � S T U �,,,� " _ � � ��7 � �4`- / � _ � � , � � �� , `" � �i ��'� ►�� r � I , � � � r —• i J. —� - � L,-��--�'_'� 401 ' 70 _;� -. , � , Ne�se R' j , _ , 'i� — — '�� n � � .� , a � �� r. � J_ _ ;.i tak T... GARNER � / � �; I ti P � TOLL �� `i i �.'� � �Y" �heel � � , �L� ��>., �� / ` � • �� ,r� � � - _. � ;✓� e r --o_ 540 �� , ; s � �`-' '� � � � , �n � / f. _ ---� � __�" � -�_ / I�- �� , 1 ' � p Te� Te� Rd 'v` �. � '`� � ," -� q,' � t �. / I , , � � � � 1 ; 1� � ep J �, � y� � � - ,J ' � I_--�— � � // � � � /re� � �L � �7 ----i � - j � � e sot�, y l 4, �i �`�,� � � _ � �� ` ' ,� , �, / � �� -, : � H O L LY =� � � �,�I _ f � � / ,.� ,- - _- I — i , Y _ � SPRINGS � � - ��0'Te,, � 5Q �r% � CLAYTON I � � . �� .., o .po, �� , , �_, � � . �- � `s� � � �� _ �� , � I � � � �� , , � � , � �� , ♦ �' � u �,� �- �-,� � ♦ -��-`, � 4�� ! � � �� r ' � 70 ' !� � � �� ` _" ? � � 55 ,._ d �� , �'�., "� � � s r '>� � . I� - _ � , � � � " � \��-�� J ` � � I � � .-/ � . � .. u � � ( � L�i -'� ��'eek � �� .. - '�♦ °\_ , �I t� �� - _ '�� ,e � i N � 1 ,� �� k ; � � �-�� - � 42 � �' � �� . ��` �� I � 42 . �` ``� � f, s: —�� 0 1 2 3 4 � _� Q � r t--�-� �� i i VARINA , t � � . J . �� ( PP a ) � " . i � �� . ,, . ... .. �� ',�,. . � miles � u� � � � � � 42 401 �� a roxim te '� e, �� , L ,��`.'- t �5 r- �� Detailed Study Alternative No. �F For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange � Brown 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 5 1 , _ � , � _ , �� ; � � �- — ' _ � � � --- - , ,� � : � �� ,_ � ��. L I r . _ . � r � , �I � � o � �- � �+` ,�� ` _ ��-', � �` KNIGHTDALE I � � ;- � -- � . - - 1 . � ��--� _ _ � �� '-- � "'�� - � , . .. � � � , �� ,�. � �� , � RALEIGH � ,� �� --. u . _ , �, � � � � � � - - _ �� ` �� - - �--- �----- � � , , „�, � � ,- , �'`,; � , .�. ,� - ---- — i -� �� r�. �� -� �- � � - . ,�'- " C A R Y � � � --� ! � � ; ; � 64 � 264 , � � �� . � �. �� . �r. � �� -�Tt� �'-- 64 � = � �. -, � _ '�, , � �, _, � � � �;� � I -� _� , �` � �- �� ,� �,�' ., � i � ' � �� . �� .. . _ .f:_ .� I �� .� � i r~ '_ " �` . J '.�7 ' � _ . . �� '�� 'I "� ;, � ^ ' 5 5 �-�+ ' � � J t �" � -�� - P_y y�t � , ' � �, j � , � � ; $ - a � � � �, � � �� - �, , a� � APEX . " ,t -� A � � � , ,�__; "� �'1__ � � �� u�''� � �� _ �� ' � � 1 . � _._.� -r,� �' � S T U �,,,� " _ � � ��7 � �4`- / � _ � � , � � �� , `" � �i ��'� ►�� r � I , � � � r —• i J. ,—� — � -L'__�_---'"� 401 ' 70 ,;� -. , � , - Ne�se R; � , - — ' . � � r� : �� — — " � � �' � , , ,� r. � � ' '- � �� , � � � ; � �„i L yk� �`� ' � � � �� GARNER �, '� / y •. �To�� ,z � L� � l�^ �he � �LL,r� - '' , � � I , ,� ' eLer � _• ., � ` � 540 �� , s � �`-' '� � � �j , r, . � / _� �. �, � t. -" � � -;<. � � / I� ---� Rd. � � � � � 1 � p �eo.Te� �.,y; � _. ,,� �� ,. � , � ��_ _� � I �, - � �� k e� � � � � � � � �d � � ��— . � - � � � � ��B g� �, �. � .. . ��% 7 � � �� ... � I J . . , � r . � � ��\�� , �� HOLLY � �_ ��: `',� >�, � � „�.; � � � �'�, �— � � � :,: ' � , � _ _ � � / • _ � �� SPRINGS `ti "- ��0'Te,, � � 50 �� r' � � � � j CLAYTON � I � � � - a �Q � i . �_, . - ,�' :� � � � � � � � ,�,, � �� , � I �, _ _' �� _ � � � �''�'� d � � � � , r -'� � ♦ �" �� 4 � � ,�, r- `-'� �� - , �. � , ; .:=' � � . � � , ? � I, �� 55 — ,= d v�� , '�� s ' 70 � � �� _ ,.'� � 1 ♦ i , �, m - �� - i � ♦' �� ° � _, �'r '"'a. � �� i �� `l � L�li � eek �� , i� � �� , - _ � Pek �� N � � � - `�� 42 � ,� ,, ,, � ��_ I � � " � �� ;�� 42 � ;, ' - �: ��—�' 0 1 2 s a �� Q � _ � � ' r t �� — i i VARINA , t 4 ` _ ,. FU UAY- —, _ ---- — _ , . �� , ----- --- , � , _, � . ... miles �� .: _ ' 4n � J ^ � � �� (approximate) — � � � 401 ' 55 ��-- � '' ,�_ , I ,�� ' L ,��`.' t �5 r- �� Detailed Study Alternative No. S For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange 0 Green � Teal _ Brown indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 6 I i ' _ �� - � % `a � ` `" � � / � °k i � � �- -- � � `� _ , I i � , , �� _ , I - z,; � �� I - � � _ _ - � �- � r;� _ -� � � �� ; ��-,, ��j �` KNIGHTDALE �, ! o , �� t�� . -� �� _ �. II �' -1, - � ._ _ , J [- � ,s,ii � ' , � � �� ,�. � � �� _' �� RALEIGH � ,� _' � ,� t _ i _� , �: � �, � u� �- . � �� - � - �� _ �� I" - �--- �-------- _ � � t � `� � � , ' I � � � � � : . . � �� .� � �� z � • � �� „ � ..1 i � � � �r�� C A RY � _ �. - ' �� ; � � � � 64 � 264 � � =--�- i . � i � : � � � i �� -�T t� /,__ 64 �'1 = L � -- - /;'� , ��'� � , L, � ; : � --� _� � �, '� ' ' � _ � , � � ->- . � � _ � ,�, _ ._..�-�� . . .r� �` � � � ��. �i i rr' .. � �_ ��iM� ....�� i' _ _ � ' � ^, ;, � .� . � �� = _ �^�, _ � � ; 5 5 � �--�+ , � ; � t '� � � -� �- P y y��, � ; � - � . ,, ,� � I , , � � � -� , �, i � � �� ; �� , � � , � .�! i APEX � � -�� c� � �� ' � � � �-, ,�� p� „� ' � �� -, 1 � ' 1 � � �,_ �� g T U� �,.,� � _ ; � � M � . � _ _ , �� J �, � ��, � �� -s� ��--�� -� �� - I -J —� � iL �� _'-- 401 ' 70 -� Ne�Se R; / _, _-- _ , - e,�� _ � _ �+ - � � � � .,,� , ; r. � ��-' � � � � �� ,Di Lak � " � �� GARNER � � �� / r TOLL �� L L� � �h � � , � � � ��Y.' ee�er , � 540 —F- } � ��,, �` � / � , _ _ �� ` _ I� _ � � _ �� i � � i �� ; � 1 � p �eo.Ten Rd � ' � ` J I �1 , �� , � I_ ✓-' La i � �i ` �— � � � - B � , _ � � � , � -�— � � �� enso ; �-" ��%� � � _ � _! � � � � �,�� HOLLY _. �_ �.�� _ �/ �, � � A�. �� — . I _ �— L� `ti ' � t �� . - SPRINGS `� � �- �� Teo,r �°�� ...�. ,:�� '_ � ,, ,-� ' � �� , `a � � �, e�� 50 r ,« / CLAYTON � I . o, q. , � _ � � , a � _ , ,, , r�" :� _ � ' � , �I � � , � � _ �� _� , o � , . .� _ d , � � � r , '--,� �� -� � 401 � � -�=- �, � � � � � � � � ; �� 70 ' �� ; ; � 55 _ ,._ d� � � �'�., �� , i � � `° s� � � , __ � �� 1 , � �`l � � � L�� he ek �- �., � � � �-. � � �� - _ � � Pek �i N � ,. , � � � � _ � � � �:'` .- . � `�.. �� i ` . '' �� ... � � � �� ♦ �� --� 42 � . �` � �� `,�� 42 � ,� �: ��-�' 0 1 2 s a � , _� Q � ' r t�� - i i VARINA , t � ( PP a ) _ r _ _ 1 J � �-'-- -- -_ ' _ ----- -- , � � miles r- � 42 � , �' � � a roxim te — ,� J � 401 i 55 ��-- � , I ,�� ' L ,��`.' t �5 r- �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 6 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange _ Red 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 7 I i ' _ �� - � % `a � ` `" � � / � °k i � � �- -- � � `� _ , I i � , , �� _ , I - z,; � �� I - � � _ _ - � �- � r;� _ -� � � �� ; ��-,, ��j �` KNIGHTDALE �, ! o , �� t�� . -� �� _ �. II �' -1, - � ._ _ , J [- � ,s,ii � ' , � � �� ,�. � � �� _' �� RALEIGH � ,� _' � ,� t _ i _� , �: � �, � u� �- . � �� — � — �� _ �� I" - �--- �-------- _ � � t � `� � � , ' I � � � � � : . . � �� .� � �� z � • � �� „ � ..1 i � � � �r�� C A RY � _ �. - ' �� ; � � � � 64 � 264 � � =--�- i . � i � : � � � i �� -�T t� /,__ 64 �'1 = L � -- - /;'� , ��'� � , L, � ; : � --� _� � �, '� ' ' � _ � , � � ->- . � � _ � ,�, _ ._.. �-�� . . .r � �` � � � �� . �i i rr' � �. "��1"�� .....�� i ' _ _ � ' � ^, ;, � .� . � _ �� ' 5 5 �--�+ ' � � t �" �-� -� �- P �, �. "„ � ; � � ' 1 . ,� ,s � I; �, , a _:� ,�— ,�� - �r � -- i APEX ` � � �,-� � � � �� ' � _, � � � - �-� r" A1 � � _ .1 . � � r ;� � 1 ; � 1� � r �� . , � � � � �_ ,� � � � U�� ; � �M -.�--�-�,� I . � � � � �,� �� J �, � ��, � �� -s� ��►--- � _ �� - I J —� � iL � � - _' - 401 ' 70 ' � Ne°Se R�� _, - _-- �,_- � � >> �� ,,� _ _ - �� - � - ��,.� t � �� GARNER � --!� � � i ak � � � �� I ` �TOLL � � �� Y' �heeler � " � � -} �� ` � � �� 540 —_� � � l� - �� ` � �� _ �� ; �1 �_� p Teo.Te I / � ,. � � B � -�..� '" � � � � a. l � , � � � �� R � � � Ld I �� 1 � ;�' : ~ _�' � � �— � __��_ � C � enso � � ``' �� . � � — i � � � � � � _ � �-- � � � •/ � � � �, �� H O L LY -� �.��; � �/ � �, � � � � � � � , I� � � ; . � ` � .— .._- � i a .. SPRINGS - Y` " i � — T �u� ��- ,% - � .� � � � _ , . '� � 1 � � � �i.Te�� 50 r � i � CLAYTON � C - � � , . d ' ; - > r < • � � :� = -' � � � ; _. = . / 1-� ` � � � .�- � � � � � �� , � I �� -, >'� , � � ` � , , `� � � ♦ �� : , .� � � � �, -; � � � , -� �_ '-' - ♦ ' 401 n�, r'- � � � � 55 � s�. _ 70 � - �� , i �, � � ' , _ � �� ' � �, �� ,h��k � � � �� , � � �� ' i ��`l r ls� � � �..., � �� - _ � � Pek �i N � - � �� :' � I __ � � ��-'��, " .� , 42 � � �: � n ` _ ', � � � I � �� ``� � 42 � , _�- ' 0 1 2 s a ` � f \ Q _ C1 L F � � � VAR NAY r ? � _ _ -' ~ ( PP a ) J --__ _ -- j - _ - � � �� . � � � ��',. miles - � 42 �^ _� �� a roxim te � 401 �1 � 55 ��-- �� . �� . - _ �� . � � � �, L ,��`.'- t �5 r- �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 7 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange _ Red 0 Mint 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 8 1 , _ � , � _ , �� ; � � �- — ' _ � � � --- - , ,� � : � �� ,_ � ��. L I r . _ . � r � , �I � � o � �- � �+` ,�� ` _ ��-', � �` KNIGHTDALE I � � ;- � -- � . - - 1 . � ��--� _ _ � �� '-- � "'�� - � , . .. � � � , �� ,�. � �� , � RALEIGH � ,� �� --. u . _ , �, � � � � � � - — _ �� ` �� — — �--- �----- � � , , „�, � � ,— , �'`,; � , .�. ,� - ---- — i -� �� r�. �� -� �- � � - . ,�'- " C A R Y � � � --� ! � � ; ; � 64 � 264 , � � �� . � �. �� . �r. � �� -�Tt� �'-- 64 � = � �. -, � _ '�, , � �, _, � � �� I -�� _� � . _ , - - , , � , i ' � ��,' , � � -�- � . �' � c� .._ - � �� `- � �� i rr L � � � . -`--�- � f� � . , � � �., � � � : � �,�,� � , - -�; � � � � �- > <_� � �� 5 5 -�_-.r ' � J t �" �,/- ! ��- P J y ' � I . . � 7' � � � .�- , a _� � '�' i i APEX ��C "i�-� � - �' A � �r%' �' '� � ,, - 1 , ,, ;� -� 1 ' � ��' '� ` � � � � � ,M„ „ � = �� -r'= � � g T � � �.'� - � � I � � �� ' � '� � --� �� I r �, , , � � —s� _ — — � 4 ' _ �� — I , —� � � L — — " O1 ' 7� , . � ' °� ose R' ; , � ` __- ,*__��-�u�-- > � � Ne �. � �, � - �,i La �... GARNER � _ / � � � - kP � y �� TOLL � I�`� L.� � y. �/ih _ � '�U � � �� ` e ^ �� ` . �� Y � r � � , l �� t� eler � � � � 540 —E�, � � � - � �. �, ��_ - " _� � � ,<. � � '-� � � � 1 - p o.Te � ,,` �, - I , � A �-` ��...�� i � � -- le � _ � - n Rd. / � e � �, �-- �— � L ,I �' d �-� � �' d� � � � �- ��_--�_ � e�e �� ? � -- � en �. � � _ ' �. 1 soi�., . � .� 4� � / , �� , , � _ � �, �-I HOLLY _ . f � ; � � `,� �� / � ,�`^ � - � - � z, A`' / �� < _Y � � SPRINGS � � "�� '` `� � � J T��Te� � 50 � � ��J � � r � ,�� CLAYTON � � _ , �- ` : , __ � , � � � ,� , . � 9a � � � �, � . _,�- ` ; � _ � � � , � _-� � ' r�} ",� �,;,� r G � J �� ' ^J � 4�� r--- � - ��'� �. �- _ r. � , �� - . ��.. , � w 3 1 i � _. � � � � � � � s �� , �., a ,a � � 55 _ _ � ��', =� `� s � 70 �� `; � � � �" � � I °� I � �1 ° -� � C'�. �" '' I � ��..., � �' � _. � � � l l% � � � e e k �, � � a `� , - _ �'e k � � N � �`��., �� i�� 42 � �� I � >>: , � , �� 42 '�.� -e�� - ��—�' 0 1 z s a �\ F U Q U AY- �--, � � � t--�� - � � � � J �� ( PP oxima ) - ` �� '� .:. � VARINA � -------�'---- _ , _, �......,,. miles � u� � � � � � 42 � � � � a r' te � 401 � 1 . 55 ��-- � '' _�_ = � I �� , � � _ �� , L ,��`.' t 5 r-' �� Detailed Study Alternative No. � For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange � Purple 0 Blue 0 �ilac 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 9 1 , _ � , � ' r ��- ' ` `�� i � , °� ; i �- -- _ � —. _ ,i � . , �� _ , i - z:; � �� I - � � _ _ - � �- � r;� _ -� � � �� ; ��-,, �� ` KNIGHTDALE i � �, ; � o _ I , , , � � _ �,� . � 1, _ _ u .; - , � .�. ,�-� � , �� ,�. � � �� , � RALEIGH � �� -- � _ , � �, �. � � �� - �,---- ' __ - � _ � � � � :< ,� � ;� , „� I � , .�. - -- -- � � `,, � , .�. ,� - - - - - i -' . �r�. �� -� �- � ...� � CARY � � -- ! ',, , �� . 64 �264 , � � , ,� � : , � � � � � . �` -� � I � �'` �r. � �� ' � -� � / `-- 64 - � - - ' �', — , i � � � � --, L, � � .� � - � _ti ., _� � , �` i � � I �` I � , � �� _ � � � _ � � , � ,. _ —_._ � rr � �� .� � �'��'�_� �� - � �'�-�- _ � ,�� T'� � � � ' � n, r—r� ,,_ `- .,- � � - - �^� — a ' 5 5 �— + ' � � J t �" � � . �- p y y��''� ; �, � � � °s , � �� _ , � � —� � �?� � �— �, � , �'� � � , APEX � C .i�- � . � � �% � %, �. - , -,, 1 �, � �-, �� , � � _ - , � �� -� , � � �� _ �.� ; ' � � -�'_ � � S T ��'� _ `� �� I � � ,��-. � � �� - r � � �, �, � �� __ _��--� � -� �--� , � � � � �� J. ,—� — �, iL � � � — 401 ' 70 , ' � -' Ne�se Ri � , - — ' . � � r� � �� - _ �' � � � � '� �i� i ' ,.� Lak `�`� �� GARNER � ' _ / �� TOLL � �`� L L.� � � y. �/ihe � - � �L> >, � � , N� t+ e(er �� ,r� —^ �_ - ' � 540 �� , , / �� `—' '� � � � �� / - �. � �. _ _ " _� � �<. � �� / '� �' - eo. n Rd � � `ti <, I q, � j� / � l _. � 1'_ �' Te � V`J � I_ --��_ � -��--'�I �-- ldke � �� ' ��? I "_/ � � � -- I Ben so�, . � ` � `r% �. J i �� - , / `\ � � \ �� HOLLY _ 1 � J . `,. `,� ✓ �`� }n A�. � �� L_� i t".� �� T � �ti �,.� �' — < � 2� - �_ � �� SPRINGS � � � �� n.Te� � 50 � � � CLAYTON I � � � ` �� -� _ . � , r - � � � , , . � = -� _ �. ; a. _� - � � �� _� ,� �� '�. _ � �_ , ' �'�� t---�� _ `�i �� r' �-,� � > >�; �� - � 401 w" �_ ui , �� , � ; . �� ` �; �` `� �� 70 �° � �� 55 - ,-_ � � ,, �'�., - -� � s � , � � ` , ,; � � � ,� , . , � � � ;J l^ ,.._' 4y.1 � � � `^ --�� ' g e � � �� ( I�i I k C� � r � � , � .� �S _ —� , eek i� N �y 1 �� , � ?, .. Ir 1 i:` O'�� I � ... � . .. � .. :� �� . � �� .} � _ 4.2 � � � � �� 42 '�� _ � ' 0 1 z s a , �� Q � , _ , � �� — i i VARINA , �� 4 ` F U U AY- �, - - - - - - , ,, . � __ / J , � -----�'--- , - _ , miles — � — 42 �-i � �J JI u � �4� J � �� (aPProximate) .� 401 � �--� �� ' - � � � �, L ,��`.'- t �5 r- �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 9 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange � Purple 0 Blue 0 �ilac 0 Green 0 Mint indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 10 1 , _ � , � ' r ��- ' ` `�� i � , °� ; i �- -- _ � —. _ ,i � . , �� _ , i - z:; � �� I - � � _ _ - � �- � r;� _ -� � � �� ; ��-,, �� ` KNIGHTDALE i � �, ; � o _ I , , , � � _ �,� . � 1, _ _ u .; - , � .�. ,�-� � , �� ,�. � � �� , � RALEIGH � �� -- � _ , � �, �. � � �� - �,---- ' __ - � _ � � � � :< ,� � ;� , „� I � , .�. - -- -- � � `,, � , .�. ,� - - - - - i -' . �r�. �� -� �- � ...� � CARY � � -- ! ',, , �� . 64 �264 , � � , ,� � : , � � � � � . �` -� � I � �'` �r. � �� ' � -� � / `-- 64 - � - - ' �', - , i � � � � --, L, � � .� � - � _ti ., _� � , �` i � � I �` I � , � �� _ � � � _ � � , � ,. _ -_._ � rr � �� .� � �'��'�_� �� - � �'�-�- _ � ,�� T'� � � � ' � n, r—r� � 5 5 ��-- + � � ; � � � ' �- ��,� % � �, i, � � � '�� ; t L�� rP_y y ,"° �", � � � � _� APEX ,t i�' , R�>-.�-- , , , � -'�-=' � � , � �' A " � _ �� ' 1 � ��' " � ; � � ' ; �,�� -� 1 ' � � �_ �� g T �� .� _ ` � �. ��r � -. � , �� , � � �� -s� � _ - - � - - 4 �' � i J � = L, �_�--� �1_ � 7� _, � a� Se R� � — I �� _ _ ` . � , Ne� _, L e�� _ ' _ � r �� , � �'"� �, / �,r _ � � � � � �� i a GARNER �. � y . _ / � � � 'si L k f ' � � � TOLL � � � L.� � � y. �/ihe � - � ` >" �� 540 � '�' i tti eler � �- ._.o � ` � � � �� , / ��' �� , �'�. _. ' ' �� - �<. � � ; 1 _ O.T - ,,�� , - I � l � �1 � �- Te � �' �' - en Rd. I � `, � � � -� � � .� �� ' � ' I ' � /—/// � �-- L � �. � � �i--�rl , � y`� d/�e I � � � I `? � �. �� -� � ��, l BBnSOti,., � � �.,. �� ✓�7 i� �i �� _ — � �... _ �.� . � " . . �, �� H O L LY -. _ 1 � � � � �� ''� � � � � � � _ _ � I � �. . � . 4 � � �� „ �u, �ti� � ' ' � � SPRINGS � < i ' � � � � - ��`� � �� T � 50 ��CLAYTON � � �C v ; � � � ' '� � � � �. - - , � , _ . _, �. a. �= � � � � � -� �� l� I , �� _ � � r' � , �- �� ,� _ _ � o , ; , , . t , _. r � „� , � � �� ., r '--,� . �� ' � � 401� � �" ' �� _,- � -� �. � � � � � � �r� � ��,_ '��"`.° ; a �� 55 _ _ � ��', -� `� s � 70 �� `; � � � �" � � I °� I � �1 ° -� � C'�. �" '' I � ��..., � �' � _. � � � l l% � � � e e k �, � � a r - � �� — eek i� N �`��., �� i�� 42 � �� I � >>: , � , •� � ,�� 42 '�� : ,: -. �—�' 0 1 2 s a � � � , � �\ Q � = � �, �---� e� � � � VARINA , �� 4 .J F U U AY- �, - - - - - - , ,, . j ' . � i � �� _ .. miles - 4n � J ^ � � �� (approximate) — � � � 401 ' 55 ��-- � '' ,�_ , I ,�� ' L ,��`.' t �5 r- �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 1 � For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange _ Purple 0 Blue 0 Lilac _ Brown 0 Tan 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 11 1 , _ � , � _ , �� ; � � �- — ' _ � � � --- - , ,� � : � �� ,_ � ��. L I r . _ . � r � , �I � � o � �- � �+` ,�� ` _ ��-', � �` KNIGHTDALE I � � ;- � -- � . - - 1 . � ��--� _ _ � �� '-- � "'�� - � , . .. � � � , �� ,�. � �� , � RALEIGH � ,� �� --. u . _ , �, � � � � � � - - _ �� ` �� - - �--- �----- � � , , „�, � � ,- , �'`,; � , .�. ,� - ---- - i -� �� r�. �� -� �- � � - . ,�'— " C A R Y � � � --� ! � � ; ; � 64 � 264 , � � �� . � �. �� . �r. � �� -�Tt� �'-- 64 � = � �. -, � _ '�, , � �, _, � � � �;� � I —� _� , �` � �— �� ,� �,�' ., � i � ' � �� . �� .. . _ .f:_ .� I �� .� � i r~ '_ " �` . J '.�7 ' � _ . . �� '�� 'I "� ;, � ^ ' 5 5 �—�+ ' � � J t �" � -�� — P_y y�t � , ' � �, j � , � � ; $ - a � � � �, � � �� — �, , a� � APEX . " ,t -� A � � � , ,�__; "� �'1__ � � �� u�''� � �� _ �� ' � � 1 . � _._.� -r,� �' � S T U �,,,� " _ � � ��7 � �4`- / � _ � � , � � �� , `" � �i ��'� ►�� r � I , � � � r —• i J. —� - � L,-��--�'_'� 401 ' 70 _;� -. , � , Ne�se R' j , _ , 'i� — — '�� n � � .� , a � �� r. � J_ _ ;.i tak T... GARNER � / � i y P �� TOLL i� �`� �! �.� � l yi �/ihee( ��L� _ �� _ / 540 �- � N J_l er � '. ��" �--o_ � ' � } � , . i �� 1� � , � n�� -� �. �, �_ -" � � -,<. � � '-� � � -� 1 i O.T � _. � �, ,. - � ,' � � / � Te - " e � `J �_ � R d � � � �� d �� , C L � � '� `� �%— `�. �� , L � �� ee'�'so� �. l �,,, �'� ��✓/�, � �� - I _ ' � / � �,"ti �, �1 H O L LY -. _ •f � - � � �,� �/ �� °,,. �j" � � � L �`�, � �.. � , , T �� SPRINGS < i- _ i � v y � ; ,� � �, � �''Te� � 50 � CLAYTON � �C _ , . � _ , , —�—��' o� � .�, �a � ., � � �� :, ,; _ - � , , n _� , � �� , i � � _ _ o � , ; _ �� , , ,_ � - � , �.� r , � � � t 1 � t--- � � �� —. , J ��♦ " 401 w"' `' t — � � � , 70� � �� '� � ♦ 55 �. 5 `�� , '�,� = --�� . _ �' i � ,. , , - s �, - — � � � ; �� . � , � '� � ♦ ,,, ♦ � � � �� L�i �� eek n� � �� '' `� , - _ �'e k � � N � �`��., �� i�� 42 � �� I � >>: , � , �� 42 '�.� -e�� - ��—�' 0 1 z s a �\ F U Q U AY- �--, � � � t--�� — � � � � J �� ( PP oxima ) - ` �� '� .:. � VARINA � -------�'---- _ , _, �......,,. miles � u� � � � � � 42 � � � � a r' te � 401 � 1 . 55 ��-- � '' _�_ = � I �� , � � _ �� , L ,��`.' t 5 r-' �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 1 1 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange � Purple 0 Blue 0 �ilac � Brown 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 12 1 , _ � , � ' r ��- ' ` `�� i � , °� ; i �- -- _ � —. _ ,i � . , �� _ , i - z:; � �� I - � � _ _ - � �- � r;� _ -� � � �� ; ��-,, �� ` KNIGHTDALE i � �, ; � o _ I , , , � � _ �,� . � 1, _ _ u .; — , � .�. ,�-� � , �� ,�. � � �� , � RALEIGH � �� -- � _ , � �, �. � � �� - �,---- ' __ - � _ � � � � :< ,� � ;� , „� I � , .�. - -- -- � � `,, � , .�. ,� — — — - — i -' . �r�. �� -� �- � ...� � CARY � � -- ! ',, , �� . 64 �264 , � � , ,� � : , � � � � � . �` -� � I � �'` �r. � �� ' � -� � / `-- 64 - � - - ' �', — , i � � � � --, L, � � .� � - � _ti ., _� � , �` i � � I �` I � , � �� _ _ ;�." . i rr' � u� ,.._..�.. � . . 'i'_�` �� ',_ .. .I- _ �"� � i ` �,_. � �,_ � � �� , �� _ � � � 5 5 �-- + � � � t � �, ;� � � '' _�- P y y��,� ; � �, I � , , � �$ � APEX ,� �- ��, � , �y-��,, , P�� ,� '�-"=' � 1 � � r' �' 1 � � � � �- � - `� �' � �, .� � � U �� ' � �`~ � � �v � _ ��. �` � S T � � �-'� _ �� I �� , �� , � �� e� _--�-- 4�' �— i � ____ �� _ _ r � � � _,— � L,-_��_—�' 01 ' 70, ,� . '�. � , �_ Ne�se k, ; C � � � �' � �� k �� GARNER � � � , � r, r , � � La T , _ � I P .. . f y . , �' �-,�J TOLL _ � �� L� � h , `71_� : � �' ` ��' � e � � � ,r� � � �� - ��'�� '� , i � ,�• i + eler 540 —F- ' , , / �� `—' '� �� j , � r,- , � / _� � � t�_ - " _� � � -;<. � � / f ---� � � - � '__ p �eO.Tep R � � `ti � - I � � J._ , �� -,!� / I a. � � �,I \ /—/ �I_._�� -"_�`� d/rei �. �L �� ' ��? � � . C Ben so n,, . l � �%//�. J� �. -- - � , � �� _ � � � �, �� H O L LY -� _ 1 � - � �,' `/ � �� A �' j � � � � . z_ . ; y. fn � - �! � T� r�.., � �: �' � �. -'� - � SPRINGS ` � n � ;,�; �� , Te� � 50 j CLAYTON I � � — � , � _ , � i _ � � ,.� � � � a, ' / �- , �,_,` � � _ �� _ _ � , �, � � � � , — _ ; , � , �, , , ,_ �� , � �. . � . :: �--, � . �— �—,� �� 401 � �" � � �,� � � � � � � � � �� 55 — _ � ��'�., � �'-� �'`� �J , � 70 �� ,a � - s �� , , �, � � � � �' � � � i� � , � � � �,� '.., ,a._- � � ��. , � � _.�, � ��`l r L�1, � eek n �� r � � , � .� �� , —I = eek �� N �y 1 �� , � ?, .. Ir 1 i:` O'�� I � ... � . .. � .. :� �� . � �� .} � _ 4.2 � � � � �� 42 '�� _ � ' 0 1 z s a , �� Q � , _ , � �� — i i VARINA , �� 4 ` F U U AY- �, - - - - - - , ,, . � __ / J , � -----�'--- , - _ , miles - � — 42 �-i � �J JI u � �4� J � �� (aPProximate) .� 401 � �--� �� ' - � � � �, L ,��`.'- t �5 r- �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 1 2 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange _ Purple 0 Blue 0 Lilac 0 Green _ Teal _ Brown indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 13 I i ' _ �� - � % `a � ` `" � � / � °k i � � �- -- � � `� _ , I i � , , �� _ , I - z,; � �� I - � � _ _ - � �- � r;� _ -� � � �� ; ��-,, ��j �` KNIGHTDALE �, ! o , �� t�� . -� �� _ �. II �' -1, - � ._ _ , J [- � ,s,ii � ' , � � �� ,�. � � �� _' �� RALEIGH � ,� _' � ,� t _ i _� , �: � �, � u� �- . � �� - � - �� _ �� I" - �--- �-------- _ � � t � `� � � , ' I � � � � � : . . � �� .� � �� z � • � �� „ � ..1 i � � � �r�� C A RY � _ �. - ' �� ; � � � � 64 � 264 � � =--�- i . � i � : � � � i �� -�T t� /,__ 64 �'1 = L � -- - /;'� , ��'� � , L, � ; : � --� _� � �, '� ' ' � _ � , � � ->- . � � _ � ,�, _ ._..�-�� . . .r� �` � � � ��. �i i rr' .. � �_ ��iM� ....�� i' _ _ � ' � ^, ;, � .� . � �� = _ �^�, _ � � ; 5 5 � �--�+ , � ; � t '� � � -� �- P y y��, � ; � - � . ,, ,� � I , , � � � -� , �, i � � �� ; �� , � � , � .�! i APEX � � -�� c� � �� ' � � � �-, ,�� p� „� ' � �� -, 1 � ' 1 � � �,_ �� g T U� �,.,� � _ ; � � M � ��'' � � _� �� , � � —� �� ► � � � 4 '� __ I�— � , -� / ` , �i � � —J L� i J J _, __— i_��--�'_' 01 ' 7� '� ' a Ne�se R� / , � _ � e, „ � �}T-i �, ° � �,� r, / �� - _. '" . a - �, L � � � � La f� , � �J-� k� � GARNER �, ��u _ / ti �TOLL i � L L� � ��.. �heel - y � � � ,r�-� � 540 —F- } ' � � `�� ` � �� `-' '� � �! � / _� C. �, � � t_ -" � � � -,< � � / '� � � ,��1 '- p Te�.�epRd '� �_. � �`<, � � °' �� ` �� '',-� , � �- ' ld \ � 1 I � a � � ' -�' . 4. -�� -_�� ke�eeps��, l �,`�, � � , � I j � ' : I —� � � � � _ : ,/ ,�� . �' � � .� � ��.,�� , �, � H O L LY -� '�� .I. _ �._ i t.,/ "„tA"'. � � � , - � SPRINGS `'� � _ e„ , �, �' � _ �= T � � -" � � � � ,o � Te,,� � 50 y CLAYTON I �� _� L ' � a / ,��, , � �: � � � , �I � � �.�r} - �; d � _ ` �- _ � -,� �� _�� 401 � . �� R , _ � _ r. _ ,, , . ,� �, - � , ; .:- � � � 55 �l�'o� '� �~ ``� s � � � � — � � �� 70 �� _ , ` , �� , , � �. �, > > � . 1 �`` � � o � �� c�re e � •^ ..., - '' I ♦ ,'\_ , � i `1 � � L�1� k � � � � , .. , - � .� c� � �� , —I � _ . Pek � i N � ° � �- �� ,-` � , , � `_. � �-., , 42 � � �� ,-� � � . �` � �� ;�� 42 � ,� �: .'—�—�' 0 1 2 s a ` �\ FUQUAY-��,�, � � r �� - � � � � �J � — l.. _____ '~ ( PPoxima ) �� , .' _ �� .. , ... .. VARINA ---- -- � j— .. I - � ^ � � � , miles — 42 _ 40� J `JFJ � �4 � -�--. � a r te ; . ,� � ` r I � � � � � i, � 71� . L �r i s l"' ��i Detailed Study Alternative No. 1 3 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange 0 �ilac 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 14 1 , _ � , � _ , �� ; � � �- — ' _ � � � --- - , ,� � : � �� ,_ � ��. L I r . _ . � r � , �I � � o � �- � �+` ,�� ` _ ��-', � �` KNIGHTDALE I � � ;- � -- � . - - 1 . � ��--� _ _ � �� '-- � "'�� - � , . .. � � � , �� ,�. � �� , � RALEIGH � ,� �� --. u . _ , �, � � � � � � - - _ �� ` �� - - �--- �----- � � , , „�, � � ,- , �'`,; � , .�. ,� - ---- — i -� �� r�. �� -� �- � � - . ,�'- " C A R Y � � � --� ! � � ; ; � 64 � 264 , � � �� . � �. �� . �r. � �� -�Tt� �'-- 64 � = � �. -, � _ '�, , � �, _, � � �� I -�� _� � . _ , - - , , � , i ' � ��,' , � � -�- � . �' � c� .._ - � �� `- � �� i rr L � �? r' � i`` i i� � � J' �r- � � ' �, ;, � �, i � ,� �� — , ' S 5 , -�- + , � F � t '� � � -� �- P y y�r„� � � �, I � :' 1 ; $ _ , � _= „ ,' � - �_ � �� . � '� ��. � ; � r _ � ; - � APEX �� t � � ,-.�� ,- -�, 1 �— � p � ! , � , � � � �y� •• ' � , � � �_ � -�--- ��,w � � s,- „ � � T U� �� - � � � , , _ _'� � �� _j �, �, � �� ►�� —� �--� , � � � � '�� J. ,—� — �, iL � � � — 401 ' 70 , ' � -' Ne�se Ri � , - — ' . � � r� � �� - _ �' � � � � '� �i� i ' ,.� Lak `�`� �� GARNER � ' _ / �� / P y y .. � TOLL i �`i L L� � �Y" hee� �, '` � / �/i , � , � • er � � - - � 540 —E� � � �� ,� , ��° � / � - � � � � �< � � I� � �� _ 1 � p �'e�,Te R .,y� `- � .,� �, ,. -� ; � � �� „�� / I _, - °d. � � ^ �`J ' � � � ��r� � � ` � --�� _ � � �d��ee� s��, � � ✓/� � — � � � I � � , �, �i A � � t— �� ; ~� �; tiQ. �, � HOLLY -� ��: v,� > „,. � � � � _ I �— �, �� SPRINGS `ti � ��0'Te� � rjQ � �� j CLAYTON �I�� ''' � � 'o �� : . �L ` - ��r_ � �� - r� '� _ � � t� � �� , � I � , �� - ,-, � ��` _� � 4�� I`- 'I-'� �--. _ R_ , _ �� _ , �� . _ r ' �. -� �- ; °�., , .. -��, � � � 5 5 � , _ d v� � � , �'o�, '� `� s �-�� I �, �� , ,r� � � � � 70 �� ' I � , -" ❑ --� C� �" �._ �� , � t� ��`l r L�i �� heek � n �' ` � r , ,., �,� � � � �� — � eek i� N � ° � �- � �� . O � � �. � � � � 42 � ♦ --� . .� � a: � i �� --� , . �` , �� ,�� 42 � ,� �: ��—�' 0 1 2 s a -� Q � � � � ' r t --� � � i i VARINA , t � . J _ _ _ ,. FU UAY- —, _ ---- — _ , . / � �� miles — _, � �_ _ p � � .. I u ^ ., . � ._ � . �� (approximate) � 401 � � i 55 ��-- �� ; I ��` � � � . _ Ji �� ' L ,��`.' t � 5 r' �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 1�F For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange 0 �ilac 0 Green 0 Mint indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 15 I i ' _ �� - � % `a � ` `" � � / � °k i � � �- -- � � `� _ , I i � , , �� _ , I - z,; � �� I - � � _ _ - � �- � r;� _ -� � � �� ; ��-,, ��j �` KNIGHTDALE �, ! o , �� t�� . -� �� _ �. II �' —1, - � ._ _ , J [- � ,s,ii � ' , � � �� ,�. � � �� _' �� RALEIGH � ,� _' � ,� t _ i _� , �: � �, � u� �- . � �� — � — �� _ �� I" - �--- �-------- _ � � t � `� � � , ' I � � � � � : . . � �� .� � �� z � • � �� „ � ..1 i � � � �r�� C A RY � _ �. - ' �� ; � � � � 64 � 264 � � =--�- i . � i � : � � � i �� -�T t� /,__ 64 �'1 = L � -- - /;'� , ��'� � , L, � ; : � --� _� � �, '� ' ' � _ � , � � ->- . � � _ � ,�, _ ._.. �-�� . . .r � �` � � � �� . �i i rr' � �. "��1"�� ,...�� i ' _ _ � ' � ^, ;, � .� . � _ �� ' 5 5 �--�+ ' � � t �" �—� -� �- P �, �. "„ � ; � � ' 1 . ,� ,s � I; �, , a _:� �— �i i APEX � � � C -.i�� ' E� ��% � � �� '� � � --, � __ � �, �. A , � � . � , � -, 1 �� u' � � ' ` � 1 � � � �� S � � '� _ I ��,� �� r � , �� , � � -s� - � � � - ► � � -, �-- r � . � � / J _,—J _ C,,�_!L'��--�' 401 ' 70 '� ' ' Ne�se R� / �°i�� : � '� GARNER � . � �� r� I �� , � — i_ l ' � i � I Di Lak� �`� � � � ti ��TOLL �� -'-� � ��Y' �heel � �,r� _ • �� p / � U L � � , �;✓J er � 540 �� , ; s � �`-' '� � � � ' �n "` / �I f. _ ---� 1 I�- � __�" � -�_ / 1 � , 1 � � p Teo Ten Rd y� `� � 'ti � �� -� q, � � � ,�' / I � � � � � `+I � �1 : `C l� I ep J � � � ,�' ` I_--�_ � /� � `�' kei 1 �L � � �� — � d e � � ---� � � sot�, �i �� `�.� � �' � � \ r ' � I f � � � / � �`L� �, �� H O L LY � � � �.�, v� > ''� �j" � � � L � , - �'- � SPRINGS `ti � - Ten.T � / ,. � � �' , e,,� � 50 j CLAYTON �� _ � . �" � ' � °' � � '- _, � � � � �i �- :, , > ; � , , _ � � o , � , ; � , , . � � _ n �� ' : � � . �. � � ��, � ,. � � , � � �; , � , � � �--. � �� ; U1 ��, , � � �`. � � . ..: �_ � ` � �� '�., ; .. � ♦ 55 � ,� _� � ��. �� s 70 �� : �, ; � , , �; � �. � � 1 �._. � � � � =( " � � _--I �'�,eek � � �♦ � , � �� r � ,� _ � � � �� _ — � eek i� N , , -' � � � . O � � �. � � � � 42 � ♦ --� . .� � a: � i �� --� , . �` , �� ,�� 42 � ,� �: ��—�' 0 1 2 s a -� Q � � � � ' r t --� � � i i VARINA , t � . J _ _ _ ,. FU UAY- -, _ ---- - _ , . / � �� miles - _, � �_ _ p � � .. I u ^ ., . � ._ � . �� (approximate) � 401 � � i 55 ��-, �� ; I ��` � � � . _ Ji � � � �' , L ,��`.' t � 5 r' � �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 1 S For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange 0 �ilac � Brown 0 Tan 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 16 -, � �. - a� , s- �r��. � �, �� , -- _ _ y � --, �,�'`�„—r""'",�, � _ i ' ` - '. ' � _ U 1 �� ` ,� � � � � � � � , ,� a �, _ �� __ � , _ . � � , , 1� i � , ; �,� �`�-' ,' ' � �� - C �-' ; � �� _`'�' , , �' i � �i;° � KNIGHTDALE � � � i, � � � � �� , ��.�� -�i� _ _ � � �, �� u, �,�. �� _�� RALEIGH � �� __--�� - � �, . r � � t ; , , �, � � ' � � I -� ° - — � ,__ � - � -- --- , '� � .�. ° _ -- , , , ,. � -- — _ .� , � �� :� ��` CARY � � , � � �,� � 64��264 � , , - �_ , � I �; I � � � - z, '� T-�, � � � � ; � _ t �� -� �� 64 � - ` � � - - ' - , � �' �' � i � , o L, � � � : : , --� � , � � . � �l� �, � . �� -� � . ��'7�-� I �� ;I � ��. . 1 rr'��_�� '� . � i � "7- � _ ,� I _ . � .._. � ,� '� 55 -�i ` � � t '� V �,/� ,i -_ � P y y�t'� � ; � � : �, ;� , �, , � �,� � - a _� .'�- �<< � � � ' l : �' � ,� ' � � __ � .` _ � � APEX � `� -.�_, � �' � --, � �, � �J.�R%' ! r, � � � 1 � � M�� -�.. 1 � � �� ,_ �� g T U �,.,� � � ` � � � � � "� �� —� r �� _ � , , � � —s� — —� � �� - �C � � i�' _�_---'"— 401 �- �� ' _ � �� Ne�seR; I � — �,� _ _ _ � — — ; > � �� r. � �� `� � - I'� �„i La -�" � ti � � GARNER � ' / � I`� k TOLL i'� �� ! �.� � ��.. �heel - ' �� I J ' � \ _ 540 - � , '-'� '� er � d--t � / l �' � � � ,� yU r� � � � �. _ � _� � -,< � i - � ---✓ r, � � � � 1 -� p �e��Ten ;°v, _� '`� �, � � °' � �'�� '�� Rd. � � � , i �.,, � � r L , L J_ � � �--� � ,� �-- d � �— - �' ( �e�ee� s�� , . J ��, , ��?r��l � � .� I / � �- � �� , �� HOLLY �-�_ � -- � �� I i � r � �� ,,� � �" / � .� �L"ti� � �, , v � � � — � ! - I — � z� � u, �ti � , j�', SPRINGS `ti - Ten.T � � � L y' � e�R ' ,. ,�� ' � a � 50 ' CLAYTON I � � _ � � . � :�� ,; , _ ' �' `�' -� ti � ; � �- � � ��` _� �J 401 � �J� � 4 �� r � ` ° i �l� � �� R� ' '' � �. � � � � , , �� " � 55 ;, ,= d� , o�, , � , �. ,� � ' � � s� 7 � � � � � �,� ,�„ ,, � i � _a-- � , ��`l r L�i �� eek f� �., �� .. �� ,Y - _ � Pek �i N � � � `�� s �� 42 � � � '_. I � �, �� ,-� � ' ' � � � . �` � �� ,�� 42 � ,� �: ��—�' 0 1 2 s a � Q �� ' r t--� �� i i A VARINA , t J _ __� _ ,. FU UAY- —, ---- — _ , II . � �� miles _, � �_ � �� F? �1 � �J J � � � � � _� � . � (approximate) �_ _ ' , � �� . � 401 � '/� �� _. � � � � L � ��, �� f �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 1 V For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange 0 �ilac � Brown 0 Green indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 17 1 , _ � , � _ , �� ; � � �- — ' _ � � � --- - , ,� � : � �� ,_ � ��. L I r . _ . � r � , �I � � o � �- � �+` ,�� ` _ ��-', � �` KNIGHTDALE I � � ;- � -- � . - - 1 . � ��--� _ _ � �� '-- � "'�� - � , . .. � � � , �� ,�. � �� , � RALEIGH � ,� �� --. u . _ , �, � � � � � � - - _ �� ` �� - - �--- �----- � � , , „�, � � ,- , �'`,; � , .�. ,� - ---- — i -� �� r�. �� -� �- � � - . ,�'- " C A R Y � � � --� ! � � ; ; � 64 � 264 , � � �� . � �. �� . �r. � �� -�Tt� �'-- 64 � = � �. -, � _ '�, , � �, _, � � � �;� � I -� _� , �` � �- �� ,� �,�' ., � i � ' � �� . �� .. . _ .f:_ .� I �� .� � i r~ '_ " �` . J '.�7 ' � _ . . �� '�� 'I "� ;, � ^ ' 5 5 �-�+ ' � � J t �" � -�� - P_y y�t � , ' � �, j � , � � ; $ - a � � � �, � � �� - �, , a� � APEX . " ,t -� A � � � , ,�__; "� �'1__ � � �� u�''� � �� _ �� ' � � 1 . � _._.� -r,� �' � S T U �,,,� " _ � � ��7 � �4`- / � _ � � , � � �� , `" � �i ��'� ►�� r � I , � � � r —• i J. ,—� - � -L'__�_---'"� 401 ' 70 ,;� -. , � , -: Ne�se R; � , - - ' . � � r� : �� - - " � � �' � , , ,� r. � � ' '- � �� , � � � ; � �„i L yk� �`� ' � � � �� GARNER �, '� / y •. �To�� ,z � L� � l�^ �he � �LL,r� - '' , � � I , ,� ' eLer � _• ., � ` � 540 �� , s � �`-' '� � � �j , r, . � / _� �. �, � t. -" � � -;<. � � / ---� � -1 ,_ �, Teo.Te� y � � � .`` � ,. � � °� �� / � ' � w 1 Rd. � ' \ �I_._��j � � //� a/re, �. �L � � ' ��7 �— -- <� � < Ben so n,, . l � `�✓/�. � �. t� I j i/ I � i `\ I — , �, � HOLLY _� �� _, �`/ �� A � % �,�� - z � � t�. �� ,� � - � , r. . ,, _ % � 5 PR I N G 5 � =- Teo.T � � ( � � � � ,o e,,� � 50 �� CLAYTON I � � - � d ; . � `i - -'z' ' :� = � ' � � �� , � I �� -� � � , - �j� � , ; � � � � , �� ,J - ! .n>�'`'-"I�'�� --, � - ' �~" � . � ♦ � ; � � `' ..: � � �_ , / � ♦ 4 `�Ii '�,,,., � 55 - = � �'o�, '� `� s �J 70 �� J' ' ' _-�� , � � , � �� J � -" ❑ � i�'� �' �:.._- � '�� .., � � [7 � �`l r ls, _'--I e ek � C, � �..- � � r , , ,� � -� � i �� — � eek i N � ,� � _ . � . O � � � `�� ` -� � 42 � `_ � � � � � � � -'�� -��, " . �` , � � � . - � �� , � 42 � ,, e� � _ �. � � - � 0 1 z s a ` - _� Q ` ._, t �� — i i ' � � VAR NAY �� s _�- _ _� _ _ / - J � - �� ' � , �..... miles — � � � � � � � �,. . A �f � .. I u � • . � � � " (aPProximate) _ � � � %��` �F� 401 i 55 ��-, � ' J �_ ,� �� _ Ji �� ' , L ,��`.' t 5 r-' �� Detailed Study Alternative No. 1 7 For illustration purposes, the scale ofthe DSA shown here is approximate. The corridor segments are generally 1,000 feet in width, except at potential interchange locations where they are wider. ThIS DSA uSes these C01'YIdo1' Segme11t5: The actual highway right-of-way width would likely be substantially less than the corridor width (approximately one-third of the corridor width). The small corridor stubs or spurs along the DSA 0 Orange 0 �ilac 0 Green � Teal _ Brown indicates where cross street modifications may be required to have local roads cross either over or under the new highway, or at potential interchange locations. Appendix A - 18 APPENDIX B Comparative Evaluation Matrix Appendix B - 1 LE NGTH J Q � H Corridor Segments and DSAs miles 0 G O G G 0 B T G 0 B G 0 G h B G O R G 0 R G 0 Pu B� L G 0 Pu B� L G G OPuB�L B TG � O Pu B� L B G Pu B� L G h B G 0 L G 0 L G G 0 L B T G 0 L B G 0 L G T� B G Corridor Segment Key 28.3 28.4 29.1 29.4 29.3 25.2 25.3 30.9 31.0 31.6 32.Q 31.9 27.6 27.7 28.3 28.7 28.6 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS � O ,o .� •N c� c � � •� O o .� � � �Y �6 C J U d U U G Q O O � � � 47 Y C � � A � H O � � � � CJ O � +, c +, � O t .> �A � � W $ million 2,195 1,757 296 66 75 2,178 1,744 295 66 73 2,188 1,765 282 66 75 2,189 1,776 262 83 68 2,191 1,746 291 82 72 2,317 1,798 439 24 57 2,315 1,786 442 31 56 2,566 1,902 541 41 81 2,547 1,887 541 41 79 2,550 1,897 530 41 83 2,549 1,907 510 57 75 2,559 1,89d 538 57 75 2,362 1,784 4Q7 9F 74 2,344 1,769 4d6 96 72 2,346 1,779 395 96 76 2,346 1,789 375 113 68 2,356 1,772 403 112 68 Q Orange � Purple Q Lilac m Teal Q Brown Q Green � Blue Q Red Tan Mint COMPARATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX DSAs and Key Impact Categories (page 1 of 3) LAND ACQUISTION ITEMS � � J J U +� +�+ Q Q � C C � -6 U � 0 � •� � O � U acres number of parcels 1,830 741 38 510 193 1,823 744 38 511 195 1,802 754 44 509 201 1,818 719 44 484 191 1,843 737 40 506 191 1,753 993 63 673 257 1,752 995 63 673 259 2,135 1,213 57 861 295 2,128 1,216 57 862 297 2,092 1,230 63 862 305 2,108 1,195 63 837 295 2,148 1,209 59 857 293 1,960 984 45 765 174 1,953 987 45 766 176 1,917 1,001 51 766 184 1,933 966 51 741 174 1,973 980 47 761 172 RELOCATIONS � c 0 .� N � � •� � � � C f6 bA � i � � '� f0 � H '� � LL � � � O d � O z number of relocations 278 269 6 0 3 281 271 6 1 3 265 256 5 1 3 243 234 5 1 3 272 263 6 0 3 449 435 12 0 2 451 437 12 0 2 566 548 15 2 1 569 550 15 3 1 556 537 15 3 1 534 515 15 3 1 560 542 15 2 1 481 466 14 0 1 484 468 14 1 1 471 455 14 1 1 449 433 14 1 1 475 460 14 0 1 Note: Preliminary cost estimates are in anticipated year-of-expenditure dollars. w � Q a H x w Z z 0 0 w � Z H Z O v Appendix B - 2 COMPARATIUE EVALUATION MATRIX DSAs and Key Impact Categories (page 2 of 3) w C7 a a � � O > w � a � O � LL � w � Z H z 0 V Corridor Segments a n d DSAs 0 G 0 G G 0 B T G 0 B G 0 G h B G O R G 0 R G 0 Pu B� L G 0 Pu B� L G G OPuB�L B TG � O Pu B� L B G Pu B� L G h B G 0 L G 0 L G G 0 L B T G 0 L B G 0 L G T� B G Corridor Segment Key STREAMS � � � L L � � � � � a-�� Q 7 7 a-�`-� �n fUO � C� 00 cn � a - � c c o a� E � co .�a ,c� a� �, � m + � � °�° � � � �' � o� � L � c-I N � � U1 .� N N C C � N N � num. linear feet acres 142 67,967 525 97.9 63.9 139 65,810 525 95.2 62.3 140 68,130 1,154 99.9 65.3 132 61,322 1,231 89.1 58.3 142 65,180 525 94.9 62.4 109 53,014 875 34.4 22.9 106 51,582 875 37.1 24.7 139 77,724 106 114.3 75.5 136 75,566 106 111.5 73.8 137 78,087 735 115.9 76.8 129 71,278 812 105.0 69.8 139 74,936 106 111.3 73.9 133 68,604 525 101.2 67.1 130 66,447 525 98.4 65.5 131 68,967 1,154 102.8 68.4 123 62,159 1,231 91.9 61.4 133 65,817 525 98.2 65.6 Q Orange � Purple Q Lilac m Teat Q Green � Blue Q Red Tan WETLANDS ITYDRAULIC CULTURAL RESOURCES a� � U � C - � � � 41 V � V � W � � � C = f0 Q ++ � W � � fp U � Q � i "a � ,n O CJ � � � d � �i � � � � � � � � � � � v, c � a� � �� a c � o � ��, a, Q � o � � � � U � � � •U � � � � � � � � � � J . °1 O ' � � v a il � O � p� N W � Z }' � � num. acres num. acres acres num. acres num. acres 153 75.6 41 24.9 85.4 0 Q 0 1 1.6 149 74.3 38 23.2 87.1 0 0 0 1 1.6 139 73.5 40 23.9 85.7 0 1 5.9 2 8.6 135 71.6 38 26.1 58.8 0 Q 0 2 19.2 149 74.2 44 27.6 64.9 0 d 0 1 1.6 113 52.Q 28 2Q.0 84.9 6.7 2 32.7 3 16.7 111 51.4 25 17.7 86.6 6.7 2 32.7 3 16.7 161 57.5 37 19.7 101.7 0 0 0 1 9.6 157 56.2 34 18.0 103.4 0 d 0 1 9.6 146 63.0 35 18.0 102.0 0 1 5.9 2 16.6 142 61.1 33 20.2 75.1 0 0 0 2 27.2 157 56.1 40 22.4 81.2 0 d 0 1 9.6 154 6F.7 3f 22.8 75J 0 0 0 1 1.6 150 65.5 33 21.2 77.4 0 d 0 1 1.6 139 72.3 34 21.2 76.0 0 1 5.9 2 8.6 135 70.4 32 23.4 49.0 0 Q 0 2 19.2 150 65.3 39 25.6 55.1 0 0 0 1 1.6 Note: For categories where the unit of ineasure is either acres or linear feet, the impact Q Brown calculations were based on the width of functional designs prepared for each DSA, plus a 40-foot additional width on each side. Mint NRHP = National Register of Hlstoric Places Appendix B - 3 w � Q a H x w Z z O 0 w � z H Z O v COMPARATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX DSAs and Key Impact Categories (page 3 of 3) w C7 a a � � O > w � a � O � LL � w � Z H z 0 V PRIME FARMLAND SOIL OTHER a � �, � a 3 ,� � � .� � � � � co � o v� � � � � •� � � � � � � � � J 7 O d.0 u� �"O �j "O LL p�p � � N V1 (J � � � C qJ i N s •� ++ N f� v� Q U � V N� �� p.p C {-' _ O � O H v � m c��e � f�6� N p� � U f6 v � � - � O � � � � � � � � � � � C i Q Vl tn (/1 � � � C fO o �j 'm � � oC � O o � � LL °C Q Z U c a W acres points number acres num. Corridor Segments a n d DSAs 0 G 0 G G 0 B T G 0 B G 0 G h B G O R G 0 R G 0 Pu B� L G 0 Pu B� L G G OPuB�L B TG � O Pu B� L B G Pu B� L G h B G 0 L G 0 L G G 0 L B T G 0 L B G 0 L G T� B G Corridor Segment Key Q Orange � Purple Q Lilac Q Green � Blue Q Red NOISE � � a, � +� � V i (� L Q � � m - N � .� � O O z Q � v Y � J number 540 22 539 22 565 24 551 24 541 22 804 20 804 20 454 16 454 16 480 18 510 18 456 16 598 23 597 23 624 25 610 25 600 23 2,051 1,954 97 116 13 2 10.8 0 62.1 0 4 2,040 1,943 97 117 13 2 10.8 Q 29.5 0 4 2,035 1,862 173 128 13 2 10.8 0 29.7 0 5 2,Q49 1,876 173 128 13 2 10.8 87.2 0 9.1 3 2,056 1,959 97 118 13 2 10.8 81.5 0 9.1 4 1,972 1,972 0 101 13 4 0 Q 62.1 0 12 1,949 1,949 0 103 13 4 0 d 29.5 0 12 2,328 2,288 40 129 13 1 88.7 0 62.1 0 8 2,310 2,270 40 128 13 1 88.7 d 29.5 0 8 2,286 2,170 116 136 13 1 88.7 0 29.7 0 11 2,300 2,184 11f 136 13 1 88.7 87.2 0 9.1 9 2,332 2,292 40 128 13 1 88.7 81.5 0 9.1 8 2,175 2,135 40 121 13 2 88.7 0 62.1 0 8 2,165 2,125 40 121 13 2 88.7 d 29.5 0 8 2,122 2,006 116 128 13 2 88.7 0 29.7 0 11 2,146 2,030 116 128 13 2 88.7 87.2 0 9.1 9 2,164 2,124 40 120 13 2 88.7 81.5 0 9.1 8 Abbreviations: F.C.I.R. = Farmland Conversion Impact Rating m Teal Q Brown WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plant WTP = Water Treatment Plant Tan Miat Appendix B - 4 APPENDIX C Correspondence Appendix C - 1 ie7e rt � TOWN OF . o n + �oCCSrins y .� � Resolution No.: 15-23 Date Adopted: June 16, 2015 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING TW� TQWN QF HOLLY SPRINGS T�WN COUNCIL'S SUPPORT REGARDING THE ALIGNMENT OF THE SOUTH EAST EXTENSION OF 1�540 WHEREAS, the Holly Springs Town Council strong[y supports the construction of the I- 540 Triangle Ex�ressway Southeast Extension and in Oefober 2013 express�d its fa�or for the orange route illustrated on N.C. Transit Autharity study maps; and WHER�AS, th� proposed I-540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension has been a fundamental transportation facility underpinning for more than 21 years af local land use and transportatian decisions of the Tawn of Holly Springs and other iacal goWernments of southern Wake County; and WHEREAS, the Tawn of Holly Springs historically has utilized the pratected I-54D corridor proposed in earlier designs to plan for both existing and future development in Town; and WHEREAS, the eorridor illustrated in study maps as purple and blue would be more disru�tive to residen�s of Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina ar�d efiminate parkland, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RES�LVED thai the Town Council af ihe Town af Holly Springs hereby reaffirms its support of the ariginal pratected corridor design as iilus#rated in orange on N.C. Transit Authority maps for tF�e construction �of the f-54D Triangie Expressway Sautheast Extension. Adop#ed this, t1�e 16th day of June 2095. ATTES7: 1878 � 4 � Dic < ears, Mayor dlu 'J �� J i Powell, Town Clerk � �� Office afthe Mayar 128 5. Main Street • P.O. Box S• Holly Springs, NC 27540 •(919) 557-3901 •{9l9) 552-0654 fax dicfc.sears@I�ollyspringsnc.us • www.hallyspringsnc.us Appendix C - 2 � V �� .�� r��r �g o a � �� W� � ��A��l�� . . NQRTH CAROLINA ��lIAI� � : �a�[� .� : . : . Reso��.iion : _ � . � ` R�so��fiior� No. �s-i3G2 �. � � � � � - A RESa1E1TIfJN ADOPT�D BY THE BQARC� �� COMMIS510N�RS . � . � : ' OF THE'{4WN OF FUQUAY-VARINA, NC �: �� a�A�FIRMIN� ITS SUPPORT OF TH� "OitANGE ROUT�" �- �� R�GARDING ALIGNMENT �� T�IE SOUTHEASI' EXrENSION OF I-540 �� - . �a � � , . _ ... ..: . .....:.. . .. � -, ... . . � ... , .. . _ ._. . , . � - ._.r ,. . ....�.. . ._ . . ..,.. .. ., . .�. . ... ., . �.. . WHEREAS, ` the Governing Body of the Town of �uquay-Varina, No�th Careslina believes thc�t tne "orange route" afignment for th� southepst extension of I-540 is ths -.� `-.; _ . alignm�nt lhat would have fne Eeast negati�e impac# on eftizens in the � � comrr�unity: and . . . . . . � � : i .I . � { W�iEREAS, ' the prnpased I-540 Triangie Expres5way Southeast Exfension has b�er� q , 1 . funcic�mental transportation facility underpinning for more than 21 years af `�; � laca# iand use and transpartption decisians of pll the local gov�rnmenls in �' �� sauthern Wake Coun�y whife the newer purple-I�fue route recently wqs .�.� . f �.. :.�- ° , , : . : : , , . ..,: - a�ded; and °�� . . :i. s f WHEREAS, . th� Town of Fuquay-Varina historicaily has utiGxed the protected I-54b corridor �� =-_ �proposed ir� earfier designs ta plar� for bath existing and futur�: development �. `; : in �uquay-Varint�; ar�d . . . . . � WHER�AS, tl�e p�rple-blue raute is expected #a ha�ve great�r expense and human . �� . `� � 'impact on fhe resid�nts of Fuquay-Varina than the proposed orange route. `,. � .t :� NOW, THEREFQR�, BE IT RESOLVED, by the 8oard of Commissioners of #hs Town of F�quay-Varina ,; that the Gavern+ng �aard daes hereby exprEss support of the original pratect�d corridor design �:3 as iElusfrated in orange an the N.C. Tra�si# Authority maps fflr th� constructian of th� [-540 � �.° :� Triangle Expressway 5ouiheast Extension. � � � - � . � .: � .� 8� iT FURYHEf� RESO�VE�, by the Baard af Commissioner� of the Town of Fuguay-Varincr that this �: . �� r�solufion shakl take effec# immedia��ly upon its adoption. � � - . � � � � �� Rdapted this the ib�� day of June 20]S in F�qu�ay-Vcrrina, Narfh Carolina. � � � - - : . . . . . . E: . . . . - . : . , � . �� " . : ' � . ' � ' - . � ' ' ' . . ' ' �6 ., . � � ' . � Q�1 -VARENA, NQRT�i CAROLINA . . . Y;. � . f. � �. � . . _ � � � . � . - - ohn vV. Byrne, Mayor � � : ; ATT�ST: � � . .(TOWN SEAtJ,.•'��J� . �� `1i �'•, . � , . � : � Qo,qq' �.9'A�', . � - � . ; � :' ��G i849 ��d �: �•" " . � . � � 9� _r� . a�.�.� . � � z €: Rvse H. Rich, �awn Clerk . . ',� �' 'c� - ; ` . . . . _ 6 . . � : . ..... :' . - _ - . . . . �'•.,. ,� �t * . . - ` -� _ ` . - . - � .... . `'�� . � � . �. . . . . . . . . . . . . , �. � Appendix C - 3 � R�SOLUT��N NQ. (20�5) 2257 A RESDLUTION l7F Tli� TOWN OF GARNER EXPR�SSING SUPPORT FOR THE "O�tANGE RDUTE" R�GAR�ING 7WE A�.fGNMENT OF TME S�UTWEAS'f �XT�N5101V OF I-540 WH�R�AS, the �overning body afi the Town of Garner believes that the "orange route" alignment �Far the southeast �xtenslon af I-5�D is the al�gnm�nt that wauld have the least negative impact an citix�ns in ihis cammunity; and WHEREAS, the proposed 1-�40 Tr�angle �xpressway Sou#heast Exter�sion has been a fundamer�tal transportatian facility underpinning for more than 21 years of local land use and transportation decisions of all the loca[ governments in southern Wake County; and WHEREAS, the To►nrn of Garner historically has utilized the pratected I-540 corridar proposed in earlisr designs to plan for bath existing and future development in Garn�r; and WMEREAS, th� Town of Garner has su�plied a great deal af cammsntary and evidence regarding why the orange route is a superior choice. NOW TH�R�F�RE BE IT RESOl.VED that the gaverning body of the Town af Garner hereby expresses suppart of th� original protected corridor �esign as illustrated in arange an N.C. Tr�nslt Author6ty maps far the construction o# the I-S4D Triangle Expressway Southeast �xtens9on. Adopted �his, the 7th day afi J��y, 201.�. ATrEST � Ju 8ass Town Clerk �� Ij.'/�� I � �q�PQ�,��,�'��n' c r•• •7d ': ►J,E�,.,� � •. � : �. ; , � �� .'g c� b . •*'° �_ � �. ;�� .�,�. . •�„ �. C. ....�� Ronnie S. Williams Mayor Appendix C - 4 A RESOLUTION BY THE WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGARDTNG THE ALIGNMENT OF THE TRIANGLE EXPRESSWAY SOUTHEAST EXTENSION QF NC-54Q WHEREAS, the proposed Triangie Expressway Southeast Extension has been a fundamental transportation facility undetpinning for more �han 20 years of local land use and transportation decisions for Wake Caunty and other local governments of Wake County; and WHEREAS, Wake County historicaliy has utiiized the protected "orange" corridor in earlier efforts to maice key planning decisions for �oth existing and future deveiopment in Wake County; and WHEREAS, nurnerous Wake County homeowners and landowners have relied upan the protected "orange" corridor far many years as they have rnade investment decisions; and WHEREAS, the proposed alternative alignments that r�vould relocate the raadway away from the protected "orange" corrjdor will have an adverse impact on communities in Wake County; and WHEREAS, the proposed alternative align�nents i�l�xstrated as "blue", "puiple", "lilac" and "red" on North Carolina Department of Transportation maps will have a greater impact on Wake County's designated prio�ity stream corridors and proposed Southeast Wake County Park than the previously protected "orange" corridor; and WHEREAS, the Towris of Fuquay-Varina, Garner, and Holly Springs have recently adapted similar resolutions in support of the "orange" corridor; and WHEREAS, Wake County has adopted si�nilar resolutions in support of the "orange" corridor on October 18, 2410 arad October 21, 2013. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Wake County reaffirfns its support of the protected corridor as illustrated in "orange" on the North Carolina Department af Transportation maps as the preferred choice for the deveIopment and construction of the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension. Adopted this 8th day of September 201 �. {/ V J es West, Chairman rd of Commissioners ATTEST: IU��B.� �� Denise Hogan Clerk to the Board Appendix C - 5 �Ilake Coun �Vla ors'Association � y Date Adopted: September 23, 2015 RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE WAKE COUNTY MAYORS' ASSOCIATION SUPPORT REGARDING THE ALIGNMENT OF THE SOUTH EAST EXTENSION OF I-540 WHEREAS, the Wake County Mayors' Association supports the construction of the I-540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension and, in particular, the orange route illustrated on N.C. Transit Authority study maps; and WHEREAS, the proposed I-540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension has been a fundamental transportation facility underpinning for more than 21 years of local land use and transportation decisions for other local governments in Wake County; and WHEREAS, the corridor illustrated in study maps as purple and blue would appear to be more disruptive to residents of Wake County and eliminate parkland; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Wake County Mayors' Association hereby affirms its support of the original protected corridor design as illustrated in orange on N.C. Transit Authority maps for the construction of the I-540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension. Adopted this, the 23rd day of September, 2015. ATTEST: Russell B . Killen President, Wake County Mayors' Association Wake Countv Mavors' Association Appendix C - 6 �/� oF GAR? 0 \RTERED 19 Ronnie S. Williams MAYOR Town of Garner 900 7th Avenue • Garner, North Carolina 27529 Phone (919) 772-4688 • Fax (919) 662-8874 • www.GarnerNC.gov December 16, 2015 Eric Midkiff, P. E. Project Development - Western Region North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Study Town of Garner Comments Dear Mr. Midkiff: Garner � All-Amedca City � � � 2013 This letter presents an official list of the Town of Garner concerns regardin� the above referenced matter. The followin� points are maior reasons why the Town of Garner believes w_hy the North Carolina Department of Transportation should remove the red and lilac corridors from further study. 1. The red corridor is extremely detrimental to current and future parks and recreation facilities in the Town of Garner. The red corridor impacts the northern edge of the recently opened White Deer Nature Park, the Town's first LEED Gold certified facility. This is a passive park facility with an environmental education center, trails, picnic shelters, and playgrounds. The red corridor will atso obstruct and wipe out a portion of the South Garner Greenway leadin� from Timber Drive to White Deer Park. This greenway facility connects 4.2 miles of a neighborhood loop sidewalk in central Garner with a 2.8 mite �reenway trail through White Deer and Lake Benson Parks. The red corridor completely severs the pedestrian connection between these parks and the 4.2 mile sidewalk loop serving hundreds of homes in central Garner. The red route obliterates and eliminates George W. Bryan Nature Park. Bryan Nature Park is a 20-acre nature park facility located east of Highway 50 near the South Creek neighborhood. The red corridor will also impede and negatively impact the Town's 35-acre Timber Drive Park property, designated as a future site of an aquatics facility and/or community center. 1�Pa�e Appendix C - 7 The Triangle Area YMCA owns a tract of land on Aversboro Road that will be the location of a new Poole Family YMCA. The plans have been submitted to the Town for review. Construction is planned to begin in 2016. The red corridor will impact this property's availability for use as a community recreation facility. 2. The red corridor will disrupt long-range and orderly growth in areas designated for future development by the Town's Comprehensive Growth Plan. The Town's major future growth area is generally referred to as the White Oak area. It lies south of US 70, west of I-40, east of Highway 50, and north of Clifford Road. Significant infrastructure investment and planning decisions have been made to promote future growth and development in this area. Capital investments of over 3 million dollars have been made in roads, major water lines, and sewer trunk lines in this portion of the community to support future development. Tremendous uncertainty exists if the red corridor effectively bisects this future growth district. The Town's Comprehensive Growth Plan and the 2010 Garner Transportation P(an both recommend a new interchange at I-40 and White Oak Road to serve an emerging Regional White Oak Mixed Use Center. The red corridor would likely prevent this future interchange from ever occurring while creating some challenges for future growth in this important section of Town that will require significant additional study if the red corridor is selected. 3. The red corridor severely damages the Town's primary industrial recruitment area. The red corridor obliterates Greenfield South Business Park, one of Garner's premiere locations for jobs and industry. As a result, the red corridor will create a loss of significant tax base and the community will witness the demise of an area that has been programmed for non-residentiat growth that is vital to the Town. In 2015, 151 acres of this park was inducted in to the Duke Site Readiness Program. This program helps communities, such as Garner, develop their economic development assets by providing professional assistance and counsel on how to make properties market ready for development. This site has potential to be one of Garner's lar�est employment centers and will play a key role to a brighter economic future for our community. The Red Route, if chosen, woutd have a tremendous negative impact on this site renderin� the Town's and our partner's efforts in developing one of the largest contiguous sites in Wake County and make it unsuitable for large industrial and commercial development. There are 26 commercial/industrial lots (developed �t vacant) impacted by the red corridor with a total Wake County tax value of over 30 million dollars. 4. The red corridor splits and disconnects the Town of Garner again. US Hi�hway 70 split the Town of Garner and literally divided the town into two sections in the 1950's. The community has been striving to recover from this poor z�v,<;e Appendix C - 8 planning decision since that time. Garner cannot afford to be divided again by a road as large as the Triangle Expressway. If the orange protected corridor is selected as the preferred route, the Town can naturally grow towards the new expressway in a managed fashion over the next 25-35 years. Deference should be given to wise long- range plannin� as exemplified in the protected orange corridor route. 5. The red corridor will have negative water quality impacts to Lake Benson. The red corridor crosses into portions of the critical areas of Lake Benson and Swift Creek. The corridor is located immediately upstream of Lake Benson and crosses the majority of the tributaries feeding the lake. This location and proximity would increase the likelihood of potential drinking water contamination. Any spill from a roadway disaster would drain directly into Lake Benson. With the completion of the $90 million Dempsey Benton Water Treatment Plant, this lake serves as a substantial potable water supply for the Metro Raleigh area. Correspondin�ly, the road construction impact on Lake Benson is an area of concern with the red corridor. The aforementioned proximity and drainage flow direction could lead to lake contamination and/or potential reduction in the safe yield of the lake due to potential sedimentation as a result of the construction process. In addition to the lake itself the red corridor will negatively impact the existing water transmission and distribution infrastructure associated with the new water treatment plant. This is also a concern for the existing wastewater collection infrastructure located in the red corridor. 6. The red corridor fails to provide adequate access to the Clayton Bypass facility. The red corridor fails to provide efficient and effective transportation by not directly servicing traffic generation from the Clayton, Smithfield, Selma and the eastern Johnston County region. Pushing traffic via a more northern route as depicted by the red corridor does not accomplish needed goals of accommodating travelers frorn areas south of Garner that need to travel westward towards Holly Springs, Morrisville and Research Triangle Park. The red corridor also puts an interchange that would be just over one mile from the existing I-40/US 70 interchange. This would appear to create difficulty for proper traffic circulation and flow for the travelin� public. 7. The red corridor will have significant and direct impacts on thirteen (13) Garner neighborhoods. The following neighborhoods are directly impacted by the red corridor: Lakewood; Heather Hills; Breezeway; Vandora Pines; Camelot; Breezeway West; Breezeway East; Summer's Walk; Van Story Hills; Heather Ridge; Heather Woods, Forest Landing; and the Village at Aversboro. 3�Pa�e Appendix C - 9 � We estimate approximately 510 residential lots in Garner could be impacted by the red corridor representing a tax value of over $106,500,000. This represents a significant cost to the Garner community in terms displacement and relocation of numerous families but also a significant impact to our tax base. 8. The following points summarize the Town's concerns regardin�, the lilac corridor, especially the portions nearest the Garner Town Limits: o It would remove significant portions of the Town's industrial tax base; o It causes a large number of residential relocations for persons in the Greater Garner area; o It traverses directly through a City of Raleigh Wastewater Biosolids facility located just south of the Garner Town Limits; o It changes land use for a large segment of our Town's future growth area and; o It fails to connect directly with the Clayton Bypass. The Town of Garner is fundamentally opposed to both the red and lilac corridors illustrated on the 2015 Corridor Public Hearing Maps. Therefore, the Town strongly requests that both corridors be eliminated from further consideration at this time. The Town of Garner stron�ly supports the ori�inal protected corridor as illustrated by the Oran�e Corridor on the 2015 Corridor Public Hearin� Maps as the preferred choice for the development and construction of the I-540 Trian�le Expressway Southeast Extension. The comrnunity has long expected �rowth along this protected corridor and has planned for it appropriately. Many land use decisions have been made based upon citizens and community leaders assumptions about the protected corridor and its future use. We respectfully request the North Carolina Department of Transportation's formal and serious consideration of our concerns regarding this matter. Sincerely, ;- IV ( �, � /1%1-+�-i—� `- Ronnie S. Williams Mayor cc: Town Council Members 4�Pane ��,� �/a��C'�� Hardin Watkins Town Manager Appendix C - 10 RESOLUTION N0. (2015) 2277 A RESOLUTION STATING THE TOWN OF GARNER TOWN COUNCIL'S POSITION REGARDING ALIGNMNENT OF TRIANGLE EXPRESWAY SOUTHEAST EXTENSION WHEREAS, the proposed 540 Triangle Expressway has been a fundamental transportation facility underpinning for more than 20 years of tocal land use and transportation decisions of the Town of Garner and other local governments of Wake County; WHEREAS, the Town of Garner historicalty has utilized the protected 540 corridor proposed in earlier designs to make key plannin� decisions for both existing and future development in Garner; and WHEREAS, any change in plans to relocate this roadway away from its previously desi�nated location (orange route) will have an adverse impact on the Garner community; and WHEREAS, the "red" route shown on 2015 Corridor Public Hearing Maps with a course north of Lake Benson is a very poor land use decision that will cause tremendous disruption to existing homes and businesses in Garner; and WHEREAS, numerous Garner homeowners and landowners have relied upon the protected corridor route (orange) for many years as they have made investment decisions. A change to the planned route will be burdensome, chaotic, and unfair; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Garner would like to see the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension constructed, however, the Town i s fundamentally opposed to the "red route" north of Lake Benson; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council supports use of the original protected corridor design as illustrated in orange on the 2015 Corridor Public Hearing Maps as the preferred choice for the development and construction of the I-540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension. �'��'�` U � 6q ''��:'s� :�-.�,, .......,��;� = o ��.�o�;,r�; � � c, .,...: :;°�.; (Ta�r� ��>:'.::�'. .,�: 11 C; �j `�: :;:;:.'' •. �, •'`1,,`;'�, AT`i�E�:• .. this 15th day of December 2015. �, ,�; ,y�' � ;;� Ronnie S. Williams, Mayor c`�.�-�.�,�� Stella Gibson, Interim Town Clerk Appendix C - 11 vr� �� ` a��h- .�:%�Y x/fa �a��r� Nancy McFarlane Mayor January 5, 201b Mr. Jamille Robbins NC Department of Transportation �.598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 5UBJECT: Comments on Draft EiS, Complete 540 T�riangle Expressway Southeast Ext�nsion Mr. Rabbins, Transportation op#ians are of utrrmost importance tv the cantinued success and growth of the Triangfe regian. The City's Strategic Plan not only focuses on "Transportation & Transit" as one of six key focus areas, but highfig�ts the need for resilient and sustainable public infrastruct�re in objectives under the "Grawth & Natural �esaurces" and "Economic DeveEapment & Innovation" areas. It is with this strategic emphasis on rr�ot�ility that the City of R�leigh continues to strang4y support and encourage the Camplete 540 effort by NCDOT and the future construction of the southern and eastern segments of the NC 5a4 Triangle Expressway. �ur City Council reaffirmed t#�e �astern Wake Expressway (TIP Project R-2829j as its top priority request ta NCDOT in your Transportatiort Impra�ement Program at o�r March 17, 2015 rneetirrg. City staff has reviewed the draft En�ironmental Cmpact Statement and its supparting technical reports to better understand the potential impacts associated with each study aiternati��. The City of Raleigh has conterns over potential impacts highlighted in the dacument and would like ta submit comments an the following colar-coded segments e�aluated for tfiae freeway corridor: Red Raute: The City is concerned that the Red Route direetly impacts the 5wift Creek Watershed Area, a critical water source for Rakeig� and Wake Coun#y residen#s, as wefl as the treatment and distribution inf�astructure oQerater� by the City in the Garner area. Based on these impacts, the City opposes al{ alterr�atiWes tMat utii�z� the Red Route. Lilac Raute: The Lilac Route direetly impacts 88.7 acres at our Public Utilities facifity focated off Wrenn Road, induding water treatment sprayfields & at least one flf twa 25-acre halding ponds. The City opposes all alternatives that use the ��lac route. ■ Green Raute: The Rand�eigh Farm property represents a significant investment in the future by the City and Wake County as a site for praposed schools and patential developmen#. The Green Route im,pacts those schoal sites and twEce as much land area on the praperty, �elephone� 919.996.3050 pffice • 222 West Hargett Stree# • Post OffiCe Bax 530 • Rafeigh, North Carolina 276Q2-0590 Recycled Paper Appendix C - 12 therefore #he City opposes alternatives that use this route across th� property, unless compefling evidence to the contrary is presented for thi5 alignment. Brown Route: The Brown Route represents significant impacts to the Cit�s operaCions at the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plank (NRWWTPj, including more than $0 acres of sprayfie4ds and biosolids applieation #ields and patentially the facility guardhouse. The route would also require the relocation of the City/County Law Enforcement 7raining Center shooting range where officers traEn to serve and pro#ect the city's and county'S re5ldents. Based these impacts and potential impact to the City's solar array located near Brownfield Road, the City opposes alternatives that use #he Brown Route north af Old Baucom Road. The City would also Eike to expres5 concern that the draft EIS and Utilities Impact technical report do not accoun� for numerous water and sewer lir�es serving Garner, Wendell, and Raleigh that crass the corridor. 7hese inclu�e a 30" force main along Raynor and Auburn-Knightdale Rnads and twa 72" mains alang the Neuse River ser�ing the NRWWTP, as well as a planned 96" line to the plant. The City will need to retain access in the project corridor to maintair� and repair those IinEs in their current locations. The City requests NCDOT to update the Utility lmpact Report and draft EIS to (aj identify impacts to water and sewer infrastructure on all routes and (bj revise or accourtt for those impaets in future designs for th� expressway, 7he City also requests NCDOT consider alternatiue designs for the Auburn-Knightdale Raad interchange. Tne existing designs da not accaunt #or the Hodge Road extension as s�own in Raleigh and CAMPO trans�ortation plans. T#�e City requests NCDOT investigate interchange options ti�at wauid faciiitate the proposed Hodge Road extension io Auburn-Knightdale Raad. in light of these concerr�s, the City �iews the Orange Route as the least impactful to City interests and there#ore recommends its endorsement as the preferred route for the portian of the Outer Loop west of I-40. East of I-40, the impacts to the City's wastewater treatment operations and the Law Enforcernent Training Center (Brown Route) outweigh those irnpacts to the itandleigh Farm property {Green, Mint, and Tan segments}. The Council has taken pre�ious attion in January 2011 opposing the Tan Route due to community impacts (see attached). The Mint Route minimizes the impacts #o the Randieigh property anc� proposed school sites, and therefore is the City's preferred rou#e for the Eastern Wake Expressway. Based on these preferred routes and segments, the City endorses Qetail 5tudy Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for this �roject. The City woufd like ta thank NCDOT for the opportunity to submit our comments and endorsements based on review of the draft EES. City staff wiil be pro�iding additional technical cornments on the document and the supporting reports. If you ha�e questions about this letter or the Cit}�s comments, please contatt Tadd Delk at 919-996-2661 or todd.delk@ralei�hnc.�o�. Sincerely, �GI/J!� //` % �'�" Nanc Mc rlane Y Mayor Appendix C - 13 Attachment NM/td Ce: Nick TennysQn, NC Secretary of Transpartation Beau Memary, NC TurnpikQ Authority Executive Director Joey Hopkins, NCDOT Division 5 Engineer Jim Hartmann, Wake County Manager Chris Lukasina, CAMPO Executive Director Appendix C - 14 �" ;� � _�.' � ,` 1� :: -,� �ffff• �� . � C��F.'l�/1 1 Charles Nfeeker �+. �^. r-� ; Mayor .:'f��r!%r ��rrrr%i��rr January 17, zoi7 David W. ]ayner, �xecutive Director NC Turnpiice Audiarity 1578 Mail5ervice Cenrer T{aleigb, IVC 27699-157$ 5U8j�CT: Cornments on TIP Project R-�29, East�rn Wak� Fxpr�ssway Dear 1vlr. Jayner: At our January 4, 2d71 meetirig, khe Raleigh Ci#y Council reeeived comments frdrlt the genera] pu�li� regarding alternati►�es under ronsi�era�nn fnr hhe $puFlseast Extensian of the Triangle Expressway. 'The pnr�ion nf your project witi,in fl,e Cit�s Jurisdictian falls under TIP Pro�ect Ii-�29 (Easterr► �Vake Expressway]. These residents spvke aut specifir_a]Iy in oppasilian ta dte Tut Cdrrie�ar tl�at has he�n dev��aped �y the NC Turnpike Autharity for this segment of khe prajeck. I ttndetstand irhat your proje�t team has met with CiEy stafE from mul4ple depar�ents on several occasians to discuss alignmenr issues along th� Eastern Wake Expresswap. Wnrking out Fhe details on a FinaI alig�nment For this carridar has bee�t a priority far Flie Cily for many years, especially with regards to gettin� out ahead af growdti in dus area artd providing Counly residents with iutprov�d pr�di�tabilz[y, Tl1e City Cofan�il �+oted unanirnously to oppose the Tan Cnrridor as it is �urrez�tly proposeel, and we have r�qu�sked that City sta#f continue tn work with your prnject team tv develap wiaUle alternatives for consideration in yuur Environu-�enhal �tpact Stafernerit [EISj. We understand kha# El1e EI5 process is technical in nature, �ut we urge yau continue to take the rancems af area resider�ts into account as yau praceed �.�ith your sludy. The completion ❑f the �askem Wake Expressway as part of hhe iarger Raleigh Oun�r Loop i5 important to die conEinued growth af tlt� City and its n�ighbaring cammunilies. We appreciate iiie effarrs of tltie Turnpike Aurhority r� move �lus project Farward. Tele�hona� 919_99fi-305Q 4i�lce • 222 We91 Hargell Streat • Posl 6f�ce 8ox 590 • Raletgh. Norlh Carolina 27fi02-0590 �eecyc7ed Pnper Appendix C - 15 Mr. �avid W. ]a}+ner - Comment9 on T[P Project R-2829, Easkern Wake Expressrvay ]annary I1, 2011- Page 2 IF you have additional quest�ons abaut vur comments, p�ease canhact Eric Lamb at [919) 51fr2xG1 ar by email at eric.lanib�7ralei 1� uic. o�v. , ce ely, ; � � � u1 ,� • Mayor CCM f ejl Cc: City Cdunrilors T. Russell Allen - RaIeigl� Cily ivlsnager Daeid Coake - YVake County ivlanager �vlibchellSiIver, AICP - Raleigh Pianivng Qirector Car1 R. Dawson, Jr., PE - Raleigh Public �Vorks I?irertor Brad Bass, AICT' -Garr►er PIa�v�i_ng Directo� Appendix C - 16 ♦i' i � ! / ' / � � �,� . v� � . January 8, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Jamille Robbins, PE, NCDOT FROM: Todd Delk, PE, Senior Planning Engineer RE: Comments on NC 540 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Complete 540 project. As stated in the Mayor's letter to NCDOT, staff from multiple City departments have coordinated to review the document and its supporting technical reports in order to better understand the findings and potential impacts associated each study alternative. City staff has concerns over the potentially major impacts to City facilities, operations, and other interests within our planningjurisdiction as outlined below. PUBLIC UTILITIES Water Supply Infrastructure: The Red Route (Alternatives 6, 7) directly impacts numerous City of Raleigh water transmission/distribution mains, particularly where the City provides service in the Garner area & near Dempsey Benton Treatment Plant. While some of these impacts may be below the $250,000 relocation cost threshold to be reported in the Utility Impact report, discussion of the impacts are not acknowledged nor accounted for in DEIS or Utility Impact Report. The Red Route also directly impacts 6.7 acres of critical watershed area for Swift Creek and Lake Benson, the primary water source for the City's Dempsey Benton Water Treatment Plant. As noted in the DEIS, the watershed is managed through a NCDEQ management plan adopted by General Assembly in 1998 to limit development and protect water quality. The City would request to be part of the "extensive coordination with NCDEQ & USEPA officials to reach agreement for protection" noted in the DEIS. Sewer Infrastructure: The DEIS and Utility Impact Report fails to identify several major sewer pipelines that will be impacted by Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension: � The Red Route crosses the NC Highway 50 sewer force main (30") adjacent to Raynor Road. Designs for the NC 540 overpass at this location will need to ensure future access to the line for operations and maintenance. � The Green, Mint, Tan, and Brown Routes all cross two parallel 72" sewer interceptors located south of the Neuse River. The City is also planning for a future 96" interceptor OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ONE EXCHANGE PLAZA, SUITE 727 � POST OFFICE BOX 590 � RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602 Appendix C - 17 Mr. Jamille Robbins — NC 540 Draft EIS Comments January 8, 2016— Page 2 north of the Neuse River to serve the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP). The lines are not accounted for in DEIS or Utility Impact Report and the current roadway designs will require revisions to provide access for operation and maintenance of the lines. Due to the volume handled by the existing interceptors, relocations are not advised. Water Treatment Sprayfields & Holding Ponds at Wrenn Road Facility: The DEIS and Utility Impact Report identify the Orange Route (Alts. 1-5) directly impacts 10.8 acres of water treatment sprayfields on the site, and the Lilac Route (Alts. 8-17) directly impacts 88.7 acres including water treatment sprayfields & at least one of two 25-acre holding ponds. Based on the designs shown in the public hearing maps, we request confirmation that the Lilac Route would avoid impacts to either holding pond. Wastewater Sprayfields, Biosolids Fields, and facilities at NRWWTP: The DEIS and Utility Impact Report identify that the Teal and Brown routes (Alts. 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, 17) would directly impact 81.5 and 87.2 acres, respectively, of wastewater treatment sprayfields & permitted biosolids application fields, as well as agricultural activities on fields. Not noted in the DEIS, the Brown Route may also impact the NRWWTP facility guardhouse located on Battle Bridge Road and a city-owned solar array southeast of the intersection of Brown Field and Battle Bridge Roads. Based on the impacts above, the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department requests a coordination meeting with NCDOT and its consultants to discuss utility impacts along the routes listed above. The City also requests that the Utility Impact Report, as well as the subsequent information and cost estimates reported in the DEIS, be updated to include the Public Utilities Department in the Utility Contact Lists and to include those water and sewer infrastructure impacts overlooked in the report's analysis. COMMUNITY IMPACTS Randleigh Farm property: The DEIS identifies that the Green Route (Alts. 1, 6, 8, 13) impacts 62.1 of 415-acre site owned by the City and Wake County for future development. The route effectively bisects the property, and impacts two proposed Wake County Public School System school sites. The Tan and Mint Routes (Alts. 2, 3, 9, 10, 14, 15) reduce the impacts to Randleigh Farm by nearly half with little or no impact to proposed school sites. City/County Law Enforcement Training Facility: The Brown Route (Alts. 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, 17) directly impacts the 9.14 acres of public safety training campus, including a 42-lane outdoor firing range and a live-fire shoot house facility. While the DEIS states that the facility "could likely still function in its current use," the loss of the firing ranges would significantly impact training and certification activities that take place on the site, according to the Raleigh Police Department. Neuse River Greenway Trail: The Mint, Tan, and Brown Routes (Alts. 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15) all relocate the Neuse River Greenway Trail through a culvert under the proposed expressway. If one of these routes is chosen, the City requests that NCDOT investigate bridging options where the greenway and the sewer lines discussed earlier in the Public Utilities section could be co-located. With the Brown Route, staff from the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Appendix C - 18 Mr. Jamille Robbins — NC 540 Draft EIS Comments January 8, 2016— Page 3 (PRCR) Department has no objection to the proposed relocation of the greenway to the east side of NC 540 from its current location adjacent to Brown Field Road. PRCR staff requests that the design plans account for all future greenway corridors in municipal plans crossing the NC 540 alignment and consider the provision of greenways or easements within the future rights-of-way to link these crossings. Cemetery: Please note there is a cemetery located on the east side of 2898 Brown Field Road. This is a potential impact that should be accounted for in the DEIS. Residential relocations associated with Tan Route: City Council took action in January 2011 opposing the Tan Route due to community impacts. The letter to NCDOT is attached to the Mayor's letter. TRANSPORTATION Hodge Road Extension: The DEIS fails to acknowledge the planned extension of Hodge Road, which is shown as a proposed major thoroughfare in the adopted CAMPO Comprehensive Transportation Plan and as a proposed four-lane avenue in the City of Raleigh's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. For all of the eastern routes except the Brown Route, the DEIS and designs should account for this proposed street extension. The interchange design plans at/near Auburn-Knightdale Road should be revised to better facilitate the proposed street connection, with consideration of moving the southbound ramps from the northwest quadrant to the southwest quadrant that could align opposite from the Hodge Road extension at Auburn- Knightdale Road. INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The City's Long Range Planning staff concurs with the findings that the Red and Purple/Blue routes would encourage development patterns different from those envisioned in the local plans of our neighboring communities. The City has concerns that the Red Route would encourage and induce more development in the Swift Creek Watershed, potentially impacting water quality and increasing water treatment costs for the City. The City has concerns that the Purple/Blue Route will encourage more suburban growth patterns counter to area land use plans, increasing regional VMT and congestion. OTHER DEIS COMMENTS One page 15, please note and describe what scenario the 2035 network figure represents (Existing Network, Existing Network + Committed Projects, MTP, or other scenario). On page 40, the discussion that the capital, operating, and maintenance costs of transit improvements not being fully funded by the fares is not valid when discussing the proposed tollway improvements where the construction, operations, and maintenance of the facility will not be covered by toll revenues and require gap funding. Appendix C - 19 Mr. Jamille Robbins — NC 540 Draft EIS Comments January 8, 2016— Page 4 Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIS. If you have questions or need clarification on our comments, please contact me at 919-996-2661 or at todd.delk@ralei�hnc.�ov. Cc: Tansy Hayward —Assistant City Manager Ken Bowers—City Planning Director Eric Lamb—Transportation Planning Manager Robert Massengill — Public Utilities Director Diane Sauer— Parks, Recreation & Community Resources Director Joseph Perry— Deputy Chief, Raleigh Police Department Mike Kennon —Traffic Operations Manager, Public Works Appendix C - 20 MAYOR WILLIAM W. MASSENGILL, JR. MAYOR PRO-TEM FRE�ERICK D. NELSON, JR. COMlNISS10HER WfLL T. CHA�fDLER J�HN R. BONNER CASANDRA P. STA�K JERRY MEDLIN DFt. R. MAX. RAYNOR Mr. JamilIe Robbins Comp�ete 540 Project NC Depai�tment of Transportation ] 598 Mail Se�•vice Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 Januaiy 7, 2016 Dear Mr. Robbins, TpWN O� BENSON P.O. BOX 69 3a3 EAST GHURCH STREET BE�JSOiV, NC 27504 {919) 894-3553 �faX {919) 894-1283 w�ww. townofbenson. com TOWN MANAGER MATTHEW R. ZAPP TQWN CLERK COlVNI� M. SORRELL FI[�ANCE OFFICEI� KIMBERLY T. PICKETT TOWN ATTORNEY R, ISAAC PARK�R Thank you �ox' your consideratian af aur support for the Compiete 540 Project. The Town of Benson is coinmitted to the �itality o1F its cztizens and sustainable planning and develapment. The Complete S40 Project is an important component to the ease of access and quality of life for our citizens and businesses. While no one route is devoid of impacting the natural and human environments, constrt�ction of the route is necessary with inci•eased �rovv�h and traffic congestion in the Triangle region. Benson supports the praposed "arange" coil•idor, This corridor would assist our citizens that worlc in VVake County and RTP by decreasing their commute time. Furtherm�i°e, trucl� traffic heading west from Benson will find the "orange" corridor les5 encuzx�.bering tk�an tx•aveling throu�h I-4d during peak car�ute times. 'We will cantinue to follow information related to Complete 540 as �t becomes available. This project plays a critical role in our strategic planning efforts and wa look forward to its construction, I� you have any questians or comments, please da not hesitate to contact �s. Best Regarc�s, A Karissa Bergene Economic Development Director Town of Benson �kb�rgene c�r townafb�nson.com Appendix C - 21 From: Tyler Bray <Tyler.Bray@townofcary.org> on behalf of Tyler Bray Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 2:13 PM To: complete540@ncdot.gov Subject: DRAFT EIS Comments: Town of Cary G reeti ngs, The following comments are submitted on the Complete540 DRAFT EIS to NCDOT from the Town of Cary. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Tyler Bray • Page 31: The heading at the bottom of the page should be moved to the top of the next page. • Page 32: The heading on the bottom left should be moved to the top right. • Page 73: There should be a dash '-' after the word Services instead of a period '.'. • Page 81: The word 'are' in the last paragraph should read 'area'. • Page 87: The heading is missing the word `on'. • There are two greenways in the Town of Cary that are affected by the proposed Orange Route. They are the Optimist Farm Greenway and the Camp Branch Greenway. Please ensure that connections are shown and constructed so that these greenways will be accommodated with a grade separation across/under NC540 if it is designed/constructed in this location. The Town of Cary specifications calls for culverts with this recommendation to be a 12'x12' box culvert poured in place. Tyler Bray, PE Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation & Facilities Department P.O. Box 8005, Cary, NC 27512-8005 Voice: (919)467-1533 Fax: (919)388-1124 Visit us on the Web @ www.townofcarv.or� In keeping with the NC Public Records Act e-mails, and all attachments, may be released to others upon request for inspection and copying without prior notification. Appendix C - 22 ♦i' i � ! / ' / � � �, � v. � . March 17, 2016 Via Electronic and USPS Delivery Mr. Rodger Rochelle, PE NCDOT - Administrator of Technical Services Division 1516 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1516 RE: Clarification of Importance of the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Facilities within the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 540) Corridors Dear Mr. Rochelle, Please accept this correspondence restating and expanding on our prior comments regarding the importance of existing wastewater treatment facilities which will potentially be impacted by the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 540) project (STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829). City staff provided written comments in January 2016 on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project and further explanation of those comments at the March 3, 2016 meeting between the City, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and supporting consultants. The Orange, Lilac, Teal, and Brown corridor segments have various, sometimes significant impacts on the City investments in regional wastewater and water treatment facilities located within the general corridors under consideration for the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 540). Some of those impacts (Lilac, Teal and Brown corridor segments) may jeopardize the current and long-term ability of the City to provide both potable water and domestic wastewater treatment services. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department (CORPUD) is the regional utility that unites the municipalities of Garner, Knightdale, Rolesville, Wake Forest, Wendell and Zebulon with the City itself and our collective 530,000 citizens, customers, businesses and institutions. The most important mission of this regional utility is to meet our collective water and sewer resource needs today and into the future. The current facilities are uniquely situated to meet this and other important missions of CORPUD. The facility locations were well-established and are resources that may be impossible to replicate. The OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 590 • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602 Appendix C - 23 2 facilities impacted by STIP Nos. R-2828, R-2829, the Wrenn Road Spray Irrigation Facility (WRSIF) and Neuse River Resource Recovery Facility (or NRRRF, formally the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant), are critically important to meeting those regional needs. As noted in the Draft EIS, the WRSIF is a 600-acre site that is made up of receiving and holding ponds, a liquid distribution or "spray" system and receiving agricultural fields. The facility is dedicated to the disposal of industrial discharge from the D.E. Benton Water Treatment Plant (DEBWTP). Opened in 2010, the DEBWTP is one of the most advanced potable water treatment facilities of its size and type in Southeastern United States. Collecting water from the impaired Swift Creek watershed (Lake Benson and Lake Wheeler) and with a maximum treatment capacity of 20 million gallons per day (mgd), this facility was designed with emerging contaminates of concern in mind. In fact, in the future this facility may receive treated effluent from the NRRRF to use as supplemental source water. The impaired status of the Neuse Estuary for nitrogen loading makes it necessary that the City have capacity for land application rather than having to use scarce nitrogen credits for a discharge. In addition, the Endangered Species Protection for the dwarf wedgemussel population in Swift Creek prevents a discharge of evenly highly treated wastewater to surface waters from the DEBWTP. The DEBWTP, like all potable water treatment facilities, produces as industrial wastewater discharge made up of water treatment coagulants and the organic/inorganic constituents removed from the source water. This industrial waste, which can represent 5-10% of total treated flow, must have a final disposal option; said another way, a potable water treatment plant cannot operate without an approved, permitted disposal site for its industrial waste. The WRSIF is the a�roved, permitted disposal option for the industrial waste produced by the DEBWTP. There are no readily available alternatives in terms of land or point source disposal. Because this industrial waste contains organic matter, it is a source of nitrogen and any point source disposal option would require a nitrogen allocation; something that is not readily available in the Neuse River basin at this time. The "Lilac" corridor segment directly impacts 88.7 acres of the WRSIF, including the treatment sprayfields and at least one of two 25-acre holding ponds, effectively removing the facility from operation. The "Orange" corridor segment will still directly impact 10.8 acres of the WRSIF, but will avoid the collection and spray irrigation components of the facility. The City has both limited time and resources to evaluate the potential costs associated with the loss of this facility, but staff considers the estimates provided in the Draft EIS to be on the extreme low end of the probable range of costs, as the Utility Impact Report cited in the Draft EIS underestimates utility impacts, in terms of number, location size and criticality, in its evaluation of water and sewer infrastructure. For the City, this raise concerns regarding the accuracy of impact estimates related to water and sewer infrastructure. Alternative disposal options are not readily available around or near the DEBWTP or the WRSIF, necessitating off site acquisition, permitting and construction cost of unknown magnitude. Complicating the matter, the City of Raleigh may not purchase or acquire through eminent domain land in Johnston County without the express permission of the Johnston County Commissioners, further limiting alternatives (N.C.G.S. 153A-15). Accordingly any proposed mitigation of this impact by substitute fields may require use of the eminent domain powers of NCDOT. Also noted in the Draft DEIS, the NRRRF is a 60 mgd advanced biological treatment facility which is in the final stages of an expansion to 75 mgd. This facility receives and processes up to 90% of the wastewater generated by the regional utility customer base, is 49% percent of the 7Q 10 of the Neuse Appendix C - 24 3 River at discharge and is subject to stringent effluent standards for nutrients as a result of the Neuse River Estuary Nutrient Management Strategy and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nitrogen. Service area wide studies in August, 2008 (CDM/Hazen and Sawyer) and August, 2014 (Black & Veatch) confirmed 2040 projected flows for this facility of 86.95 mgd, with preliminary engineering reports for the ongoing expansion (February 2009, CDM/Hazen and Sawyer) and current water supply planning (December 2015, Hazen and Sawyer) supporting the assumption of 50-year flows in the range of 90-115 mgd. The facility produces Type II quality reclaimed water for distribution off site and reclaimed water is utilized on site in an ever expanding spray irrigation system on approximately 300 acres of the 1,100 acre facility. Currently, the facility is permitted as a non-conjunctive use, meaning the utilization of reclaimed water either off site or on site as irrigation for the farming activities is not necessary for compliance with the facility's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. However, as the NRRRF discharge comprises 49% of the 7Q 10 today and further expansions will only increase that ratio, it is possible, even probable, that the City will need to exercise a conjunctive wastewater disposal option to continue to meet the projected needs of the regional utility in an ever evolving regulatory climate. The City recently selected Black & Veatch Consultants to lead a wastewater master plan that will include the consideration of conjunctive use options for future compliance challenges. The Draft EIS notes direct impacts by the `Brown" route equal to 87.2 acres of the NRRRF, with most acreage composed of sprayfields and biosolid or residual land application sites. The Utility Impact Report cited in the Draft EIS didn't assess planned future use of this acreage in the context of regional wastewater treatment. The City has both limited time and resources to evaluate the potential costs associated with the loss of this acreage at this facility but staff considers the estimates provided in the Draft EIS to be on the extreme low end of probable range of costs for replacement of land for both biosolids application and sprayfields suitable for conjunctive wastewater disposal. The Utility Impact Report cited in the Draft EIS underestimates utility impacts in its evaluation. For the City, this raise concerns regarding the accuracy of impact estimates related to water and sewer infrastructure. As stated before, alternative disposal options are not readily available around or near the facility, necessitating off site acquisition, permitting and construction. Complicating the matter, the City of Raleigh may not purchase or acquire through eminent domain land in Johnston County without the express permission of the Johnston County Commissioners, further limiting alternatives (N.C.G.S. 153A-15). Accordingly any proposed mitigation of this impact by substitute fields may require use of the eminent domain powers of NCDOT. In conclusion, it is the opinion of staff at the City of Raleigh that the effects of certain routes on the operations and future utilization of the WRSIF and the NRRRF have been underestimated in terms of regional impact and cost. If a preferred alternative is selected that includes the Red, Lilac, or Brown corridor segments, the City will request and require that information concerning impacts and relocation being fully addressed in the final EIS, and that any final determination of LEDPA be held until more complete information can be adequately reviewed and vetted by all involved agencies. We thank NCDOT, FHWA and USACE for the opportunity to offer this correspondence clarifying the importance of existing wastewater treatment facilities within the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (Complete 540) corridors. Appendix C - 25 � Respectfully Submitted, � Kenneth R. Waldroup, P.E. Assistant Public Utilities Director Todd B. Delk, P.E. Senior Planning Engineer, City Planning Cc: Tansy Hayward, Assistant City Manager Robert Massengill, P.E. Public Utilities Directar Aaron Brower, P.E. Assistant Public Utilities Director TJ Lync�, P.�, Assisiant Public Utilities Director Daniel F. MeLawhorn, Associate City Attorney Kenneth Bowers, AICP, City Planning Director Eric Lamb, P.E., Transportation Planning Mana�er Rob Hanson, P.E., NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Brian Yama�oto, P.E., NCD4T Project Development and Environmen�al Analysis Nora McCann, NCDOT Project Development and Environmental An�lysis Eric Alsmeyer, US �rmy Corps of Engineers Donni� Brew, Federal Highway Administration Appendix C - 26 United States Department of #he In#erior �ISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh Field Office Post �ffice Box 33726 Ralei�h, North Carolina 27636-3726 November 2S, 2015 Richard W. Hancock, PE Project Development and Environmental AnaIysis North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 Dear Mr. Hancock: This letter is in response to your Nov�mber 13, 20151et#er which requested camments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ser�ice) on the Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension in Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina (TIl' Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829}. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act {42 U.S.C. 4332{2)(c}) and 5ection 7 of the Endangered Species Act {E5A} of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543}. The North Carolina Department o� Transportation {NCDOT} and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) prapose to build a new, limited-access highway from NC 55 in Apex to US b4/US 264 Bypass (I-495) in Knightdale — a distance of approximately 27 miles. The Complete 540 project wauld complete �he I-5�40 auter loop that currently exists on the north and west sides of Raleigh. General Comments Overall, the project wiil have very substantial impacts on fish and wildlife resources, including impacts to streams, wetlands, upland forest and ather habitat types. These impacts will be in the form of direct loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation effects on remaining habitat. Although these habitats are already fragmented by suburban development and other land uses in the praject area, additional cumulative habitat fragmentation effects will accur. In addition, indirect habitat loss is expected due to secondary development induced by the new road facility. Comments on the Dwarf Wed emussel In previous conespondence and during the Service's participation in interagency meetings, the Service has frequently stated its concern regarding the likeiy adverse effects of the project on the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (DWM, Alasmidonta helerodan) wi�hin the Swift Creek watershed {Neuse River basin). It is anticipated that the FHWA, as the lead federal action agency, will initiate formal Section 7 consultation by submitting to the Service an initiation package which includes a Biological Assessment (BA). In return, the Service will canduct an analysis to determine if the project wilI jeopardize the continued existence of the DVUM and Appendix C - 27 .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . ......... .. . .. ... .. ... ..... .. . ..... .. . . ... .. ................ ... .. ......... ... .. . . . ... ... .. .. ... ... ...... . .... .... ..... .. ..... ........ .. . ... ... .. .. . . . .... . .... . . . . . . . . ... ..... . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..... . . . . . . . .. .. ... .... . . . . ..... . . . ......... . ... ..... ...... .. ..... .. .. . .. .. ... .... .... .. ... . .. . .... .... . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . .. ... . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. ... . . .. .. . .. . . . .. ... . ... .. . . ... . . . .. .... . . .. .. . . . ... . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . .... . . ...... ........ ...... ........ .. ...... . . ... .. . .. . ... ... . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . ... . . . . .... . . .. . . . . . . .. . ... .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . ... . . . . . .. . . .. .. . ... . .. .. ..... . ... . .... . . . .. .. ... . .. . . . .. ..... . ... . .. .. .... . .. ....... ..... .... . . . . . ..... . .. ... . .... ... . .. .. . . ... . . .. . . ... . . ... .. . .... . . . .. . . . . . ..... ...... ... . .. . .. .... . . ... .. . . . ... . . .. ..... .. . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . ...... . . . . . .... .. .. ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . ... . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . ... . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. . .. . . ..... . . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... . . .... . . . . .. . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . .... . .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . ... .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .... . ..... ... .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. ... . . . .. .... ... . . ... .. ..... .... .... . .. .. .. . . . ... ... . .... .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .... . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . ...... . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .... . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . ... ..... . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . ... . .. .. .. .. . . . . .... .. ... .. . ... .. .... .. . .. . .. ... . .. . ... . . .. . .. . . .. . . ... . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .... .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . ..... . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . .. . ... . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . ...... . .. .. .... . . . .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. . . ... . ... . . . . ... ... .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. .. . . .. .. ... .. .... . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .. . . .. . . . ..... .. . .. . .... ..... .. . .. . . . ... ... . . .. . .. .. . ... .. .. ..... ... .. . . . . ... . ...... .. . .. . ... .. .. . . .. . . . .. . ... ...... .. . .. ..... . ... . .... .. . . .. . . . .. . ... . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . ... ... . .. .... ...... ...... . .... .. . ... .. .. .. .. . .... . .. . . ... ... .. .. . . .. . ... . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. ... . .. ... .. . . . . .. .... .. .... . . . . . . . .... . .. . .. .. . .... . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . ... .. ... . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . .... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .... . . . ... .. . . . .. .... .. ... .. . . ... . . . . . ... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . .... . .. ... ... .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... .. .... . . .. ..... . . . . ... .. .. .... .. . . .... . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. ... .. . .. . . .. ...... ... . .. . . .. . . . .. ... . .. . .. . . .. . . ....... . . .. . .. . . . ... . . .. . ... . . . ... . . .. ... . . . ... . . . ... ... ... . .. . . .. . ... .. . ..... . .. . . . .. . .... . ... . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . .... . . .... .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . ... . . . . ... . . .. ... .. . .... . .... . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . ... . .. .. . .. . . . . . . ... . .. . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . ... . . . . .. .... . ... . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . .... . . . . . . ... . . . . . .... .. .... . . . ... . .. . . ... . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . ..... . .. . .. .. . .... . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . ... . . . ... . . ... .. .. . . .. . ... .. . . ... . . . . .. . . . .. . . .... .. .. . . . . . ... . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . .. ... .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ..... .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . . . .... .. .... . .. . . .... . . . .. .. .. .... ... . . . ... .... .. . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . ... .. . . .. . . .. . .. .... .. .. . .... .. . ..... . . .. ... . ....... ...... ... . .. ... ...... .... .. . .... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . .. ... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. .. ... .. . . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... .. .... .. . . .. .. .... .... . . ..... .. . . .. . ... .... . .... . . ... . ... .. . . .. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . .. . . . .. . ..... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. iss�e a Biological Opinion (BO). Since there was a significant lack of iriformation needed to develop the Environmental Baseline gortions of the BA and BO, the NCDQT and FHWA agreed to fund additional studies within the Swift Creek watershed to fill in the information gaps. The Service has reviewed the "Dwarf Wedgemussel Viability Study: Phase 1" report and found the information ta be very helpfiil and well presented. The information provided addresses sorne of the critical information needs we have. However, we ur�derstand this infarmation to be an interim report of tasks completed thus far, with subsequent tasks and analysis to be provided at a later date in Phase 2. Conclusive answers to questions regarding the viability of the DWM and its habitat in the Swift Creek watershed aze yet forthcoming. in order to avoid a Jeapardy BO, the action agency must not "engage in an action that reasonabIy would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species." In order for the Service to ultimately recover the DWM, the 1993 Dwarf Wedgemussel Recovery Plan requires, among other criteria, that a viable population {i.e. a papulation containing a sufficient number of reproducing adults to maintain genetic variabiiity and annual recruitment adequate to maintain a stable population) occur in Swift Creek. Therefore, maintaining such a population in the post-project Swift Creek watershed is vitally important. We cannot understate the significance of this issue. Since the DWM was first discovered in Swift Creek in 1991, rapid development within the watershed belaw the Lake Benson Dam has severely impacted the DWM. Mussel survey data from this timeframe shows a decIining catch per unit effort (CPUE), implying a declining populatian. Although preliminary indicators of the long-term viability af the DWM in Swift Creek are mixed, one positive note is the evidence oi recent reproduction. However, it is uncleaz whether this reproduction is sufficient to maintain population viability. A North Carolina DWM work group has cancluded that population aug�nentation through captive propagation is an essential component of management strategies to ensure DWM persistence in Norkh Caralina (Smith et a�. 2015). This is especially true with the populatian in Swift Creek where the Allee effect (high risk of demographic extirpation due to low population abundance and lack af dispersal) is one of the majar limiting factars of population viability. Though much of the technical and procedural knowledge far propagadng DWM has previously been developed (Beck and Neves 2U01 }, the Service and our partners lack a dedicated facility and staff to conduct DVdM propagatian on a large scaIe. As stated on page 95 oithe DEIS, targeted efforts to propagate the DWM and augment the existing papulation in Swift Creek could improve the chances of maintaining the species' viability in the watershed. As a project conservation measure, the Service recommends that the NCDOT and FHWA provic�e assistance in deveIoping a dedicated captive propagation facility in order ta produce DWMs for augmenting the deciining population within Swift Creek. T�ie ability, or the lack thereof, to propagate DWMs and augment the populatian in Swift Creek will factor significar�dy in our analysis to determine whether the Complete 540 project will jeopazdize the cantinued existence of the species. Appendix C - 28 . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. ......... ... . .. . ........... ...... ........ ... .... ... ... ........ ...... ..... ......... .. .... . .. . .... .... ...... . ........ . ..... ...... ... .. .. ........ .. ... .. . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .... . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .... .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .... . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . ... .. .... . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . .. .. . . . .. .. . . ... .. . . . . . ... . ..... . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . .. . ....... . . .. .... . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .... .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. ... .. . . . . ... .. . .. ... . . . . . ... . .. .. . . ... . . . . . . .... . . . .. . ..... ... . . . .. ......... . .... . . . . ... ...... . ....... .... . . .. . .......... ...... .... .. ... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .... . . . .... .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . ...... . . ... . . .... .. . . . ... . . ...... .. . ... .. . . ... . . . ... . .. . .. . . . .. ..... . .. . .. . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .... .. . . .... . . .. . . . .. . . .. . ... . . .. . . .. .. .... .. . .. .. ... . . . . .. .... .. ... . .. . . .. .. . . . ... . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . ... .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..... ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... . . . ... . . ... . . . .. . . . . ..... . .. .. . ... .. .. ..... . . .. . .. ... . ... .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . ..... ... .. .. ... ....... .. .. . ... . . .. ... . . . .... ... . .. .. ... .. .. ..... . . .... ..... . . . .... .. . . . . . .. . .. . . ... . . . .. . . ... . .. . . .. . . . ... .. . .. . . .. .. . . . .... .. . . ... . . . .. ...... .... . . ..... .... .. ... .. . .... . . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. ... .. . . . ... . ... . .. . . . ..... . . . ... .. . . . .... . . . .. . . .. . .... .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . ..... .. . .... . .... . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . .... . . .. . . .. . . . ... . ..... . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . .... . . . ... . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . .. . . .. . ... ... . . . . .. . . .. . .. ... . ... . . . .. .. .. .... . .. . .. . ... . . . .. .... . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. ... . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .... .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ...... .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . ... . . . . .... .. . .. . .. ..... .... ..... ... . .. ..... ... . .. .. .. . ... ... ... . . .. . ... . .. . .. . . .. . .... .. .. .. . . . . . ... . ... .. . . . . . ..... . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . ..... . . . . ... . . . .. . .... . . . . . ... ... . . ..... .. . . . . . .. ..... . . . . . . . . . ..... ....... .. . .. .... .. . . . . .. ...... . . .. .... . . . . . . .... .. . . .. .. . . ...... . .. . ... ....... . . .... . . .. ... .. ... ............ .. ......... ... ..... . ... . ..... . .... . . . .. . . . .. . .... .. . . . ... . .. .. . . . . .. ... . . .. . ... ... . . ... .. . . . . . .. . ..... ..... . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. ..... . . ... .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. . .... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. ... .. ... .. . .. . .. .... ... . .. . .. .... . . . .. ... ..... ....... .. . . ... ... . . . .... ... . . . . ... .. . . .. .. ... . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . .... . .... . . ... .. . .... . . .. ..... . . . . . . . . ... .. .. . ... . .. ... . .. . . . . .... .. .... . . . . . .. ... ... .. . . . ... . . .. .. ... . ....... ... . . . .... .. ....... ... .. .... .. .. . . . . .. ... .. .. ... . .. . ..... . . .. . .. . ... ... .. .... ... . . ...... ... ...... . .... ....... ...... ... .. ... . ...... .... . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. ... . . . ... . .... .. . ... .. ... . . . . .. . .. .. . . .... . . . . ..... .. . ..... . . ... ... . ... . . .. ..... .. . .. .... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. ...... . .. . . ... . ... .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . ... ... . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. ... . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. .... ...... .. . . . . . .... . ... . .. . .. . . . . ... .. .. .. .. ... .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . ..... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . ... .. . .. . .. . ... . . . . . .. ... .. . . .. .... . . . ... . . . .. .... ...... . . . .. . ... . .. . . . . . . . ... . ... . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . ... . .. . .... ....... . . ... .. ... .. . . . .. . . . .. ....... .. . . .. . . . . . .... . .... . . . . ... . . . . . . . .... . .. .. . ... .. . . . . . . . .... ... . .. .. . .. . .. ..... . . . ... ... ... . . . . . . .... . . ... .. ... ... ..... . . . .. . ....... .. .. ..... .. . ........ ... . ... . . ... . ..... . . . .. ....... ... ... . . . ...... . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. . . . ... .. .... ... . . .. ... . .... . .... . .. . . . . .... .. . . . . . ... .. . ... . ... . . .. ..... . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. ... . . . . . . . . .. . .... .. . . ... . .. . .. . ..... .. .. . . .. . . .. . ...... . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .... . . . . ... . . . ..... .... . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . ... .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . Comments on Alternatives Detailed study altematives that include the Red Corridor segment cIeazly have the lowest impacts on wetiands and streams. The Red Carridor would have the least direct and indirect effects on the DWM and its habitat since it crosses Swift Creek upstream of Lake Benson — outside ttre known range of the species in the watershed. However, the Service acknowledges and understands the intense opposition to khe Red Corridor segment due to its disproportionate impacts on tY�e human envirorunent. Detailed study alternadves that include the Orange Comdar segment, being the protected comdor with right-of-way purchases made many years ago prior to any comprehensive environmental analysis, greatly minimize impacts to the humari environment. However, the Orange Corridor segment has great potential to adversely affect the DWM since it crasses Swift Creek, tributaries to Swift Creek, and a significant portion of the watershed all downstream of Lake Benson — within the known occupied range of the species. The Orange Corridor segment connects to I-44 at a particularly unfavorable Iocation for the DWM. This location puts the interchanges with I-40 and U5 70 Bypass on top af several tributaries to Swift Creek and also is in close proximity to the Swift Creek main stem. The DWM is at risk from direc� effects associated with canstruction of the project (e.g. erosion and siltation from construction) and from indirect effects associated with the degradation of water quality fram secondary development induced by the new road. Increased impervious surface and storm water runoff from additional development would likely further degrade the wa�er quaIity of Swift Creek and its tributaries. Also, ather propased projects within the study azea such as the proposed widening of I-40 (TIP No. I-5111) and bridge replacements on Swift Creek could cu�nulatively contribute to a decline in habitat yuality for the DWM. The Service finds the Orange Corridor very problematic. Detailed study alternatives that incIude the Lilac Corridor segment would have very similar, albeit somewha� lesser adverse effects on the DWM. These somewhat Iesser effects would be due to the fact that the interchange with I-40 would be farther removed fr�m Swift Creek and i�s tributaries. Other Species The DEIS renders a biological conclusion of "no effect" for the federaIly endangered red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides barealis) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Based on tl�� survey results, the Service concurs with these "no effect" conclusions. The DEIS renders a "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect'° conclusion for the northem long-eazed bat (Myotis septentrionalis). As stated in the DEIS, farmal Sec�ion 7 consultatian has aiready been completed for this species #hrough a Programmatic Bialogical Opinion adopted on May 4, 2015. As stated in the DEIS, Section 7 is yet unresalved for the DWM and Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). However, the Service believes tha� the project is unlike�y to have adverse effects on the Tar River spinymussel. There is a possibility that up to three additional mussel species may be listed as federally endangered or threatened prior to the completion of the Complete 540 project — the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masorti), yellow lance (Elliptio lancealata), and green floater (Lasmigona subviridis). Conclusions and recommendations for the dwarf wedgemussel may be relevant to these additional species. In addition, the Caro[ina madtom {Noturus furiasus, a f sh species) and Appendix C - 29 . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . ......... .. .. .. ...... ..... ............ . .. . .. . .... ... .... . . ...... ... .... .. ...... .. .. ... .......... .. .. ... ... . .... ...... .. ... . ... . ........ ... .. .. . . . . . . .... . .... . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ..... ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .... . . . .. .. . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. ... . .. . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . ... ..... . .. . .. ... .... . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . ... . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . ... . .. .. . . .. . ...... .... ... . .. . .. ..... . . . . .. . ... . .. . ....... . .. . ..... . .. . .. .. . . . .. ........ . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . ... ... . . .... .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .... . . . . . . ... . . .. . .. . . . .... .... . ... . . . .. .. . ... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . ... . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . .... . ... . . . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . .. .. ... . . . . . . . .... . .. . . . ... . . . . . . .. .. .. .... . .... ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .... . .. . .. . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . ... ... . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . .. .. ... .. . . . . ... . . .... . .... . . .. . .... . .. .. .. . . .......... . ... .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. ... . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. ... . . . .. . ... . . . . . . .. . . . .. ... .... . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . ... .. .. . .... . . .... . ... . . . . .... .. .. .. . . . . ... . ... . . . .. . . . ...... .. .. . . ... . ... .. .. ..... ... . . .. . . ..... ... . . .... .. . ... ... . . ..... . ... . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . ... . . .. .. . . . .. . . .... .... . . . . .... .. . ... . .. .... . . . . .. . .... .. .. . ... . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. .... . . ... . . . . . .... .. . . .. .. . . . .... ..... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .... . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . ... . . .. .. . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .... . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .... . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .... . . . . . . . .. .... . . .. . . .. . . . ....... . . . .. . . .... .. .. .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .... . . .. .. ... . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. ... . .. .. . . . ... .. . . . .... . .. . . . . . . . . .. ... . ... ... . . ..... . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. .... . . .. . ... ... . .. .. . .. ..... . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .... . . . ... .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . .. ... . . . .. . the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi, an aznphibian) may also be federally listed as threatened ar endangered prior to the completion of the project. Other Miscellaneous Comments Page 29 states "...the dwazf wedgemussei...could be directly affected by the proposed project." While true, the Service believes that indirect effects from road-induced development aze the greater cancern. Page 97 incorrectly states "An incidental take is when a non-federal activity will result in the loss, or "take" of a threatened or endangered arumal." As per SQ CFR 17.3, an incidental take is "any talcing otherwise prohibited, if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise Iawful activity." For the purposes ai Section 7, this would only include federal activities. F'or Section 14 of the ESA, incidental take wouId only include non- federal activities. The Clemmons Educational State Farest is referenced several times in the DEIS. The Service prefers that this forest not be impacted. At only $25 acres, this state forest is relatively smalI and already exists in a fragrr�ented context. Even small impacts to this forest could substantially degrade the wildlife habitat value of this public land. The Service believes that this DEIS and its accompanying technical reports adequately address the existing fish and wildlife resources, the waters and wetlands ofthe United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed praject on these resources. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If yau ha�e any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at {919} SSd-452Q, ext. 32. Sincerely, Pete Benjamin Field Supervisor Literature cited: Beck, K.M. and R.J. Neves. 2001. Prapagation studies of the endangered dwarf wedgemussel. Final Report to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 63 pp. Smith, D.R., S.E. McRae, T. Augspurger, J.A. Ratcliffe, R.B. Nichols, C.B. Eads, T. Savidge, and A.E. Bogan. 20IS. Developing a conservation strategy to maximize persis�ence of an endangered freshwater mussel species while cansidering management effectiveness and cost. Freshwater Science 34{4):004-040. A endix C - 30 PP . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . ... .. ... .... .. . .... .. ....... ....... . .. . ........... ........ .... .. ....... ...... .... .. .. ......... ...... ......... . ...... ..... .. . .... .. .. . .. . . . ... ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. ... . .. .. . . . ... . . . . .. ... ... ...... . .. ... . ..... .. .... .... . . .. ... . . . .. . . . .. . . .... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .... . .. . . . ....... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. ... . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. .... . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. ... .. . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. .... . . .. ... . .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. ... . . . . . .. . .. . ....... . .. ......... . ... ... .... ... .... . .. .. ..... . . .. .. .. ... .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . .. . . .... . . . . .. . . . . ... ... . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. ... . ..... .... . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . ... . . .. . . . ..... .. ..... . . .. . . . . .. .. .. . ..... ... . ... .... ..... . ... ..... .. . . ... . .. . .... . .... ..... .. . . . .. .. . ... . .. . ... .. .. ... ... . .. ...... .. . . . .. .... . ... . . . . .. . . . ... . .. ... . . .. . . . . . .... .. . . .. . . . . .... .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . ..... . . ... .... ... ... .. . .. . .. .. . .. ... ....... ... .. . ......... ..... . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . ... . . . . . . .. . .. ... . .. . .. . . ... . .. . . . ... . .. ... .. ... . . . . . ... . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .... .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . ... .. ... . . . .. . ... . . .... . . .. . ... . . ..... ... .. .. .. . .. ... . ..... .... . ... . . . . . .. . ... . . .. .... ... . ... . ... . . .. . . . . ... . ... . . . . . .. . ... . .... ....... .. . ..... ..... . . ..... ... . . .. ... .. . .. ... . . . .. .. ... .... ... .. . ...... . .. . .. .... . . ... .. . .. .. .. . . . .... .. . . . . .. ..... . . . . . .... .. .. . . . . . ..... ..... . . .. .. .. . ..... .. . .. . . . .... . .. . .. . ... . . . . . ... . ... . . .. .. . . .. .. ... . .. .. .. ..... ... .. ... ....... ...... .... ... . .... . ... .. . .. . ... .. ........ . . . . . .. .. . .... . . . . . . . . ... . . .. .. . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . .... . .... .... . ..... . . . . . . .... .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. ... ... .. .... .. ..... .. .. . .. . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . ... . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .... .. . .. ... . .. . .. .... .. . ... . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . ... . . . . . . .. . . .. .... . . . ... . ... . . . .. .. .. .... . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . ... .. . . ... . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . ... .. ... .. . . ... . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . .... ... .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. .... . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .... . . . ... . . ... . ...... . . ... .. .. . . . . .. .. . ... ... . . . . .. . .. . .. . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . ... . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. .. . ....... . . . . .... . . ..... . .. . ... .. .. .. . . .. ..... . . . . . .. .. . . .... ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . ... .. . . .. .. .. . ... . . .. . .. .. . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .... . . ..... .. . ... .. . . . .. . . ..... . . .. .. .. ..... ... . ..... . . . .. . . . ... . . ... . .. .. .. .. . .... . . ... .. . .. . . . ..... . . . .... . .. . . ... .... . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . ..... . .. . .. ... ... .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . ... ....... . . . . . . . . .... ... ... . . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. . ... . . .. .. . . .. . ... .. . . . . . . .. ..... . . . . .. ...... .. .. . . .... .. .. . .... .... .... .... . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. ... . .. . ... .. . . . . .. .. . . .... ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... .. .. . .. . . .. . ... . .... . ..... . . .. ... . . ... . .. .. . . . . . ... . .. ... .. . .. . . .... ... .... . . .. .. . . .... .. ... .. . . .. .. .. . . . ... . . . .... .... .. .. .. . . . ........ . . . . . . ...... .. ........... ... . . ...... ..... . ..... . . .......... .. .. . .... .. . .. . ... . ........ ... . . ...... . ...... ... . ... . . ... . .. ...... ... ..... . .. . . .. . . ... . . . .. .... .. . .. . .... ... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .... .. . .. ... .. . . . ... . . . . . .. . .. . .... ... .. ... . . ... .. . ... . . . . . . . . . .. ...... ... . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. ... .. .. . . . .. ...... .. . . .. ... . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . . . . .. ... .. . . ... .. .... ... . . ... . .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . .. .... . ... . . .. .... ... . .... . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . . .... .. .. . ... . ... .. ... .. . . . .... .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . .... ..... . ... . . . .. . . . .... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . .... .... .. ... ... . ... . ... . . . .. .. ... ... .. . ... . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .... ... . . . .. . . .. ... . . . . . . . ... .. . . .. . . . .. ... .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . .. . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . ..... ..... .... .. . ... .. ..... .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. ... ..... . . . ...... ... . . ... .. . .. .. .. . . .... ... . . . ... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . ... ...... ... .. ....... . . ....... .. . . .. ... . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .... . . .. ... ..... .. .. . ... . . .... . . . . . . . ... .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . .... .... . .... . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . . . ...... . . . . .. .... ... ... . . ... .. . . . . . .. . .... . . . . . ... .... .. .. . . .. . . . . ... ... . ... . .. .. . . .. . .. ... . . .. . .... ... .. . . . .. . . .. ... . .. .. . ... . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... . . . . ... . . ... . Electronic copy provided to: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Wake Forest, NC Cynthia Van Der Wiele, USEPA, Raleigh, NC Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC George Hoops, FHWA, Raleigh, NC Donnie Brew, FHWA, Raleigh, NC Neil Medlin, NCDOT, Raleigl�, NC Eric Midkiff, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC Rab Ridings, NCDWR, Raleigh, NC : �:��;l-�� ::�`�:��:�:�>: ��:��:��::�:�:��.::..:��:�:�:�:�::�:�:��:�:��: ��:�:�: ��: �� :�:�:�:: �:�:��:��::::�:�:�::.�: �.�:�..:.::::.`:.�:::� :.: ::.::.:.:::.�:��.�:..:.�::::::.:.::.::..:F.:::...:::�: :�.:�:�:��.�:��: � ��::��::�:��: �: �: �::.:::.�.::.:.:�..::.:�::�:�:��.�:::�:.:: :.:'�}��::::.: : :':::.:'.'.:.'.'.:::.'r':': �: `.:..:: :':'.:..::: ;.':'..' :: `..'::::.: : .: �: `:'.:.:.':':�'.:':'..`.::.:':':':' : : :::..'.:.:.':' : '..'.�::':'::.' :: ::.'�:': �:'.:' :::::::.:::.:.:'::':.::': �:::':'.:: : : �:'':.: .� :.�`�: �::'.�:�.'.' A endix C - 31 PP J�,t�b STkrFs �� •, UNITE� STATES ENVIRQNMENTAL PRO�'ECTION AGENCY ` �/ w REGIOf� 4 %� q ATLAi�1TA fEDERAL CENiEFi fi�. �o� 6i FORSYiH STREET 4�pR�S�c` ATLANTA, GEpRGIA 3�303-896Ci Mr. Richard W. Hancock, P.E., Mana�er J�� O� ��1 � Project De�e�apment and Env�rorunental Analysis North Carolina Department of Transportat�on 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, I�Torth Carolina 2769�-154$ Re: Federal Dra#� Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft �4(#} Evaluation for the Complete 540 [Triangle Expressway Southeast Extensian] Project, Wake and J�hnston Caunties, North Carolina; ER� No.: FHW-E40852-NC; CEQ Np.: 20150323; NC Department of Transportation {I`�CDOT} TIP Project Nos.: R-2721, R-2828, and R- 2829 Dear Mr. Hancack: The U.S. Environmenial F'rotection Agency Region 4 flffice has received and reviewed the subject document and is commenting in accordance with §3Q9 c�f the C1ean Air Act (CAA) and $ t 02{2)(C) crf th� Nationai Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NEPA �arocess provides decision-�nakers the typ� and quality of information needed to �nake infarrr�eci decisions abaut �vher� and haw to imple�ne�lt the subject project, or whether to �araceed wiin the project at all. The Camplete 540 Federal Draft Environmental Iznpact Statement {DEIS) proposes an approximately 27-mil�, 4-lane divided, limited-access toll l�ighway ori�inating at NC 55 in Apex, North Carolina and cor�necting to US b41tJS 2b4 Bypass (I-495) in Knightdale, North Carolina. AItl�ough this project is no# included in the NCDOT's NEPA/�4�4 Merger pracess, the E�'A staff has been an active partieipant in the MAF'-21 �6002 coordination plan fa�- tl}e proposed project, including purpose and ne�d, detaiied study alternatives to be carried forward and alignment review. Tl�e Complete 540 DEIS represents a novel approach ta creating a streamlined, reader-friendly document. The EPA welcomes innavative approaches to describe and c�iscuss the proposed actions in a concise and strai�htforward manner. The pz�mary functian of a DEIS is to expiain how decisions about the project were made and to convey the infonnation t�at was used ta inforrn those decisions. Nuznerous technical reports were cited and linked within the DEIS. Hawever, the informatinn frQm these reports such as the findings, concl�sions, a�d/or recoarz�mendatians, which are �ssential in conveying ihe basis for decision making, were not inciuded. Thus, khe EPA rated the DEIS as `Enviranrnental Concerns' {EC-2), indicating that our review identified environmer�tal impacts within the project st�.idy area that should be avaided in order to fully protecf the environment. The `2' rating zndicates �hat the DEIS docurnent does not tniemet Addr�ss {URL} . httpJ/www.epa.gav RecycledlRecyclable � Printed wiih Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycied Paper (Minimum 3I]% Postconsumer) Appendix C - 32 contain adequate informatian in ordei- to sufficiently assess all of the e��vironmental impacts and allowing the EPA to be able to identify an environinentaily-preferred alten�.ative. Cli�nate chan�;e could have �otential e#fects an transportatio�� infrastructure. We reeomirn�nd that the NCD4T, i�i eancert with the Federal Highway Admi��istration (FHWA), incorporate scenarios froFn the National Clicnate As�essan�nt (NCA), released by tl�e U.S. Globai Chan�e Resource Program� as a prediction ofhow cli�nate change znay impact this particular h•anspc�rtation facility. 8ased on fi�ttare scenarios, it may l�e appropriate to i�corporate re�i�icncy features ta withstand i�nore frequent an.dlar more intense storm events as well as the iir�pact of temperature extreznes on pavetnent and ii�fi-astructure. Specitie teehnical review cornmei�ts on the DEIS are e��closed to this letter (See enclasur�}.The EPA r�coinmends that all af the technical cominents in the enclosure be addressed in t�e Final EIS (FE1S). Additionally, �re also recomn'end tl�at all iinpacts ta the human and ��atural �;f7vironment that have not bee�� disclased in the DE[S or covered in the FE[S be addressed in additionaf NEPA docume�ltation prior to khe iss�ai�ce o£ a Recorci of Decision {R(]D)_ C)r. Cynthia F. VaE� Der Wie�e, c�f my staff, 4vil� continue tc� wc�rk �vitii y�u as ��art of the NCDOT l�ltera�;ency Teai�t in th� idex�tification of r�asonable and feasible alter��atives. Should you have �i«y questions coneen�in� ti�ese co�nir►cnts, pleas� feel free to co��tact h�r ��t: vL�nderwicle.c �lthia cUe 3a. ��v ar (919) 450-6g11. We a�preciate the opportu�lity to comtnent c�€t th�; proposed Ca�nplete 54Q p��oject. Sincerely, G. Alan Fann r Director Resource Conservation ��d Resiora�io� Division Ei�closure cc: Jol1►� F. Sulliva��►, IiI, P.E, FHWA- NC Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office Gary Jorciai�, US�'WS Raj�;igl� Field Office: Rob Ridings, l`dCDEQ, DWR Travis Wi�sc�t�, NCWRC � E�tt��:i: t�ca?f)1 �.Rlobalchail�,e.��v; Appendix C - 33 ENCLOSURE Draft Environnaental I�npact State�nent Complete 540 (Triangle Expressway Southeast Extensian) Project Wake and Johnston Caunty ERP Na.: FHV'V- E40852-NC; CEQ No.: 20150323 Potential Im ac�s from #he Pro ased Fro'ect The Gonr�plete 540 Project assesses 17 Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs), consisting of 1000- f�ot corridors �n nevv location—ranging frorn 25.2 to 32.(} miies in Zength. Residential relocations range from 23� {DSA 4) to 550 (DSA 9) and business relocations range #�ronn 8(�SA 3 8c 4) to l ti {DSAs 8— 12). Agri-businesses impacted by the project range fram none (DSAs 1, S-7, 13, and 17} to 3(L1SAs 9— 11), with 1psses in prirne farmland �oils ran�ing firoam 1,949 acres (DSA 7) to 2,332 acres (I�SA 12}. The Clean Water Act Sectian 404 impacts range from 51,582 {DSA 7} to 78,0$7 �inear feet (DSA 1(}) of streams; 51.4 acres (DSA 7) tfl 75.b acres {DSA 1) of wetlands; and 49.0 to 103.4 �cres af I00-year floodp�ains. Cultural resource impacts include up to 2 Natianal Register of Historic Places (I�]HRP)-listed sites with adverse effects (DSAs b and 7} and up to 27.2 a�res of impacts to Department of Transpoz-tat�on Aci of 1966 §4(� public parks and recreation facilities. The impacts of this project on flaodways, the 5+00-year fioodplain, terrestrzal forests, unique farmlands, soils/minerals, greenhouse gases and climate change, comrnunity cohesion, future local and regianaI land use plans, and on Enaironrnental Justice (E7} communities is unclear_ See Comparative Evaluation Matrix on pages 1�7-109 0� the Draft Environmental Ir�paet �tatement (DEIS}. Summary The DEIS did not include an `Executive Summary' seetion. EPA Recornmendation: An Executive Surnmary section is used to succincily and accurateiy sumrnarize the ErS including the purpose and need, major canclusions—particularly t�e enviranm.ental impacts of all altez-natives (e.g., a table of impacts), areas of controversy, i�sues raised by agencies and the public, issues to b� resolved, and the choice among atternatives and identifieation of a preferrec{ alternative (CEQ reference 40 CFR § 1502.12). It is recommended that a� executive summary and table of all kcy naturat and hum�n resource impaets be included in the Final Environmental Irnpact Statement (FEIS). Study Overview Chapter 1 provided an overview and history af the proposed project, including a useful graphic of the project Iocation, and an overview o�National Environmental Poliey Act (NEPA). EPA Comment. The �tudy overview chapter is useful for public outreach in expla,ining ihe project cc�ntext. Appendix C - 34 Pro'eet Pur ose and Neee� Two prirnary purposes of the Compl�te 540 project were established: 1} imprave mobility witk�in ar thraugh the study area du�ring peak travel periods, and 2) reduce fo�ecast`ed] congestion an the existing road�vay netwot-k within the projeet study area. The needs for th� praposed project include: 1) moYe t-oute choices and 2} congestian on the existfng roadway network. The Capital Area Metropolitan Plaruiing �rganization (CAMPO) note5 that tY�e "Triangle is one of the nation's most .sprawling regions...a key challenge is to match our visian fvr how our commz�nities shauld grow with the transportation investrrrents to support this growth" (p. 1� emphasized in red bold). The EPA supports the prineiples �f sustainable community developmentz. E'PA Comment: The transportation agencies rnight wzsh ta consider the potential indirect and cu�ulative effects from the various alternatives in the identi�'icatian of a preferred al�ernative an� the potentiaT negative environmental consequences o� `sparawl'. The Studv Area and its Features This chapter aims to describe the information callected by the study tearrz. EPA 12ecommendatians: The DEIS chapter on �he aff�cted environment should concisely describe the �uman and natural environment of the area to be affeeted by �he DSAs under cansideratian. This chapter shauld coneentrate future planning and documentation effort and attention on important enviror�mental issues, particularly the presence or absence of significant hurnan and natural resources. Tne Land Us0 and �'opulation. Chara�teristics section of the DEIS provides a s�abstantial narrative on suburban development and limited inforrnation an community chara�teristics. The findings, conclusions, and recammendations of the Cc�mmuniry Impact Assessment (CIA, June 201 S} teehnical report r�vere not included 'zn the DEIS. The CIA and the DEIS both do not p�rovide sufficient inf�orrnation pertaining to the existin� land use and demographics. Of primary co�:cez-e� to the EPA regards not including the six (6) demographic indicators for identifying EJ cammunitiesJ (i,e., minority, low-incame populatians, aver 65 years old, under 5 years old, less than a high schaol edu�ation, and linguistically-�solated popuiations}. A summary and/Qr graphic of E1 populations within the detailed study area should �e included in arc�er to be able to fully und�rstand the derr�agraphic characieristics wiihin the s�udy area. Addit�onally, the DEIS also did not include a descxiption, findings, or summary of the study area population's use and consumptian of enviranrne�ntal resources, neighborhoods, or refererzce existing or future �and use plans. The �IA report, however, substan�iates the fact that while the project itset� daes not Z See Guidin� Principles, http://www.epa.�,ovlsmartarowth/hhud-dot-epa-partnership-sustainable- communities#Livabilitx Principles. � See: l�tt :I/www.e a. ovle'screen/overview-demo ra hic-indicators-e'screen Appendix C - 35 �onflict with any loc�l land use plans or wit� ar�y of the jurisdictions' desired development patterns, each particular DSA would have potentially negati�e effeets on iocal land use plans and planning objectives (CIA, page E-5). Tables listing park and recreation facilities, historic properties and districts, and oth�r significant public or semi-public land �ses/buildings located within ihe study area are a useful way of summarizing infortnation in a succinct manner. The Economic Characterxstics section of the DE�S does not provide specificity with regards to median income levels within the study area (i.e., does not incluc�e percentages ar figures but uses tI�e terms "somewuhat �igher" or "smaIler percentage" and does nat idenfiify specific bIock groups), Simila�r�y, the Racial/Ethnic Percentages section does not provid� suff cient inforrnatian regarding census block groups or concentrations of comrz�.unities of concern. It is unclear whether there are signifieant block groups of EJ cornmunities of concern as there vvas na discussian o#'this in the chapter. As such, the EPA is unable to make a determination at this time regardi�g which DSA vvould have the ieast impact �a EJ communities, The EPA s�g�ests that the transportation agencies cansider utilizing the `EJ Screening and Mapping' tool at: htt ://www.e a. ov/e�screen for the FEIS. The project study area includes 445 jurisdictianal streams ar�►d 543 jurisdictional wetlands. Tne DEIS Water Resources section did not include any tabular information summarizing stream or wetiands findings (e.g., NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM} and NC Wetland Assessm�nt Method {NC WAM) rati�gs, water quality class, etc.}, ox other data regarding the quality ar�d ir�tegrity of these systezxas. Some of this data, hawever, can be found in the Waters Report (September 2014). The EPA recommends that detailed inf4rmatian on jurisdictic�nal resources be included and presented in a comparative forzxi based upon the DSAs in the FEIS. The DEIS section on Pro�ected Species descrii�es several species that are locat�d wzthin central and/or east�rn North Carolina. However, it was uncTear as ta whether or not there are species of concern pr�sent lacated within the project study area. The referenced Natural Re.sources Technical Report provides sorrae �dditional detail. The EPA requests that a sum�zaary of key protected species and the potential eft'ects based upon the DSAs be included in the FEIS. This chapter also lacked cross-cutting NEFA information regardang: floodplains (E.O. 1198$; 10 CFR Part 1Q22); natural resou.rces (e.g., timber, soils, minerals, �sh, wildlife, etc.; Council on Enviror�mental Quality regulatians at 40 CFR § 1508.8); prime/unique farmland (�'armland Fratection Policy Act of 1981: 7 USC §4201}; and migratory birds {Responsibilities of F�deral Agencie5 to Protect Migratory Birds, E.4. 13186). The EPA requests that the transportation agencies ineZud� this informatior� in the FEIS and also mak� it available to resource and permitting agencies durmg the Interagency Coardinatian Team meetings. Detailed Studv Alternatives The DEIS SeIection o1F a Build Alternative was based on several key factors: logical termini/independent utility, roadway design criterialtypical sections, and study alternatives for each section. The range af build alterriatives was reduced to seventeen (17) 1,000-faot vv�de DSA corridors which are cQmprised of various combinations af lfl discrete colox-coded eorridQr Appendix C - 36 segments. A subsia�tial portion af the "Orange Corridor" segment was established through right- of-way acquisitions by the NCDOT as a protected corridor for the praject in the mid-1994s, in arder to protect it frorti large-scale development. This pre-NEPA action could be regarded as being pre-decisianal based upon the information provided in the DEIS. The (�range Garridor crosses a portion of the Swift Creek watersh�ed that provides habitat for the federa�ly-parotected D�warf wedgemussei (Alasrnidonta heterodon) and �as rnore wetland impacts than the other corridors under consxderatio�. EPA Recommendrrtions: Calor maps of each of the 17 DSAs were included in the DE�S but did not pr4vide the length {mileage) of e�ch alternative. A table af eack� D�A and how each one cornpares to the project's puxpose and need would facilitate co�zpariso� of the alternatives (CEQ reference § 1502.14}. Although the DEIS describes the color�coded segments, information on e�ch DSA is not provided. Consequently, this makes it difficult far the EPA ta fully ass�ss each alterrz�ative in a eomparable fashion. Fro�n the ianformaiion provided, DSAs 6 and 7 appear to most closely rneet the �c�znplete 540's `Purpose and Need' as these alternatives best facilitate the ability to provide other route choices due to �heir proximity to other majar highways within the exis�ing netwark (thus, alleviati�g congestion on existing roadways). DSAs 6 and 7 would be the most viable `jumping on/off points' to the rraajarity r�f commuters witl�in the study area. The EPA notes that these alternatives include the "Red Corridar" segmeni. NC Genexal Assembly Session Laws 2013-94 and 2013- 183 removed previous restrictians on considering this segment as reasonaiale and feasible aIternative� that meet the Complete 540's `Purpose and l�eed'. Additionally, th� EPA also fnds that DSAs 8-17 as being very prablexx�.atic as these altez-natives are the mast distant from existing raad netwarks and wouid be less abie fio meet the `Furpase ar�d Need' as stated (i.e., increase mobility and reduce congestior� on the existing roadway network as a commuter wouId have to driv� substantially further to access the Interstate 540 toll facility). F�hermore, DSAs 8— i 7 w�uld have the rnost paten�iat induce low-density development in an area that is currently rural/agricultural and k�ave the highest i�npacts on t�abitat connectivity, §404 jurisdictional strearns and wetlands, thz�eatenedlendangered species, fa�nlands, and reside�tial relocations. Because all af the 17 D�As far the Complete 540 project are entirely on new locatian, the EPA advises that wildlife `hotspot' areas be fuliy identified in the FEIS. Further�ore, the EPA encaurages additional collaboration with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC} and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to design appropriate underpasses and/or averpasses to reduce large ma�n�nal mortaliiy with v�hicle collisions, and increase safety and reliability. Expected Effects o� Each Alternative This ehapter aims to describe the DSAs and the resulting direGt and indirect impacts on the human and natura� environm�nt. The graphics provided facilitate understanding of reiocatian irnpacts and neighboxhood effects. EPA Recommendations: The I�EI� describes t�e process for deterrninin� the effects and discusses irnpacts in a general sense, but does nnt explicitly discuss direct or indirect impacts on: Appendix C - 37 - future lar�d use and transportation planning - commereial coz�-idc�rs and nodes - police, fire, and emer�ency services (e.g. respanse iiznes) - relocations in terms oi seCur�ng a.�'fordable housing; mobility, and access - eornrnunity effects (i.e., high beneft from project versus high burden} With the exceptian +�fsome EJ issues, z��ast of the irnpacts of the Complete 5�40 project can b� located within the technical reports provided on a comp�ct disc (CD}. The rnain findings, conclusions, and reco�rzlrr�endatians from these #echnical reports would be beneficial to inciude in the �EIS. Cultural Resources and P��lic Facilities: The EPA encoura�es the transportatian agencies to continue cooraination efforts to avoid and minimize rmpacts to parks anc� recreationar facilities and histaric properties. Noise: The EPA understands that a r�ore detailed review of specific noise barrfer l�cat�ons will be �erfarrned during the final design prc�cess. The EPA encourages the iranspor�ation agencies to consirier the design and iznplementation of evergreen roadside vegetation in lacations that do not m�eet the threshold for noise banri�rs. The use of veg�tative roadside scre�ning ameliorates nois� impact issues, visuai quality impacts, as well as pravides sflme potential berzeficial effects for downwind ve�icle emissions from near-roadway air pollu�ants. Jurisdictional Resources: Irnpacts to floodways or the 500-year floodplain were nat incIuded in t�e DEIS. Floodways and floc�dplains are vital �o reducin� the likeiihood of lo�alized flaading during storm events, particularly as the study area continues ta urbanize. The EPA environmental�y prefers bridges to culverts at rnajor hydraulic crossings. The EPA encourages engin�ering designs that inca�porates resiliency strate�ies inta the Complete 540 project to mitigate the likelihood of floading in low-lying, flood-prone areas in addition to the identified FEMA 100-year floadplain. Such a design will ensure that the projeci's `Purpose and Need' is met with regard to a robust, reliable transportaiion system as well as potentially mitigate for extreme weather events that are anticipated to increase as a result of climate change. The EPA enviranmental�y prefers DSAs 6�nd 7 as the alternatives as having the least impacts to jurisdiciional streams and wetlands based upan the infor�x►ation fro�n the DEIS. DSAs 1— 4 and 8— 17 have the hi�hest stream impa�ts while DSAs 1— 5 and 15 - 17 have the highest wetland iznpacts. Further avoidance and mianimization during �nal design should be considered in order tc+ reduce impacts to aquatic resources. The EPA has environmental cancerns aboui ihe potential zrnpacts fram som� of the DSAs witn respect ta the Swift Creek Watershed critzcal area and strearns and wetlands that have higher quality ratings using the NC SAM and ti�e NC WAM methods, respectively. Protected Species:. The EPA encourages further callaboration with the US�'WS and tY�e NCWRC during final design to avaid and minimize impacts to threatened and endangered sp�cies. There is potentia� for adverse biological effects as a result c�f the proposed Camplete 540 project. Appendix C - 38 Several rec�nt studies have examined the use of l�ridges and cuiverts as [day and night] bat roosting habitat�. The structural design of brrdges and eulverts with regard �o the Northern long- eared bat (Myotis septer�trionalis) might b� considered during final design as a way to benefit andlor promote recovery of the sp�cies withkn the proj�ct study area. CIimate �hange Ada��ion: T�e DEI� did not address clima�e c�ange/greenhouse gas emissions. We recomrnend considering climat� adapiiar� measures based an how future clirriate scenarios may impact the proposed project in the FEIS. The National Climate 1-�ssessanent (NCA) cantains scen�.riQs for regions and seetors, iancluding transporta�zon. Using the NCA or other peer revier-v- x�viewed climat� scenarios to inforrr� a�ternatives analysis and possible changes to the proposal can improve resilience and preparedness for climate change. Changing climate conditions can af�ect a pro�ased project as well as the project's ability to meet the designated purpose and need. �'�r additianal infoz7matian, ihe transportation agencies may wzsh. to refer ta: httt�s•Ilwww whitehouse �ovlsites/default/f Iesldocs/ne�a revised draft �h��.uidance searchab ie.pdf a See: h�:i/www.icoet.netldownloac�s199�pa�er2l.pdf Appendix C - 39 �pT OF C �� . � . 4 S� � �: �ares � �° (Sent via Electronic Mail) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CaMMERGE National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdr�inistration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIE� SERVICE Souiheast Regional Offce 26313th Avenue South St. Peters�urg. Florida 33701-5505 h#tp:llsero.nmfs.noaa.gov December 15, 2015 F/SER47: KH/pw Col. Kevin P. Landers, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1398 Attention: Eric Alsme� Dear Colonel Landers: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the public notice for Action ID# SAW- 2009-022401, dated November 16, 2015. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is examining alternatives far the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension — Complete 540 in Wake and Johnston Counties. The Wilmington District is soliciting comments on seventeen (17) alignment alternatives evaluated in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), dated November 2, 2015. The proposed expressway is not within areas designated essential fish habitat, and the NMFS offers no comments under the authorities of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As the nation's federal trustee for the conservation and management of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishery resources, the NMFS provides the following comments and recommendations pursuant to authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The NCDOT proposes to complete the outer loop around the greater Raleigh area in Wake and Johnston Counties by connecting the existing NC 540 toll road at NC 55 in Apex to the existing I-540 at the US 64/US 264 Bypass (I-495) in Knightdale, a distance of approximately 27 miles. The proposed project, called the "Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension — Complete 540," would have six travel lanes divided by a 70-foot-wide median, which is consistent with the built portions of NC 540 and I-540. The Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension would be within the Neuse River Basin. All of the expressway alternatives presented would cross the Neuse River and most would cross Swift Creek. The Neuse River and Swift Creek include spawning, foraging, or migration habitat for American shad (Alosa sapidissima), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and American eel (Anguilla rostrata). Anthropogenic impacts, including noise disturbance, sediment and toxicant input into streams and rivers, and direct physical injury, are threats to these fish and their habitats. These impacts can directly affect individuals and spawning aggregations as well as permanently eliminate nursery, foraging, and spawning areas. At the ecosystem level, the loss of freshwater wetlands can adversely affect water quality as this habitat filters pollutants and facilitates transport of organic material and impacts to streams can permanently eliminate habitats used by aquatic organisms. Within the 17 Detailed Study Alternative (DSA), the number of wetland impacts ranges from 111 to 161, the acreage of wetland impacts ranges from 51.4 to 75.6 acres, the number of stream crossings ranges from 106 to 142, and the length of the stream crossings ranges from 51,582 to 78,0871inear feet. All of 1 The NCDOT 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as project numbers for the work are R-2721, R- 2828, and R-2829. - o.s h�,,, ��s � � _ � x- � C��ARIM1IErviO%L`�' � Appendix C - 40 the alternatives presented would require seasonal, in-water work moratoria and other restrictions to avoid and minimize potential impacts to diadromous fish and their habitat. The NMFS prefers DSA No. 6 or No. 7 because these alignments avoid impacts to shad and striped bass and their habitats in Swift Creek. DSAs No. 6 and No. 7 cross Swift Creek upstream of Lake Benson and the Lake Benson Dam, which represents the upstream limit of these fish in Swift Creek. The NMFS also prefers these alternatives because of the smaller impacts to the Neuse River compared to the other 15 DSAs. Additionally, DSAs No. 6 and No. 7 would impact the fewest wetlands (113 and 1 ll, respectively), least wetland acres (52.0 and 51.4 acres, respectively), fewest streams (109 and 106 crossings, respectively), and fewest stream linear feet (53,014 and 51,5821inear feet, respectively). In summary, all of the expressway alternatives presented would temporarily and permanently impact streams, wetlands, and open water ponds and would alter or eliminate the functions of these habitats. Selection of DSA No. 6 or No. 7 would avoid and minimize impacts diadromous fish habitat due to the comparatively small impacts to streams, wetlands, ponds, and the Neuse River and the potential avoidance of impacts to shad and striped bass and their habitat in Swift Creek. The NMFS recommends DSA No. 6 or No. 7 as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). The NMFS appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please direct related questions or comments to the attention of Keith M. Hanson at our Charleston Area Office, 219 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110, Keith.Hanson@noaa.gov or by phone at (843)762-8622. / for Sincerely, i�� Virginia M. Fay Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division cc: COE, Eric.C.Alsmeyer@usace.army.mil EPA, Vanderwiele.Cynthia@epa.gov FWS, Gary.Jordan@fws.gov NCWRC, Travis.Wilson@ncwildlife.org F/SER4, David.Dale@noaa.gov F/SER47, Fritz.Rhode@noaa.gov, Keith.Hanson@noaa.gov 2 Appendix C - 41 USDA _ United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service North Carolina State Office 4407 Bland Road Suite 117 Raleigh, NC 27609 Voice 919-873-2100 Fax 844-325-6833 DEC 17.2015 Mr. Eric Midiff, P.E. North Carolina Department of Transpor�ation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27601-1418 Dear Mr. Midkif£ Thank you for providing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environrriental Impact Statement Complete �40 - Triangle Ezpresswc�y Soiatheast Extension (the DEIS). We have reviewed our records and determined, as of this date, that NRCS: 1. Holds no conservation easements inside the DEIS Study Area; and 2. Is not in the process of acquiring conservation easements inside the DEIS Study Area. We encourage the Department of Transportation to use NRCS developed soils data to identify, avoid, and minimize conversion of Prime Farmland soils to non- agricultural uses to the greatest extent possible, as those soils represent an irreplaceable resource. Technical interpretations of soil properties5 including Farmland Classification interpretations are provided on the NRCS Web Soil Survey at: htt�://websoilsurvey.nres.usda. og v/app/HoinePa�e•., htin. If you would like further assistance from NRCS please contact Matthew Flint, Assistant State Conservationist for Technology, at matt.flint�nc.usda.�ov, or (919) 873-2124. Si , .�--�, �---, ' � ��-- Timothy A. Beai•d State Conservationist cc: Matthew Flint, Assistant State Conservationist for Technology, NRCS, Raleigh, NC Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC The Natural Resources Conservation Service is an agency of the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources mission. An Equal Opportunity Provider, Employer ard Lender. Appendix C - 42 United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Richard B. Russell Federal Building 75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Suite 1144 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 ER 15/0641 9043.1 December 31, 2015 Mr. Eric Midkiff North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 ,1 � TAKE PR1DE� �NAMERICA Re: Comments and Recommendations on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(� Evaluation for the Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension, Wake and Johnston Counties, NC Dear Mr. Midkifi The U. S. Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension in Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina. We offer the following comments: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose to build a new, limited-access highway from NC 55 in Apex, to US 64/LTS 264 Bypass (I-495) in Knightdale for a distance of approximately 27 miles. The proposed highway, known as Complete 540—Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension, is being proposed as a toll facility. Section 4(f1 Evaluation There is an extensive record of coordination with land owners and managers of 4(� properties as well as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for this project. The potential uses of these resources were discussed, avoidance alternatives and other measures to minimize harm to the resources are identified and coordination with the public official having jurisdiction over each resource is documented. Section 4(� resources that have the potential to be impacted are listed below: Appendix C - 43 Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension - ER 15-0641 Dr. L.J. Faulhaber Farm Bryan Farms Historic District Baucom-Stallings House, Middle Creek School Park, Planned Sunset Oaks Park, White Deer Park Expansion Area Planned Bryan Road Nature Park Watershed Extension Loop Trail (Clemmons) Neuse River Trail Since a preferred alternative has not been identified at this time, we cannot concur that the Section 4(� Evaluation includes all planning to avoid, minimize and mitigate all harm to 4(� resources and that there is no other prudent or feasible alternative at this time. The Department has no objection to the demimimis determination provided that a MOA is developed identifying who is responsible for each avoidance, minimization and mitigation effort and the MOA is signed by the SHPO, land owners and managers. Thank you for the opporiunity to review and provide comments. If you have any questions concerning these comments please, contact Anita Barnett at (404) 507-5706. I can be reached on (404) 331-4524 or via email at jovice_stanley�a�ios.doi.gov• Sincerely, Joyce Stanley, MPA Regional Environmental Protection Specialist cc: Christine Willis — FWS Gary LeGain - USGS Anita Barnett — NPS Chester McGhee — BIA Robin Ferguson — OSMRE OEPC — WASH 2 Appendix C - 44 ,y �� v+ d �a��. � �� a�w�'� �'. .. -. , ' � � :. =� . �:�. �'':. �.l...' s:,.�<.: Pat McCrory, Covernor I�ece�nber 1 �, 2015 Mr. Eric Midkzff, PE Narth C�ralina Department of Transpa�tatian I'rojec� Developmer�t � Envirar�r�ental Ana,lysis 15�8 Mail �ez v�c� C�nter Ra�ezgk�, North Carolina 2�699-154� Re: �C� I+ile #� 16-E-422D-0134y 1JA'.�Sy P�°��se� pr�sject �s fc��° t�e Cmtra�le�e S�fi `]C�°i��gl� E�p�°�ss��;y �ou�the�st E�te�s��n, '�IP P��jects IT-2i21, �i-2�2� �n� i�-2�29a Dear Iv1r. Midlciff, PE: The abave �ef�renc�d �nviror�m�ntal impact i��armation has �eer� s�bmitted to the State Cle�ri�ghouse under the provisions of the Natzo�al Envirpn�e�tal Poiicy Act. 1�ec�rding t� G.�. 113A.-1(3, wk�en a s�ate a��ncy is xequzxed to prepare an envirar�mental docurzaexzt �uader t�e provisipns of f�deral 1aw, t�e e�vzrar��ez�tal t�oc�nent mee� the �rovzsions oF �he �tat� Enviranrnental Palicy Act. Attached to this Ietter for your consideratian are ihe car�tnents �aade by agencies in ihe co�rse af this re�rie�r. I� a.ny furt�er environmen�al review d.acumen�s are �repared for tliis pro�ect, they s�auld be �a�raz�ded to this offiee for intergovernmental re-�iew. �hould you have any questions, pl�ase do not he�itaie to call. �incerely, � ��- C�yst Best State Envzaro�me�tal Review Clearinghouse Atiacllrnents ,. �, '. ; , i. � ' �, f . - �,. ��1� L�a�ghtridge, Jr., Secretary cc: R.egio� J 11aFailing �iddress: I30I NFail Serviee Center Rafeigh, NC 27G99-13QI Telephosre: (919)807-2425 Fax(9I9)733-9571 State Courier #51-Ot-00 e-mail state.cleariraghause@dou.nc.gav Lncation AI ddress: i 16 West Janes S€reet Raleigk�, No�h Caro[ina An Equczi Opportunit,y/�1f�rmative Acfion Employer Appendix C - 45 ��.. ,.�� YiVCI"DYtf'iZ EYl �"GZ� QIICI�I$� ;�Il7:71►�-17�It�l' Tc3: Crystal �est 5�a�e �iearingha�se Coc�rdir�ator � f��partrraent �f Adrr►inis�rat�on FRC?M: �.�r� Hardiscrn Llivision �f En ir m�n��l A55i5t�nc� and �ustorr3er Set�riC� Pe�m�t l�ssisiance � Proje�t it�view Coc�rdinatar �'A�' i�l CC � E�l2 Y cnvemo,� {�Ci�lA�.D R. Vi�f� �ER VAART 5�cretpry RE: 16-�134 Dr��t Enviror�rnental Irrspaet Stat�ment �ropased pre�ject is �For �h� Corr�plete 54Q Triangfe Expressway Southeast Extensi�n, 7iP Prc�jects — R-272�., R-282$ and R-�829 , VVake and Johnstan Counti�s Uate; Decerr�ber 5.7, 20�5 �h� f��partrn�n� of Enviro�mentaE QualiCy has r�vi�wed the prnposal fflr the referenced project. Based on fhe inf�rmatior� pr�rvided, 5�?V�Cai Of our agerlCi�5 �1�V� id�i�tl�Ed �7errnft5 that may be €�eqUEl'�d �I�ti Off�red 5a1'r1e guitlanc� ta rn9nimiz� irnpaets tt� the natura! resources withfn ti�e pro�ect area. �'he cAmments are attached fcar the applicant's eonsideratian. �'h� C3epartment encaurages the appEicant to con#in�e to viarK with our a�encie� durir�g the N�PA ftller�er Prcacess a�d as this �roject moves fnrw�rd. ihank you for the opportunity ta respond. Atta�hm�ret -�'�"i�r��%i�g �c��par��... SfiateofNort3t�aro�ina j Enviro�imentalQual€ty 1601 f�iail Servir.�Certer E R�ieigh. hicsrYh Carca�ir�a 276�9-76(11 419 - 707- �t's� Appendix C - 46 � �o�� .��n�. ��d.�.�f� �sc� �� Gord€�� yers, Ezcec�.�ivs I�i�ec�or a�13��t ! t = �i�i� TO: L� �Iardis�n, �n�vz�an�e�atal Assis�ance Coo�c�a�sa�c�r L7iviszon a�En�r�rau�ta�tal Assisia.t�ce �d C3uttea.ch, L7��i. FRC3�: Travzs Wzi�an., �ag�v�ay Project Cooxdinator Habita� Car�sservatiaz� Pr��asza, 3��TE: �3ecer�n��x �, 2€�3 5 SU�JE�T: I�'nt� ��rolina De��e�# c��Trar�sporta�io� (I�CI�O'I') Dxa�i �nvirc��enta� I�xpact Sta�z�.�nt {�}E��) far tla� prnposed Camplete 54� T�ia�gle �xpresswa� S�u�east Exte�sio� in �Jal�� azad Toh�ta� Counties, �o��ik� �axoiina. TIP Nos. �.�272i/R-282$(Pa-�.$�9. �CI��rt�jectN€�. �.�-013� �ta�� bicai�gists �vi� the N. �. 't�4r�.dl�e Resouroes �oxr�xni�sion have z�evaewed �e subj�ct i�EZS and �r� fasr�iliar with habi�at va1��s iz, t�e p�•oject a�-��,. 'I'he pu�pos� o��is r��ievv �as t� a,�ses� p�vj�ci a�x��acts to �'a�i� �d w�I.dli£e �esc�t,t�e�. C)ur corrt�r��nts a�e �ro�it��d ir� a.ccc�rda�ac� �ith r,��t�.i� prc�visions c�f ihe �a��aar�aai �n�virnr�.�ntat P€��cy ��t �42 U.S.C. 43�2(2){c)) an.d t�x� �'ish and'i�'��Iifs Coor€3.i�a�ion �ct {4� Stat, 401, �� am.e�ded; lb U.�.�. 66�-667d). NCI30T �s proposia�.� �i� constr�ct't�n of � lirr�i�d �ccess fa�ility on �e�r Ioca�ian fxom.lrTC 55 i� Apex �c� LJ� �4lIJS26� �3ypasa (S-49S) i� ��zghtdale. �nowz� as fik�e Cnm�le�e ��4- Txza.ngle E�pressway Saa�t�east Extez�sifln, zt zs pz��c�sed �s a. tofl I'acrli�y. The ap�ra�cima�� 27 ��i�e �ong facitity will �ve exte�sive di�ect impa�ts t� t�.e nat��a� envixor�nent as we� a.� se��xd�xy �.nd cr.amulat�ve im��.cts witiv� the prajec� ar�., The DEI� id�:a�a�'i�s 17 d�tailed stu+�y a�fi�na�tives (USl�s) w�� appro�.ated i�n�acts z�arngi�.g �rom S 1;582 to 78,f}8'7 �i�ea�r feet of s�rea�xz, w�tla�:d. �pacts of 5i.4 to 7S.0 acres, a� yvell as subsiantfal u�land �itat xemaval� The DE�S re�ezesaces flae valu� o�'rnaintaz�it� ha�itat cax�necfzvzty x� this al�eady £�agmen.t�d ia�dscap�. .A.s �ith any mul�i�la�a.e �e�� lar.�tiQn. highway �'acilrty ��zs praj ec� �vill xesult in �her �r�grr��n�g the: h�bita� t�r��.gho�.t i;�e prap�sed 27 mil� c.c��idc�z. ��i��eg 1�c�da°��s: LDivision af�n3xtad �ishek•ies • i721 �ail �e�vice Cen�er � R�l�igf�, NC 2i699-1721 T��e�a�a�n�: (919} i47�-�220 a �"ax: (91�3j 707-UQ28 Appendix C - 47 ��721/R.-28�81i�-2�29 Pagc 2 I3eceml�e�� 9, 20I5 105} As ��$ed u�der 9:he Inc�i�•ect E��ts and U�.mulative �z�zp�cts saciia� c�f �Iiis dac�am��t, (p. "... ihe burZc� sc�nar��os cc��ald lec�d t� �or•e �c��fd g�°�o�,th anc� ana�a inte�,�e dev�lo��zcnt i� sor�ae ar�as n��rrproposcd inte�°ch�xn�;e,r. In this �vuy, �ach �f th� .D,��s vs+ould. �ikely lead inc�uced la�d deveir��me�i �nd i2ighe� conce�airat�on�s of Izrgh-r�ensiCy ancl �ao�e a��tense Z�anc� uses in t�re vr�iaai�y+ of the .�5.�, especaally �er�r zrcter�ch��a.ge a�er�s ". T�ais v�riil be a�ay aspect i� sel�cii�g the �,�ast �n.�vironm.��.�a�� I��agis�g �racticable �.t�r�� i�e, �i1��'�ise �, l0�) "Ca�tinued a'evelo�rrae�i ir� ih� dawe�^ S�v� �eek wat�Nshed, belotv �he Lt�ke �erzson dc�asa, rnay pose c�iai�enges far� the long-ter�z viabaiity af d�vr,�f ��edge�rtu�ss�l �arxbitat i�a this ar�ec�.... The addittor� of the �arn�lete S40 pr�aject ia tha,� ar�ea has th� pc�t�r�iirxl ta cz�lc� to �he currtulative e. f,�"ects a�ot�ier pasl and �lanned,�'uix��e�pr�aje�is on th� lc�ng-term viabi�rly r�fthe spectes in the lo��er �S`wr,�` �"ree�C wate�shed: Contanued' grawila x�nde� either th� buald ��^ n�-hxtild scenari€�s will have the pr�l.era�i�l in cont�rbuie to fv�est�'Nc��-,nen�ation and waldlife hc�batat �'isttir�a�ee�. Ce��n�zned �it�i �he e}�'ects ofpast and�lrt�r�e�l,�'utur��c�jec�-,s, the Complete 5�� p�°�ject could sl�ift t�iese e, ffe�ts farthe� �r� ��e s�uth a�ad ec�st. " �`hes� a�•e concems s�i�rcd by ihe �iC'4�'RG not o��y %�r dvva�f ��dgerr3.usse� (Ala�idonta �eterodo�) b�i al.so o-�1a� sensitxve ac�ti�tic speci�s �ound �� the Swift ��eeZ� w�.tez�shed. V�RG wili assess potez�tzal �ni�.izx�iza�ion ant� coras�r��iion m�as�-�s to address tk�e� con�ern,s, �R� has ptu�iicipa��. ir� sta�ceholdex• rz��etings as weli as intexag�cy caardi�atzo� t�Zat �as ac��ed du�i�a� the �lanning o�'�his �roject. 'I�.t r`n��lvem�.i i�as a�o�ed us to express c�xac�xns i�vo�ving �e poten��.I dir�t au.d i�.dir�ct impac�s assncza�ed wxt� � ti�e �l��t�at�v�s �d�r conside��ia�a. As �e cc��inue th�c�ug�. t�e coardina�io� process anc� �e alt��na�ive sele�,an �ve w��l wa�k va�tkz NCDt�'�` ta� av�id an.d zaa.,i�e i�rtpacis to n�#:ural �•esources in �e prcrj�ct area. Th� �a� fox� �;he opporiur�.ty � com�r�eni. Zf we carn be �f ar�y fitr�.ez' a�sist�rzce pleas� �o�tact me a� {919) 707�(1370. ce. Gary Jordan, USF�V� l�ab I�rc�gs, N�D't�R Ez•zc .Al��eyez, TT�.A.�"E �ynil�ia Van I7er �Ti��.e, USEPA Appendix C - 48 ;r � ;ci � .. �. '��: L,i�da Culpepper; T�ivgsit�n Direc�ar tk��oug� �har�n Bri�ey �iigitalty slgned by T7ennis ��.��; f�e�nis Sl�ackel�'ard, Ea�ter�, L3istr�et Su ervisc�r snaEk�iro�� Di�: cn=C3ennis Shatketfnrd, �'Q�JE� �2;�t� ��C�l�il F..: r a=DivisionafVJasteManagement „�,��,<,,H.,, ., .<��-_,�•��Ytr _SalidWasteSadlon,rw=DENR, e rn ai#=den rri s s h a c k eif o rd @ n ede n DATE: Dec�bet 1{i, 20I5 �.gou.t-us aace: zoa s.� z.i o i 520:5�-os'oo` SLT�i�CT: 1d�PA R�view: I�rojeet #� 1�-t}134 �a�Ce/Jo�stp� Cm�anty 544 T�a�gle E�press�ay �c�uth��t Ext�a�sian The Division o�` Waste Ma�tagerrierzt, So�id �Jaste �ectior� (�ivision) has revi�ui�d the I�raft E�vironrnent�.l Iri�pact Siatez��r�t far ihe carnplete 540 Triangl� Expressway �o�theastean Extensian, Transportatia� ��prcrvement I'rojects �t 2721, R 2$2$ and R 2829. T�e Lii�ision has s�en �o a�verse im�act c�n the s�rrQunding ccrrnmunity ;�nd 1i�ewise knows t�f z�o sit�t�tiniis in the eQmmus�i�y, �hich �ot�id affc:c;t tl�is praject. I��ri�g cc��as�u.ctipn �h.e �artl� Carc�li�a I3e�a�rr��tt Qf T�an�portation (NCD�T) �ho�ald mal�� ev�ry feasible ei�c�rf to nai�iraaize t.he �eneratia� af vvasie, t� recycle rnat�rial� �or which viabl� marke�s ��i�t, and ta use recyci.ed products and materials iaa t�e develc�pa�aent c�f this prflject where suitable. Any wasra gez�erated by �azs px�ject that �az�ot be be��£�icially reused ar r�cycled must be dispas�d of ai a solid v�'aste manag�m��t facility permitted by t�e l�ivisi�n. The �.3ivision s��1�r recc�ttnn��nd� that the hTCD��' regt�ire aIl �omnaetors to pro�ide proo�' of proper disposaI fc�r �.11 waste gen�rat�d. Eig�t Parzz�itted Faczlities in �ake C�u�ty are as �'olla�vs: 9226-CI3LF-2�101, 9227- TRANS�'ER-2fi�2, 92�8-�D�F-200L �229T-TRI�NSFER-2009, 9Z34�CDL�"-2000, �231-�DL�`- 20I2, 9234-TRAN��'ER-20�2 a�td 923iT-'�RARrS�ER-2(iJ{4. Additional perrni�t�d faciliiies are l�sied nn i�ae �ivisio� of �T�.st� Management, �Sc�li.d. Wasfe 5ecti�n pc�rtal sate ai: � l�n;%/�_c��~�al.�zcdez�.r.or��,e4�f�rt�rf��>f �i��i�ity3z�t. [uestions xeg�rdir�g solid t�vaste manage3ne�i s�i�tald be directcd ta Liz Pat�erson, En€�rror�nenta] S�ni�r �peczaIist, S€�l.id Wasie �ection, �.t (919-707-$2b6). cc: Jason G�atki�►s, Field C9p�ratians Bra.nc� I-�ea� Liz Pa�,�;ersan, E�virdnrnental Senio� Specialist Jessica Ntnn�ie, �orn�liance Off'icer F�yefteuilfe �egi�r€al �i�ice 225 �Si�een StreQt, Suite i74, Fayeti�ville, Nn�4h� Caralina �63Q9•5695 Mair� Plione: 99�•�33-3300 1 lniernet: htip,lf�ww,ncd�nr,gov An �qttal Qp�arfunify S Affarmativa Rction Emp9oyer-N�ade in part by Racycled paper Appendix C - 49 L ^�: �t� s. �'; �� :�` ._.....:� � ;�� _... .,: � �� "�';zSiS �tFliCiLJ#.'3YE:TYii (:.Eti ViR:J?�!ME�A�Fz!_ G�U,43,.11 Y D�cerrlber 11, 2D15 To: I.inda Cul�epper, I3ireci�r I�ivi�ion of Waste Nia�agemeni PAT MCCRC3R� . ;.,:�.,. DC}N�LLD R. �AN I]�'R VAA�'I' LTNL)A CUL.P�PF�tZ liL�.,. Frfl�za: 7enny Patterson, �nviro�ux��ntal ��:nic�r �pecialist, �c��lianc� Branch � �'v'��"`� ��"'�E'`t�°�� iazardous Waste Section Subjeet: Hazardous Waste Sect-ion Commen.ts on �he Ca�plete S40 - Triangie Expz-essway Saut�east E�tension ('U4�ake and .l�ohns�on �ounties} Project N�mber: 16-0P 3�€ The Hazarclous Waste Section (HWSj has reviewed t�e sub�eat Envia�oz�mental Ass�ssm.e�E%�z' �e p�•c�pnsed project far tbe constr�ction of the Complete 544 —'iriaugle �xpressway Southeasi Extension project wl�ich wauld exte�d the �xisking 'I'riangle E��ressvv�y, fro�n IVC 55 Hypass in Apex tc� ti�e U� 64/LTS 2f� �3ypass in I�r�i�htdale, compieting t�.e 540 C3uter �.00� az�c�und �Iae Raleig� zn�tropol.i� area. A�y Iaazardo�zs wa�t� ge�ez'ated from dair�plitiern, ccs�structic�n, operatian, or mflinten�ace and/or remediaiion (e. g. excava#ed soil) frorn the g�xaposec� project must be mana�ed in �ccordance wi�h ti�e Narth Garplina Hazarda�s 'GVaste R�zles. Th� den�olitio�, co�struction, operaiion, maintenance; and remediation activities cc�nduct�d wilt �ost lrkely generate a solid wast�, and a detennination must be made whether it is a�azardo�zs waste, If a project si.te gen�za�es moxe �han 22D paunds �f �a.t�z^dous �+aste an a calendar morath, the HWS �nust be noiified, a.nd ihe site �rzust comply wi�h the small quautzty genara�or r�quzrern�n�s_ Sf a praject site generates more than 22C10 pounds o£ hazardous r�raste in a calendar montti, t�r� �iWS must be natif ied, ax�d the site musl comply with the �arge quant�ty generator req�.i�-ements. ��ouId azby questians a�rzse, please co��act z�n.a at 336-"167-0031. �-„�..,•.,�s, .: � .. , �e�-�.3�-.,__ ,..�, .. , ,.r, .:��-n � .- .. „�;.6;...,.�� ...l,rcag�rc8`a :..._ . �., ... 3la[e ofAlorth Camtina j Enviromnenta[ Quciity � LVaste h/tanagement 1645 Mail Basvice Ceneer � 217 West ]nnos Srrc: �� Raleigh. NC 27S99-1b�5 919 7117 H2O0 T Appendix C - 50 ��r�h ��roli�� ep�rtm�r�� o� �r�vir�nr��nial Q��li�y Pat McCrnry �avernar Date; T'o : 'Thrau��h: Fram: Subjeet: I��ceynber 7, 2f31.5 Lin�.a Culpepper, �ire�tor L�i�isiar� af �ast� Managerrient Ji.m l�ateso�, �u�erfu�d Sec�iion Chi�f �or�altl i�. van d�r Va�r� 5�cr�tary : ;� ,�';�' ��:�y�:. .. ;W t�.darr� Ulis�r��y, �nactive :�azardous Sites Bran�h �EP�. Project N�mber #� 16-OI34: Complete 540 Triangle E�pr�ss�ay �autheast E�tensi�n�Wak� an�! Jc�hnstoz� Cc�un�i�s, Nc�rth �arolx�a I�a�ve co�pletad a database review af sites und�r �he jurisdiciion of th� �upe�fu�d Sea�ion, and thirty (30} sites are located either wii:�ain t�e studv ar�� or within a on� ��nile se�ci� r�di�s of the study area b��ndary. The identified sites ar� listed an i�e a�ach�d s�Oreadshee� and show� a� �.lae a�ached map. Files %r the attached sztes ca.n be accessed �y �ollowin.g the "Access (��[i�e Files" Iink on ti�e �uperf-und Sectic�n web�ite: i�tt�s:l/�c��•t�l.��.c�er�r:c�r�;/�r��/wr�s./�L=Ii1�-r�c�ords. ��yau �ave a�y ques�io�s, please c4n�ta.cfi me at (9 P 9} 707-$21 Q ar via errrail ai aci��n.i€li.�hne� �.�n.cc3�;r�r.�nv. Ec: 3'trn Bateson �� Pete Dorn 16Q6 �lail Service C,�:nter, Ra�eigh, North Caroiira 27699-1 �a4£ Phone: 919-7(17-II2CI0 i infernet: http:llpor�af.r:cdenr.arglwebl�rm M Ecua€ Uppo� tunilp', Aifi�rnaliue Ar,Gon Emplayer — hiads io part foy recyclac� papgr Appendix C - 51 Site n4ame Site 1� ��res�ra� 5ite Addre�s eity C�unty CARRIAGE WOUSE CLEANERS �C92pQ51 €�SC,4 537 Plaza CIR Garner Wake �OY CLE,4NER5 �C9�a028 DSCA , 45{i3 Fayettevi€le Rd Rataigh Wake GREENSR#ER CLEANERS f7C92Q032 DSCA 42Q7 Fayeitevlfle Rd Ralaigh �VVake Con-Agra i5b36-12-92 9�A �85?JonesSausage Rd �arner Wake 4htaimart—Garner � 1f1fl66-D6-92 BFA 4SpE�FayetteviileRd � 6arner Wake Purser Drive 1Cti767-06-92 BFR 81S Purser Drive Garner Wake Baker Property, Fprm�r 11�18-07-92 6FA I�ewspaper Way Mally 5prings Vilake Caayton Bal! Fieid NCD98084A732 PRLF Clty Raad Claykan lahnstan Eiwac�d Pines pum� �fQ�lCI700Q0729 PR4F 18Q Neurspaper Vvay HoEly Springs Wake GarnarTr�sh �ump AlONCB�OOD694 PRLF 3Y7S Her�snn �d GARNER Wake � Nafly Springs Dump NC1NCDppU06A5 pKLF BRSS t.�1KE RD tiOLLY SPRI�iGS � Wake old ho41y springs dur�tp/ CBry san'EEary LF �fONCD000�6fi5 PRI.F Fdvlly Springa Rd HO�LY 5PR9NG5 ; Wake � C�LD RRLEf6H LF #12 NONCBEl00069A pRI,F SHIRl.�YST RALEIGH f WRKE � WE 8uifaloe, JR private dump PdONCB�QC10657 PRL� US-70 GARtVER vaake CflIV,4GftA FODQ�a. [�[C N�q9R2216477 IMSB 4851.JqNES SAli5AGE R� GflRPfER �1hfAK� CP%�L Nflfii'HEft�i PIVESIt7N CdMPLEX NQidCp00(��.061 INSB 90Z WITHER5 Rd; SR C�AiiNER 41fAKE ; �.4fi6 GIJI�FOEiD MILL5 PLANT i` NONC�OOQ1064 IHSB 200 �ICKENS ROAR FU(�UAY- WAKE ' VARINA BARiNELL RORQ V4tELL5 N�NCppOp132� IHS� CHARiES 5T & ANN AV� RALEIGti Waice �N-p-gH�EN, INC. Pf01VCf�tpC��.96[t IHSE 2�1 DICKE[�5 R� Ft1C�UAY- Wa}ce � ! VARIfVA EV�RNGUM,MAftY RE51.�FR1NGE5 Gft0 j NONCi30ti02029 iH5B 455 MAIN STR�ET APEK Wake NAPR/LOCKAtVIY'SBD€1YSHL3P(F�REtIIER� ' MCiNCi3DQ02116 IHSB 13Q1HIC�HWAY7qWE5T �ARN�R W2k2 NEWS & QS5ERVER MECH 8LV-SPILL NONC�002202 IHSB 1400 MECHAN€CAL �aARN�R Wake BIUD. RALEIGH l�Ei75E RiVER W1+VTP fV�ETHANQE. 3UO�tCC�QQ2363 IHSB N�USE FiIVEFt WtNTP � RRLE[GH Wake REI.�RS � 1N.F. GAfiR[5RN CEIMPANY NOIV��30[ifl2683 tHS6 582p �AYE7TEVlL�E ittaLElGH N/ake RpA6 Appendix C - 52 S6te Plarrte Site IIS pro�ram ' SBte AddreSs Cliy € ��unfy WiLLIAMS, E. W, FACfL9TY Ni1NCi7QLip272$ IHSB $�Q� FAYEiTEVILLE RRLEIGH ' V�Iake Rt]A� NEEQNiORE GEMERAL STORE N�N�Dt�D02882 IWSB 192i BASS LltKE RD FtJQU.4Y- WRK� VA[iINA € POQLE ROAD PCE I�{3NCDRfl�2943 € 4HSB PCSqLE RD RALEtGH I+�AKE I AMERICAN CQNTRACTCDAi7NGS N�NCfl0U01D33 € IH5B HWY55 APEX WAKE � S�I FACILIT`( M14�NCAOR02448 i IH56 121 EASTTRYO�t 5TREET RRLEfGH Waice CASTE.EBE9tRY PFipPERTY NONCD0402A63 ' IHSB 451 �ASi MAIN 5TREET CLAYTON lahr�sYon #C7SCA-Dry Cfean'sng Frograrn �BFA-Brpwn�elds Pragram �`PRLF-Pre-Ptegulatary Landfiil Program "`1HSB-Inactove Ftazarda€�s Sites Prog�am Appendix C - 53 , f.... . . .. . ' ' ��.. <. � y� i 1 � �.. ... �� g � � �:..,.' � � ,. . , . !"" f�� ., a � �� t� �< S��-Y . _ � . �� .��- v'"� �`�.�.'�� , �i . ,. � , <• ��.. ., �.. . .- .. � . , J ! . � _ �� E3� : � � �, � � ..,�;'_ ,,: �x I' - � � , , "' �''_ .m4 � .t`s;�'r � .. �: � �_ " � � � � �' ��, '� 4 � �. � �- � � , � � , .� �K -�� , _,�. ., �� ' �� :�� .� � �� .. �. ' ; ` �� - +� �;��`� � � �y� � , F� r� � .� ,�, �� s "�- "' � v ��5 ;:r � � � s� � � �� '�� ;� �� E� , � �s r ! F � A � d ��. ]L'T �, ' _ '�-" ? ' � ✓' - � e M��j�.9�� ..)^ .ax � � ' ' �. . � �J h "..� S 3` � �.1 �vy..`� 2��" 4 • : . � �.. Y: . � � � � x �. �W ��jf ��i.�" � �� ` ��:, �� I! .,J�q�p .. � f., � � . ., � � � � <� r� #�� ` � e �r ^ � k ,. � ,'� �x� �a � �� .: � � :,'[� � " ' x ` `� u� E' � � � f� � . . , ,. ��, ��_ �,� . r ., ' � � . ., � ��F�,.,�' �' �z:s,: � ��+ �. ,� � w-. ; f�lz�`W � �aD � s � �> � �� [� J ' ".- h S3 �.,,� � � !�}� �'i„�"',,,r� . � � �'� ��.i�. W �'�y�,�'��,';� .�+� �f�eR ` .�� a V� CY. � �.� . � � �� p� > � � � � �a, �0. �, �* �t r 3��°"s; � �� :.�� # � - � e.. � ,� ,,: .j _ � . � � _ .��n��;�'e`�° ._ 2 , .., _ Y��. . . ��`�:. � � � .� :�i -� � �wE � � � ... � �,� rr' 'n� � j ,. � � cn a � � � �'' � � � � � � � �� S: S � �¢,,; �e b S �� 1� � = F � ��.�� z.<. ��'�� . . e � � �-�� ` : � b f� � �� `� �% � �, `�;'� ` . _ .� � , � `� �n � � � � � � a� � � � �. � �: � � � � � E � � � a� � .� r � �� . � � � ,; � � � (!1 � �` ; '� , '`° ,,.. � ��' � "� _ � � � ; � � � Q e� � ` ��'y�� '�i'^ �'�^ F�.K ` N� [� � «'-: � � (� � �" '�^"_� f 9 .I' � ��.. � � �L ^R .: 4 � �� .' i � � � � � �' � � � � � ,:: ` � � � � .� _ ,:.�� . . , � � � � � � Appendix C - 54 ' -r . ,.:± ,. ... , lNaier ltesour�ces EIVVfRilWMEP{TAL C}idpLi7N PAT MCCRd�Y c.�„��.,:�,,. DO�i�LD R. �FAl�1 DEIt VAAtZT srurerary S. .�P.Y ZIiV[NfEEZN1AN id�i�i�+��ai !� �V�J i}iJ'CLYUI' �� _ T�: L�y� Hardison, �nvironrnents[ C�ordinator, ��ce o�L,�gisl�#iv� ar�d I��ergav�rrtmen�ai Affairs ihro��h: ,�my C�taprnan, Super�is�r, 'i'ranspartati�n Perarsitt3�a� Unit, �7ivisi�n af �ater ources Frorn: Rob Ricfings, �ivisi�n of Water f�ese��as, T"rans�r�rtati��s i'erz�itfing iJnit ,� 5ubject: CaYnrnenrs an the Draf� �nviro�nmental Empact State�ner�t, rel�tad tcr �ra�ac�sed h�C 540 Triangl� , � Expressway 5authe�st L�xtension fro�n NC �5 to U� 264, �a�e Caur�ty, F�dera! Aid F'rojec�t�ia. S'i'Ppt154a(19-2i� State Pz`ajacil�io. 6.4Dlili$, 6.401Q79 & G.�&OI€38[?; TiPs �-2'i2!/R-282�J€�- 2�29., �tate �tearic��hfl�e Prajeai No. ;"-4�t3�. ' 'ihis afiic� �aas reviewed the r�ference�# doc�rr�eni receivcd �ece�nber �, 2CIlS. The NC l�ivision af Watea� Resauroes (I�(CD1�IR) Es responsible for the issu�nce af ihe Sectian 4Q 8�Jatar Quafity Csrtification #'ar activities that icnpact �aeers oft�e LI.S., ir►aiudir�g wet[ands. l.t is n�r understar�ding that the prnject as presented wi[l r�su[t in i�npacts t� jurisdi�ti�na� wetlands, streams, and ather surface wat�rs. Th� t�lCDWR o�`era the foficswing c�r�me�ts based nr� r�view of the a�'�remenYianed dacument: �rojec2 �pe�i%� �n�rra�n��: 1. "�his pra,�ect is be��g pPanned as p��k a�the 4fil4/I�CE�A Msrger and Sectinn &ft02 Coardination I�rocess. �e.s a participating tea�n Enember, the P�ICDWR wili cantiraue t� �rark with the iearn, 2. S[��tns in the praject ar�a incfucfe NS� waters af Yhe 5tate. �'he NGD'�Id. is very cancerned with sediment ar�d erosiott irr�pacts th�# cauld resulE fra�n th9s projeet, 'Fhe NCT3�1 R re�orrtm�nsis that highiy proteciive sediment and erasior� control �3MPs be implem�nted to reduce the risk of nntrf�rr� runoff tt� tt�ese streams and their taibuta,ries. Additianal9y, �� meet the requirements of I��DOT's NPDES permiY NC�OEiD0250, the 1�ICDWR req�ests t�at raad des'rgn pigns ��vide treatment of the 5tornt wet�r rutto€'f 4l�'ough best rnanage�ent practia�s as detailed ir� th� rr�c+st recenc versian pf khe North �arolina L3ep�rtr.�eni c�f Trarrsportatiarr StorrrrwaFer iJest h�far�agemerrt Practices Tnofbrz� ttt�nut��. ldumerous sYreattas �nd tribuC�ries in the !'roject Area are impaired 303(dj wat�rs af i�e State.. TFae NC�WR is �ery cancerr�ed witk� sediment and �rosian impact5 that caulc3 r�ult fi�ant ehis proj�cY. The NCD�� recor�mends that the most protactive sedic�teat �nd �rrssian�contrql BMPs be impiemented in accordan�e with .�esrg�r Saa�rdards ira Serasitrbe Wcrtersheds (15A NCA� �4B .� i 2�} to reduca Che risk o�further irrtpairrnent ta these �vaiers. f�dditic+nally, tl�e NC�BWR rec�uests that road d�sign �Sfa�ss provide cre�trnent of the storm water r+gn€�ff t��ro�gh hest maroagement praeiioes as detailed in ilte r�nst recent mersion of tl�e l�nrth Carolina Uspartment of Tran�pnrtation Storrnwater Best Mtr�tcrgement Practices Taol6ax manual. � 5tate of North Caroiina ��'nvironmental {�uality � 1Nater Resources 7&17 Nf�l SBrviCe Center, Ra�eigh, �IwEh Caroling 27654•I6I7 ' Appendix C - 55 4. Review oPthe graj�t reveals the presence csf surface waCers cflassified as Water 5uppiy Critical Area in the peoject study �rea. Giuen fhe pptential for impacts tn these resource� during Ytte pr[�ject impl�,m�;ntation, the hfCF3V�R req�xests thet the NC�]Q'� striCt(y adh�re to North Carc�iaa�a rag�(ations entitled i�esrgr� S�ai�rtcards irt �`znsitive �atersheds ( t5A N�AC 04S ,D]24} thtaughnui design and eonstt�ucYion of'the project. This wauld aPpty far any area that dr�ins �a streams having WS CA(W�Cer �up�siy Critacai Area} elassi�catinns. 5. �has�ld th� project in�luc�e bridges 6ocat�ti withi� ihe Critical Area ai a Water SuppiY, tk�e i�1G��T may �Za requir�d t� design, cor�struct> and �raaintair� hazardous spiit catch ��sins in the project asga. The number c�f c��ch basins i�sstal3�d shouid be det�rn�ined by th� desi�n a�th� h�id�e, su chat runoff�o�al�i e�st�r said b�sirs(s) rather t4t�n �7owing dir�ctly into th� atream, and in cc�nsuitaeion witF� ti�e RICi�WSt. Tit�s. pra�ject is withi� the Neuse �tiver �asin. �iparian b�ffer am�cts shall �e avaided and minimiaed ta ihe greatest �xt�nt possib[e pursuant to 15A NC�C 28.0233. New developrneat activifies lacated in the pro��cted 5Q-f�aat wide cipas�ian areas within th� b�sin sha[� be li€nated ia "uses" identified wiiF�ir� attd canstruct�d i� aecordanc� wi4h 1SA. 3�iCA� .02� .fi295. �trffer r�z�igatian may ba required fnr bu�'er impact� rese�[eing i�om �ctivitias classi��d as "affowaiale with re��tigaeicsn" within the "iable of �ises" se�tian of the �iuf�'er f�ules as requiee a variance under th� Bu#�er Ruies. :� buffer mitigatian pias�, Garardin�ted with the I�iorth C�r�lin� E�ivisi�r� of fviitig��ian Serviccs, ara�st ba pramidec! to th� �1��1�IR Priar tc� approval of the �a�er Quality Cett's�c�ti0n, Bnff�r mitigaYion may fse required �c�c buffer impacts resulting fra�rta aa�tir�ities cla�sif�d as "aliowable with r�itigation" w'stiun the "Table oiUses" secti�sra of the Buifer ituies mr require a �ariance u�der the Buf%r Itules. � b�affer �niti�ation plaa�, �anrc#anat�d with ths No�th Garolana �ivisian of il�itig�tivn 5ervices, rriusi ba pravided to ihe 3�3CI3Vi7€t pricsr Ya approval o�the Water Quality �ertificaiion. ��ne�a! Cvonrne�fis: 7. �'he endironfnez�tal r}Qeumartts shauid �rovide a d�tailed and iterr�ized presentatian aaf th� pro�ased imp�cts to wetlands and streams witt� carrsspc��ding m�pping. 3f mitigatio� is neeessary as required by ! 5�. �l�AC 21�.f?5�36{h}, it is preferabfe t� present a conc�rYual (ifr�flt finalized) rnit'rgation plan with the environm�rstal � ri�cument�tfin�. Appra�:riste miti�acir.n pi�ns wili Pse reauired pr�ot� tc issusnce af a 40I WatMr Q�alrty Certificaiian. ° 6, Environment�l imp�ct sCatem�nt altes�€�atives shat[ eonsider design eriteria that reduce the impaets fia sireams and wetiands irom s4orrn watsr runoff: To rrteet the requiramenCs oFN�DOT''s 1VF�1ES perrnit NCSQ��i254, fittese afternatives �houkd includ� road des�gns tha� allnvk� for traa[rnent �fi �he storm water runoff thra�agh best rr��ra�gcment practic�s as detaiiec€ in tF�e mast recent versi€�n aith� 1Varth Cc�r�lirrQ �eperrt»rsrrt af 1`r�c�nsporta8ion �lor�rtwcster &est rYfanagentent Practices Toalbax �rtanu�i, t�hic� ir�cludes BI�FS Suc6� as grsssed swales, buf3�er a.r�as, prefot�€r3ed sersur hofes, ret�niian basit�s, etc. �. After the selection o€the preferred altern�tive and priar to an issuance of the 4i1 E Water Qualit3� Certifscatian, the 1��I.30T is r�spectf�l�y rerr€incled that they wili nee�t #a de€nonstrats the avoidanee and minimizatinn af isxxpaots fio �vetlands (nnt� sirearr�s) to ihe rr�axim�m exte�t practicai. ir� accnrdance witf� th� Enviranmentai M�n�gen�ent �amrrEissian's �t�les (15A NCA� 2H.0506(h]}, miti�ation wiil fsee reqr�ired for icnpact� n�' greater �an i aare to watla[t�s. In the event tha� mi�ig�tion is r�u€rad, tCte mitigaiiot� ptan sha11 ba dssigned to replace apprc�peiate lost functiotts atsd v�Eues. The Nortts �aroli�a Division [�f Mitigatian Serrrices �nay be avaii�ble to assist wieh wetland mit'sgaYion. 9. in accardance with the Environmcntal Management Cam�n'rssion's Rules (15A �ICAC 2HA506[h�), a�itigatifln wi€1 be r�qE�ired f�r impacts of greatar than l50 linear �eet ta ��ty single stream. [n th� e�rent that �iti�atian is re�uared, t�ta �:itigati�n plan sE�a![ �e designed tc� re�lace ap}�re�tiate fost fu�cticsns ar�d ��.1ues. The I�csrth Carali�a �iyisic€n af Mitigatian 5srvioes may t� available to assist with s�re�m rnitigation. 1p. Future dacumen�ation, incl�di�ig che 4�1 Watsr Quality Certificatiaz� Appiicatioa�, shali continue tc� inalude an it�rr�ized 6isiing af the prapQsed wetland and stream irnpacts wiih carr�sgvndi�g rnapping. Appendix C - 56 i�. The IVC��ffi2 ls very cor►cerned with sediment and erasion 'smpacls thaC could cesu€t fr�m this project. The NC��T sha�t address tt�ese concents by des�ribing �he potential impacts that may accur to t�e aquatic environrrrencs ar�d any rnitigating factors tha# wou[d reduee t9�e impacts. � i2. An �n�iysis af cumula�iVe ar�c? secas�dary impacts antic'rpated as a result �fihis project is r�quired. '�ha rype and detail of ana�ysis shall coa►�ortrz to the NC L?ivisian pf �efster �tesaueees Pfliicy �n the assessment vf seconda� �nd cumulaeive iznpacts dated April 1 f3, Z00�, 1�. �'he h[�L��T is r�s�sectfuliy rerttinded that Ail impacts, i�c[udir�g beat not ii�ited to, b�idging, ��1, excavativr� a�td cfearir€g, antf rip rap ta jurisdactian�i wetiands, s�reams, and riparian but�ers need ica be incfuded in the �nal impact caiea[atinns. 'ihase ittapacts, in add'ation to a�y Cans�rt�ction itnp�ec#a, �emporary ar �therwi�e, aiso ne�d to 6e incflud�ci as part of �he 4D [ Water �uality C�rti�catic�i� Appiicatiore. 14. 'VVljere streaans m�ast be crassect, the �IC��f� preP�rs bridg�s be used in lieu csf cc�lve�ts. Hc�wevzr, we r�alize ti��t �convmic cQn'�id�rations often reqeaire ihe use cofi cu[v�rts. Pi�sse be adviaed that culver�s sha�ld b� eou�tersuesic ta ailaw unirn�cfed �assage by �si� a€�d other aquatic organisrns. t�oreover, in areas where hfgh quaiity �+etlands or strea�ns ara i�npactec�, a bric&g� rnay prnve prefera�sle. W�en a�plieabte, the t�i�L1C}T s[�ould nat insCafl the bridge bents in thc cre�k, to the max€m�m �xte�t practicable. I S. Whenever �ossibie, the R�CI3�NR prefers spanning stnac�ures, �pasu�ing §tructures usualiy do nnt require wark widlin the stre�m or grubbing of the strearnban[cs �nd da z�c�i requ'rre stream channel reaiig�ment. Ths harizantal and verCicaf ciearan�es provided by bridges shall allnw for i�uman and wi[diiPe passage beneath tne structura. Fish pass�ge and navigation by canoeists and hoe�ecs sha11 nnt be blocked, �3ridge supports (bents) sh�u[d ncrt be placed ia� the stream �rhen passible. 15. Bridge deck drains shal[ not dischazge dir�ctly 3nt� the steeam. S�ormwater shal� be directed acrass ti�� brizige and pre-trea#�d through si[e-appropriate means (g�'assed s�tales, pf�-�at'PT1�1� SGqIiC �10�05, veg�tated buffers, etc.} b�fore entering the stream, To meet the req�irer�ents nit�IC[�C�i's iVPDES �ermit �ICSOfi00250, pflease refer ta the most recent versic�n of the Narth Carolina I�epartmer�t of Trar�sportalran ,S`tormu �ter Best . - �uJana�e�en� Practic:s 7"onlh�x r►�nu�l Fr�r ap�sroved meas�ares. .. lb. 5ediment and erasian c�nt�ol cr�ea�ures should nAt be p�aced in wetlands or streams. 17. Sorrowfwaste �eas shc��.id avn€d weCtands to the maximum extent practica4. lenpacts to wetlands in 6orrawfwaste areas wi[i need ta �re }�resented in ths �#0I Water Quaiity C�riific�tion and cauid �recigitat� r�►�pensatory za�itiga#[an. - 1 S. The 40t Water C�ua[ity �ertification app�icatEc►n will need t� specificalfy address the proposed �athads for staranwater managsrr�etzf, ivlare speci�calty, stormvvater sf�a�l not be perrnitter� to dischar�� diractky into strearns or surface waters. 19_ Based an the in%rmatic�n presenteci in the docum�nt, the magnitttde af irnpacls to wetlands aad streams msy rec�uire a►t individual Permit (iP} �ppllcatiaee to �he Corps of �ngine�rs aa�d eorresponding 40i Water Quality Certificacian. Ptease be advised thak a 4fl [ Water Qualiry Csrta�cation requires satisfactmry protecti�n of water qua3 ity tc� er�sur� that water qusi �ty st�ndards are met and na wetland or strearn uses are 3ost, �'inal permit auihc�rization wilE require t�e suE�rnit�al vf a farmal �ppiicatior� by the 1�C�l�T and r�rritten ca�currence fror� k�e NCi3WR. Please b� rware that any appravaf wiil be continger�� oa a�pro�riate avvidance and minimizatEan of wettand and str��m irnpaets to the rnaximu� extent practical, the deveiapme€�t af an acceptable stormwater managecnent pla�z, and ths inclusion of apxsr�priaTa mitigatiare plans where appropriate,� 2U. tf eoner�te is used during constructian, a dry war[� area shail ae maintained to pr��ant riirect eontact betw�en auring concrete and s4r�am water. VJat�s that inas�ve�tently contac�s u€�c�rsd cnncrete s�r�l� not be discharged Co surfaee vvatars due to the patentiaE for ele�aked p�i and possible aquatic life arsd fish {cilis. 2I ..Ef tert��arary access roads or det�aurs are constr�cted, tha site shall E� graded ta its preaons�ruction conto�ars and aJevatians. �isturb�d areas shall be seeded c►r rr�ulch�d tn stabilize the saii and appra�riate native waody Appendix C - 57 species shaiE be planted. When using temporary structures the are� s�tall be claared 6ut not grubbed. �ieartt�� the area with cttain savvs, mowers, �ush-hogs, or other €neehanized ec�uipment and leavr'ng the stus€�ps and rnot mat intact allows the area tia re-degetate naturally arsti minimizes soif disturbance. 22. iJr�tess otherwise a€�thaxized, p[acem�nt a�culverts �nd ocher strEsctur�s in w�ters anc� streams s�SaiD be piaced be3csry the elevatior� of t�e stzearnbed i�y une foot far ali cu�ve�ts witk� a diameter gre�ter th�n 48 inches, ae�d 20 gercent c�f the euivert dflarnet�r fcsr cuiverts havi�g a di�snefar less than 4� incl�es, to ailor� low �1ow pasaage ofwater an�l aquatic ]ife. I3esign and p[ace�aen� cs�cuive�s a.nd otf�er structures sncludi�g tempnr�ry et'qs[or� �a�[ttrof s�teasureS Shail nt�t be conduc�ed in �s rnarzt�er t�at a��y res¢it an dis»eg�i[zbrinrr► �f �veglan�l5 ot streambecEs or bazt�cs, adjacent tn mr upst�eam and dow�strea�n �f tha �bcav� s�ruct�€res. '�`he ag�piicant is requ'tred to pravide evidence that th� equilil�ri�rm is be'rng r�aint�ined ii requested in wriir�g by the 1V�D�FJIt. lf ehis enncfitian is una�is Ccs be met due ts� bedrn�k nr c��her limit'sn� �'eat�ar�s eneaur�te�ed duri�g aanstru�tion, please cc�ntt��t tiie NCD'WR for guidance on ha� ta proceed and to dstarrnine whether or not a permit �nadi�catiam witl be req�ired. � 23. tf muiti�[e �ip�s ar barreis are required> they shaii be design�� ta rr�ir�€c n�t�ra� s€�eam crass s�cYaan �s G�nsely as possibl� ir�ci�ading pipes ar ba�reis ai tl�od plain �leva�iass, �7oe�dplaan ben�h�s, ancUor si[Is c��y bc requiced where apprc�pria�e�. Wide�ing the stream chann�l sha�td 6e avo�ded. Stream cha��tel widening �t the iniet or outiet end csf sfnactures rypicalty decreas�s water vetocity causi�g sediment depositian titat req�ires increased enaintena�ce and disrupts aquatic fife passage. . 24. If faunclatian test barin�s are r�ecessas�y; it sh�ll be ecated in tE�e daau►nent. Ceatechnic�( work is appr�ved ur►der Cx��eral 4U1 CerCification Number 3�83/Natianwide Permit Na. �a ��r Survey AcCivities. 25. Sedaman� as�d srasi�n conFrol rs��asures suf�cient tcr protect wa�er resa�rcas must be i�nple�en�ed ar�d msintai�e� in accardance wit� t�e mcrst receat versi�� of Iriorth Caro[ina 5edi�ent �nd'�rosior� Cantrol Planning end E�esign Manu�l a�d t�Ze sr�ast reeent v�rsion oi�4GS4ti(}25F?. 26. A�I work in or adjaeent €o siream waters si�ai! he cot�dcacted if� � cEry work area. r�pproved �M�' sneasures �crn the rrs�st curren� version nf the NCY�C�T Consrruction and i�iain€ar,ance Aci�viiies m�nu�l s�eh as sacsdbags, rock "t�erins, co�i'erdams and bther diversion str�c�ures shai( �e used to prevent excavation in iiowin� water. 27. While the ase of Natianal Wetland Inventvry (I�E�II� ma�s, NC Caa�stal i�egi�r� ��luati�n of �e€iand �igrsi�cance (l�iC9�REVif�) mnaps and soil surv�y msps ar� usefia8 taca�s, t}�eir inherent inaccuracias rec]uir� ih�� qusii�ed personne� perfo�trt ansite wetland d�iineatinres pric�rtQ pes7nit appr�val. 2�. Heavy ec{uipment should b� b�aerated fr�rtx the bassk rather than in stcearn ehanne�s in or�ec ca minirrsize setiimerttatian and eeduce ti�e likc9Ehood of inrraducing ath�r gollutants �nto streams. �'his �quip�ent shall be �nspect�d dai�y and �r€ai�tained to prevent eanta�ninatian of s€�rface waters from ieaking fuels, Iubricants, hydrauEic �uids, ar �ther toxie materials. �9. Riprap sf�al[ nat 6e placed in tlse aetive th�iweg ck�annel or p[acec3 in the streambed in a m�nner t�at pr�cludes aqu�tic life passage. Bi��ngirse�ing boulders ar structs�r�s should be pr�perly designed, sized and iRst�lted. �0. Riparia� vegetation (native tre�s and shrubsj shaii be preserved t� tha maximt�m extent possib[e. Riparian vegetation must b� reestabiished wiif�in the e4nstru�tian iirnits r►fthe praject by the end afthe grawing seas�n f�[3nwir�g completion o4' consiructia€�. ^ Appendix C - 58 The hEC�WR appreciat�s the �ppartunity tm provide camcnents an yc�ur �rojeat. �hould you have any q��stians or reqtiire any aciditionai infarm�tion, pfl�ase cont�ct Etcsb �idings �t 919-i€D7-�7�6, Electr6a�ic copy only d`astrabratiars: �ric Alsmeyer, US Army Cc�r�as of �ngineers, R�ieigh Fie(d t3f�ce []r. C:yn�hia �Jan C�er Wieie, U� Enairpnm�nTa� Prot�ctian Agency Fiie Copy Appendix C - 59 �t�te o�'�Tarth �a�t►flan� Revi�wing Offaee: Ralei�,,,h, H3e�s�rt�e�t af �nviron�saen� and I��ural �es�urces �1�'i'E�G��ktlo��NTAk� 13E�I�� R�3�C�' ��I�Ii��:NT'� Prajeci Number 16-Q 134 Due I3aie: i 211.Of2QI5 Cc�uniy �Iaice (JoEutston� After reuiew ofthis pro.�eet it has heen deierminesi that the fiNR permit(s) andFor agpmvais indicated may �ieed to bs obtained €n csrder t�r #his project tn comply with Nor�h Csrolina Law. Quesiions r�garding these permiYs ahnuld ba addaessed to tiie .C2egional f3fiiae indieated on the reverse of tha form. t�ll app[icaiions, infomnatian and p idelines relatrve to ihese plans and pe�mits are available from tlze sa�ne Regional fJffinc Diarctrai Pracess Tim� P�,FtIvri'T'� SP�CIA�, APPLICAiIOS� PItUCED[IitES ar z2 E�UtR�:MENT5 [srst�rtary came limitj Permst to constr¢ct & ogarate wastewatcr €re:otment facilities, Applicetion 4Q days �fore l�e�in eonstruc�tion os awaxd of cnnstruction 30 days ❑ sewer syskem e7cterisians � sew�r systeans noF discliar�ing intu sEaCe surFace 4vaters. cos�tracts. On-5ite s`nspu�tion, t'ost-applica#iais teahnieal ctin%,rance usua3. (9D days) Ni�BES • gertnit to discharge inio surface water andlor Applrcation 180 tiays before begin acii�ity. fln-site inspection Pre- ❑ permit io operate and construct wuste�;afer facilities 8pplrcari°° conference uSuaL Additionaily, obla'rn petmit to construct 9fl-120 da}°s diecharging intn state sucFuce tvaiers. r"'��'�'°��' �"�� facility-granrred a€1er?v��S. Repty tatne, 3D days after (N/A) receipt of �inns ar issue nf 1�kDE� perrs�it-whichsver is later. ❑ Water 1Jse i�ermit Pre-appiication technicul confer�Mae Ezcual6y necessary 30 days i��1 � Well Cunst�t€on Iyermit Cam�lete appiication must be �eceieed and permii issued prior io the 7 ciays insiaitatian of � wetL (l i days) Applica#ion copy rnust be served on each adjacent riparian pmpeny owner, ❑ �� ,F�� (3n-site Rnsgection. Pre•applscat'son ennf�rez�ce usuat. Fitling may require 55 days Easement to Fill from td.C. Depatkmant af AdrninistrAtion anc€ (9� days) Fsderal Diedge �nd FiII Permit. �'emtit to construct & operate Air i'oIl¢tion Abatement �pPlic�tiun rnust be svbmitteti and permii receiverl prior to eonstruct�an and operat�an nf the source. If a permic is required in an � facilities andror Ernission Saarces as per 1� A h�CAC . 9�} duys {ZQ.b iQ� ihru 2Q.0300} area wichaut tacaE znsvng, then thera are addition�i �qu�c�ment�� and cimelines (2Q.0I 13j. ❑Permit m eonstntct 8c c�per�te Transpqrtatinal Fpcs[ity ets per Applicatdon must he svbtnitY�ei a± Ieast 9U deys priarta consittiction �a ��$ 1SA i+�CAC (2D OBo�, 2p,oGp7 oz mc3dificaiic�n aft[ie sonrce. �Any apen bumirsg ass�ciatc:�i vrith sub�ect proposal mu5t �e ia compliance wi4h i� A�ICAC 2'D.190Q DemoIitiun ar renovatiQns of sEruotur�s con4aining ashestos �niateria3 must Ue in com�liance tt�ith IS A NCAC: 20.4111� �0 ��,5 (a) (1) which requires noti5cation andremoval prior to �1A (90 dayx) de�noiition, Cqntact Asbestas Cantral Gxaup 919-167-5950. ��;omplex Source Pennit requised under 15 x1 NCAC � ! 2I3ASd0 Tha Sedimentariorz Polluiion Contrnl Aci vf 1973 �ttusC be properly addressed Por ar�y lznd disturbin� �ct€vity. An erasian BU sedirnenlation � contrcrl g3ast will be rec�uired if one or mnre acies t� he disturi>ed, Plan �3sd wskh proper Re;ionai Ot�"�ce �,urtd Qwality &2cFion) At IeasY 3ti �6 �� tlays bsfore begipning aotivity, A fe� of �r�1� for the first �re or any part of an acre. An express [e�ew opiian is avaiiabie with additional (3� days) fiees. ' �5edimentatian anci emsion coe�frol2nust be addressed in accardance vrith NC17E1T's approved pro�aram. Particulac attention shauld be given �3p ��ys� ts� design and installatinn af ugpraprzafie �uzimeker sedsmen# trapping devices es well � s3abie starmuater canvayances and outlets, � On�ite usspeciiun usual, SUrety hond �led tvith �1i2 Bond aznneint varias � Mining Permit with lype snine an3 number af acres c�f afEe�tetl fA�zd Aray are mined gceater 3o days fhan onc acre must he permitted. Tlze approgriate hond must be reoesved (60 days) before tIie permit can Le issued. �� ___.�._.. ��-site inspecfian hy N.C. Bivision Fcscasi Rasources if perniiE �ceeds 4 I day � North Cazotina Buraing pen�ut days (NlA.} On-site inspeotiop by N.C. Di�dsion Foresf itasvurce5 mt�uired "if mnce than �SpeciaS Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 1 day five acrzs a£graund olearing actir�ities a��e it�volved. T�spec[ions sl�auid be couniies iry coast�l �I.C. with arganic soils reqnested aE least tea days t�fnre acCual bum is pkannad." ��A� � Oi! ReHning FaciliLies N/A �g�j2� �Y� (��) If permik r�qe�ired, appiicaEiQn GO days bcfcsre begin cansCr�etinn, Applicant musf hira N.C, qualifi�ci engsncer to: p�pare plet�s, inspect eonstructian � certify canstnac#ion is accordine to �NR approve� plt�ns. M�sy alsa require �` Dant Safety Pemut �� r�der mos�uiW eontroI pmgrarn. And a 4U4 pern�cit from Cotps of 30 days Engineers. tL�l inspection oF sife is nacessary Yu ver'rfy Ht�mrd GlpsSification. {b0 days) A minfmu�tt fee of $2G0.()f3 must accampany the application. An addiCia�a1 grocessin� fee ba�ed on a percenia�e or ihe tos�l praject cast �i 11 be required upon camgletian. Appendix C - 60 �ounty Wa�e l3ohnston� Project Number: 1b-Q13A Due aate�: 12fib/2�15 NOft128I PfOC�55 TI3iLC �S£8[tti(!S'Y tiltl8 �SItItC} � 1'ERArII'I'& SPECL4[. APPLiCAT[C7N PROCEDURES 6t REC,�L1R2&iVIEEY.T3 File surety band of �S,DOfl witkr ENR running to State oENC conditipnal that azty welt j� ��y� � Permit to drili exploratnry oil or gas welI apencd by driil operatur shatl, upan eba�c[onmcnt, be plug�ed acenrding tn Ei�'R ntles �/� ansi ce�ulations. �Geo h sical Ex Inration Permit App�ication fSlc�i witkt £�NR at least ti7 days pridr to issue uf permi#. App3icsitian by t� days p y � lati�r. ti�o standa�l app3aca[ian form. NIA � 8tate Lakes CnnstructiQn Pernsit 1+�Sp[ication fee bes�d on structure size is chnrgad. Musi inaSt�de descraptions &� 15�2D �ys drawings of struoture &c proof of ownerst�ep af riparian prog�rty. I�/A � Aat �vater pualiry Certiiica�an �yp fit? days { 130 days) � Cr1MA FecFnie for MAJOR developafeni $250.0� fee must accnmpany �pplicatibn 55 days (f 50 days} � GAMA k'ern�it �iar M[NQR daveIopment �50.00 %e mus£ �ccotnpany aFP[ieaiivn 22 days j25 days) Sever3l geadeEic manuments are located in or near the project area. If any mo-nument needs to Be moved or dasimyed, piease notifi�: � N. C. Geodetic Sun+ey, Sax 27G87 Rnleigh, NC 2761 i � Ahandonment ofan} wells; if isquiced must he in accordance with Titie 15A. 5u6Chspler 2C.(�3fl(3. � AFptificatinn of the proper r�gonal p�ce is requested if "arphan" undergraund storage uu�ks (LTSTS) are discovered rluring any excavation operation. � Comp3iance cwith ISA NCAC 2�Ti I Ooq (Caasta) Starmwater 12�1es} is required 45 days �r�3 � Catawba, Jordan L�e, Rundalanaza, Tur Pamlico or 3+layse C2iparian �3uf%r Ruies rcquired. Ylans und specificatsons fnr the canstructioq exganss�n, ar xlYeration oF a public water system must be approved l�y the Bivi sion of W ater �Resources/Pubfic Wa4er Supply Saction prior to the award o£ o contcact oe t�ie ini�i�tion of canstruction as per l5A NCAC ] 8C .43�0 ec. seq. P3sns and 3� �g�s speci�€ctstions sl�outd be submitteri t� 1634 Mail Service Ccntcr, Ralei�h, NorEh Caratina 27699-1634. Ail puh3ic u�atar supply systetns. ms�st eomply v�ith state and federai drinicin� wster monitoxin� requisements. Pc�r mase information, coniaet tlia Pubiic �'Jst�r Supgly 5ectian, (919} T07-9 ]t�a. Ciexisting water I'snes svrtl6e reineated durir,g the construction, pians far tlte water tine relacatiun must b� submit[ed to the Bivisinn of Water � ResourceslP�bl'rc Weter Suppty Sec3ion at 1634 Mail Seavice Center, Raieigh, Ncsrlh Carolina 27699-1634. For more inforcnation; contact ths Pu6lic 30 days Wa�er SupgSy Section, (919) 707•9i OI}. Oth�r earr:menis atta�h additiffnal a es as ascess �, bein certuin to cite co�nant auPhari DP�ision Initials No Comments �late comment Reviev�r [3Aq ddm ❑ ; �2�25/98 aWR,WQF�t]5 ds ❑ Projeci will need ta carnply vvi�h the failowing: �2/14/15 (Aquifer & Su�face) ❑ � Sectian �4Q�1 F�rmit �anditioras, EVatianwide Permit Canditions, Reg�onal // Conditions, e 5ectior� 401 vVater Cer�i�cation Conditlans, � measures detaiked in h1CDDT`s 6est Manag�ment Pr�c�fces f�r the �rat�ctian of Surface watersl, • Comply with riparian t�uf�€er rul�s. � Com�ly with erosion cvntrol requirements durire� construction and individual iss�ec� s�ate stc�rrrnwatewr perrriit. � V�later suppfy �raters, buffers and endangered species will be issues � with c�rtain praposed routes �u��-�ws ❑ 1 / DE{VlLR (LQ & SW) 1LH ❑ While it is clear that potentiaf sedimer�t issues are being address�c{, It 12/14/15 should b� noted that the ultimate pro}ects wifl need detailed constructiar plans addressing S�,E eorrtral as well as work that rr�ay be assaciated wEth dam removal at pond sites impacted by the constr�ction act9vities. DWM - US'T IVIRP � l�otify the USTSectinn at fihe praper re�9�nal nffice if petroleum- 12/�.�J15 contam£nated sail or graundwat�r is discavered during �xcavation. ��IOI�I�L. �F�'�� Quesiic�ns regarc�ing these permi�s shouid �e addresse€� to t�e Regional ��ce marked belov��. ❑ �shevi�le �tegionaE C��ce ❑ 1Vlaoreavaite R�giare�l O�'�e� � �3'iianington It��ion�! �f�c� 20R� U� Hi�h�ay 7� 614 East Center Avenue, Surte 3Q 1 t27 Cardinal I3rive E�rtensi�n Fe�sru6ry t l, 2015 Appendix C - 61 Swannanna, NC 25778 Moaresv€1te, I�IC 281 15 Wilming#on, N� 28405 (828}29b-45�0 (7i14}6�3-1699 (914)795-7215 ❑ I+�yeiievil�e I�egion�! Ofi��e 22S I�Iorth Green S�reei, S�zite 714 Fay�t.teviIle,'�C 283fl1-5U43 ( 91q) 433-33f}0 � �aie�i� I2egio�al �lfff�ce 3800 B�rre�t Drive, Suite 141 Ra[eigh, NC 27609 (919� 791-A�2Q0 ❑ Wgns�o�a-5azfe�n Re�inn�fl �ffice 45� Vdesi H�nes Mi19 I�aad, Suite 30U T�inston-Sal�m, I�FC 271ti5 (336)771�9800 ��b�� i�,zors . C] �+�s�Bin�tc�n lte��o�aal ��ic� 943 V4'as[�ng�csn Sq�aare Ivl�id Washis��on, NC 27889 (Z�2�345-b�81 Appendix C - 62 NORT� C' ��NA �aT�� LEPsRII�TGHOUSE �� m D��; i��TT O�' Ai3M�N�S�'RATION �]: __ ,:��Oii'�RNP��NTAL REV��G� Coi7P7I"�' : WAKE �OHIV5TOI� F02pHIGHWAYS AN� ROADS MS CARRTE ATI{II�7,50N CI,,�ARINGI�OUSE COORDTIVA.TOk2 DEP`I' CJF T17ANSPflR'i`A'I'IC3%T STATEWIDE PLANIQING - MSC ��554 RALEIGH NC �,i�lly��k��?�}�"ii�i;ii�lciiitiili�[i7�+1 17E1VR LEGISL�ATIVE AFFAIRS DEP'�' 0�` AG�2�Ct7�,TU�2� DEPT OF CULTU�AL RESOL7RCES I3EPT OF TRAI�TSPOR.TATiON 1]PS M T}�V C)�' �M�RGEIVCY �'l.ANF�G��l'�' TRIANGL�E � CdC� �Et(3J�:�',�° INFORMA�°Iq�7 APP�ICANZ`: NC Bepartment of firan�portation TYPE: Na�ian.al E`nvirnnmen.tai Pnlicy Act T]ra�t Environrr�ental �mpact Staterrtent STA.TE ��Rt �6-E-4220-D�.3� r�� z��c��v��: ai/l�/ao15 ��rc�r �.ss�or��. 12/11/2015 x�v��w c�as�no �z/a��/2o�� 6 �� 2��.--- � i��%� {c-',� � � �� ' � i . �� DESC: Prapased project �.s for t�ie Complete 540 'T�-iangle E�pressway Soutkzeast Extensian, TIP Project5 R-2721, R-2828 and R-2829. C�20SS-R�F�RENC� �if.lMF3��: �-0--�-4220-0283 The attackaed praject has bee� sub�a.tted to th� �7. C. S�a�e Clearinghouse �ar intergovernmental review. Please review anci submit your response by tl�.e a�o�re indicated date to 1301 Mai1 Service Center, RaleigY� IVC 27699-1301. If additianal review time is neecled, please contact this offzce at (919)807-2425. r �s � �z�su�� o� �xxs ��vz�w �� az��ow�z�� xs sr�s�x��a�: � �ro con��N� � cor��rr�s ��rTzac��n s��v�n $�: �Ax�: �� 1 � �° � � �`� � �., �� ;,:. Appendix C - 63 i�TOR.Tki CA�,OL�N,�. �`�`A�.'� CLEA,R��TGHE�iJSE i�E�'A].i`I'I�ET�I�' f]�" �M�N��'T`RA'I'TON �NT�RGO�i'�R�"MElN"'�"AL REVI�Y� CO�1"'TY" : WAKE �OHIVSTON Ff12: �;IGiiWAXS AND ROADS STA'Z'E iViJNlHE3t: �.6��M4220-0134 �� c;�x��: �1/�6/Zo�� '�x ��s�a�s�: I2/l�/2015 rz�vx�va c�os�n: az/�.6/zois Ma� ELIZABETH HEATH C�EARINGHOLTSE COORDIIVA'I'OR DEPT 0�` 1�C�RiCULTURE 1001 MSC - A.GRICULTURE BLDG RAI�EIGH I�iC REV��W i?IS'I'FtT�UTTON DE1VR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEP'T' CJ�' AGk2�CC'i�,�'I'FJ�E DEPT OF CULTL7RAL RESdL3RCE5 DEPT OF TR�SNSPORTATION ��s -- aa�v a� �r��z�c� n�z�r��r��r� TRIANGL,E J COC, ��.a��cx xz��oz�,�rxo�r APPL,ICANT: NC Department of Transportation TYPE: National Envirnnmen�.al Palicy Act T�raft Environr�ental ��npact Sta'ternent DESC: k�ropos�d project is �or t�e Cor�plete 5�0 Tra.angle Expressway Snutheast Extension, TIP Projects R-2721, R-2828 and R-2829. CROSS-R�FERE�C� �TL7I�'iBER: �-Q--�-4220--0283 The attach�d pro�ect �as k�een subm�t�.ed �o th� �T. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovern.menta� review_ Piease review and su3�mit your respanse by �kz� abov� indicated date to i3D1. Mai1 Service Center, Ral.eigh NC 27699-130I. If adclitional review time is needed, please contact this o AS A F2�SLTL,T 4� '�'HTS REVIEW 'I`HE FOLLC?WING I� SLTBMT�'TEI?: u � SIGN�D BX: '"`� 4 :.� ce at (9�.93807-242�. NO COMMENT � COMM�I�T'I`S A'I`TACHED BATE : � � -}.`f �� ,��_ € � Appendix C - 64 NORTH CAROLINA STAT� CLEARiN�HOUS� I]�PAR'i`MENT .�F �M�N�S`�RATIOL�T �NT�I�GOVER�V"M�%i"�"A�, R�ViEW CO'CTPT'I°Y : �AKE �70I-INS �'ON �`Q2: �IIGHWAYS AND RC3ADS S TP.2`E Y3i7P�B�`R : 16 ��-� 2 2 0- D 13 � DA'Y'� Td�CEiV"��3: 11/16/2015 r'��ELSC'Y' it.�SPO%1S� : I2 / I 1/ 2 015 ��v��w c�.os�n: �2/��/zois MS CARO�XN PE�TNX c��r�xaus� coa��r�xo� DP5 - I3IV OF EI�ERGEI�ICY MANAGEMEN'I' FLOOBPLAIN NfANAGEMEI3T PROGPtiAI�f M�C # 4218 �z��x�x �c ��vz�v� �s��r��U�xo� DEF�TR LEGISLAfiiVE AFFAiRS DEP'I' OF AGRICUL,'I'LTRE T7E�'`T' C)F CUL'I'URAL RESOURCES ➢EPT OF TRAI�7SP4RTATIQN DPS - DIV OF` EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 'I'R TANGL,� � COG PitC}JEC'T T�TFE)RPlF3TiODT APPLICI�T: NC Departrr��r�t of '�ranspor�.at�on TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act Draft Environrnental Impact Staternent ��(j1�� r,::� '�� .s��;;F DESC: Pro�aosecl project is for the Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast �xtenszon, TTP Prajects R-2721, R-2828 and R-2829. CROSS-REFERENCE �iUMBER: ��-�-4220-0283 The attached project has been submitted to the i�F. C. State C�earinghouse zar in��rgavernrrren�.al re�riew. Please review and sub�nit your response by the above indicated date to 13D1 Mail Se�vice Ceratex, �al�igkz�3C 27699-1301. If ac�ciitional review tim� is rseeded, p�ease corz�.ac�. this office at {9I9)807-2425. F15 I-� RESL7LT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED :'� 1�70 COMM�D?'I' ❑ COMMEN'I'S ATTACHED hd \ �'� S T GI�TE� BY : � � ; ..m � �..,• .,�, ?�,.. DA�`E : �� ?� k � `�.� � � � � �.'''. y. �,: �� r� � } ::�7 a � � ';�p7� C '� Ra_ ,. �� Appendix C - 65 Maseman, Kristin From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Roy Bruce LOCHNER Begin forwarded message: Bruce, Roy Wednesday, February 24, 2016 4:51 PM Maseman, Kristin Fwd: Complete 540 (R-2721, R-2828, R-2829) -"Interagency Meeting to Review the Recommendation for the Preferred Alternative" image001jpg;image002jpg;image003jpg;image004jpg From: Kiersten Bass <kbass@hntb.com> Date: February 24, 2016 at 2:17:53 PM EST To: Roy Bruce <rbruce@hwlochner.com> Subject: Fwd: Complete 540 (R-2721, R-2828, R-2829) -"Interagency Meeting to Review the Recommendation for the Preferred Alternative" Regards, Kiersten Bass Planning Services Manager, HNTB **Pardon typos, sent from my iPhone** Begin forwarded message: From: "Wilson, Travis W." <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.or�> Date: February 23, 2016 at 9:18:18 AM EST To: Kiersten Bass <kbass@hntb.com> Cc: "Brew, Donnie (Donnie.brew@fhwa.dot.�ov)" <Donnie.brew@fhwa.dot.�ov>, "gary lordan@fws.�ov" <gary lordan@fws.�ov>, "Eric.C.Alsmeyer@usace.army.mil" <Eric.C.Alsmeyer@usace.army.mil>, "Van Der Wiele, Cynthia (VanDerWiele.Cynthia@epa.�ov)" <VanDerWiele.Cynthia@epa.�ov>, "Ridings, Rob" <rob.ridings@ncdenr.�ov> Subject: RE: Complete 540 (R-2721, R-2828, R-2829) -"Interagency Meeting to Review the Recommendation for the Preferred Alternative" Kiersten, in accordance with the Section 6002 process, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission does not have permitting or regulatory authority that may affect NCDOT's proposed project. We have provide comments throughout the planning for this project, and our concerns have not diminished. We remain concerned the potential negative effects in the watersheds impacted from this project will continue to degrade aquatic habitat utilized by state and federal listed aquatic species. Those concerns apply to all alternatives. NCDOT should not equate WRC's lack of comments on the preferred Appendix C - 66 alternative as not having concerns with the project. WRC will continue to coordinate with NCDOT during the planning of this project to address those issues. Travis W. Wilson Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator Habitat Conservation Program NC Wildlife Resources Commission 1718 Hwy 56 West Creedmoor, NC 27522 Phone: 919-707-0370 Fax: 919-528-2524 Travis.Wilson(a�ncwildlife.orq ncwildlife.orq � . � ': � � ': From: Kiersten Bass [mailto:kbass@hntb.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 1:49 PM To:'eric.c.alsmeyer@usace.army.mil' (eric.c.alsmeyer@usace.army.mil) <eric.c.alsmeyer@usace.army.mil>; Ridings, Rob <rob.ridin�s@ncdenr.�ov>; Van Der Wiele, Cynthia <VanDerWiele.Cynthia@epa.�ov>; Wilson, Travis W. <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.or�>; Gledhill-earley, Renee <renee.�ledhill- earley@ncdcr.�ov>; 'Chris.Lukasina@campo-nc.us' (Chris.Lukasina@campo-nc.us) <Chris.Lukasina@campo-nc.us>; Houser, Anthony A<thouser@ncdot.�ov>; Teague, Jeff L<jltea�ue@ncdot.�ov>; Huang, Herman <hfhuan�@ncdot.�ov>; Hopkins, Joey <jhopkins@ncdot.�ov>; Lauffer, Matthew S<mslauffer@ncdot.�ov>; Elam, William H <belam@ncdot.�ov>; Joyner, Drew <diovner@ncdot.�ov>; Robbins, Jamille A <iarobbins@ncdot.�ov>; Marshall, Harrison <hmarshall@ncdot.gov>; Furr, Mary Pope <mfurr@ncdot.�ov>; Mellor, Colin <cmellor@ncdot.�ov>; Medlin, Kenneth N <knmedlin@ncdot.�ov>; Hauser, James W<Ihauser@ncdot.�ov>; Staley, Mark K <mstalev@ncdot.�ov>; Stanley, Mike <mtstanlev@ncdot.�ov>; Ishak, Doumit Y <dishak@ncdot.�ov>; Childrey, Tom <tchildrev@ncdot.�ov>; Paugh, Leilani Y <Ipau�h@ncdot.�ov>; Pilipchuk, John L<ipilipchuk@ncdot.�ov>; Chapman, Amy <amy.chapman@ncdenr.�ov>; Jernigan, Dennis W <dwierni�an@ncdot.�ov>; Shapiro, Alan W<awshapiro@ncdot.�ov>; Lee, Craig J<cilee@ncdot.�ov>; keith.hanson@noaa.�ov; Desai, Rupal P<rpdesai@ncdot.�ov>; Pleasant, Kyle A <kpleasant@ncdot.�ov>; ken.riley@noaa.�ov Cc: Donnie.Brew@dot.�ov; Midkiff, Eric <emidkiff@ncdot.�ov>; Jennifer Harris <Ihharris@HNTB.com>; Roy Bruce <rbruce@hwlochner.com>; Kristin Maseman <kmaseman@hwlochner.com>; fred.skaer@�mail.com;'John Studt (Ifstudt@�mail.com)' <jfstudt@�mail.com>; Hancock, Ronald A <rhancock@ncdot.�ov>; Hanson, Robert P <rhanson@ncdot.�ov>;'gary lordan@fws.�ov' <gary lordan@fws.�ov> Subject: RE: Complete 540 (R-2721, R-2828, R-2829) -"Interagency Meeting to Review the Recommendation for the Preferred Alternative" Appendix C - 67 Maseman, Kristin From: Bruce, Roy Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:52 PM To: Maseman, Kristin Subject: FW: FW: Comments for Complete 540 Preferred Alternative WRC Comments From: Kiersten Bass [mailto:kbass@hntb.com] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 12:33 PM To: emidkiff@ncdot.gov; byamamoto@ncdot.gov; namccann@ncdot.gov; rbruce@hwlochner.com Cc: jhharris@HNTB.com Subject: FW: Comments for Complete 540 Preferred Alternative FYI From: Ridings, Rob [mailto:rob.ridings@ncdenr.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 12:31 PM To: Kiersten Bass; Midkiff, Eric Cc: Brew, Donnie (Donnie.brew@fhwa.dot.gov); Wilson, Travis W.; gary_jordan@fws.gov; Eric.C.Alsmeyer@usace.army.mil; Van Der Wiele, Cynthia (VanDerWiele.Cynthia@epa.gov) Subject: Comments for Complete 540 Preferred Alternative Kiersten, The NC Division of Water Resources understands that under the Section 6002 process, unlike Merger, we do not sign off or approve a Preferred Alternative for this project. At this time, we feel all the alternatives had various pros and cons, including NCDOT's Preferred alignment. On the positive side, we are very glad that Water Supply Critical Area watersheds will be avoided. However on the negative side, we are concerned about the high wetland, stream, and buffer impacts that would be found in the Preferred Alternative. In accordance with Section 6002 process, we do not currently see issues that will halt the process or future permitting of the project. But we will continue to coordinate with NCDOT and other agencies during the process to find as many ways as possible to avoid and minimize these impacts to wetlands, streams, and buffers; also including comprehensive and successful mitigation, and thorough stormwater treatment. The more successful NCDOT is at minimizing and lowering impacts to these resources, and ensuring preserved water quality in the project area, the more confident our agency will be going forward in the permitting process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Rob Ridings Environmental Specialist Transportation Permitting Unit, Division of Water Resources NC Department of Environmental Quality 919-707-8786 office rob.ridinqs(a�ncdenr.qov Appendix C - 68 512 North Salisbury Street, 12th Floor 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 .�;�'�Ewhirrq L�r�r�,�.. Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Kiersten Bass [mailto:kbass@hntb.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 1:49 PM To:'eric.c.alsmeyer@usace.army.mil' (eric.c.alsmeyer@usace.army.mil) <eric.c.alsmeyer@usace.army.mil>; Ridings, Rob <rob.ridings@ncdenr.�ov>; Van Der Wiele, Cynthia <VanDerWiele.Cynthia@epa.�ov>; Wilson, Travis W. <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.or�>; Gledhill-earley, Renee <renee.�ledhill-earley@ncdcr.�ov>; 'Chris.Lukasina@campo- nc.us' (Chris.Lukasina@campo-nc.us) <Chris.Lukasina@campo-nc.us>; Houser, Anthony A <thouser@ncdot.�ov>; Teague, Jeff L<jltea�ue@ncdot.�ov>; Huang, Herman <hfhuan�@ncdot.�ov>; Hopkins, Joey <jhopkins@ncdot.�ov>; Lauffer, Matthew S<mslauffer@ncdot.�ov>; Elam, William H<belam@ncdot.�ov>; Joyner, Drew <d'loyner@ncdot.�ov>; Robbins, Jamille A<larobbins@ncdot.gov>; Marshall, Harrison <hmarshall@ncdot.gov>; Furr, Mary Pope <mfurr@ncdot.�ov>; Mellor, Colin <cmellor@ncdot.�ov>; Medlin, Kenneth N<knmedlin@ncdot.�ov>; Hauser, James W <ihauser@ncdot.�ov>; Staley, Mark K<mstalev@ncdot.�ov>; Stanley, Mike <mtstanlev@ncdot.�ov>; Ishak, Doumit Y <dishak@ncdot.�ov>; Childrey, Tom <tchildrev@ncdot.�ov>; Paugh, Leilani Y<Ipau�h@ncdot.�ov>; Pilipchuk, John L <ipilipchuk@ncdot.�ov>; Chapman, Amy <amy.chapman@ncdenr.�ov>; Jernigan, Dennis W<dwierni�an@ncdot.�ov>; Shapiro, Alan W<awshapiro@ncdot.�ov>; Lee, Craig J<cilee@ncdot.�ov>; keith.hanson@noaa.�ov; Desai, Rupal P <rpdesai@ncdot.gov>; Pleasant, Kyle A <kpleasant@ncdot.�ov>; ken.rilev@noaa.�ov Cc: Donnie.Brew@dot.�ov; Midkiff, Eric <emidkiff@ncdot.�ov>; Jennifer Harris <Ihharris@HNTB.com>; Roy Bruce <rbruce@hwlochner.com>; Kristin Maseman <kmaseman@hwlochner.com>; fred.skaer@�mail.com; 'John Studt (Ifstudt@�mail.com)' <jfstudt@�mail.com>; Hancock, Ronald A<rhancock@ncdot.�ov>; Hanson, Robert P <rhanson@ncdot.�ov>; 'garyJordan@fws.gov' <�ary lordan@fws.�ov> Subject: RE: Complete 540 (R-2721, R-2828, R-2829) -"Interagency Meeting to Review the Recommendation for the Preferred Alternative" All — thank you for attending the interagency meeting (February 17, 2016) regarding the draft Preferred Alternative Report for Complete 540 project. Attached for your review is a draft summary of the subject meeting. Please review and provide your comments on the draft summary by Monday, February 29th. A revised final summary will be distributed soon afterward. If I have missed anyone or you feel others should be included in this review, please let me know so that I can share the draft and final versions with them. If you have any questions regarding the project or this summary, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Kiersten R. Bass Planning Services Manager ■HNTB North Carolina, P.C. Appendix C - 69 Ja�jED STq�s 2� A Yt� � z y � Q a ��T4< PHOS�G�`O UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 SAM NUNN ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303-8960 March 10, 2016 Ms. Kiersten Bass, Planning Services Manager HNTB North Carolina, P.C. 343 East Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 SUBJECT: Comments on Preferred Alternative for Complete 540 [Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension] Project, Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina; ERP No.: FHW-E40852-NC; CEQ No.: 20150323; NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) TIP Project Nos.: R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 Dear Ms. Bass: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 4 Office has received and reviewed the information package regarding the NCDOT's preferred alternative for the Complete 540 project. Although the Complete 540 project has not been included in the NCDOT's NEPA/§404 Merger process, the USEPA staff has been an active participant in the MAP-21 §6002 coordination plan for the proposed project. The USEPA provided comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), however, our comments and concerns were not fully addressed in the project package or at the informational meeting on February 17, 2016. The Complete 540 Project included 17 Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs), consisting of 1000- foot corridors on new location—ranging from 25.2 to 32.0 miles in length. Potential impacts stemming from the 28.4-mile NCDOT Preferred Route, DSA 2, include: 281 relocations, including a farn�/agri-business; §404 impacts consisting of 65,810 linear feet of jurisdictional streams, 74.3 acres of wetlands, 95.2 acres of zone 1 riparian buffers, 62.3 acres of zone 2 riparian buffers, and 87.1 acres of 100-year floodplains; 2,040 acres of prime farmland soils, 10.8 acres of sprayfields, and 1 park/recreation facility. In comparison, the proposed impacts from DSA 7 include: 451 relocations; §404 impacts consisting of 51,5821inear feet of jurisdictional streams, 54.4 acres of wetlands, 6.7 acres of Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area, 37.1 acres of zone 1 riparian buffers, 24.7 acres of zone 2 riparian buffers, and 86.6 acres of 100- year floodplains; 1,949 acres of prime farmland soils, 2 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed sites with adverse effects, and 3 park/recreation facilities. The USEPA has identified the following concerns regarding the Complete 540 project and our ability to identify an environmentally-preferred alternative: InternetAddress (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) Appendix C - 70 Detailed Studv Alternatives (DSAs) and Impacts to Resources The 17 DSAs were based on several key factors: logical termini/independent utility, roadway design criteria/typical sections, and study alternatives for each section. The USEPA understands that the actual right-of-way will occupy a 300-foot wide corridor and that the impacts listed in the Comparative Evaluation Matrix represent an initial "best fit" within the 1000-foot corridor. Preliminary design was not provided during the February 17, 2016 meeting; consequently, the engineering decision-making process remains unclear in how / where specific resources were avoided or minimized during the development of the preliminary design. Interchange designs, in particular, can have substantial impacts. In addition, the potential impacts on the various alternatives to floodways, the 500-year floodplain, and terrestrial habitat/forests (impact on habitat connectivity at a landscape scale) still remain unclear. Floodways and floodplains are vital to reducing the likelihood of localized flooding during storm events, particularly as the project study area continues to urbanize. IISEPA Recommendations: • Please include a summary of the impacts to forested land, floodways, and the 500-year floodplain. • Provide a preliminary design of the project for DSA 2(NCDOT preferred alternative) and DSA 7(lowest jurisdictional stream and wetland impacts as well as impacts to the dwarf wedgemussel) to enable a comparison between these two alternatives. Aquatic Resources and Indirect/Cumulative Impacts The Complete 540 project has the potential to incur substantial impacts to aquatic resources, including §303(d)-listed [impaired] waters and essential habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel. It remains unclear how these impaired streams will be protected from further degradation as both local and state riparian buffer protections that historically have been relied upon to reduce pollutants loads into receiving streams have been weakened (see NCGS § 143-214.23A]. It is also unclear how the Swift Creek Land Management Plan, prepared by Wake County, will serve to limit indirect/cumulative impacts within the watershed. Finally, it remains unclear whether impacts to dwarf wedgemussel habitat will be sufficiently mitigated to prevent a jeopardy determination. With regard to indirect and cumulative impacts (ICI), it remains unclear where development and `sprawl' will occur along the proposed DSAs. The USEPA is concerned with increased impervious surfaces and ICIs to streams and wetlands from induced growth near interchanges and intersections. The DEIS did not provide a quantitative assessment of ICIs. IISEPA Recommendations: • Please provide quantitative information regarding indirect and cumulative impacts. • Please provide information on predicted pollutant loading and measures taken to avoid and reduce these impacts to receiving waters. • These issues should be further evaluated by the transportation agencies as the proposed project proceeds in the NCDOT interagency team process and information provided to team representatives. � Appendix C - 71 I will continue to work with you as part of the NCDOT Interagency Team in the identification of reasonable and feasible alternatives. Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to contact me at vanderwiele.cynthia(a�epa.�ov or (919) 450-6811. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed Complete 540 project. Sincerely, � . �� . �v� Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, Ph.D. USEPA Region 4, NEPA Program Office Resource Conservation and Restoration Division cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA- NC Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office Gary Jordan, USFWS Raleigh Field Office Rob Ridings, NCDEQ, DWR Travis Wilson, NCWRC 3 Appendix C - 72 4`��T OF ��'.t, a�, .M w ---� ,��= � A �ql�ll�.� � t�f . �,� . G ,�� _' '.� VP yr�F ,. �x ,.�,4� _ . � o , STqiES OF � � � Regulatory Division/1200A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 March 18, 2016 Action ID No. SAW-2009-02240 Mr. Phil Hai�is, P.E. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Project Development and Environmental Analysis 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 Dear Mr. Harris: In February 2016, the North Carolina Turnpike Authority submitted a Draft Preferred Alternative Report (DPAR), for the proposed Complete 540, Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (STIP Project Numbers R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829) in Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina (AID SAW-2009-02240). On February 17, 2016, the participating agencies met with your staff and consultants to discuss the PDAR. On March 3, 2016, we mei with your stafF, the Federal Highway Administration, your consultants, and the City of Raleigh, to discuss questions we had concerning your justification for selecting Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) 2 as the preferred alternative, as compared to DSA 4, which has the lowest number of relocations, and also has lower stream and wetland impacts with no effects to the watershed critical area, historic sites, and likely only de minimis impacts to 4f resources. The City of Raleigh submitted a letter dated March 17, 2016, which further clarified the impacts to City of Raleigh facilities by DSA 4. After consideration of all the available information on the DSA's, we have determined that we have no significant objections or Issues of Concern, and have no objection to your proceeding forward with identifying the Preferred Alternative. Eric Alsmeyer is responsible for processing your application and is available to assist you at telephone (919) 554-4884, extension 23, if you have any questions or comments. Printed on Recycled Paper Appendix C - 73 Sincerely, �� Monte Matthews Lead Regulatory Project Manager Wilmington District Copies furnished: Mr. Clarence Coleman Preconstruction and Environment Director FHWA — NC Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601 Ms. Amy Chapman North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, Noi�th Carolina 27699-1617 Cynthia VanDerWiele, Ph.D. Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA — Region 4 715 Shepherd Street Durham, NC 27701 Travis W. Wilson Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator NC Wildlife Resources Commission 1718 Hwy 56 West Creedmoor, NC 27522 Fritz Rohde NOAA Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division — Atlantic Branch 101 Pivers Island Road Beaufort, NC 28516-9722 Appendix C - 74 Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 Iv1� . Gary Jordan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 Appendix C - 75