20-0050 Wake_U-5301_Type III CE_signed 2019-08-07

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
Type III Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
STIP Project No. U-5301
WBS Element 47018.1.1
Federal Project No. NHS-0064(141)
A. Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes improvements to the
US 64 corridor from west of SR 1308 (Laura Duncan Road) in Apex to US 1 in Cary in Wake
County.
t -
,.fin - �w ..� ^. 1. •f�i.i. 4W .
•a
Project Study Area
Streams
� •Y
i a i
-
` p + nir_,1 i ,?
? +�
Railroad Tracks 46:
do
rc Apex
L.
..yam
Cary L
The project is included in NCDOT's 2018-2027 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) as project number U-5301. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 2020 and construction in FFY 2022.
B. Description of Need and Puraose:
The purpose of the project is to:
■ Alleviate existing and future congestion,
■ Improve mobility along the corridor,
■ Improve regional mobility, and,
■ Improve reliability of the roadway network within the project study area.
1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
The need of the project is based on the following:
Existing and Future Congestion
US 64 is the primary east -west highway through southeastern Wake County and serves
multiple roles as a transportation facility including: linking adjacent neighborhoods to
surrounding business and community resources, providing a conduit for Chatham and
southwestern Wake County commuters to travel between their homes and jobs in Raleigh,
and as a regional and statewide corridor linking providing an alternative route to 1-40/1-85.
Due to the multiple roles that US 64 serves within the project study area, the facility is
expected to experience significant traffic growth between now and the design year (2040).
Currently, traffic along US 64 ranges from approximately 40,000 vehicles per day (vpd) west
of Laura Duncan Road to approximately 56,000 vpd at US 1. Under the "No -Build" scenario,
the traffic volumes are expected to grow to 56,600 vpd west of Laura Duncan Road, and to
over 76,000 vpd at US 1 in 2040. Additionally, the growth in southwestern Wake County will
contribute to traffic growth along other roadways throughout the project study area. Current
and projected traffic volumes for roadways within the project study area are shown in Table
1. Table 2 summarizes the existing (2016) and future (2040 No -build) level of service along
the project study corridor.
Table 1: Current and Projected (No -Build Condition) Traffic Volumes
Segment Existing 2016 (vpd)
US 64
West of SR 13006 (Laura Duncan Road)
40,000
Laura Duncan Road to Knollwood Drive
41,600
Knollwood Drive to Shepherds Vineyard Drive
40,000
Shepherds Vineyard Drive to SR 1521 (Lake Pine Drive)
38,400
Lake Pine Drive to Autopark Boulevard
42,700
Autopark Boulevard to Mackenan Drive
43,300
Mackenan Drive to Gregson Drive
45,700
Gregson to Edinburgh Drive
50,300
Edinburgh Drive to US 1
56,000
US 1 to Regency Pkwy
42,900
Laura Duncan Road
South of US 64
9,100
North of US 64
11,300
Lake Pine Drive
South of US 64
North of US 64
Mackenan Drive/Chalon Drive
South of US 64
North of US 64
Gregson Drive
South of US 64
Edinburgh Drive
South of US 64
North of US 64
13,600
17,300
2,200
5,800
8,000
5,800
2,700
US 1
South of US 64 110,000
North of US 64 75,500
K
No -Build 2040 (vpd)
56,600
60,600
57,000
55,000
59,400
60,000
63,300
69,300
76,200
56,400
14,600
16,400
17,200
29,200
2,300
6,800
10,000
7,000
3,300
118,000
148,200

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
Table 2: Current and Projected Level of Service
Intersection Control
US 64 @ Laura Duncan Rd Signal
US 64 @ Knollwood Dr/Costco Unsignalized
Dr
US 64 @ Shepherds Vineyard Unsignalized
Dr
US 64 @ Lake Pine Dr Signal
US 64 @ Autopark Dr Unsignalized
US 64 @ Mackenan Dr /Chalon Signal
Dr
US 64 @ Gregson Dr Signal
US 64 @ Edinburgh Dr Signal
US 64 WB @ US 1 SB Off-
Signal
Ramp
US 64 EB @ US 1 SB On-
Signal
Ramp
Tryon Rd WB @ Regency
Signal
Pkwy/US 1 NB On -Ramp
Tryon Rd EB @ Regency Pkwy
Signal
High -Level Crash Analysis
2016 Existing
2040 No -Build
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM PM
53.2
49.3
D
D
130.3
121.2
48.5
243.5
(NB)
(SB)
E
240.5
>300
172.5
(NB)
31.4
(WBL)
D
273.6
49.9
E
64.3
36.4
E
D
102.9
95.6
_■
209.5
26.2
D
69.9
>300
ME
(NBR)
(NBL)
(NB)
(NB)
38.9
10.5
D
B
14.6
37.4
B D
39.1
12.0
D
B
30.6
31.5
C C
29.9
53.4
C
D
35.9
68.5
D E
40.7
163.3
D NO
177.5
205.3
ME
5.1
8.1
A
A
7.0
23.7
A C
72.3
38.3
E
D
110.3
71.6
E
NO
41.8
31.1
D
C
70.4
26.9
E C
Crash history data was collected and analyzed for a five-year period between March 1, 2012
and February 28, 2017, for US 64 from just west of Laura Duncan Road to the Tryon
Road/Regency Parkway intersection, just east of US 64. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the
accident data collected during the study period.
Table 3: High -Level Crash Summary
Number of
C
Crashes
Percent of
Total
-
Total Crashes
779
-
100.00
Fatal Crashes
2
0.26
Non -Fatal Injury Crash
167
21.44
Total Injury Crashes
169
21.69
Property Damage Only Crashes
610
78.31
Night Crashes
134
17.20
Wet Crashes
103
13.22
Alcohol/Drug Involvement Crashes
17
2.18
Table 4: Crash Rate Comparison
U-5301
US Routes
US Routes
Project Study Area
Urban
Statewide
Total Crash Rate
421.79
233.17
183.63
Fatal Crash Rate
1.08
1.06
1.02
Non -Fatal Crash Rate
90.42
69.70
54.23
Night Crash Rate
72.56
50.74
46.35
Wet Crash Rate
55.77
44.92
35.72
EPDO Rate'
1173.01
'Equivalent Property Damage Only Rate
3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
Results of the crash analysis indicated the following:
■ The total Crash Rate is over twice the statewide rate for all US routes and nearly twice the
rate for US urban routes.
■ Rear -end crashes make up 65% of all crashes.
■ Most of the crashes occurred at the following intersections or along the approaches due
to queued traffic:
o US 64 @ Laura Duncan Road: 71 Crashes
o US 64 @ East of Lake Pine Drive: 31 Crashes
o US 64 @ AutoPark Boulevard: 46 Crashes
o US 64 @ Gregson Drive — Edinburgh Drive: 85 Crashes
The high rate of rear -end crashes are indicative of the stop and go nature and queuing of
traffic related to congestion along this section of US 64.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: Type III
D. Proposed Improvements
Preliminary Build Alternatives — Three preliminary build alternatives were presented at the
June 2018 public meeting.
• Concept 1 included a tight diamond interchange at Laura Duncan Road, a grade -
separated double contraflow intersection at Lake Pine Drive, a grade -separate modified
quadrant intersection at Edinburgh Drive, and a six -lane, divided facility with reduced
conflict intersections between Lake Pine Drive and US 1. Direct access between
Shepherds Vineyard Drive and US 64 would be removed and the road would be dead -
ended on both sides of US 64.
• Concept 2A included a single -lane teardrop roundabout interchange at Laura Duncan
Road, a tight diamond interchange at Lake Pine Drive, and a grade -separated modified
quadrant intersection at Edinburgh Drive. From west of Laura Duncan Road to east of
Lake Pine Drive, US 64 will be an expressway. From east of Lake Pine Drive to US 1, US
64 will be a six -lane, divided facility with reduced conflict intersections. Direct access
between Shepherds Vineyard Drive and US 64 would be removed. Shepherds Vineyard
Drive would be lowered and extended under US 64, providing a new connection between
Old Raleigh Road and Pine Plaza Drive.
• Concept 2B included tight diamond interchanges at Laura Duncan Road and Lake Pine
Drive, and a grade -separated modified quadrant intersection at Edinburgh Drive. From
west of Laura Duncan Road to east of Lake Pine Drive, US 64 will be an expressway.
From east of Lake Pine Drive to US 1, US 64 will be a six -lane, divided facility with reduced
conflict intersections. Direct access between Shepherds Vineyard Drive and US 64 would
be removed. Shepherds Vineyard Drive would be lowered and extended under US 64,
providing a new connection between Old Raleigh Road and Pine Plaza Drive.
12

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
No -Build Alternative — The No -Build Alternative (the option of not constructing the project)
was also studied. The No -Build Alternative only includes maintenance activities within the
current right-of-way to ensure the safety and continued operation of the existing highway. The
No -Build Alternative would avoid any adverse environmental impacts or residential
relocations; however, adverse social and economic impacts could occur. Future traffic
volumes will likely result in longer delays which would hinder the everyday social and
economic functionality of the corridor.
The No -Build Alternative does not meet the transportation goals of the State of North Carolina
or the transportation needs of the region. Also, by failing to provide solutions to congestion in
the area and improved connectivity to other traffic corridors, this alternative does not satisfy
the purpose and need of the project. The No -Build Alternative does, however, provide a basis
for comparing the benefits and adverse impacts of the Build Alternatives.
Recommended Alternative — A modified version of Concept 2B was selected as the
Recommended Alternative. Input received from the public and local governments indicated a
preference for the tight diamond interchanges.
The Recommended Alternative consists of the following improvements:
• Tight diamond interchanges at Laura Duncan Road and Lake Pine Drive.
• A grade separation carrying US 64 over Shepherds Vineyard Drive.
• A grade -separated modified quadrant intersection at Edinburgh Drive which will include a
new connection between US 64 and Edinburgh S. Drive and a new connection from the
US 1(south)/US 64 (west) ramp at Edinburgh Drive.
• Reduced conflict intersections at Autopark Drive, Mackenan Drive/Chalon Drive, and
Gregson Drive.
• Other roadway improvements include:
o Adding a third lane along the current two-lane sections of Old Raleigh Road between
Lake Pine Drive and Gregson Drive,
o Intersection improvements along Pine Plaza Drive,
o A new access road between Laura Duncan Road and Nichols Plaza,
• Replacing the CSX S-line bridge over US 64 with a new structure to accommodate
additional lanes along US 64, and a future 46-foot wide median
• New bike and pedestrian accommodations along Lake Pine Drive Laura Duncan Road,
Shepherds Vineyard Drive, and the Edinburgh Drive Bridge.
GW

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
Table 5A: Design Criteria
US 64
(Freeway)
US 64
(East of Lake Pine Drive)
Laura Duncan
Road
Lake Pine Drive
Classification
Urban Arterial
Urban Arterial
Major Collector
Major Collector
Design Speed
60 mph
60 mph
40 mph
40 m h EE1
Terrain
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Rollin
Typical Section
Shoulder, 6-lane,
2-way
Shoulder, 6-lane,
2-way
C&G, 4-lane, 2-
way
C&G, 4-lane, 2-way
Lane Width
12-foot
12-foot 12-foot _
No Yes"
5-foot
10-foot multi -use
path
No No _
35-foot raised N/A
12-foot
Sidewalks (Y/N)
No
Yes"
5-foot
10-foot multi -use path
Yes
N/A
Bicycle Lanes Y/N
No
Median Width
46-foot (depressed)
Pro R/W Width 250 — 300 feet
Control of Access Full C/A
Design Exceptions No
250 — 300 feet
114 — 140 feet
115 — 140 feet
Limited C/A
No C/A
No C/A
No
No
No
" 8-toot wide sidewalks on bridges
Table 5B: Design Criteria (cont.)
Shepherds Vineyard
Drive
pine Plaza Drive
Edinburgh Drive
Old Raleigh Road
Classification
Local
Local
Local
Local
Design Speed
40 mph
40 mph
40 mph
40 mph
Terrain
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Typical Section
C&G, 2-lane, 2-way,
Undivided
C&G, 2-lane, 2-way,
Undivided
C&G, 3-lane, 2-way,
Undivided
C&G, 3-lane, 2-way
Lane Width
11-foot
Existing Varies
12-foot
12-foot
Sidewalks (Y/N)
Yes
5-foot
Yes
10-foot multi -use
path
Yes
5-foot
Yes
5-foot
Bicycle Lanes (Y/N)
Yes
5-foot
No
No
Yes
5-foot
Median Width
Varies
None
None
None
Proposed RAN Width
N/A
60 — 100 feet
60 — 100 feet
60 — 100 feet
Control of Access No C/A
Design Exceptions No
No C/A
No C/A
No C/A
I No
No
I No
* 8-foot wide sidewalks on bridges
The recommended alternative project components are shown in Exhibits 1, 2, and 3
(Appendix A).
E. Special Proiect Information:
Public Involvement
The project study area consists of a wide variety of land uses including, established
neighborhoods, commercial developments, auto dealerships, and big box retailers. To
ensure that all stakeholders were kept apprised of the proposed project and engaged in
the development of the improvement options, a public involvement plan (PIP) was
developed. The PIP included small group meetings, public meetings, online surveys, and
a project website.
X

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
A Local Officials Meeting (LOIM) was conducted with the Town of Apex on June 16, 2018. The
Town of Cary declined an LOW based off previous coordination with the NCDOT Project Team.
Additionally, a public meeting was held on June 21, 2018 at Summit Church in Apex near the US
1/Ten-Ten Road interchange. The purpose and need, conceptual designs, and visualizations
were presented during the meeting. Handouts which included comment sheets were provided to
attendees and posted on the project website. The meeting began at 4:00 pm and concluded at
7:00 pm. In total, 235 citizens signed -in at the meeting. A total of 49 comments were received
via email, letter, or submitted comment form. Additionally, 173 responses were received via
online survey on the project's publicinput.com website.
A second public meeting was conducted at Summit Church on May 14, 2019. In total, 215
attendees signed the sign -in sheet. A total of 24 comments were received via email, comment
form, or online survey.
Primary concerns expressed through the public involvement process includes the following:
■ Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations — specifically for Apex High School students
crossing US 64 at Laura Duncan Road
■ Existing and future traffic noise and potential for noise walls
■ Property impacts to businesses and residences
■ Cut -through traffic along the extended Shepherds Vineyard Drive
■ Changes to access due to implementation of reduced conflict intersections east of Lake
Pine Drive
■ New access to Edinburgh Drive
■ Loss of trees
■ Noise impacts
■ Changes of access to existing businesses
Construction Costs
Preliminary construction costs estimates were developed for the recommended
improvements and are summarized below in Table 6.
Table 6: Cost for the Recommended Improvements
Right -of- Way Cost $ 67,241,715
Utilities Relocation Costs $ 10,147,000
Construction Costs $ 115,400,000
Total Construction Costs $ 192,789,000
Project Impact Summary
The proposed improvements primarily consist of widening US 64, constructing interchanges
at Laura Duncan Road and Lake Pine Drive, replacing the CSX railroad bridge over US 64,
constructing a grade -separated modified quadrant intersection at Edinburgh Drive, and
operational improvements along Pine Plaza Drive and Old Raleigh Road. Table 7
summarizes the likely impacts to the natural and human environment due to the proposed
improvements.
7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
Table 7: Impact Matrix for Recommended Improvements
Resource
Relocations*
Residential
Business
Non-profit
Total
Recommended Alternative (Impacts)
2
17
0
19
Minority/Low-Income Populations (Disproportionate Impacts)
None
Historic Properties (Adverse Effects)
None
Community Facilities Impacts
None
Section 4(f) Resources Impact
None
Noise Receptor Impacts
102
Prime Farmlands (acres)
N/A
Underground Storage Tanks Impacts
4
Streams (linear feet)
550
Wetlands (acres)
0.31
Neuse River Buffer Impacts (square feet)
Zone 1
50,560
Zone 2
52,080
Total
102,640
Federally Protected Species
Yes (see Table 8)
*Detailed Relocation Report located in Appendix C.
F. Protect Impact Criteria Checklists:
Type III Actions
Yes
No
If the proposed improvement is identified as a Type III Class of Action answer all questions.
• The Categorical Exclusion will require FHWA approval.
• If any questions are marked "yes" then additional information will be required for those question in
Section G.
1
Does the project involve potential effects on species listed with the US Fish
❑
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries (NMFS)?
2
Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and
❑
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)?
3
Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
❑
reason, following appropriate ublic involvement?
4
Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to
❑
low-income and/or minority populations?
5
Does the project involve substantial residential or commercial displacements
❑
0
or right of wayacquisition?
6
Does the project include a determination under Section 4(f)?
❑
0
7
Is a project -level analysis for direct, indirect, or cumulative effects required
❑
based on the NCDOT community studies screening tool?
8
Is a project level air quality Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis
❑
required?
9
Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters?
❑
❑X
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water
10
(ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical
❑
Areas, 303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)?

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
Type III Actions (continued)
Yes
No
11
Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated
❑
mountain trout streams?
12
Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
❑
Section 404 Permit?
13
Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
❑
❑X
Commission FERC licensed facility?
Does the project include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
14
(NHPA) effects determination other than a no effect, including archaeological
❑
❑X
remains? Are there project commitments identified?
15
Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills?
❑X
❑
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely effecting a
16
regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood)
❑X
❑
elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650 subpart A?
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and
17
substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental
❑
❑X
Concern (AEC)?
18
Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit?
❑
❑X
19
Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
❑
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
20
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources?
❑
0
21
Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. USFS, USFWS, etc.) or Tribal
❑
0
Lands?
22
Does the project involve any changes in access control?
❑X
❑
23
Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
❑
0
community cohesiveness?
24
Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption?
❑X
❑
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning
25
Organization's (MPO's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where
❑
❑X
applicable)?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish
26
Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley
❑
❑X
Authority (TVA), Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or special lands that were
acquired in fee or easement with public -use money and have deed restrictions
or covenants on the property?
27
Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
❑
buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP ?
28
Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy?
0
❑
29
Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by
❑
❑X
the Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA ?

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
Type III Actions (continued)
Yes
No
30
Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
effected the project decision?
G. Additional Documentation as Reauired from Section F
Question #1 Effects on USFWS or NMFS-listed Species
As of July 2017, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four federally
protected species for Wake County found within the project area (see Table 8). Following is
a brief description of each species' habitat requirements, as well as the Biological Conclusion
rendered based on field observation and survey results in the study area. Habitat
requirements for each species are based on best available information from the USFWS.
Table 8: Threatened and Endangered Species
Scientific Name Common Name
I Federal
Habitat
Biological
I
Status
Present
Conclusion
lasmidonta heterodon I Dwarf wedgemussel
E
TBD
Unresolved
Elliptio lanceolata
I Yellow Lance
T
TBD
Unresolved
Northernhloot g-eared
Myotis septentrionalis
T
Yes
MALAA
Picoides borealis
Red -cockaded E
No
No effect
woodpecker
Michaux's sumac E
Yes
No effect
Rhus michauxii
Dwarf wedge mussel (Biological Conclusion: Unresolved) - A review of NCNHP Natural
Heritage Element Occurrences (NHEO) update April 2019 indicates no known occurrences of
dwarf wedgemussel within 1.0 miles of the study area. Habitat assessments will be done, and
necessary surveys will be conducted by a permitted aquatic biologist. Therefore, the biological
conclusion is Unresolved.
Yellow lance (Biological Conclusion: Unresolved) - A review of NCNHP NHEO updated April
2019 indicates no known occurrences of yellow lance within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Habitat assessments will be done, and necessary surveys will be conducted by a permitted
aquatic biologist. Therefore, the biological conclusion is Unresolved.
Northern Iona -eared bat (Bioloaical Conclusion: Mav Affect Likelv to Adverselv Affect)
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) in
conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), and NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis
septentrionalis) in eastern North Carolina. The PBO covers the entire NCDOT program in
Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. The programmatic determination
for NLEB for the NCDOT program is "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect." The PBO
provides incidental take coverage for NLEB and will ensure compliance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act for five years for all NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in Divisions
1- 8, which includes Wake County, where TIP U-5301 is located. This level of incidental take
is authorized from the effective date of a final listing determination through April 30, 2020. A
10

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
review of NCNHP NHEO records updated April 2019 indicates no known occurrences of
NLEB within 1.0 miles of the study area.
Question #10 River Buffer Impacts
Streamside riparian zones along Swift Creek, Williams Creek, MacGregor Downs Lake Creek,
and 29 unnamed streams in the project study area are subject to Neuse River Buffer Rules.
The project will impact approximately 102,640 square feet of Neuse River Riparian Buffer.
Question #15 Hazardous Materials
The proposed improvements will result in direct impacts to three (3) active gas stations and
one former gas station that still has storage tanks on the property. These facilities are
clustered around the proposed Laura Duncan Road and Lake Pine Drive interchanges.
Question #16 100-Year Flood Elevations
The recommended alternative will impact floodways along Swift Creek due to encroachment
of the roadway fill, it is anticipated that a Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) or Conditional
Letters of Map Revision (CLOMRs) will be required at all sites.
Question #22 Access Control Changes
Currently, there is no control of access along US 64 from Laura Duncan Road to US 1. The
project proposes to construct interchanges at Laura Duncan Road and Lake Pine Drive. Full
control of access would be implemented from west of the Laura Duncan Road interchange
and to east of the Lake Pine Drive interchange. Also, control of access would be implemented
along portions of Laura Duncan Road and Lake Pine Drive north and south of the
interchanges. Lastly, control of access would be implemented along US 64, east of Lake Pine
Drive at the U-turn bulbs and in the vicinity of the Edinburgh Drive grade separation.
Question #24 Maintenance of Traffic
The project will construct interchanges at locations were at -grade locations currently exist and
lower sections of US 64 in multiple locations. Additionally, existing intersections will be
converted to reduced conflict intersections. This will need to occur while maintaining a
minimum number of through lanes along US 64 and cross streets to safely accommodate
traffic. Temporary closures of Laura Duncan Road and Lake Pine Drive at US 64 will be
alternated to expedite the construction of the interchanges. Lane closures and off -site detours
will be developed and signed to assist travelers. The lane closures and detours will result in
disruption of travel patterns for commuters, residents, businesses, as well as student, parents,
buses, and staff to and from Apex High School. A detailed traffic control plan will be developed
prior to construction in order to assist local planners, Wake County Public Schools, and EMS
in identifying impacts to the services they provide.
11

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
Question # 28 Highway Traffic Noise Impacts
Traffic Noise Impacts
The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to become impacted
by future traffic noise is shown in the table below. Table 9 includes those receptors expected
to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels as defined in the
NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy.
Table 9: Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative'
Places of
Alternative Residential (NAC B) Worship/Schools, Businesses (NAC E) Total
Parks, etc. (NAC C
__ & Da -
Build 99 22 1 , 102
1.Per TNM 2.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772
2. Impacted equivalent receptors for the proposed tennis courts at Apex High School were rounded up to equal
one (1) receptor.
Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts, including noise barriers, were
considered for all impacted receptors in each alternative. Noise barriers include two basic
types: earthen berms and noise walls. These structures act to diffract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise.
Noise Barriers
A noise barrier evaluation was conducted for this project utilizing the Traffic Noise Model (TNM
2.5) software developed by the FHWA. Table 10 summarizes the results of the evaluation.
12

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
Table 10: Preliminary Noise Barrier Evaluation Results
NSA
Square Feet I
per Benefited Preliminarily
Noise Barrier
Length /
Square
Number of Receptor / Feasible and
Location
Height'
Footage
Benefited Allowable Reasonable
(feet)
Receptors Square Feet ("Likely") for
per Benefited Construction'
Receptor
NW 3 — south of US
NSA-3 64 at Bell Apex
1,050/25
26,248 35
750 / 1,500 Yes
Apartments
NW 5 — south of US
64 between Laura
NSA-5 Duncan Road and
3,360/12
40,320
40
1,008/ 1,500
Yes
Shepherds Vineyard
Drive
NW 8 — north of Pine
NSA-8 Plaza Drive and west
657/25
16,433
27
685 / 1,500
NO3
of Shepherds
Vineyard Drive
NW 8a — north of
Pine Plaza Drive and
NSA-8
I
478/25
11,947
17
703 / 1,500
NO3
east of Shepherds
I
Vineyard Drive
_
NW 8b — north of
NSA-8 Pine Plaza Drive and
690/25
17,250 34
616/ 1,500 I NO3
along Lake Pine
Drive
NW 13 - north of US
NSA-13 64 and west of
I
1,530/12
36,715
8
4,589/1,500
I N04
Mackenan Drive
_
NW 14 - north of US
NSA-14 64 and between
3,582/12
43,254 33
1,311/1,500
Yes
Mackenan Drive and
I
_ Edinburgh Drive
'Average wall height. Actual wall height at
any given location may be higher or lower.
'The likelihood of a barrier's construction is
preliminary and
subject to change, pending completion of final design and the public
involvement process.
3Barrier is not feasible due to utility and ROW conflicts.
4Barrier is not reasonable due to the quantity
per benefited
receptor exceeding the allowable quantity per benefited receptor.
A traffic noise evaluation was performed that identified three (3) noise barriers that preliminarily
meet feasibility and reasonableness criteria found in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy. A more
detailed analysis will be completed during project final design. Noise barriers preliminarily found
to be feasible and reasonable during the preliminary noise analysis may not be found to be
feasible and reasonable during the final design noise analysis due to changes in proposed project
alignment and other design considerations, surrounding land use development, or utility conflicts,
among other factors. Conversely, noise barriers that preliminarily were not considered feasible
and reasonable may meet the established criteria and be recommended for construction. This
evaluation was conducted in accordance with the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR Part 772.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy, the Federal/State governments are not
responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building
permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the
proposed highway project will be the approval date of the Categorical Exclusion (CE). NCDOT
13

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
strongly advocates the planning, design and construction of noise -compatible development and
encourages its practice among planners, building officials, developers and others.
14

ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
H. Project Commitments
Wake County
US 64 Improvements in Apex and Cary
Federal Project No. NHS-0064(141)
WBS No. 47018.1.1
TIP No. U-5301
All commitments developed during the project development phase of the project are listed
below:
NCDOT Biological Surveys Unit and Project Management Unit— Threatened and
Endangered Species Surveys
The biological conclusion for the Dwarf wedge mussel and the Yellow lance is Unresolved.
Prior to project right-of-way authorization, habitat assessments and surveys will be completed
by a permitted aquatic biologist.
NCDOT Division 5 Resident Engineer — Offsite Detours and Traffic Management
The Resident Engineer will coordinate with the following agencies at least one month prior to
any road closures or implementation of offsite detours:
• Town of Apex EMS: 919-363-1577
• Town of Apex Transportation: 919-249-3358
• Town of Cary EMS: 919-380-6909
• Town of Cary Transportation: 919-469-4030
• Wake County Emergency Management: 919-856-6480
• Wake County Emergency Medical Services: 919-586-6020
• Wake County Public Schools Transportation: 919-805-3030
Roadway Design and NCDOT Project Management Unit — Town of Apex
There will be coordination with the Town of Apex to finalize the bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations that are requested along Laura Duncan Road, Lake Pine Drive, Old Raleigh
Road, and Shepherds Vineyard Drive. Once finalized, the additional bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations will be included in a municipal agreement between NCDOT and the Town of
Apex.
Roadway Design and NCDOT Project Management Unit— Town of Cary
There will be coordination with the Town of Cary to finalize bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations that are requested to be included along Old Raleigh Road, Edinburgh S.
Drive, and Edinburgh Drive. Once finalized, the additional bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations will be included in a municipal agreement between NCDOT and the Town of
Cary.

ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
NCDOT Project Management Unit, Division 5 and Roadside Environmental Unit —
Landscaping and Aesthetics
There will be coordination with the Wake County Planning, Development, and Inspections
Department and the Towns of Cary and Apex to develop a final landscaping and aesthetics
enhancement plan. The improvements will be included in separate municipal agreements
between NCDOT, the Towns of Apex and Cary, and Wake County.
NCDOT Geo-Environmental Unit — Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
The project will result in impacts to USTs. NCDOT will conduct preliminary site assessments
for soil and groundwater contamination prior to right of way acquisition.
Hydraulic Unit — FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Division 5 Resident Enaineer-FEMA
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
I. Categorical Exclusion Approval
STIP Project No.
U-5301
WBS Element
47018.1.1
Federal Project No.
NHS-0064(141)
Prepared By:
DocuSigned bby':1I
8/7/2019 F�WA, b. (U,L
—
Date
Ryan L. White,
Consultant Project Manager
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Prepared For:
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
Reviewed By:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DocuSigned by:
8/7/2019
�M www
Date
Pam Williams.
Team Lead — Divisions 5 & 8
NCDOT Project Management Unit
NCDOT certifies that the proposed action qualifies as a Type III Categorical
Exclusion.
DocuSigned by:
8/7/2019
-
Date
Derrick Weaver, P.E.
Environmental Policy Unit Head
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FHWA Approval:
8/7/2019
r�DocuSigned by:
e�e� iJeicQ�
Date
John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Ivis%n administrator
Federal Highway Administration
17

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
APPENDIX A: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
64
BEGIN
PROJECT
LEGEND
NSA-3
Prop Improvements
/^/ Prop EOT
Prop Curb and Gutter or Conc Island
Prop Paved Shoulder
Prop Retaining Wall
Prop Temp Track Alignment
Prop Right of Way
Prop Bridge
Environmental Features
Jurisdictional Stream
Wetland
Noise Study Area (NSA)
Property Boundaries
TIGHT
DIAMOND
INTERCHANGE
APEX HIGH SCHOOL
z
1 inch = 500 feet
Feet
0 250 500 1,000
t
PINE
I � .
NICHOLS
PLAZA
m. NSA - 5
US 64 BRIDGES
OVER SHEPHERDS
VINEYARD DR
64
TIGHT
DIAMOND
- INTERCHANGE
9
0
;77MI�71
7 LAKE PINE PLAZA
k
T At
OF NORTH C4
US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
WEST OF SR 1306 (LAURA DUNCAN ROAD) IN APEX TO US 1 IN CARY EXHIBIT 1
'r WAKE COUNTY RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
�FNT OF TRP'Qo

• • - 9 • • , '. • • I 1 • i : i I 1 i . • C,gf ,'/:♦ —i ► #, "�1°:^ -'¢^ �� ., ,..:�q.w-, a4F' r . I _ _ Y
A ""'
F q
y r
_
f y
e
,
,g.. L
r�Aw
IFSECTION
STR :-ANT
l tt
IMP ENTS .r
:..F! � y '2 # �. -... .._ sal _ , A'♦1 � �� ��, .�'i, ,.:%
'I a ..
IDENING TO 3-LANES - �.�"�•tif °
x y
1a 4 a
s
EDINBUR,GH �IAC'C''.
y; ROM US 1 SO
UT TO ',. WES P
3
r
.. ...�. ,�i
t
ar zo r-
.
r
. c
,
� ."� �+►" _SIP- "� +} '�' . �r - ,
' L �7/P/NG"
r
i
'
Pam'
or -
NEW EDINBRGH BR'S ACCESS
w
1
i
99
t
WI NING TO 3-LANES
F
..
00 1,000 P ��

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
LEGEND
Prop Improvements
Prop EOT
Prop Curb and Gutter or Conc Island
Prop Paved Shoulder
Prop Retaining Wall
Prop Right of Way
Prop Roadway Bridge
Prop Temp Track Alignment
Environmental Features
Jurisdictional Stream
K Wetland
Property Boundaries
1 inch = 500 feet
Feet
0 250 500 1,000
F9
SALEM CHURCH RD
MATCHLINE EXHIBIT 1
,,rrAAAAll J ,^
a t .
Rio a+, yob
t:
Wil
PINE
■N
NOHTX C9
w♦o Gov
US 64 IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 3
q9 e` WEST OF SR 1306 (LAURA DUNCAN ROAD) IN APEX TO US 1 IN CARY RECOMMENDED
`eNr WAKE COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS
OF TRPN'Qo

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
APPENDIX B: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
White, Ryan
From: Alsmeyer, Eric C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:29 PM
To: White, Ryan
Cc: John [e-mail]; Devens, Ted
Subject: RE: U-5301 (US 64 Improvements, Cary -Apex): Merger Screening Meeting Follow -Up; AID
SAW-2017-01360
Ryan: As we discussed by phone today, based on the information that is available, I concur that the Merger Process is
not necessary for this project, and recommended reassembling at a later time for informal review of CP4A and 4B.
Please reply or call if you have any questions or if I may serve you in any other way.
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0.
Thank you,
1141,
Eric Alsmeyer
Project Manager
Regulatory Division Office
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105, Wake Forest, NC 27587
Tel: [phone], x23
Fax: [phone]
Regulatory Homepage: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram.aspx
From: White, Ryan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:14 PM
To: Alsmeyer, Eric C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Conforti [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Devens, Ted <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] U-5301 (US 64 Improvements, Cary -Apex): Merger Screening Meeting Follow -Up
Eric,
I hope that all is well. I am the Deputy Project Manager for the subject project. I would like to schedule a
follow-up meeting to further discuss the need for U-5301 to be included in the NEPA/404 Merger Process. Please
let me know your availability over the next few weeks so I can coordinate with our NCDOT Project Manager
and get the meeting scheduled.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
Thank you for your time and I look forward to working with you on this necessary transportation improvement.
Ryan L. White, P.r-.
Senior Transportation Engineer
Stantec
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300, Raleigh NC 27606-3394
Phone: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
[e-mail]
O
The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with
Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
April 27, 2017
Ryan White
Stantec
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606-3394
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: US 64 Improvements from west of SR 1613, Davis Drive, in Apex, to US 1 in Cary, U-5301, Wake County,
ER 17-0559
Dear Mr. White:
Thank you for your email of March 21, 2017, concerning the above project.
Our records find archaeological sites 31 WA688, 31 WA689, and 31 WA690, within the footprint of the proposed
improvements in about the middle of the route. Recorded in 1990 during an archaeological survey (OSA
Bibliography #2715) for the widening of US 64, R-2318, these prehistoric -period sites were evaluated as not eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places, with no further work recommended.
Although the current project APE depicts a wider corridor than that surveyed in 1990, we consider it unlikely that
significant archaeological sites would be found within it.
We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. This
recommendation is based on the results of the 1990 archaeological survey and the amount of development and
resulting ground disturbance that has occurred in the area since then.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact
Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or environmental.review(kncdcr.gov. In
all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
cc: John Conforti, NCDOT, jgconfortikncdot.gov
Ted Devens, Stantec, Ted.devens&stantec.com
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT, mtwilkerson(kncdot.gov
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
APPENDIX C: RELOCATION REPORT

DocuSign Envelope ID: 66858594-99DF-4A90-94BD-87D5A04D88A9
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
® E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS ELEMENT:
COUNTY
Wake Alt 2B
T.I.P. No.:
I U-5301
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
I US 64 Proposed Improvements between Laura Duncan Road in Apex and US 1 in Cary
ESTIMATED
DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
Businesses
4
13
17
2
VALUE OF DWELLING
DSS DWELLING
AVAILABLE
Farms
0
1 0
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent
Non -Profit
0
1 0
0
0
0-20M
0
$ 0-150
0
0-20m
0
$ 0-150
0
ANSWER
ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M
0
150-250
0
20-40M
0
160-250
0
Yes No
Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70M
0
250-400
0
40-70m
0
260-400
0
❑ ®
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 18
70-100M
0
400-600
0
70-100m
2
11 400-600
0
® ❑
100 up
2
600 up
0
100 UP
20+
600 UP
20+
TOTAL
2
0
22+
20+
®
❑
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
2.Primrose School (Preschool & Care) will be relocated
3. Overall market of business services will remain available
4. 17 businesses will be displaced.
- Parcel 7: Taco Bell: 2,700 sf, restaurant, 20 employees, 10 minorities
- Parcel 8: Mobil Gas Station: 2000 sf plus canopy, 5 employees, 3
minorities - Parcel 13: BP Gas & Circle K Food Mart, 3,120 sf plus
canopy, 5 employees 2 minorities - Parcel 14: Sherwin- Williams Paint
Store, about 5500 sf, 6 employees, 2 minorities - Parcel 14: ISOTOLP
Fitness, about 2000 sf, Fitness Center, 2 employees, 0 minorities
- Parcel 15: Primrose School, Preschool and Daycare, 11,560 sf, 176
students, 35 employees, 20 minorities -Parcel 60: Dollinger & Tove,
Medical Office, 6,000 sf, 4 employees, 0 minorities -Parcel 62: Apex
General Dentistry, 2200 sf, 6 employees, 1 minority — Parcel 62:
Central Carolina Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2200 sf, 7 employees,
0 minorities -Parcel 63: Car Wash- new construction, ^2500 sf, 3
employees -Parcel 64: Wendy's, 2,800 sf, restaurant, 20 employees, 10
minorities -Parcel 74: McDonald's, Amoco Gas, and Car Wash (count 2
relocations), 5000 sf, plus canopy and car wash, 25 employees, 10
minorities; -Parcel 77: Town of Apex, 525 sf possible utilities building,
2 employees, 0 minorities; -Parcel 80: Woody's Furniture, 25000 sf,
retail, 8 employees, 2 minorities; - Parcel 80- Peak Auto, car repair,
20000 sf, 4 employees, 1 minority -Parcel 81- Time Warner Cable,
utilities, various structures approx. 3000 sf and cell tower, 5 employees
8. As required by law.
11. Public Housing is available in Wake County
12. Although RHP may be necessary given property values in the
surrounding area, there is an abundance of DSS Housing.
14. Overall business location market is ample according to Zillow and
Tax Records.
®
❑
®
®
®
❑
®
❑
®
®
❑
®
❑
®
®
❑
1/16/19
0(/I2120Iq
Relo tion Coordinator Date
Right of Way Agent Date
FRM15-E