HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181192 Ver 1_18-0173_C540 FEIS_FINAL_ Dec 21 2017_20180122���
-�
;
� �
�
• OMPLETE
�..
Triar��le Expressw�y
Souti�east Exfension
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
December Z017
US. Dapa�Ane�t of Transporlallon
�1 Federal Hi�hway
� Administro 'on
�' NORTH CAROLINA
�,� � Turnpike Authority
FHWA-EIS-15-02-F
Federal Highway Administration
North Carolina Division
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina
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
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4332 (2)(c) and 49 USC 303
by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
12 �2v /� '�
Date of Approval
1 �%Zl�f�l
Date of Approval
Cooperating Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers
��
Rodger D. Rochelle, P.E.
NCTA Chief Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
� �
.
��,d„`Edward T. Parker
Assistant Division Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration
FHWA-EIS-15-02-F
Federal Highway Administration
North Carolina Division
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina
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
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4332 (2)(c) and 49 USC 303
by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Cooperating Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers ����o,�����,,,��
s,�����y CA�IQ��A!�
�� � •���NN��� Y
.•` � , ���SSIp�,ti ;9
Document prepared by H.W. Lochner, Inc. /� : :� yl�
= ' �` SE AL �
_ :
l2-� /�
Date
Roy D. Bruce,'P.F� /
Project Manager W. Lochner, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
t2-2o� l�
Date
%�-= � C�_____9
Brian Yamamoto�E.
Project Manager, Central Project Delivery
North Carolina Department of Transportation
�� � �
��/
��
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina
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
This "Green Sheet" identifies the project commitments made to avoid, minimize, or mitigate project impacts
beyond those required to comply with applicable federal and state requirements and regulations.
During the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) process, commitments are made to avoid, minimize, or miti-
gate project impacts. Commitments result from public comment or through the requirements of, or agreements with,
environmental resource and regulatory agencies.
In addition to compliance with applicable federal and state requirements and regulations, such as Section 404
Individual Permit Conditions, Nationwide Permit Conditions, Regional Conditions, and State Consistency Conditions;
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Surface Waters; General Certification Conditions and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, and the Endangered
Species Act, the following table lists special project commitments that have been agreed to by the NCDOT.
Item Resource Final EIS Project Commitment Project Applicable
Page Stage TIP Project
NCDOT will coordinate with the NC State Historic
Historic Preservation Office and the property owner(s)
1 Architectural Page 49 relative to potential retaining wall design to eliminate Final Design R-2828
Resources the need for permanent easement or right-of-way
from the Panther Branch School.
NCDOT will conduct an archaeological survey of the R-2721,
Archaeological Preferred Alternative and will coordinate the results R-2828,
2 Resources Page 49 With the NC State Historic Preservation Office and Completed and
the NC Office of State Archaeology. R-2829
PROJECT COMMITMENTS (continued)
NCDOT will establish a Memorandum of Agreement
Archaeological with the NC State Historic Preservation Office in Final
3 Resources Page 49 order to take into account the projecYs effect on Design and R-2828
archaeological resources. Construction
NCDOT will coordinate with the NC Office of State
Archaeological Archaeology relative to data recovery of materials Final
4 Resources Page 49 in the one site determined eligible for the National Design and R-2828
Register of Historic Places based on the information Construction
contained at the site.
Community NCDOT will coordinate with the Town of Cary
5 Resources & Page 50 relative to a potential Section 4(f) de minimis use Completed R-2721
Section 4(f) finding for the Middle Creek School Park.
Community NCDOT will coordinate with the City of Raleigh
6 Resources & Page 50 relative to a potential Section 4(f) de minimis use Completed R-2829
Section 4(f) finding for the Neuse River Trail.
Recreation During construction, NCDOT will accommodate Final
� Facility Page 50 trail users along the Neuse River Trail through the Design and R-2829
project construction zone. Construction
NCDOT will prepare a Design Noise Report for the R-2721,
8 Noise Pages 51-52 selected alternative during final design. All feasible Final Design R-2828'
and reasonable noise abatement measures will be and
constructed. R-2829
R-2721,
Stormwater NCDOT will utilize Design Standards in Sensitive Final R_2828
9 Management Pages 53-54, 61 Watersheds in the Swift Creek and the Lower Design and and
Middle Creek watersheds. Construction
R-2829
R-2721,
Migratory NCDOT will comply with requirements set forth in Final R_2828
10 Birds Page 56 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Design and and
Construction
R-2829
PROJECT COMMITMENTS (continued)
NCDOT will perform a more detailed hydrologic and R-2721,
11 Major Drainage pages 61 hydraulic analysis for each major drainage crossing Final Design R-2828'
Structures for the Preferred Alternative. and
R-2829
NCDOT will coordinate with the appropriate utility R-2721,
12 Utilities Pages 61 owners during design of the Preferred Alternative Final Design R-282$'
for all utility conflicts, including means to avoid or and
minimize impacts to utilities. R-2829
R-2721,
Indirect Effects NCDOT will prepare a quantitative assessment for R_282$
13 & Cumulative Pages 62-63 indirect and cumulative effects and impacts for the Completed and
Impacts Preferred Alternative. R 2829
NCDOT will carry out all activities for which it has R-2721,
Document Final
14 Protected incorporated by been assigned responsibility in the Biological Design and R-2828,
Species reference Assessment of Potential Impacts to Federally Listed Construction and
Species (Dec 2017). R-2829
Prior to contracting for design and construction of
the portion of the project that crosses the Neuse
River, NCDOT will consult with National Marine
Document Final
15 Protected incorporated by Fisheries Service to satisfy the requirements Design and R-2829
Species reference associated with the critical habitat designation for Construction
the Atlantic Sturgeon, as specified in the Biological
Assessment for Atlantic Sturgeon Critical Habitat
(Dec 2017).
SUMMARY INFORMATION
The NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose
to build a new, limited-access highway from NC 55 Bypass in Apex,
to US 64/US 264 (I-495) in Knightdale—a distance of approximately
27 miles. The proposed highway, known as Complete 540–Triangle
Expressway Southeast Extension, is being proposed as a toll facility.
This proposed highway has been shown to be the most practical solu-
tion for meeting the purposes of the project, which are to improve
mobility and reduce traffic congestion south and east of the Raleigh
area during peak travel periods. A secondary purpose of the project
is to improve system linkage in the regional roadway network by com-
pleting the 540 outer loop around the greater Raleigh area, which
would benefit commuters living south and east of Raleigh, as well as
motorists making longer trips through the Triangle Region.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes all topics
specified bythe Council on Environmental Quality in Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (sections 1502.10 to 1502.18). The emphasis is
on the main findings of the study conducted for the proposed project,
which include: purpose and need, alternatives, and characteristics
of the affected environment, environmental consequences, and the
selection of a Preferred Alternative. While thorough in its description
of these items, this Final EIS is meant to be a summary of the work that
has been done. More detailed technical reports are incorporated by
reference throughout this document and are contained on a compan-
ion media disk enclosed on the back cover and online at www.ncdot.
Comp/ete 540 Final Environmental Impact Statement — December 2017
gov/projects/complete540. Those technical reports are considered
to be part of this document and are the building blocks from which this
document was constructed. This Final EIS also includes documenta-
tion of the proposed project's Final Section 4(f) effects.
The following individuals may be contacted for additional information
concerning this Final EIS:
Mr. Edward T. Parker
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-141 8
Mr. Rodger D. Rochelle, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation/Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1578
Comments on the findings contained in this Final EIS are due on
February 1, 2018. Written comments should be sent to Mr. Rodger
D. Rochelle, P.E. at the above address or emailed to complete540@
ncdot.gov. Other comments on the project will be solicited through
public meetings and a hearing, the dates of which will be announced
to the public via local newspapers, the project website, and other
media outlets. Oral comments will be received at the public meetings
and hearing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final Environmental Impact Statement
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is an important mile-
stone in the project planning and development process for the Com-
plete 540 project. Its objective is to provide the public and decision-
makers with appropriate and relevant information about the project's
Preferred Alternative (the "federal action"). NCDOT and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) have evaluated the Preferred Alterna-
tive for environmental effects (including the human and natural environ-
ments), engineering constraints, transportation benefits, and cost. This
Final EIS describes the results of that evaluation.
This Final EIS is a continuation of the project development process that
in November 2015 produced a Draft EIS, which was distributed for gov-
ernment agency and public review. The Draft EIS provides the basis for
this Final EIS. Together, the Draft EIS, the Final EIS, and the technical
reports prepared for the project, form the environmental documentation
required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The final step in the process will be the publication of a Record of Deci-
sion (ROD), and a notice of its availability, in the Federal Register. This
environmental process includes opportunities for all interested parties
to participate in the process and contribute comments, questions, and
suggestions.
Final EIS Organization
This Final EIS summarizes the materials contained in the Draft EIS and
presents the information about the new and updated analyses that
were completed after the Draft EIS was distributed. Chapter 1 provides
information on how the study for the Complete 540 project is being
conducted. Chapter 2 includes a summary of the material contained in
the Draft EIS. In Chapter 3, the involvement of agencies and the public
in the study process since the release of the Draft EIS is presented.
Chapter 4 focuses on the Preferred Alternative: its selection, its modifi-
cations, and its effects. In Chapter 5, each of the technical reports that
were prepared for the Draft EIS and the Final EIS are summarized and
referenced. Chapter 6 contains the credentials for the professionals
that conducted the study and the distribution of the Final EIS. Also
included in the Final EIS is a list of references, an index, and an errata
sheet relative to the Draft EIS.
Draft EIS Functions
The Draft EIS served to tell the project story from its beginning through
the evaluation of Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs), presenting infor-
mation used by NCDOT and FHWA to make a decision on the Preferred
Alternative for the project. The Draft EIS described: (1) the purpose and
need for the proposed action; (2) the broad range of alternatives exam-
ined for meeting the project purposes; (3) the process NCDOT used to
select the DSAs; and, (4) the methods used to assess the effects of the
DSAs on the human and natural environments.
Purpose and Need—There are two primary purposes for the Com-
plete 540 project: to improve mobility within and through the study
area during peak travel periods, and to reduce congestion on the study
area's existing roadway network. A secondary purpose, or "other
desired outcome," of the project was also identified: to improve system
linkage in the regional roadway network by completing the 540 outer
loop around the Raleigh metropolitan area—an infrastructure improve-
ment that has been sought by local communities and planners for more
than 40 years.
Alternatives—The Draft EIS presented information on the reasonable
range of possible alternatives examined to meet the two primary pur-
poses. A multi-tiered screening process was used to narrow those
alternatives to those FHWA and NCDOT determined to be most reason-
able and feasible. Through this process, 17 DSAs were identified as
possible routes for the Complete 540 project.
�
Impact Assessment—The effects the DSAs would have on the human,
natural, and built environments were studied in detail, based on field-
work, research, and the involvement of local governments, governmen-
tal agencies, and the public. The results of those efforts are contained
in several technical reports, which formed the basis for the Draft EIS.
Project Activities Since the Draft EIS was Completed
The Draft EIS was made available for agency and public review in Novem-
ber 2015. A Public Hearing was held on December 9, 2015, during the
Draft EIS review period, to receive comments from interested parties
concerning the information in the Draft EIS and the study in general.
The official Draft EIS comment period ended on January 8, 2016.
Following the Corridor Public Hearing, all comments received on the
Draft EIS were analyzed and evaluated. Coordination with resource and
regulatory agencies took place in early 2016 concerning the Draft EIS,
the comments received, and the identification of a Preferred Alternative.
In April 2016, NCDOT and FHWA officially identified a Preferred Alterna-
tive from the project's 17 DSAs. The decision was documented in the
project's Preferred Alternative Report and is the basis for this Final EIS.
Once the Preferred Alternative was selected, the project focused on
refining the Preferred Alternative and minimizing its impacts on the envi-
ronment. These effortswere documented in newtechnical reports or in
updates to reports previously prepared. As the design of the Preferred
Alternative was advanced to a greater level of detail, efforts were made
to minimize its adverse effects and to enhance the beneficial effects of
the project.
Key Project Issues
Several concerns or issues have been raised over the course of the
study, which are summarized as follows.
Protected mussel species—The Preferred Alternative crosses Swift
Creek, which supports a population of the federally endangered Dwarf
Wedgemussel, as well as the Yellow Lance mussel species, which has
been proposed for listing as a protected species. NCDOT carried out
an extensive process to research, understand, and evaluate how the
project might affect these species and to provide the information nec-
essary for the preparation of a Biological Assessment for these species.
At the time of this writing, formal consultation is underway between
FHWA and the US Fish and Wildlife Service relative to protected species.
As part of this consultation, specific measures are being considered
that would offset the potential adverse effects on these species, and
possibly aid in recovery efforts for them.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects—NCDOT expanded the qualitative
assessment of indirect and cumulative effects by carrying out a process
to quantify those effects and allow comparisons to be made between
future conditions with and without the Preferred Alternative in place.
Indirect effects on land development, water quality, and protected
species were analyzed. This effort is documented in the various tech-
nical memoranda on this subject, which conclude that the Preferred
Alternative would trigger little additional indirect impact beyond those
expected to occur over time without the project.
Updated Traffic Data—The traffic information used in the Draft EIS was
based on the Triangle Regional Model (TRM) in place at the time and
which extended through 2035. Because the currently adopted TRM
now extends through 2040, NCDOT carried out updates to the previous
traffic information developed for the Draft EIS. These updates are doc-
umented in a series of traffic-related technical reports. In general, the
new traffic analyses confirmed that the conclusions and traffic-related
decisions reached in the earlier technical documents and Draft EIS are
still valid.
Effects of the Preferred Alternative
This Final EIS contains information on the effects of the Preferred Alter-
native, which is summarized in the table below.
iv Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December z017
Environmental Factors Effect/Impact
Environmental Justice None
................................................................
Land(acres) ...............................................................................1,825
Parcels(each) ............................................................................._858
Relocations (residential, business, non-profit) ................................217
Business Relocations 5
......................................................................
Bisected Neighborhoods ..................2 (Woodcreek and Deerfield Park)
Churches (land only impacts) ........................................................... 6
Historic Resources None that would have adverse effects
....................
Archaeological Resources ............................1 site with adverse effects
Section 4(f) Resources ......................2 parks, both de minimis impacts
Noise.............................................................................818 receptors
AirQuality ...................................................................................None
Communication Towers 2
....................................................................
Private Recreation Areas 1
..................................................................
Streams (linearfeet) ................................................................59,533
Streams (number of crossings) ......................................................140
Stream Buffer Zone 1(acres) ....................................................... 87.0
Stream Buffer Zone 2(acres) ....................................................... 58.1
Wetlands (acres) ......................................................................... 69.5
Wetlands (number affected) ..........................................................156
Riparian Wetlands (acres) ........................................................... _65.2
Non-Riparian Wetlands (acres) ....................................................._4.3
Ponds(acres) ..............................................................................24.6
Ponds (number affected) ............................................................... 39
Floodway(acres) ..........................................................................15.4
100Year Floodplain (acres) .......................................................... 61.2
500Year Floodplain (acres) ......................................................... 76.2
Underhill Wetland Mitigation Site (acres) ........................................ 0.5
BaldEagle .......................................................
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Michaux's Sumac
...........................................
Rough-leaved Loosestrife ................................
Tar River Spinymussel,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Cape Fear Shiner .............................................
Dwarf Wedgemussel ........................................
YellowLance ....................................................
Northern Long-Eared Bat .................................
Atlantic Sturgeon .............................................
Potential Contamination Sites,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Cost (billion dollars) .........................................
Note 1: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Note 2: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
.......................None
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,No Effect
...............(see note 1)
.................No Effect
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,No Effect
...............(see note 1)
..............(see note 2)
..... .... .. . . . .(see note 2)
.............. .(see note 2)
................(seenote 1)
............. ............ .. .4
.......................... 2.24
Project Activities After the Final EIS is Completed
Interested individuals and organizations, local governments, and gov-
ernmental agencies, will have the opportunity to review and comment
on this Final EIS for 30 days, once its Notice of Availability is published
in the Federa/ Register. After the review period ends, FHWA will issue a
ROD that responds to substantive comments on this Final EIS and will
announce its final decision on the Selected Alternative. Publication of
the ROD and notification in the Federal Register completes the NEPA
planning process. Should the Build alternative be selected, the next
step would include final design activities, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction of the Selected Alternative.
NCDOT expects to continue to hold public information meetings and
other public involvement opportunities as the project progresses.
u
Contents
1 Introduction
Planningin Advance .................................................................................................. 1
Compliance with Environmental Policy and Other Regulations ..................................... 3
Coordination with Local, State, and Federal Agencies ................................................. 5
Public Involvement 5
.................................................................................................. .
2 Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Draft EIS Chapter 1: Study Overview .......................................................................... 7
Draft EIS Chapter 2; Purpose of the Complete 540 Project .......................................... 7
Draft EIS Chapter 3: The Study Area and its Features .................................................. 8
Draft EIS Chapter 4: Alternatives for Meeting the Project Purpose .............................. 14
Draft EIS Chapter 5: Expected Effects of Each Alternative .......................................... 17
Drait EIS Chapter 6: Government, Agency, and Public Involvement ............................ 30
3 Comments and Coordination on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Draft EIS Review Period, Public Meetings, and Public Hearing ................................... 35
Comments and Responses on the Draft EIS ..............................................................36
Other Stakeholder Involvement Activities 40
.................................................................
4 The Study's Preferred Alternative
Introduction 43
............................................................................................................
Description of the Preferred Alternative ....................................................................45
Preferred Alternative Selection Process 46
....................................................................
►��u
Contents (continued)
Refinements to the Preferred Alternative 46
.................................................................
F�cpected Effects ofthe Preferred Alternative ........................................................... 48
Traffic Forecast and Analysis Update ........................................................................ 65
ImpactTables .......................................................................................................... 66
5 Summary of Technical Reports
Purpose, Alternatives, and Design Elements ............................................................71
Human Environment 72
..............................................................................................
Natural Environment 73
..............................................................................................
Physical Environment ..............................................................................................75
TrafficAnalyses ....................................................................................................... 76
Indirect and Cumulative Effects 77
...............................................................................
Stakeholder Involvement ........................................................................................78
6 List of Preparers and EIS Distribution
Listof Preparers ..................................................................................
EIS Distribution
...................................................................................
References Cited
................................................................
Index.....................................................................................
Appendices
Appendix 1- Final EIS Review Locations
Appendix 2- Draft EIS Errata Sheet
vi i i Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
�ist of Exhibits
1. The Location of the Proposed Project ........................................
2. Parks and Recreation Facilities
..................................................
3. Water Resources in the Study Area ............................................
4. Detailed Study Alternatives .........................................................
5. The Dwarf Wedgemussel ............................................................
6. Preferred Alternative
...................................................................
List ofTables
1. Federal and State Agency Review Comments on the DSAs .............................. 37
2. Preferred Alternative Impacts on Natural Systems ............................................ 67
3. Preferred Alternative Impacts on Natural Systems
(excluding overlapping projects) ................................................................. 68
ix
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This chapter provides information on how the study for the Complete 540
project is being conducted. It describes the proposed project and explains
the requirements that guide the environmental study.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerns the pro-
posed Complete 540 project. This project would be a new, six-lane,
limited-access highway connecting NC 55 Bypass near Apex to US 64/
US 264 in the Knightdale area. This project would complete what is cur-
rently a partial circumferential highway, or outer beltline around greater
Raleigh (see Exhibit 1 on the following page).
The draftversion ofthis document—the Draft EIS—was prepared in 2015
and released for review and comment in November of that year. This
current document is the official final version—the Final EIS. Pending
any potential need to supplementthe information contained in this Final
EIS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will publish a formal Record of
Decision (ROD) in the Federal Register, which will allow final design to
continue and right-of-way acquisition and construction to begin.
This introductory chapter is intended to help readers understand the
study being conducted for the proposed project by placing it in its
broader context. The chapter explains why the study is required, what
it contains, and how local government and resource and regulatory
agencies work together to help ensure that decisions about whether to
approve the described project are based on accurate information. It is
intended for those who are not familiar with environmental studies for
transportation projects; readers familiar with this subject may choose
to begin at Chapter 2.
PLANNING IN ADVANCE
In most cases, the need for major highway projects in an urban area
or region is identified through long-range land use and transportation
planning. Land use planning is carried out by specialists at local and
regional governments. Transportation plans are developed by metro-
politan planning organizations (MPOs), which are regional in scope and
include representation from the individual governments in the region.
Such planning is a condition for receiving federal funding, and must
be based on a"continuing, comprehensive transportation planning
process carried out cooperatively by states and local communities."'
This is known as the "3C" planning process. The MPO for the greater
Raleigh area is the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
cH PE 1 DURHAM i , � � �,l` `� , � �
HILL \4 ,� X < _ "- � '� �` '��,a.,s�� r' �� F
'� - !-` � �fI`�. ,� �' I � : ' ' '�\ - —
�i! .F . Y ,�" ' �i
(� - . : �. ' - . . . � � Y1. _ v - , . ,�1 .
�� � J
��. ��`�.. -- ,, � y i +�`,i . '� _-I r
f � �. . � 1 �. .' . " C
�' �. � ,r_ / �\ ` `
� ' y
� - �' . ' �''' � �� N '/ 1
� ► �_ �,�� � � y`T" ; , �
i _ ' �_ _ � ,
_ — �r-�,.�� - �---�� �� r'
I.._,� TOLL l�yproaimate) _ � _� �� s
� -- • , ," r � __'
\_-'-- '
�) ,�I 540 � ' ,I� j
� .� ✓
� � \� MORRIS LLE �'._ � ,, � ��' :, ; � :: -¢ ,`
� �`� / ��J f � ZEBULO
F—
�,� � �� t�T �4, �_ � ��,. ._
� � �
� � .
� ��_ 55 ;. __. 64 . - ,_- r , � � \
�1,. �� CARY KNIGHTDALE ' . %J 4 '�
_- R A L E 1 G H �, "�.,�.� WENDELL� � ,�
� � _. : �
� � � � 64 264 � `` �^
, ' 64 � -� �, - -• ''/ � i/� �s-' �} � J /� �
_ �.
-
. •�,� -
�. �� / , � �, � 64 �I i ,
`� _ - i
� i AP E X ' � I� � ; I; ' O---Go�,°,_,�. t'.:
,� j � � - TOLL � p , �. 1 �'���5 0 �� ' __
_ _ � J`i�� . . a� t�� � /ro �
_ _ i^ c � / 540 1 _ � .� � .�j :y I/ � �� `l' / _-1
i � �.� �' 70 � / I
` �h� �,...+ �_ — m ( ,� - _
F �� �`,�
� ,., n.Te ' � ' �•; 4OI GARNER � y � `
' r° ��� ` �
h � 3 ;; nRd � / , —
o `�. •y .L �' ,
�� � _ �a' �f � �' '�� ' � � �� T
\� v --` � r � ���� _ ��►:�� ��L � � 7� � �,1.,'�-f ��,�.t�-\ _-
, ;"
I �..'�HOLLY J'� , " , � N�l / t � �
I i � �SPRINGS '� „� 1 I' � l -"�qa A ' CLAYTON + 1
, �`� � � _�� ; r: p y � , , k � {. - --
� � �� � � �� �� �� _
� � , � x s, � ;` , �
` � ' ` � 55 �' ^' � � 42 �,,. �� `-�
1 / �� � ��x l 401 � - 50 ' I 70 �i��' '��. — _�
/ S; ' , � 42 �''r � �� I ' \� . _ . - ` -- ��_
�.I� '�! '�ti: ! _�FUQUAY- � � ,�. ,�� !.'� � "�MILLONS
���k�'%•,. � � � VARINA . �
_ F5,
i
Exhibit 1 The Location of the Proposed Project
The proposed project is located generally south and east of Raleigh. It is intended to complete an outer loop or
beltway around the Raleigh area by completing the remaining link of NC 540, also known as the Triangle Expressway.
(CAMPO). CAMPO works with the NCDOT and other transportation
organizations to collect and analyze traffic data and land use information
for use in assessing future transportation needs in the region. These
needs, and the projects identified to meet them, are documented in the
area's comprehensive long-range transportation plan.
CAMPO is responsible for preparing the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan (MTP)2, which is the fiscally-constrained long range regional trans-
portation planning effort for the greater Raleigh region. It provides a
framework for the investment of anticipated federal, state and local
funds, based on anticipated needs and regional goals and objectives
over a 30-year time frame. The currently adopted 2040 MTP lists future
highway, bus transit, light rail, bicycle, pedestrian and other transpor-
tation projects to be implemented through the year 2040. The pro-
posed Complete 540 project is included in the 2040 MTP and is divided
into three projects in the NCDOT State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP):
• Project R-2721 (from NC 55 Bypass to US 401),
• Project R-2828 (from US 401 to I-40), and
• Project R-2829 (from I-40 to US 64/US 264 (I-495)).
COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND
OTHER REGULATIONS
Several state and federal regulations have been created to ensure that
a project's effects on the natural environment and human communities
are understood and made public before the project is carried out. Many
of these regulations are intended to adhere to the United States' policy
on the environment, established in 1969 through the passage of the
National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA).
The National Environmental Policy Act — The United States' policy
on protection of the natural and human environment became official
on January 1, 1970, when President Nixon signed into lawthe National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.3 In its "Declaration of National Envi-
ronmental Policy," Congress declared
"it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation
with State and /ocal governments, and other concerned public and
private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures,
including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to
foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain con-
ditions under which man [humans] and nature can exist in productive
harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of
presentand future generations ofAmericans."
This is the official policy of the United States, created in recognition of
"the profound impact of man's [human] activity on the interrelations of
all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound
influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial
expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technologi-
cal advances and recognizing further the critical importance of restor-
ing and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and
developmentofman[kind] ..."
Congress recognized that these statements would be nothing more
than lofty aspirations if NEPA did not include an action-forcing provision
to compel federal agencies to incorporate this policy when carrying out
their missions. As a result, Congress included in NEPA a requirement
that a"detailed statement" be prepared for every recommendation on
proposals for major federal actions that would significantly affect the
environment. These Environmental Impact Statements are to be pre-
pared bythe proposed project's responsible official (the "lead agency")
and must include five specific topics:
1. the environmental impact of the proposed action,
2. any adverse environmental effects that could not be avoided if the
proposal were to be implemented,
3. alternatives to the proposed action,
4. the relationship between local short-term uses of man's [the
human] environment and the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity, and
5. any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that
would be involved if the proposed action is implemented.
NEPA also requires that the federal agency preparing the impact state-
ment consult with and obtain the comments of any other Federal agency
that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any envi-
ronmental impact involved. Furthermore, copies of the impact state-
ment and the comments and views of the appropriate Federal, State,
In short, NEPA requires that we "look before we leap" with respect to
large projects. As noted by one of NEPA's principal authors, "... in a
worid of rapidly expanding new technologies and developments, ascer-
taining the probable outcomes of action may not be easy and forecasts
may not be certain, but they are safer than unrestrained ignorance."6
Other Protections for People and the Environment — In addition to
the protections and procedures contained in NEPA, several otherfederal
laws and Executive Orders have been implemented over the years that
have a direct bearing on how highways are planned and constructed.
Particularly relevant examples include: protection of parks and wildlife
areas (Department of Transportation Act of 1966); protection of his-
"In a world of rapidly expanding new technologies and developments, ascertaining the probable outcomes of
a project may not be easy, and forecasts may not be certain, but they are safer than unrestrained ignorance."
and local agencies that are authorized to develop and enforce envi-
ronmental standards, are to be made available to the public and are to
"accompany" the proposal through the agency review processes.
In preparing the analyses documented in the impact statement, NEPA
requires use of "a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will
ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the
environmental design arts in planning and in decision-making which
may have an impact on man's [the human] environment."
The environmental impact analyses required under NEPA, and their
documentation in a written statement, are intended to serve a"discov-
ery function" for calculating the range of risks and benefits of proposals
that have major environmental consequences.4 Although the impact
assessment process and statement do not mandate a particular agency
decision, the process is intended to "force agencies to discover and
disclose the environmental effects of their proposed projects, thereby
opening ill-conceived projects to challenge."5
- Lynton Caldwell, principal author of NEPA
toric sites (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966); requirements for
public hearings on the effects of highway projects (Federal Aid Highway
Act of 1968); maintaining or improving water quality ("Clean Water Act"
of 1972); regulation of damage to the natural environment (creation
of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1970); identification and pro-
tection of endangered species (Endangered Species Act of 1973); fair
treatment of residents or business owners who must relocate ("Uniform
Relocation Assistance Act" of 1987); identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or envi-
ronmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations
(F�cecutive Order 12898 [1994] "Environmental Justice"); and others.
These and other regulations have had the effect of creating and guiding
the kind of study being carried out for large projects such as Complete
540.
Complete 540 Study Compliance — Although most large-scale
highway projects are carried out by state and local governments, they
must still comply with NEPA if they include any federal funding. Such
4 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
projects are considered federal actions, and become the responsibility
of FHWA. The process established to ensure compliance with NEPA
also ensures compliance with the many other regulations, including the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, intended to protect humans
and the natural environment, as listed above.
Because it would include federal funding, the Complete 540 project is
considered a federal action, with the FHWA maintaining oversight and
approval authority. The FHWA formally approved the Draft EIS and will
continue to ensure that NEPA's regulations are adhered to until the end
of the study, when a formal Record of Decision about the outcome of
the study is completed and its Notice of Availability is published in the
United States' Federal Register.
COORDINATION WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
AGENCIES
Coordination between federal agencies is an important part of the NEPA
process. First, the legislation itself requires all federal agencies to use "a
systematic, inter-disciplinary approach which will insure the integrated
use of the natural and social sciences"' for all federally funded projects
and actions. Additionally, NEPA requires that the agency proposing the
project "consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency
which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact involved."$
Because NEPA applies to all federal agencies, when one agency pro-
poses a significant project or action, some agencies need to ensure
their own compliance with NEPA for that project. For example, when
a highway project will involve filling a wetland area, the US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) must also comply with NEPA before issuing a
permit to fill the wetland. To avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary
delays, coordination between the two agencies is required.
For the Complete 540 project, an official coordination agreement was
reached at the beginning of the study between the federal, state, and
local agencies that would be involved in the project. As documented in
a written project coordination plan, the agencies agreed to the process
for coordination and public involvement in the project development
process. The project coordination plan was approved in August 2010
and has been updated periodically, with the most recent update occur-
ring in November 2013.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
NEPA and other federal and state regulations require that members of
the public who might be affected by the project or who might other-
wise have an interest in it be notified of the proposal and be given the
opportunity to comment on the findings contained in the EIS. This is a
minimum requirement. Over the years, public involvement objectives
have been expanded and now the proposing agency engages the public
early and in a variety of ways—long before the Draft EIS has been pre-
pared.
This expanded public involvement effort ensures that the public has a
basic awareness of the proposed project and the goals and objectives of
the study process. Public interaction is also important in collecting infor-
mation from study area residents and businesses about what is valuable
to them and how the project could affect those valued resources. The
public involvement process also ensures that members of the public
have adequate and appropriate ability to review the findings of the study,
to ask questions about the project, and, to understand—and possibly
challenge—the methods and findings of the study.
The Complete 540 Draft EIS included a chapter explaining howthe public
has been, and will continue to be, involved in the proposed project. This
Final EIS incorporates by reference a summary of all comments made on
the Draft EIS, along with responses to each substantive comment made.
For more information, see the study's 2015 Stakeholder Involvement
Report and its 2017 update.
5
CHAPTER 2
Summary of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
This chapter provides a summary of the material contained in the
project's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
This chapter provides a summary of the information contained in the
project's Draft EIS, which was released for review and comment in
November 2015. The full content of the Draft EIS are considered to be
included as part of this Final EIS. The disk included on the back cover
contains a copy of the Draft EIS; it can also be found on the Complete
540 website (www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete540/).
DRAFT EIS CHAPTER 1: STUDY OVERVIEW
The Draft EIS began with an overview chapter that explained the nature
of the study and how it is being pursued. A summary of similar material
is contained in the preceeding chapter of this Final EIS.
DRAFT EIS CHAPTER 2: PURPOSE OF THE COMPLETE 540
PROJECT
Primary Purposes — 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
isto improve mobilitywithin orthrough the studyarea during peaktravel
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 that has been sought by area planners for
more than 40 years. It is expected that construction of this remaining
540 linkwould 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.
The transportation problems that form the basis for these project pur-
poses are the need for more route choices in the area and the need to
reduce traffic congestion on the existing roadway network.
More Route Choices—Much of the growth that has occurred in the Tri-
angle Region over the past few decades has been in developments that
include mostly low-density, single-family residences. One outcome of
this kind of land use is the heavy burden it places on local roads. These
developments often have few connection points to the area's larger
roadway network, meaning that the traffic they generate is all funneled
onto the same limited number of roads. The traffic co ngestion th is
creates becomes worse when residential areas are far removed from
major employment locations, with several of these developments all
needing to access the same roadways. The result is a need to improve
mobility by providing additional route choices for those who live or work
in, or travel through, the study area.
Reducing Congestion on the existing roadway network—Many of the
roads south and east of Raleigh are moderately to severely congested
during the morning and evening peak travel times. CAMPO (the Capital
Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) predicts that congestion in
this area will worsen over the next several years,' meaning an increasing
number of roadway segments and intersections will provide unaccept-
ably low levels of service. CAMPO's 2040 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan identifies several future transportation projects that would help
ease this increase in traffic congestion. One of those is the proposed
Complete 540 project.
In addition to the Draft EIS document itself, more detailed
information on the study's purpose and need analyses can
be found in the following technical report:
• Purpose and Need Statement (May 2011)
Chapter 5 contains a summary of each technical report
incorporated as part of the Draft EIS and this Final EIS,
including the document listed here.
DRAFT EIS CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY AREA AND ITS
FEATURES
The Study Area — As the rate of growth in the greater Raleigh area
began to increase, 20 to 30 years ago, suburban-style residential devel-
opments increasingly replaced agricultural or vacant land. Today, sub-
urban residential, commercial, and office development predominate,
although there are small areas of light industrial land uses in the study
area as well. These non-residential areas are located nearthe I-40 inter-
change at US 70 Business, along US 401, and near the western project
terminus area, at NC 55 Bypass. Much of the suburban development
has occurred west of US 401 in the vicinity of the existing communities
of Holly Springs, Fuquay-Varina, Apex, and Cary. In the north-central
portion of the study area, in and around the town of Garner, there are
pockets of older, higher density development, generally north of Timber
Drive. There are also pockets of farming and undeveloped tracts, gen-
erally located near NC 42 between US 401 and NC 50, and throughout
the area east of I-40. The Complete 540 study area is shown in Exhibit
1 (on page 2).
Economic Characteristics — The Raleigh area has a robust and
diversified economy and is the location of many of the State's largest
employers. The North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of
Employment Security projects that the greater Raleigh area, including
Wake and Johnston counties, will gain a substantial number of jobs in
the next several years. Likewise, local planners are predicting continued
job growth in the project area, with many jurisdictions predicting that
commercial land uses will increase, relative to other land uses.2
Public or Semi-Public Land Uses — The study area contains several
public or semi-public land uses and facilities that could infiuence the loca-
tion of a new highway. Notable properties in these categories include:
• The main campus of Wake Technical Community College, which
is located on US 401 in unincorporated Wake County, between
the towns of Garner and Fuquay-Varina.
8 Complete 540 Final Environmental Impact Statement - December �017
An increasingly developed area
The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing regions in the country, with much of
this growth occuring in the area immediately south of Raleigh. Since the 1990s, older rural land uses have been steadily
converting to the kinds of land uses typically associated with suburban development.
Single Family, Detached Homes
As in many parts of the US, the dominant type of
residential growth is single family detached housing in
suburban style developments.
Businesses Along Major Roads
In older suburban areas, businesses tend to be
spread out along major roadways. In newer areas,
the tendency is for businesses to be clustered at
major intersections.
Higher Density Clusters
Another trend is the development of higher density
residential projects that use less land and allow
more walking and other non-motorized forms of
transportation.
Automobile Dominance
A common characteristic of suburban growth is
that the private auto is often the only transportation
option available to access jobs, shopping, medical
facilities, and other important destinations.
Mixed Use Developments
The number of mixed-use projects being built in the
area is increasing. These rypically include residential
units, retail space, office space, and parking facilities.
i,ioo,000
i,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
Wake County Population Growth
1960 7970 1980 1990 2000 2070 2020
Nor1M1 Carolina OHi�e of State Butlget und Management Vopulation ProjeRions
Rapid Growth Rates
The Raleigh-Cary area has grown by over 52% since 2000.
• A large tract on Battle Bridge Road called Randleigh Farm. This
is jointly owned by Wake County and the City of Raleigh and is
intended for use as a planned development.
• A large area owned by the City of Raleigh east of Randleigh
Farm, which includes a police training facility and the Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant.
• NC State University/US Department of Agriculture property, a
planned development located along US 70 Business, near the
Wake/Johnston county line (this property is currently the NC
Central Crop Research Station).
• The Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant, on NC 50 in
Garner.
Parks and Recreation Facilities — There are several notable park
facilities in the study area. A string of linked smaller parks in the com-
munity of Garner together comprise a large area of parkland. The Town
of Cary's Middle Creek School Park, which connects to several exist-
ing and planned greenways, comprises another large area of parkland
in the study vicinity. Another valuable public resource is Clemmons
Educational State Forest, located on Old US 70 at the Wake/Johnston
county line, northeast of Clayton. The Neuse River Trail is a 28-mile
long greenway trail adjacent to the Neuse River, to the east of Raleigh.
A notable planned facility is Southeast Regional Park, a county park that
Wake County plans to construct near NC 42 and Barber Bridge Road, in
the Willow Springs area. Another notable planned facility is Sunset Oaks
Park, which the Town of Holly Springs plans to construct in the Sunset
Oaks neighborhood. Each of these facilities are or have the potential to
be protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act�a>
(see F�chibit 2).
Historic Properties and Districts — Other than the downtown areas
of Fuquay-Varina and Garner, there is only one large-sized historic dis-
(a) Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 established the
requirement for consideration of park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development.
trict in the study area that is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places—a 338 acre rural historic district located on both sides of Sunset
Lake Road in Fuquay-Varina. Several other, smaller properties are cur-
rently listed on the National Register, but they are scattered throughout
the study area, with no concentrated locations.
Area Rivers, Streams, Lakes — There are no natural lakes in the
region; all water bodies with substantial surface areas are "impounded,"
formed by dams on rivers and streams. The principal rivers and streams
in the study area include the Neuse River, Swift Creek, Middle Creek,
and Little Creek. Large expanses of fioodplain are not present in the
study area, although narrow bands of fioodplain areas are present along
stream edges (see Exhibit 3).
Neuse River—The Neuse River is the largest river in the study area and
is an important water resource. Development within the Neuse River
basin is subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules, administered by the
NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). These rules require
development within the Neuse River basin to maintain a minimum
50-foot buffer along each side of the stream. On the Final 2014 303(d)�b�
list, the Neuse River in the project area is classified as impaired due to
high levels of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) in fish tissue and high
copper concentrations. The part of the Neuse River from Beddingfield
Creek (near the Wake/Johnston county line) to the Wilson's Mills area
is also listed, due to high zinc concentrations. On the Draft 2016 303(d)
list, copper and zinc are no longer listed as impairment factors for the
Neuse River, meaning PCBs in fish tissue is the only remaining impair-
ment factor.
Swift Creek (including Lake Benson and Lake Wheeler)—Swift Creek is
an important water body in the study area and includes two impounded
areas that form Lake Benson and Lake Wheeler. Swift Creek has been
(b) The term "303(d) IisY' is short for a state's list of impaired and threatened waters (e.g.
stream/river segments, lakes). For each water on the list, the state identifies the pollutant
causing the impairment, when known. In addition, the state assigns a priority for develop-
ment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) based on the severity of the pollution and the
sensitivity of the uses to be made of the waters, among other factors.
10 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December z017
-t� " -: -. .. . - � � -,�i t � ,�� .��
. � ' . � � ,: � - �_ .�`� rr ,
� � - . . , _ , � y�� .-�.._ R j � _ . .. . - . - . � 1 �` � '-
� r �',,�-:� , � i ,�__ , � r ° KNIGHTDALE �------H
� Exhibit 2 „�A__ _ , z's 1; _ ; ,
;l . > RALEIGH .,\ _ � -�' -
Parks and Recr�ation�- - - _ _ _ __ _�
� �: --
� , � --
�� Facilities :,� � ...`� 7- ----_ _, _
, � , � �''; 64 �� 264 � r,
� /�p�/ � �
y� 1 � � - � !'1 Il 1 64 � �q �. cicmy � - ,✓� � � G \ � . � � � . .
� I � i,{LJ : �. . � . - �-. � � � j��� � `,. :7 1 . _ � .
b��j �
. 1 ' I�� ��� � _ . �,5!�� �
�.
y�i I ��t. ,r ` '
- - / L � �`' -� z 'i. � ,�,
55 � 1 � �, � ,
� � '` � P --' a�. � "rf ' ' ' 1
APEX � _ ` '� K ,, � F . � _,
:. - _� v A � � �� ��,j � ' r ,� � � ��
� i ' , i � j„ •+ � "� ", " v�` �
_ =�.J� '� .E'i' j-� U D � .�, . ��'
`�:_ . � y`�A5�1 '� � / ���- S�� ~ ► � - � � l ' V 1 � / • --
'✓ ` � ,,, � �e" � �� - -= �
_ _ _ � �� — —p� ` 401 70 � -, ~ ' ` , Ne�se Rr� �
______— '. � � � to �/ �
� i , ;�' �a��' r _�_ _ GARNER -��� -' r � � � � _ I �
) ` TOLL � - �. . �c ' ��.;-f ' �I�e��er � � �� Planned } , `� � ---� / � ~ / - --
` � 540 ���, ,. � i - expansion .t � ; + \ / C
.;r >< ' -i` �! � �� area � � �91 I �
,a� � � i Te i2 ic / � �. � � i
� � i ' ; a, �� - _ i �•Te > 3� . _ �1 r� �- ''.1 ���_ i /
�..'� -. 1 � t `� j�`, � — n Rd. � 's i � `-" `, , 1 �� ; � � � ` `� _
L-- � _, s �-- . , , � �dkP L�ai � ". - , ,�-� �'�n I �
� . � - 5'� ; - � — 8ensoh • ..!� 5 ., _ ,�. � �
�r � f - � �.. !` _ � �k �� '-�
� H O LLY ` _ -; 7 'r '�_ . _ � ' - _
.� , r
, ,
t� ._ _ � ' - . � � x,.�i
:�.
�� L . SPRINGS , �' •7 „ �:J �- Te�'Te 5O �,` �' . � - �CLAYTON �<<. �
��: .. - � ..-�, � _ ' � °9a � � i-� T � .�M1 /
� � r-� � / , � iT�'� � , ` � � � � ��}
t- ," `�� _. �i �.�- '� ' - �1 �. . ' r ) r ' / _�ii �_lr � i/�"' -' �J
1 � � " � - ,
h �- . ���-� ._ i ao� 2,. ,— � -� � � r , � ; �_
- �� 55^` � �'' ' il �`'�°�� , _ � `r6i. %� �� � � \\
�. _, 1 •,�; �
`� <` _. --�`. ��� fee% ,t �' � �' �.
1 � �` �) �� . - ; Pek �' N �� -
�� �� _ � `��_ , � , �,-, � ��'-� 8 =� � � ` ��, ��_ 42� �!� ��� � �j
i- " `� ' ' � � _.� . , ' ' 42 �:;�.4 ~7 ���:" �� � '�/'�'' - � i Z 3 4
�.:.,
FUQUAY 1--� _ ^��� �— `� �
__ � � 1
t VARINA � ��'----�--'--- --~— \ mlles -�
�
4n 1 � / (epproximate) �
� - � 401 55 '' v; � \
.
The study area contains several regional parks and recreation facilities. �O South Garner Park '`; Middle Creek School Park
There are also many smaller, neighborhood-sized parks and recreation 'J Thompson Park `�; Sunset oaks Park (planned)
areas associated with residential developments. The larger parks and � White Deer Park s; Southeast Regional Park (planned)
recreation pdrCels are Shown here. � Lake Benson Park ;9; Clemmons Educational State Forest
C� Centennial Park �o Neuse River Trail
Exhibit 3
Water Resources in the Study Area
� Section 303(d) Streams
� � Water Supply Wate�shed
/,.
Swift Creek Water Supply
Watershed Critical Area
CARY
APEX
� 100-Year Floodplain
, . National Wetland
Inventory Wetlands
RALEIGH
KNIGHTDALE
�
� '� �r a
r �. � � � :��
.� r - • '
'' � ► f . • . • `�
' � � + . � . I .
� 'r . r .
EP � � �. _ ', , ' •'. 1
V p� ^� ' - ' "� . � � �l
c T V � ��� ;f`-y • � -• , •.i �' • , -�
�'
. /
�/
.I
./
/
ON
3 4
�
ox.)
i
.�
,_� _ � 1
� i�
classified as Water Supply III (WS-ill), which is defined aswaters used as
sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing pur-
poses. A management plan is in place for Swift Creek (including Lake
Wheeler and Lake Benson). This plan established the boundaries of the
Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area and includes strict limitations on
development within its Watershed Critical Area. Swift Creek is impaired
due to degraded benthic integrity.
Little Creek—Little Creek is located near Clayton, in northern Johnston
County, where itfiows into Swift Creek. It is classified as having impaired
benthic integrity and a poor fish community.
Middle Creek and Terrible Creek—Middle Creek and Terrible Creek are
two streams in the western part of the study area. Portions of both are
listed as impaired waters. Middle Creek is listed because of impaired
benthic integrity and a poor fish community; Terrible Creek, which fiows
into Middle Creek, is listed because of impaired benthic integrity.
Beddingfield Creek—Beddingfield Creek is in the eastern part of the
study area, where it fiows into the Neuse River. It is listed as having
impaired benthic integriry.
Wetlands — Wetland areas are scattered throughout the study area
(see Exhibit 3). An initial analysis of wetland type, quality, and location
was made for the entire study area by consulting the National Wetlands
Inventory database, which is maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). More precise mapping of potentially affected wet-
lands was done through on-the-ground field work, conducted by quali-
fied scientists and professional land surveyors to determine the precise
location of jurisdictional wetlands.
Protected Species —Several federally threatened and endangered
plant and animal species are listed as known to occur or are believed to
occur in either Wake or Johnston counties. These include:
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus Michauxii)—This federally endangered plant is
found in the inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions of North Carolina.
It grows best in areas where disturbances have created open areas.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides 6orealis)—This federally endan-
gered bird typically occupies open, mature stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine. It excavates cavities for nesting and roosting
in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older.
Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)—This species was
listed as a federally threatened species in April 2015. It is found pri-
marily in western North Carolina but has recently been discovered in
the eastern part of the state. Studies are underway by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service to determine its presence in central North Carolina.
Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana)—In North Carolina, this
federally endangered species is found in the rivers and streams of the
Neuse River and Tar River basins.
Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)—This federally endan-
gered species is found in the rivers and streams of the Neuse River
watershed in the study area.
Note: Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS, another mussel
species, the Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), was proposed
for listing as a threatened species by the USFV1/S. Its habitat is
similar to that of the Dwarf Wedgemussel.
Highways — Because the proposed 540 project would be a limited-ac-
cess highway, with access to and from it only allowed at interchanges,
the location of other major roads that would intersect with 540 is an
important consideration. These include the following:
• NC 55 Bypass
• Holly Springs Road
• Bells Lake Road
• US 401
• Old Stage Road
• NC 50
• US 70
• Interstate 40
• White Oak Road
• Rock Quarry Road
• US 70 Business
• Auburn Knightdale Road
• Poole Road
• US 64/US 264 (I-495)
Comp(ete 540 Final Environmenta/ Impact Statement — December 2017 13
These intersecting roads are important because constructing inter-
changes can result in changes to traffic patterns and land uses in close
proximity to them.
Drinking Water and Waste Water Treatment Facilities — There are
six major water and waste water treatment facilities in the study area:
1) the City of Raleigh's Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant is
located on NC 50 in Garner (it also has an associated bio-solids treat-
ment facility on Wrenn Road near I-40); 2) the City of Raleigh Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on Battle Bridge Road, in
the far eastern portion of the study area; 3) the Western Wake Regional
Water Reclamation Facility is located just west of study area and is jointly
operated by Cary, Apex, Holly Springs, and Morrisville; 4) the South
Cary Water Reclamation Facility is located on West Lake Road, east of
Holly Springs; 5) the Town of Apex Water Reclamation Facility is located
on Pristine Water Drive, near the western edge of the study area; and 6)
the Town of Clayton Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility, located on
Durham Street, in Clayton.
Electricity and Fuels Generation and Distribution — The Complete
540 study area contains two electric power substations—one on Battle
Bridge Road and another on Ten Ten Road near Sauls Road. Several
large powerlines also traverse the study area, as well as two under-
ground natural gas pipelines. The study area also includes the Neuse
River Solar Farm, a solar field managed by the City of Raleigh. This
facility is located on a 30 acre tract at the corner of Battle Bridge Road
and Brownfield Road in the eastern part of the study area.
Communications Facilities and Distribution Lines — The Complete
540 study area contains a group of three large communication towers
located along US 70 Business, just north of Clayton. These are important
because they include television, radio, emergency (911), federal/state
police, and weather communications. A smaller tower that provides
warning sirens for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant is located
just north of US 70 Business, along Rock Quarry Road. This tower also
provides Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control communica-
tions equipment and cell phone transmission facilities.
Contamination Sites, Hazardous Materials, and Landfills — Facil-
ities that store hazardous materials are located throughout the study
area, mainly along major roads. These include gas stations, former gas
stations, auto repair and salvage facilities, and dry cleaners. No large-
scale contamination sites are known to exist in the study area.
Landfills in the study area include the South Wake Landfill, just south of
the existing end of NC 540, at NC 55 Bypass in Apex, and the Buffaloe
Landfill, on the west side of US 401, one mile south of US 70 Business.
There is also a construction and demolition debris landfill on Brownfield
Road south of Battle Bridge Road.
. -r wnor+e �n o}r � ran
�
In addition to the Draft EIS document itself, more detailed
information about the study area and its features can be
found in the following technical reports:
• Community Characteristics Report (May 2011)
• GeoEnvironmental Report for Planning (June 2014)
Chapter 5 contains a summary of each technical report
incorporated as part of the Draft EIS and this Final EIS,
including the documents listed here.
DRAFT EIS CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVES FOR MEETING THE
PROJECT PURPOSE
The development of alternative ways of ineeting the project purpose
began with the exploration of non-highway solutions or "concepts,"
along with initial identification of possible highway alternatives.
Initial Concepts — Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Concept —TDM includes strategies designed to reduce the need or
"demand" that individuals have to use the roadway system itself.
14 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
Transportation System Management (TSM) Concept—TSM mea-
sures typically consist of low-cost, minor improvements to roadways to
increase the capacity or efficiency of the overall roadway system.
Mass Transit/Multi-Modal Concept—The Mass Transit option would
expand bus and rail passenger service in the project area.
In addition to these non-roadway alternatives, several different roadway
options were considered. These included:
Making upgrades and other improvements to existing roadways—This
alternative would involve major reconstruction of extensive portions of
existing roads in the study area. Three combinations of improving exist-
ing roadways having the greatest potential to meetthe project purposes
were examined.
Combination, or "hybrid," options—This concept would combine
upgrading certain existing roadways with some degree of completely
new construction in other areas. Three hybrid options having the great-
est possibility of ineeting the project purposes were examined.
Construction of an entirely new highway—This option would construct
a completely new, limited-access facility. It would be similar in design
to the existing segments of 540, with access to and from the highway
provided using on and off ramps at interchanges.
A"No-Build" alternative was also considered. This option is based on
the assumption that the transportation network in the study area will
continue to develop as called for in CAMPO's Long-Range Transporta-
tion Plan, but without the Complete 540 project included.
Using both qualitative and quantitative methods, these concepts were
screened to determine if they would meet the primary purposes of
the project. The result was that only two of these were found to both
improve mobility and reduce traffic congestion according to the crite-
ria established to measure these purposes: one hybrid concept, and
building an entirely new highway. Those options were then developed
in greater detail.
Development of Preliminary Corridor Alternatives — Having estab-
lished that these two concepts would meet the primary purposes of the
project, a large number of new alternative design concepts and three
hybrid alternatives were developed using corridors drawn at width of
1,000 feet. Within these corridors, 300-foot wide bands were drawn to
represent the basic "footprint" of the conceptual improvements, allow-
ing impact calculations at a more detailed level. Based on the more
detailed information that was collected about the study area's social,
environmental, and physical features, these corridors were drawn so
as to avoid affecting the natural and human environment as much as
possible.
In the fall of 2010, the study team presented the resulting set of alter-
natives to resource and regulatory agencies, local governments and
to the public and received several comments and suggestions about
them. Some of these comments resulted in changes to the corridor
alternatives, with various new segments being added to avoid or min-
imize impacts to resources and other segments being dropped from
further consideration. Also dropped was the hybrid concept because it
would have required a very large number of residential relocations and
substantial wetland involvement without offering an offsetting relative
advantage over the other options considered.
The set of corridors that emerged was then subject to additional review
and analysis. Based on the comments and suggestions made during
additional agency, government, and public reviews, including a round
of public information meetings in the fall of 2013, the corridors were
further modified and the impact assessments updated. The resulting
alternatives became the study's "detailed study alternatives," or DSAs.
Detailed Study Alternatives — Seventeen DSAs were identified, each
consisting of a unique combination of two or more "corridor segments."
In total, ten individual corridor segments were developed, and each was
assigned an identifying color. They are described as follows:
Corridor Segments West of I-40
Orange Corridor Segment—The main advantage of this segment is
that it contains little or no development because it follows a corridor
15
set aside as protected by NCDOT in the mid-1990s. A disadvantage
is that it would cross a portion of Swift Creek that is important for the
continued survival of the federally protected Dwarf Wedgemussel in this
waterbody.
Lilac Corridor Segment—This option diverges from the Orange Corridor
segment near Sauls Road. It was developed to reduce potential effects
on wetlands. DSAs using the Lilac Corridor segment were found to have
a somewhat smaller total effect on jurisdictional wetlands than those
using the Orange Corridor segment. It would also offer the advantage
of crossing a narrower section of Swift Creek than the Orange Corridor
segments. A disadvantage of this segment is that it would require a
large number of relocations and would directly affect a biosolids spray-
field that treats water from the Dempsey E, Benton Water Treatment
Plant. Like the Orange Corridor segment, it would cross the portion of
Swift Creek important to the continued survival of the Dwarf Wedgemus-
sel in this waterbody.
Purple and Blue Corridor Segments—Although these segments have
been assigned two different colors, they function as one corridor
segment. They are farther south than the other options and for this
reason may serve traffic better in growing areas near Fuquay-Varina,
which is a potential advantage of this corridor segment. Also, the route
created by connecting the Purple and Blue Corridor segments to the
Lilac Corridor segment would affect fewer acres of wetlands than a
similar route using the Orange Corridor segment to connect to the Lilac
Corridor segment, which is another advantage of this option. Despite
these benefits, these segments would cross heavily developed areas in
eastern Holly Springs, incurring high numbers of relocations. Also, by
bringing the project's route this far south in the study area, these corri-
dors may create pressure to approve new development in rural southern
Wake County and in Harnett County, some of which could be in confiict
with local, approved land use plans. Although the Purple and Blue seg-
ments would not themselves cross Swift Creek, they would connect to
the Lilac segment, which would cross this creek.
Red Corridor Segment—The Red Corridor segment forms a poten-
tial route that is the farthest north of all the corridor segments. There
are two reasons why this option was developed. First, it is the only
segment that would cross Swift Creek upstream of the Lake Benson
dam, meaning it would be upstream of the habitat area for the federally
endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel. Second, it would cross fewer acres
of wetlands than any of the other options. This segment, however, also
has substantial disadvantages. It would cross a heavily developed area
in the town of Garner, including several established subdivisions. It also
would cross several park and recreational resources in this area and is
the only corridor that would cross the Swift Creek Water Supply Water-
shed Critical Area. This Corridor segment also has substantial opposi-
tion from area residents, businesses, and Town of Garner officials.
Corridor Segments East of I-40
Green and Mint Corridor Segment —The key advantage of both of these
segments is that they would avoid the Clemmons Educational State
Forest, which is an important publicly-owned natural resource. Their
principal disadvantage is that they would require relocation of a rela-
tively small communications tower and may require special treatment to
avoid affecting one of three larger communications towers near US 70
Business. The Green and Mint segments differ in their potential effects
on the Randleigh Farm property, which is a development being pursued
jointly by the City of Raleigh and Wake County. The Green Corridor
segment would bisect the property, while the Mint segment would shift
to the east, closer to the edge of the property.
Tan Corridor Segment—The Tan Corridor segment was developed
in an attempt to avoid the disadvantages associated with the Green
and Mint segments. It would shift the encroachment on the Randleigh
Farm property farther to the east than the Mint segment and would
avoid the large communication towers near US 70 Business. Because
this segment would cross existing subdivisions, it has the potential to
relocate a larger number of property owners than other options under
consideration in this area. It would also cross the northwest corner of
Clemmons Educational State Forest.
Brown Corridor Segment—This segment would have the advantage of
completely avoiding the Randleigh Farm property and avoiding the large
communication towers near US 70 Business. It would cross the Neuse
16 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
River at a more favorable location than the other options, possibly reduc-
ing potential effects on the river and associated natural features. The
angle at which it would cross Auburn Knightdale Road, means it would
require fewer acres of land acquisition than the other segments in this
area. The key disadvantages of this segment are that it would directly
affect a biosolids sprayfield that is part of the Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant and would directly affect a City of Raleigh police training
facility located on Battle Bridge Road. It would also need to cross the
northwest corner of Clemmons Educational State Forest.
Teal Corridor Segment—This is a short segment that would connect
the southern part of the Green Corridor segment to the northern part of
the Brown Corridor segment. The resulting combination of segments
would have several advantages: it would completely avoid the Randleigh
Farm property, would cross the Neuse River in a more favorable loca-
tion, would require a smaller interchange footprint at Auburn Knight-
dale Road, and would avoid crossing the Clemmons Educational State
Forest. The key disadvantages are that it would likely disrupt the large
communication towers near Business US 70, would affect the Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant bio-solids sprayfield, and would
affect the City of Raleigh police training facility.
These Detailed Study Alternatives are shown on Exhibit 4 on the follow-
ing page.
e s � s �"•
In addition to the Draft EIS document itself, more detailed
information about the corridor alternatives can be found in
the following technical report:
• Alternatives Development and Analysis Report (May 2014)
Chapter 5 contains a summary of each technical report
incorporated as part of the Draft EIS and this Final EIS,
including the document listed here.
DRAFT EIS CHAPTER 5: EXPECTED EFFECTS OF EACH
ALTERNATIVE
Information collected about the important features of the human,
natural, and physical environments was used to help establish the loca-
tions of the project's Build alternatives. Once established, the alterna-
tives' effects on those features were calculated and placed in a compar-
ative evaluation matrix. Detailed information about the methods used
to make those calculations, and their outcomes, was presented in the
Draft EIS and its referenced technical reports.
A description of each of those reports is contained in Chapter 5; all of
those reports are contained on the disk attached to this document and
on the projectwebsite (www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete540/). These
documents are considered to be included as part of this Final EIS.
Note that Information about DSA 2(the Preferred Alternative) has
been updated and is described in Chapter 4.
The sections below summarize the Detailed Study Alternatives' effects
on each of the important human, natural, and physical features as pre-
sented in the Draft EIS.
Environmental Justice — Under Executive Order 12898, issued in
1994 and titled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," federal agencies
must identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations
and low-income populations.
The study team reviewed available data and conducted a field review
to determine the potential for issues related to environmental justice in
the study area. While Census data show that low-income, minority, and
elderly individuals live in various locations across the study area, they do
not appear to be concentrated in areas near any of the DSAs.
The study of potential relocations for each DSA included an assess-
ment of the likely household income level for residential relocations.
The assessment concluded that a relatively small number of required
17
Y . , ' � .. � - � � � � � � � .
- . _ ��� t. �.. 1 � . -__ ' l'�V ,. ' i, ff y�
EXlllblt 4 � _ � ( ., � .,_ � KNIGHTDALE
Detalled StLId �� RALEIGH ' � �
. y - ---____,
Alternatives - . � -
�"� 64 ' 264 �
�, � � ' , I
1 � � . `/ �� 1
64 � - ,, � ` __ 1
�� `J , � i �; ;� i . i 4� .�, 1
--.._ �
/ � _ • �i '%'` 1
O 64 _ ��
55 ���si : � , � P .•`� � %'x :. ( �T- 1
APEX i' � " .�. g i' � �m' ,�',' `--% 1 _._ a __' /
i
A � � ,
V � ,� � � � - —� , � 1 �
:, � • ;�- S T U � � . ;. i /
� ; . ��� �
, � �i_�, . - _ ! ^ �. r
—� /.
_ � J� � _��_�� + 401� 70 � - -_l�
� _ �.� � '�11� � I
� �� j ; � ,�,�,'' �'.,�� - ,-��r ;. � GARNER - \�
TOLL J -� ; � r� ) ' 1j� � / � \
.�.. �
540 - �e � � �:� �
� � � /
1 " TPn re� Rd. `� I I I
. r ` !: � ,_ : :� �� �
1� _
J i ' / . l
_ HOLLY �'- '/
l`. SPRINGS �^- /�d Ten-Te� �50 ��� `� CLAYTON �
'i_- rr . ` _ � ' � �'� }: . Rq � .._� \ . . � .
r ' _ , �
-- ;, � � � � �t
, _ -f`� .``,., , ao� _, , :.. f'`� � �� :� � `-�
I 1 , ._.. `` 55 ��)� � r�'� / 70 ' � �� 4
U � �.
�� ♦ ` ���-�=#--�; 42 _ h� �
, ` •,� _ � i � O- � � -_\ -,
♦, � � � �- � �. _� � �
i - � `'� S" ; ,� � � N 1
�� �
- � ` �� ' � ''��� � �
; ' � - "'�� _ — --- _ '� � �
♦ . _ ' " i �.�� ` —, � �i
- ,� FUQUAY''-��:.�..,_ __ `� `.�=-_ -" _ �! E p �-.0 1 2 a a
� - — ----- 42 ---- " A R -
!L�' � VARINA S � p Y
/ 1 mlles
� i (approximata)
Segment Colors Segment Combinations for the 17 Detailed Study Alternatives
0 Orange � Lilac 0 Brown 1 m 5� g� Q 13 � 17 •
� Purple Q Green Mint 2 m Q 6� 10 �''-�"- Q 14 � Q
� Blue m 7ea1 3 rm-- 0 7� 0 11 � 15 � 0
� Red Tan 4+ c� 8� 12 � 16 �
displacements would affect low-income residents. For each alternative,
the proportion of residential relocations affecting low-income residents
compared to all relocations would be smaller than the proportion of all
residents with low incomes throughout the study area as a whole. This
suggests that none of the DSAs would result in a disproportionate relo-
cation effect on low-income individuals.
Potential Relocations on the Complete 540 Project — Although
NCDOT places a high priority on avoidance of neighborhoods and dis-
ruption of households in developing alternatives, each of the DSAs for
the Complete 540 project would require some displacement of resi-
dences, businesses, and community facilities.
A large portion of what is now the Orange Corridor segment does not
contain large-scale development because NCDOT designated it as a
protected corridor in the mid-1990s. For this reason, the DSAs that
include the full Orange Corridor segment would require substantially
fewer residential relocations than the other DSAs.�°� Those using the
Red Corridor segment would average 69 percent more total relocations
than Orange Corridor segment alternatives. DSAs using the full Lilac
Corridor segment would average 76 percent more relocations. DSAs
using Purple-Blue Corridor segment would average 108 percent more
total relocations than those using the Orange Corridor segment.
Business relocations tend to follow the same pattern: the DSAs that use
the full Orange Corridor segment would have the fewest, and the DSAs
that use the Purple-Blue Corridor segment would have the most.
With respect to non-profit and community facilities, the number of relo-
cations is very low, with DSAs using the full Orange Corridor segment
requiring three such relocations and the other DSAs requiring only one
or two.
Barrier, Access, and Neighborhood Effects — The barrier effect
refers to a separation between people or places. Communities can
(c) In 2016, the NC General Assembly repealed the legislation allowing NCDOT to protect
corridors for future transportation projects.
become separated when a new highway is built through them and local
streets are closed. This kind of separation can also affect businesses,
recreational facilities, and other public facilities by reducing the number
of clients or users of a facility.
The term "access" refers to the ability to efficiently connect to the
roadway system. New highway projects can cause changes in access
by cutting off or rerouting local streets.
NCDOT places a high priority on keeping disruption of neighborhoods
to a minimum, but some disruption would result, regardless of the DSA
selected. There are a number of developments that could potentially
experience barrier or access effects throughout the study area.
Effects on Community Facilities — Although not actual relocations,
some of the DSAs would affect various educational, religious, and park
and recreation facilities.
Educational facilities—The campus of Wake Technical Community
College is the only site that would be directly affected. The Orange
Corridor segment would cross the northwest corner of the Wake Tech
property but would not affect any campus buildings.
Places of worship—Two places of worship would be affected. The first is
The Word of Truth Church of God, located on Eddie Creek Drive, just off
NC 55 near the western edge of the study area. Each DSA would require
the acquisition of approximately 1 acre from the church's 1.5 acre parcel,
although the church building likely would be able to remain. The second
is the Springfield Baptist Church, located on Auburn Knightdale Road.
The two DSAs that include the Red Corridor segment would affect this
relatively large parcel. The church building would not be affected, and
access would remain the same, but the DSAs would require the acqui-
sition of property through the middle of this parcel, splitting it into a 20
acre piece to the north and a 19 acre piece to the south. In total, 11
acres would be required from the 50 acre parcel.
Middle Creek School Park—The DSAs that include the Orange Corridor
segment would each require part of a small strip of land that is currently
19
in public ownership and is associated with the Town of Cary's Middle
Creek School Park complex.
Sunset Oaks Park (planned facility)—The DSAs that include the Purple
Corridor segment would cross this planned Holly Springs park, which is
located in the Sunset Oaks neighborhood.
Southeast Regional Park (planned facility)—The DSAs that include the
Blue Corridor segment would directly affect privately-owned parcels
that Wake County intends to purchase for development as part of this
planned park.
White Deer Park planned expansion area—The DSAs that include the
Red Corridor segment would directly affect about nine acres of a parcel
intended for the expansion of White Deer Park by the Town of Garner.
Bryan Road Nature Park (planned facility)—The two DSAs that include
the Red Corridor segment would bisect the property to be used for the
planned Bryan Road Nature Park.
Clemmons Educational State Forest—The DSAs that include the Tan or
the complete Brown Corridor segments would each directly affect the
northwest corner of the Clemmons Forest property.
Neuse River Trail—DSAs using the complete Green Corridor segment
would cross this City of Raleigh trail facility on the same bridge that
would cross the Neuse River. DSAs using the Mint or Tan Corridor seg-
ments would accommodate a crossing of the trail with a box culvert
under the road. The remaining DSAs, which all use the Brown Corridor
segment in this area, would affect the trail in two places where the trail
runs parallel to two existing roads. Under this scenario, the existing trail
could be modified as part of the project design to maintain public use
of the trail. All of these scenarios would allow continued use of the trail
unhindered by the proposed road.
Note: The design has been changed at the request of the City of
Raleigh. The trail would now be under the Neuse River bridge for
the Preferred Alternative.
Police, Fire, and Emergency Services—The direct negative effect the
DSAs would have on these services would be with DSAs using the Brown
Corridor segment, which would cross a portion of a City of Raleigh
police training facility located on Battle Bridge Road, affecting about
nine acres of the site. It is anticipated that the site could still function
in its current use.
Historic Architectural Resources—Historic sites that are listed on the
federal National RegisterofHistoric Places, or are determined to be eli-
gible for listing on the Register, are protected under Section 106 of the
Historic Preservation Act. A survey of the "Area of Potential Effects" for
the proposed project resulted in 25 individual properties being identified
as on or eligible for the Register. In addition, one rural area was found
to be eligible for the Register as a historic agricultural district and two
properties in the study area identified during a different NCDOT project
were found to be individually eligible.
Located on Sunset Lake Road in Fuquay-Varina, the Jones-Johnson-Ballentine Historic
District is listed on the National Registerof Historic Places. It is an example of a land use
that is protected under both Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act and Section
4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act.
20 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December z017
The NC State Historic Preservation Office has concurred that most of
the DSAs would have No Effect on the majority of the listed or eligible
resources. The properties that would be affected received a desig-
nation of "Adverse Effect," "No Adverse Effect," or "No Adverse Effect
with Environmental Commitments" (meaning the finding of No Adverse
Effect is contingent on various commitments being made to reduce or
mitigate impacts to the property). Alternatives using the Red Corridor
segment would have adverse eifects on two eligible resources (Dr. L. J.
Faulhaber Farm and Bryan Farms Historic District). Alternatives using
the Tan Corridor segment would have adverse effects on one eligible
resource (Baucom-Stallings House). Several DSAs would require envi-
ronmental commitments to reduce or mitigate impacts (and thus be
regarded as having no adverse effect) at three other sites: the Panther
Branch School, Britt's Store, and the Mount Auburn School.
Archaeological Resources — Archaeological sites are also protected
by the Historic Preservation Act and other regulations. The Office of
State Archaeology (OSA) and NCDOT reached an agreement that
archaeological investigations would be conducted after the study's
Preferred Alternative was selected. (Archaeological investigations are
documented in Chapter 4.)
Effect on Section 4(f) Properties — Historic sites, parks and rec-
reational lands, and wildlife refuges are protected under Section 4(f)
of the US Department of Transportation Act. In addition to the historic
resources described above, Section 4(f) is potentially applicable to
several of the existing and planned parks and recreation properties in
the study area.
Middle Creek School Park—The Orange Corridor segment would affect
this property but is not expected to adversely affect its recreational
activities, features, and attributes.
Planned Sunset Oaks Park—The Purple Corridor segment would cross
this planned 78 acre park, directly affecting about 10 acres. It would
also split the parcel in two, leaving about 5 acres east of the road right-
of-way and the remainder to the west.
White Deer Park planned expansion area—The Red Corridor segment
would directly affect about 9 acres of the 35 acre parcel that the Town
of Garner plans to develop as an extension of the adjacent White Deer
Park. This eifect would also leave a 12 acre portion of the planned
expansion parcel isolated north of the road right-of-way.
Planned Bryan Road Nature Park—The Red Corridor segment would
bisect this planned park, directly affecting approximately 6 acres and
separating the remaining parcel into a 10 acre section north of the road
right-of-way and a 4 acre section to the south.
Clemmons Educational State Forest—While there is a recreation function
associated with this property, its primary purpose is for forest resource
management. According to applicable regulations, if recreation has
not been established as the primary purpose of a resource, it does not
qualify as a recreational resource under Section 4(f). Both the Tan and
Brown Corridor segments would affect small areas of managed forest
at the northwest corner of the property but these effects would not be
considered "use" under Section 4(f). Hiking trails within this forest do,
however, qualify as a recreational resource under Section 4(f). The
Brown Corridor segment would directly affect approximately 500 feet
of the three-mile long Watershed Extension Loop Trail. Because this
trail could likely be reconfigured to maintain its use, the DSAs affecting
it are not expected to adversely affect its recreational activities, features,
or attributes. The Tan Corridor would not affect any trails in the State
Forest.
Neuse RiverTrail—All of the DSAs would cross the Neuse River Trail. All
except those using the Brown Corridor segment would accommodate
the trail under the road using a bridge or a box culvert (depending on
the DSA). DSAs using the Brown Corridor segment in this area would
affect the trail in two locations: where the trail parallels Old Baucom
Road and where it runs parallel to Brownfield Road. It is expected that
the trail could be modified as part of the project design to maintain its
current use. While all the DSAs would affect this property, these effects
are not anticipated to be adverse with respect to its recreational activi-
ties, features, or attributes.
21
Visual Character and Aesthetics — It is expected that visual changes
experienced by those living or working along the DSAs would be inter-
mittent, with some subjected to a view of the roadway and others
shielded from the roadway by topography and vegetation. In addition,
a large roadway facility like Complete 540 could spur additional devel-
opment that would change the surrounding visual environment from its
current open and fairly rural views.
Noise Impacts — Because increases in noise levels can affect com-
munity activities and reduce the quality of life for residents, a detailed
process was followed for predicting the proposed project's potential
noise impacts.
The study team examined 1000-foot wide corridors for each of the sev-
enteen DSAs, identifying all land uses within the corridors that might be
sensitive to traffic noise (e.g., residences, schools and parks, etc.). Out
of the 4,189 noise receptors identified, 30 were determined, for study
purposes, to be representative of the broader area.
Field measurements were then taken at each of the 30 sites to deter-
mine existing noise levels, and other data were collected such as terrain
characteristics, traffic volumes, traffic speeds, roadway factors, and
similar conditions that could affect noise levels. This information was
used as input to the standard traffic noise computer model to predict
future noise levels with and without the proposed project.
The modeling effort predicted substantial noise impacts at between
454 and 804 of the 4,189 receptors found along the seventeen DSAs.
Measures for reducing or eliminating impacts were considered for all
affected receptors. The primary noise abatement measure consid-
ered was noise barriers, which were investigated at 91 locations. The
number of noise barriers found to be preliminarily feasible and reason-
able ranged from 16 to 24, depending on the DSA.
Note: An updated noise analysis has been undertaken for the
Preferred Alternative and is documented in Chapter 4.
Air Quality — The results of computer modeling for carbon monoxide
indicated that the project is not expected to result in air pollutant con-
centrations that would be above the national air quality standards. As
a result, the project is not expected to create a local air quality impact.
Note: Carbon monoxide "hot spot" analyses are no longer required
in Wake County and have never been required in Johnston County.
Under FHWA guidelines, this project does not require a detailed study
for particulate matter, nor does it require a detailed analysis of "Mobile
Source Air Toxics." For possible air quality concerns during construc-
tion, no substantial long-term effects would occur if currently adopted
rules for open burning and dust control are followed. As a result, the
project is not expected to cause or contribute to anyviolation of USEPA's
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Potential Effect on Area Traffic Patterns — Growth and development
under either the Build (i.e., one of the seventeen DSAs) or No-Build
scenarios will result in travel pattern changes on freeways and major
and minor arterial roads, and will affect the associated traffic opera-
tions along each of these roads. These effects, which include changes
in traffic volumes and patterns, could be somewhat different under a
Build scenario because the new freeway's interchanges may redistrib-
ute traffic, compared to the No-Build condition. For example, a Build
alternative could redistribute traffic to the new Complete 540 freeway
interchanges and away from existing major and minor roads near the
freeway such as Ten Ten Road, NC 42, and US 70.
The Build scenario was established in a manner that addresses the
anticipated travel pattern changes and associated traffic operations
by providing level of service D or better on Complete 540 and nearby
intersections during peak travel hours. The effects under the No-Build
scenario include increased pressure on existing capacity, degraded
road and intersection levels of service, and reduced mobility in southern
and eastern Wake County.
Under base year conditions with the proposed project there are several
roadway locations where traffic volumes or patterns could be affected.
22 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
The analysis conducted for these locations showed that each DSA
would provide at least a level of service of D or better. This can be
interpreted as meaning that the project would not cause any unaccept-
able problems on the study area's roadway network and would result in
improved conditions on the overall network in the base year.
Under future, "design year" conditions, the locations affected by the
DSAs include approximately 19 existing or future interchanges and 36
existing orfuture at-grade intersections or entrance/exit ramp intersec-
tions. As with the base year conclusions, the analysis conducted for the
design year showed that each of these locations would provide at least
a level of service of D or better, again meaning that the project would
provide acceptable levels of service on the study area's future roadway
network during peak travel hours.
In summary, each of the DSAs is predicted to meet the need for the
project by improving mobility and providing better connections between
other transportation routes in and near the project study area over the
No-Build alternative. The No-Build alternative would result in worse
operations at existing intersections and along segments of existing
highway in the design year. The details that led to these conclusions
can be found in the study's Purpose and Need Statement, Alternatives
Development and Analysis Report, various traffic analysis reports, and
in the Draft EIS, all of which can be found on the disk attached to the
back cover of this document and on the Complete 540 website (www.
ncdot.gov/projects/complete540/).
Land Use and Economics — As noted previously, most local govern-
ments in the study area have adopted land use plans that include com-
pletion of the 540 Outer Loop. Some of these plans include land use
policies that explicitly support the project and most assume that the
project will be located along the protected corridor (the Orange Corridor
segment), between NC 55 Bypass and I-40. In interviews conducted
by the NCDOT study team, representatives from six different local gov-
ernments stated their current planning objectives require construction
along the protected corridor and that any other alternative corridor west
of I-40 would be in confiict with their plans.
The Red Corridor segment would have substantial negative effects on
local land use planning objectives and desired development patterns.
The Purple-Blue Corridor segment would also negatively affect local
land use planning objectives. In particular, it would confiict with Town
of Holly Springs and Wake County land use planning objectives.
In the portion of the study area east of I-40, most of the DSAs would at
least partially support local planning objectives. One exception is the
Green Corridor's effect on the Randleigh Farm property. This property
is a 417 acre tract owned jointly by Wake County and the City of Raleigh
and planned as a mixed-use community. The Green Corridor segment
would confiict with those plans. The Mint and Tan Corridor segments
would also affect this development, but would shift the effects closer
to the eastern edge of the property boundaries. The Brown and Teal
Corridor segments would avoid the Randleigh property but would have
effects on other City of Raleigh-owned properties in the area.
With respect to economic effects, the DSAs that use Orange Corridor
segment would have the fewest business relocations; DSAs using the
Purple-Blue Corridor segment would have the most. In addition, the
Red Corridor segment would affect the Greenfield South Business Park,
which is a 416 acre commercial and industrial complex located in the
town of Garner.
Streams — DSAs using the Red Corridor segment west of I-40 would
require the fewest stream crossings and would have the lowest total
length of streams that would need to be shifted (measured in linear
feet). DSAs using the Purple-Blue Corridor segment would have the
highest total linear feet of stream impact, averaging 44 percent greater
total length than DSAs using the Red Corridor segment. The DSAs using
the Purple-Blue Corridor segment cross Middle Creek twice, while the
other options cross Middle Creek once. Within each group of DSAs
using a particular alignment west of I-40, those using the full length
of the Brown Corridor segment east of I-40 would affect streams less
than those following the other options east of I-40. There is relatively
23
little variation in the effect on streams among the other alignments east
of I-40 (Alternatives using the Green, Mint, or Tan Corridor segments).
Wetlands — The Complete 540 study team's scientists identified 543
wetland sites that are under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) within or near the DSAs.
DSAs using the Red Corridor segment would have the least total effect
on jurisdictional wetlands, each affecting slightly less than 52 acres.
DSAs using the Purple-Blue Corridor segment would have the next
lowest total, averaging about 59 acres each, which is approximately 14
percent greater than the average for DSAs that include the Red Corridor
segment. DSAs using the Lilac Corridor segment would have a slightly
greater effect on wetlands, averaging about 68 acres each. DSAs
using the Orange Corridor segment would have the greatest effect
on wetlands, averaging about 74 acres each—which is approximately
43 percent greater than the average for DSAs using the Red Corridor
segment. The portions of the DSAs located east of I-40 have very little
difference in their effect on wetlands.
Ponds — A total of 105 ponds within or near DSAs fall under the juris-
diction of the USACE. The DSAs' effect on these ponds ranges from
approximately 18 acres (for alternatives using the Red and Mint Corridor
segments) to about 28 acres (for alternatives using the portion of the
Orange Corridor segment west of I-40, and Teal to Brown east of I-40).
The Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area — The only DSAs that cross
the Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area are the two that include the Red
Corridor segment. For this reason, the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDEQ-DWR) and
the USEPA have expressed concern about these DSAs. Construction of
the project along either of these DSAs would require extensive coordi-
nation with these officials to reach an agreement about the best way to
protect this water resource.
Neuse River Buffer Zones — To protect water quality in the Neuse
River, streamside buffer or "riparian" zones have been established
along the river and many of its tributaries. These areas are subject to
the Neuse River Buffer Rules administered by NCDEQ-DWR. Each of
the DSAs would affect these zones to some extent. DSAs using the
Red Corridor segment would have a smaller total effect on them than
the other DSAs.
Floodplains — Because DSAs that include the Purple-Blue Corridor
segment cross and run parallel to Middle Creek in the Holly Springs
and Fuquay-Varina areas, these DSAs would have the greatest effect
on fioodplains, ranging from 102 to 103 acres. Additional fioodplain
encroachments occur with these DSAs because they would cross the
Neuse River at a less perpendicular angle than DSAs using the Brown
or Teal to Brown Corridor segments, east of I-40.
DSAs using either the Orange Corridor segment or the Orange-Lilac
segment west of I-40 and then the Brown or Teal to Brown segments
east of I-40 would have the lowest fioodplain encroachment, ranging
from 49 to 65 acres. These numbers are lower because these alterna-
tives cross a narrower section of the fioodplain along the Neuse River
than other options east of I-40.
Terrestrial Habitat — A key consideration with respect to terrestrial
habitat is fragmentation, and it has been determined that each of
the DSAs would contribute to habitat fragmentation to some extent.
In general, existing fragmentation is more severe in the northern and
western portions of the study area, where development is more highly
concentrated. Farther south and east, it is still possible to find larger
tracts of relatively undisturbed land. As a result, the farther south or
east a DSA is located, the more likely it is to fragment relatively undis-
turbed habitat. In particular, the DSAs that use the Purple-Blue Corridor
segment are both farthest to the south and also cross Middle Creek
twice—two factors that would cause greater fragmentation.
For large tracts of land that would be divided, wildlife crossings can
be considered to reduce the effect of fragmentation. At the request
of natural resource agencies, NCDOT has incorporated a bridge into
the preliminary design for the Blue Corridor segment in one location in
order to provide a crossing for wildlife—this was the only location where
the agencies requested a bridge for this purpose.
24 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
Protected Species — The following federally threatened or endan-
gered species are listed as occurring in either Wake or Johnston coun-
ties.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker—Study team biologists searched for
suitable Red-Cockaded Woodpecker habitat along each DSA corri-
dor. Although suitable foraging habitat was found, subsequent surveys
within a half mile of the DSAs did not reveal any pine trees with cavities,
that would provide nesting habitat for this species. Records from the
NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) indicate thatthere have been no
recorded occurrences of this species within one mile of any of the DSA
study corridors. As a result, the Biological Conclusion for this species
is No Effect for all DSAs.
Dwarf Wedgemussel—The length of Swift Creek downstream from
Lake Benson is important habitat for the long-term survival of the Dwarf
Wedgemussel (see Exhibit 5). Study team biologists surveyed Swift
Creek and located Dwarf Wedgemussels below the Lake Benson dam.
The USFWS requested that a detailed habitat viability study be con-
ducted for the Dwarf Wedgemussel in Swift Creek. Preliminary findings
showed that while population numbers are in decline for most mussel
species in Swift Creek, there is evidence that the Dwarf Wedgemus-
sel is persisting and reproducing. The study has also concluded that
while continued Dwarf Wedgemussel viability in Swift Creek will be a
challenge, targeted efforts to propagate the species and increase its
numbers in Swift Creek could improve the chances of maintaining its
viability there. All DSAs except those using the Red Corridor segment
cross Swift Creek below Lake Benson and therefore have the potential
to affect this species.
Note: At the time the Draft EIS was prepared, the Biological Con-
clusion for the Dwarf Wedgemussel is unresolved. NCDOT has
worked with the USFWS to develop feasible strategies to offset
the project's potential effects on the species and is in the formal
Section 7 consultation process to obtain a Biological Opinion for
the Preferred Alternative. The results are described in Chapter 4.
Tar River Spinymussel—Habitat for the Tar River Spinymussel consists
of relatively silt-free gravel or coarse sand along the bottom of fast-flow-
ing, well-oxygenated streams. While suitable habitat for this species
exists in the project area, according to NCNHP records, the only docu-
mented occurrence of this species was in the Little River, a tributary of
the Neuse River in Johnston County. Study team biologists surveyed
streams in the study area but did not find this species.
Note: At the time the Draft EIS was prepared, project consultation
for mussel species is not complete, and the Biological Conclusion
for this species was unresolved. The current status is described in
Chapter 4.
Michaux's Sumac—Surveys were conducted within the May to October
time frame, which is the optimal time of year for identification of this
species. Although suitable habitat was found, the biologists did not
locate any actual specimens of this plant. A review of the NCNHP
records indicated no recorded occurrences of this species within one
mile of any of the DSAs. As a result, the Biological Conclusion is No
Effect for all of the DSAs.
Note: Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS, additional
surveys for this species were completed, as described in
Chapter 4.
Northern Long-Eared Bat—This species was added to the federal list of
threatened species in Wake County in April 2015. On May 4, 2015, the
USFWS adopted a programmatic Biological Opinion for this species in
eastern North Carolina (including the Complete 540 study area), and
the Biological Conclusion for this species for the NCDOT program is
MayAffect, Likely to AdverselyAffect. The Biological Opinion provides
what is known as an "incidental take"�d� statement for all NCDOT proj-
ects in eastern North Carolina (including Complete 540) for the next five
(d) The Endangered Species Act prohibits the "take" of listed species through direct harm
or habitat destruction. In the 1982, Congress authorized the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
to issue permits for the "incidental take" of endangered and threatened wildlife species,
whereby permit holders can proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but
that results in the "incidental" taking of a listed species.
25
'�j • �' < y<�/ a � � � ,
, " *' `s ,.� , 1�i rb �- • i� � �. �r ^r � � ,. �. . ¢ � , �4. ' ��
• �� _ +t i� c. �, ,, �
!' � '� � � t i..' .� w�� ' iP � • �. � � � r� � . I
f y� ' a '•�'� 1 � - r 4� � ,k ;� T j . _r 4�R �l,ti_ i. r� ` � { �
�� T
�+ • ," • � . � � _
t T.�•. � � �� �e' �. �� � � I a y � t � l� A , . r1 . _
r-k I` i � ��. Id! _�
�
h,. v'�, ,� .} ii +: � . � 1 • .r .�► �.
. �� ixhi�i'i� -; �f;,�' � �, �!. � .�, „ � ,_, �
. '� r �� ,��r = � 1 � u ; •, � �� r
� �` � 1
, 1 ti � ' � � • „ , . �' ' . ''! �4� �;.:. � •-
The L��r� V'�ed.gemu� � � �� �,.� .. �� ,�
,a , ;., . � �'
� =, _, • � %, �
' '' The Dwarf �Wedgemussel (Ala�midonta pqrticulatly irriport'an���r� tFiet lon�- , i.s� ^_�� J��
h�t�'rodon) is a freshwater mussel classified vival of this species in the region.� � , ���,�
by,t�l�S, Fish�and Wildlife Service (U�SFWS) Although the Dwarf Wedgernu�s� +�ov- ,
as a eralfyendangered species. Un'�erthe ery Plan has been in pldce for more than 2d �
�. :'t= �' Y F���lan redF Species Act of 1973, all �ederal years, the species continues to be imperiled.
age���`(including the US Departmerif o� `; This is due, in part, to increased sedimentation
Transportation) rriust�er►sure that any'cctior���`�evels in Swift Creek as a Sesult of runoff from �
authorized, funded, or�carried out by them lanc�'"�'�evelopment in the�yvift Creek water-
is not likely to jeopardize �li�, continued,e��is- shQd�. In keeping wit�federal regulations,
tence of listed species or�?Qdify their criti,'cal thae USFWS is working closely with NCDOT
habitat. �•��` `�'' t.;� ,� and the Federal Highway Admmistration to
As part of its work�to'� _�' �' � -�ensure the Complete 540 project would not
ued viability of the Dwarf f' �he imperil the continued surviva) of this mussel
USFWS published a Recov Y�t lan �fo this population.
species in 1993. In this plan, the habitat pro- �
vided by Swift Creek is identified as esse'ntial �
for the recovery of the species in the Neuse
River basin (USFWS, 1993).
Although suitable habitat is found along
the entire len�th of Swift Creek, the dam on
� the s�4theast�s�ide of Lake Benson has the
� � bf.div�c�i��the creek into #wo separate
�, � sections. �e°c�� m�ssels cannot travel back
apd��orth a ds�he dam, any individuals that
,. mi�f�fi��upstream of the dam would be
~.,�, isolafied from individuals found downstream. .
-.��j.�; Downstream from the Lake Benson dam, ,,.
+�
k�. �wift Creek is part of a larger, contiguous
area of mussel habitat — a location where
,_ - actual specimens of the Dwarf Wedgemussel
have been found. As a result, the length of
� Swift Creek downstream from Lake Benson is �
� � ,
r
►_� , _
n
w.� r�,€-. . � 1 �, _ � .,� /� ' :
yi,-l+ �. f { '�'�f �.+ J � 4
l! , � ��y�' . �,�,�y ,� y1 �"�5��—�
r • i �
J t�
�y ' _�� � . :�. 1 ' � t � . • 1 .`
� 't � 1 i ei �/+i �� � _� � R .
�f �.f�.1 � .� t..«.�. . t��=.
� �.�►� �,�Yi�' �:..+'�,-'f �+•r!
:
: �� � ' .i ,R
.' 1ry .�j� ■y
' —� — A1
� l4� _
��
� },;.; f
,;: . :
�� +'�;�
c � �e -�
� �� =;� ..
�
� � J�'�,��'Y ,
:r- �.j` �
.:,7C;
W
n
�
, ,
��� .. �, �
years. As a condition of the incidental take, NDOT has agreed to con-
servation measures designed to minimize adverse effects and benefit
or promote the recovery of the species.
Note: Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS, the USFWS pro-
posed for listing as federally threatened an additional freshwater
mussel species (theYellow Lance). USFWS is currently evaluating
three other aquatic species for listing in the near future (Atlantic
Pigtoe, Carolina Madtom, Neuse RiverWaterdog). The studyteam
has completed additional field surveys for these species and for
the Dwarf Wedgemussel in parts of the study area not previously
surveyed. These efforts are documented in the Complete 540
study's Aquatic Species Survey Report (June 2017).
Farmlands — Identification of farmlands and land with the potential
to become farmland is based on soil types. The project's potential to
affect these areas was calculated using a standard Farmland Conver-
sion Impact Rating system, which produces a score for each alternative.
For "corridor type" projects such as the proposed Complete 540, the
possible maximum total score is 260 points. Alternatives with a total
score of 160 or more are given additional consideration for protection.
In carrying out this scoring procedure, it was found that none of the
DSAs scored above the 160 threshold. As a result, mitigation for farm-
land loss would not be required. Although the scores did not exceed
the threshold for required mitigation, the rating process revealed that
a substantial portion of each DSA's total acreage consists of soil types
classified as prime, unique, or local or statewide important farmland
soils. While the overall percentages of acres in these categories is high,
there is little difference between the total acreage in each DSA.
Major Drainage Structures — Hydraulic analyses conducted for the
project indicated there are 81 sites along DSAs where a major drainage
structure would be needed. This analysis initially showed that 17 of
these sites would require bridges. Working with applicable resource
and regulatory agencies, study team engineers determined locations
where additional bridges or longer bridges would reduce direct effects
on streams and wetlands. As a result of this coordination, it was agreed
that 27 of the 81 sites would be crossed with bridges, as opposed to the
use of pipes or culverts.
Hazardous Materials and Contamination Sites — In reviewing data
from the NCDEQ, 26 potential contamination sites were found along
the DSAs. No hazardous waste sites or landfills were found in the study
area. The two DSAs using the Red Corridor segment would affect twelve
of these sites, while DSAs using the Orange Corridor segment would
each affect between three and five sites. Despite their presence along
these DSAs, the storage tank sites are not expected to have a substan-
tial effect on anticipated project costs or schedules.
Sprayfields — Two sprayfields would be affected by the DSAs. One is
associated with the Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant. The
Lilac Corridor segment would cross sprayfields that treat water piped
to this site from the City of Raleigh and would also affect one of the two
25 acre holding ponds on the property, requiring acquisition of about 89
acres of the 600 acre site. The Orange Corridor segment would affect
about 11 acres of this site. The other sprayfield is associated with the
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Brown Corridor segment
would cross a portion of this sprayfield, affecting either 87 or 81 acres
of the site, depending on whether the alignment uses the full length
of the Brown Corridor segment or follows the Teal Corridor segment
to the Brown Corridor segment. The City of Raleigh has indicated that
all available sprayfields that are currently in operation are needed to
accommodate the demand for waste water treatment.
Major Utility Installations — Two types of utility installations would be
aifected by one or more of the DSAs: major pipelines and communica-
tion towers.
Pipelines—Several petroleum and natural gas transmission pipelines
are located along the Orange and Lilac Corridor segments. Shifting
the alignment of the Orange or Lilac Corridor segments to reduce
potential conflicts with these pipelines was considered, but doing so
would increase impacts to neighborhoods and environmental resources
27
and it was therefore concluded that these alignments should not be
shifted. As a result, the DSAs using the Orange and Lilac Corridor seg-
ments would incur the additional cost involved with relocating pipe-
lines. This expense would be lower for the DSAs that connect to the
Red or Purple-Blue segments because much of the pipeline infrastruc-
ture is located east of where these other DSAs connect to the Orange
segment, or west of where the Purple-Blue segments connect to the
Lilac segment.
Communications Towers—A group of three large communications
towers is located along Business US 70, just north of Clayton. These
towers are important because they include television communications,
radio communications, emergency (911) communications, federal/
state police communications, and weather data collection. The Green
Corridor segment is located very close to one of these three towers. It
is also very near a stream and wetland area opposite the tower. While
the tower itself is outside of the Green Corridor segment, affecting just
one of these anchors would require relocation of the entire tower, which
would be a large expense. As a result, a more detailed examination
of this location was conducted, and a slight shift to avoid the cable's
anchor point was determined to be feasible, without further affecting
nearby streams and wetlands. Concerns remain, however, about the
proximity of some of the DSAs to the cable's anchor point.
Indirect Effects — The method for estimating a project's indirect effects
includes gathering insights from urban planners and other development
professionals at local and regional governments in the area. Interviews
conducted by the study team with several of these individuals for the
Draft EIS indicated they all anticipate a continued strong market for
development, regardless of whether the Complete 540 study concludes
with a Build or No-Build decision. These individuals acknowledged,
however, that the Build scenario could lead to more rapid growth than
would otherwise be the case, and more intense development near the
project's interchanges. Factoring the expertise of these area profes-
sionals, coupled with research about other similar projects, the study
team concluded 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. The study team further concluded that the DSAs could differ in
their potential to trigger these indirect effects, as described below.
West of I-40, DSAs using the Orange Corridor segment may have a
greater potential to support growth and development in accordance
with local plans in part because large portions of the Orange Corridor
segment include the protected corridor, and the protected corridor has
long been a factor in the development of local plans. DSAs using the
Orange and Lilac Corridor segments also may have a greater poten-
tial to support growth and development in accordance with local plans
because the Lilac Corridor segment is located near the protected cor-
ridor.
DSAs using the Red Corridor segment may infiuence development
farther to the north, in a pattern different from what is sought by local
planners. Local plans call for mixed-use activity centers developing in
southern Wake County (generally south of Lake Benson), but the DSAs
that include the Red Corridor segment would be less likely to support
that development pattern.
DSAs using the Purple-Blue Corridor segment may shift development
slightly farther to the south, into areas that are more rural, possibly
increasing the overall potential for the project to induce land develop-
ment in locations that confiict with local planning goals. The Purple-Blue
Corridor segment would shift several of the project's interchanges much
farther south, into areas without underlying plans in place to achieve
the mixed use activity centers desired by area planners. Instead, these
interchange areas could trigger more typical strip commercial develop-
ment in a less concentrated, more scattered pattern—a type of land use
that is discouraged by local planners.
East of I-40 there is relatively little variation in the various corridors'
effect on local land use planning goals.
Continued development under either the Build or the No-Build sce-
narios may result in indirect effects to Swift Creek and its surrounding
Watershed Critical Area, to Middle Creek, and to the associated natural
28 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December z017
features along each of these streams. These effects could be some-
what greater under a Build scenario, due to induced growth that may
not occur otherwise.
Note: A quantitative evalution of indirect effects was completed
for the Preferred Alternative subsequent to the release of the
Draft EIS; details are contained in Chapter 4.
Cumulative Effects — Several past infrastructure projects have influ-
enced development in portions of the project area, including road proj-
ects such as NC 55 Bypass and the Clayton Bypass, and water treat-
ment facilities including the Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant,
the Neuse RiverWastewaterTreatment Plant, and the South CaryWater
Reclamation Facility.
Several planned development and infrastructure projects are also
expected to infiuence growth in portions of the project area. These
In addition to the Draft EIS document itself, more detailed
information about the expected effects of each alternative
can be found in the following technical reports:
• Community Impact Assessment (June 2015)
• Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report (November
2014)
• Traffic Noise Analysis Report (May 2015)
• Right-of-Way and Relocation Report (March 2015)
• Air Quality Analysis Report (October 2015)
• Natural Resources Technical Report (August 2014)
• Waters Report (September 2014)
• Freshwater Mussel Survey Report (February 2012)
• Dwarf Wedgemussel Viability Study; Phase I(March 2014)
• Northern Long-Eared Bat Section 7 Documentation (July 2015)
include the Veridea mixed-use development in Apex, the new Western
Wake Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, and major retail develop-
ment near US 70 and White Oak Road in Garner.
Anticipated growth and development in various areas within the project
area will continue to affect water quality and aquatic habitat. These
effects are likely under either the Build or No-Build scenario. Construc-
tion of any of the DSAs would have the potential to affect water quality
and to contribute to aquatic habitat degradation.
Continued development in the lower Swift Creek watershed, below
the Lake Benson dam, may threaten the long-term viability of Dwarf
Wedgemussel habitat in this area, under eitherthe Build orthe No-Build
scenarios. The addition of the Complete 540 project to this area has
the potential to add to the cumulative effects of other past and planned
future projects on the long-term viability of the species in the lower Swift
Creek watershed.
• Preliminary Hydraulics Study and Addendum (February 2015)
• GeoEnvironmental Report for Planning (June 2014)
• Utility Impact Report (November 2014)
• Build Traffic Analysis Report (December 2009)
• No-Build Traffic Analysis Report (December 2009)
• Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum (April 2014)
• Detailed Study Alternative Traffic Analysis Technical
Memorandum (February 2015)
• Indirect and Cumulative Eifects Report (December 2014)
Chapter 5 contains a summary of each technical report
incorporated as part of the Draft EIS and this Final EIS,
including the documents listed here.
29
DRAFT EIS CHAPTER 6: GOVERNMENT, AGENCY, AND
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Environmental Agency Involvement — Resource and regulatory
agency involvement is an essential part of this study, and the NCDOT
study team has prepared a detailed plan to guide the required coor-
dination with federal, state, and local agencies that are authorized to
develop and enforce environmental standards or otherwise have juris-
diction over some aspect of the project.
The plan identifies the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as
the project's "lead agency," and the USACE as a formal cooperating
agency. Cooperating agencies have the authority to adopt a study's EIS
as their own. This is particularly beneficial to the USACE, which has the
responsibility for issuing a permit for the project under the provisions of
the Clean Water Act.
Agencies with important roles in the project are identified as participat-
ing agencies. These include:
• the US Army Corps of Engineers
• the US Environmental Protection Agency
• the US Fish and Wildlife Service
• the NC Division of Cultural Resources
• the NC Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water
Resources
• the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
• the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
For all agencies, the plan identifies roles and responsibilities at key
steps in the NEPA process and spells out procedures for agencies to
raise formal issues of concern�e> and for resolving those issues.
(e) An issue of concern is defined as an issue that in the agency's judgment could result
in denial of a permit or substantial delay in issuing a permit.
Formal "Scoping" Process—The study team sent formal letters of invi-
tation to resource and regulatory agencies in January 2010 and to local
agencies and local government officials in February 2010. The scoping
meeting itself took place on February 16, 2010. The key issues raised
as a result of the meeting included the project's potential effect on the
Dwarf Wedgemussel population in Swift Creek; on water quality, par-
ticularly in Swift Creek; and on jurisdictional wetlands and streams.
The emphasis placed on these topics was not, however, meant to
dismiss from the study many of the other community and environmental
resources in the study area.
Interagency Meetings—The main method for all the various govern-
ment representatives and agencies to stay informed about the study's
progress and to provide comments and responses to the study team is
through interagency meetings. These face-to-face meetings are sched-
uled at key points in the study, when agency coordination is needed.
Twelve such meetings were held prior to the release of the Draft EIS.
During those meetings, FHWA and NCDOT received comments, sug-
gestions, and formal requests on topics such as the project's statement
of purpose, the development and analysis of alternative corridors, and
decisions about the elimination or addition of various alternatives.
While no official issues of concern were identified at any of the twelve
meetings, one concern led to the expansion of the project's alterna-
tive corridors. Early in the study, the agencies requested a northward
expansion of the project's study area to allow consideration of shorter
corridor lengths, ones that could be located closer to more heavily
developed areas and farther from less developed areas at the southern
edge of the study area. This would also allow the study team to evaluate
more potential locations for the project to cross Swift Creek, including
a location outside the habitat area for the Dwarf Wedgemussel in Swift
Creek, which is south of the Lake Benson dam. This request resulted
in the project's study area being expanded to the north (north of Lake
Wheeler and Lake Benson), and the development of what became the
Red Corridor segment, which traverses this area.
30 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT — The Complete 540 study includes many dif-
ferent opportunities for the public to become engaged with the study
including public meetings, project newsletters, a project website, a tele-
phone information line, and small group meetings.
Public meetings—An initial series of public meetings took place in Sep-
tember 2010. Three meetings were held on consecutive afternoons and
evenings at three locations in the study area, with the same information
presented at each. The purpose was to present the status of the Com-
plete 540 study and provide an opportunity for members of the public
to ask questions, discuss the study, and to provide comments to the
study team about the project's purposes and the preliminary corridor
alternatives. A Spanish translator was present at one of these meetings
to accommodate the needs of the local Spanish-speaking population.
Approximately 1,200 individuals attended these meetings, in total, and
approximately 2,100 public comments were submitted during or follow-
ing the meetings. The most common subjects of these comments were:
• Widespread, strong support for the Orange Corridor segment
between NC 55 Bypass and I-40.
• Opposition to many of the other segments, in particular the Blue,
Purple, and Red Corridor segments.
• Concern about the perceived inequity of placing tolls on the
southern and eastern portion of 540 (the Complete 540 project
segment) when existing segments of I-540 in the north are not
tolled. (Note: the western segment—NC 540—is a toll facility.)
In response to local government and public comments about possible
effects in the eastern portion of the study area, the study team devel-
oped the Tan Corridor segment. This segment was included in the study
in late 2010. A public meeting for this segment was held in December
2010. About 250 comments were received during or after this meeting.
Many expressed opposition to this segment because of its potential
effect on neighborhoods.
A second series of public meetings was held in October 2013 to present
the corridors selected as Detailed Study Alternatives and to provide an
opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide comments. As
with the 2010 meetings, three events were held on consecutive after-
noons and evenings at three different study area locations, with the
same information presented at each. A Spanish translator was again
present to accommodate the needs of the local Spanish-speaking pop-
ulation.
Approximately 1,700 individuals attended these meetings, in total, and
some 1,000 comments were received during or following these meet-
ings. The main subjects of these comments were:
• Continued strong opposition to Purple, Blue and Lilac Corridor
segments
• Continued strong opposition to Red Corridor segment
• Continued support for Orange Corridor segment
The release of the Draft EIS in the fall of 2015 triggered three public
information meetings and one formal public hearing in December of
2015 (described more fully in Chapter 3).
Newsletters—The study team has published several editions of a project
newsletter. These have introduced the study, presented the prelimi-
nary alternatives, announced public meetings, presented the DSAs,
and announced the public hearing. Each edition has been sent to all
addresses in the study area and to others who have requested to be
on the mailing list, totaling more than 56,000 addresses. Each edition
has also been prepared in Spanish and distributed at Hispanic-oriented
businesses and churches in the project area. Both the English and
Spanish versions have been made available for downloading on the
study's website.
Note: With the selection of a Preferred Alternative after the end of
the Draft EIS comment period, another edition of the newsletter
was sent, announcing this selection.
31
Project Website and Telephone Information Line—A project website
was established early in the study as a place for the public to access
various project maps, reports and other documents, and to provide
a way to submit comments and questions to the study team using an
online submittal form. A toll-free information line was also established,
allowing members of the public to speak directly with a member of the
study team.
Small group meetings—Throughout the project, the study team has
made itself available to meet with small groups such as homeowners
associations and civic groups. These smaller gatherings allow the study
team to explain specific aspects of the project at a level of detail not
always possibie at larger meetings or through written material. These
gatherings also provide a forum for extended informal discussions that
are not always possible otherwise.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OUTREACH — There are several local govern-
ments and non-governmental organizations in or near the study area
whose involvement is an important part of the study. These include all
the incorporated cities and towns, as well as the Capital Area Metropoli-
tan Planning Organization (CAMPO), and the area's Regional Transpor-
tation Alliance (RTA).
The study team has provided project updates at many of CAMPO's
Executive Board and Technical Coordinating Committee meetings. In
addition, in 2014 CAMPO established the "540 Working Group," which
includesindividualsfrommanyofthejurisdictionsnotedabove. Several
Working Group meetings have been held since that time, leading up to
the selection of the Preferred Alternative. The study team has also met
several times with local government staff and elected officials to provide
more detailed information about the study and to answer questions and
receive comments.
OTHER NOTABLE PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT — While
most of the public outreach activities that have taken place over the
course of the study have been initiated by the study team, some activ-
ities have been the result of community or local government actions.
The study team has received several local government resolutions and
written comments from local government staff members. The majority
of these documents have expressed formal support for the selection
of alternatives that use the Orange Corridor segment as the preferred
route, or expressed opposition to one or more of the other corridors that
do not use the Orange Corridor segment.
The study team has also received petitions from various neighborhood
groups and other local organizations, each with statements expressing
either opposition to or support of a particular corridor segment.
Note: Eighteen such petitions had been received by the time of
the release of the Draft EIS.
In addition to the Draft EIS document itself, more detailed
information about the study's public and agency involvement
can be found in the following technical report:
• Stakeholder Involvement Report (March 2015)
Chapter 5 contains a summary of each technical report
incorporated as part of the Draft EIS and this Final EIS,
including the document listed here.
32 Complete 540 Final Environmental Impact Statement — December �017
CHAPTER 3
Comments and Coordination on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
This chapter provides a summary of how state and federal agencies, local
governments, and the public have been involved in the study since the Draft EIS was
released, and the comments they provided about the Detailed Study Alternatives.
"Public involvement is more than simply following legislation and
regulations. In a democratic society, people have opportunities
to debate issues, frame alternative solutions, and affect final
decisions. Knowledge is the basis of such participation. The
public needs to know details about a plan or action in order to
evaluate its importance or anticipated costs and benefits. "
� Federal HighwayAdministration'
As expressed in the quotation above, the public has an expectation that
opportunities will be provided to review information about large public
infrastructure projects, and to formally submit comments and to receive
meaningful responses. The Complete 540 study team has worked to
meet those expectations throughout every stage of the study.
The Complete 540 study's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
included information about the stakeholder involvement that occurred
from the beginning of the study to the time the Draft EIS was released
for public review. This current chapter explains how the study team
has continued those activities, including a summary of the comments
received on the Draft EIS and NCDOT's responses to those comments.
DRAFT EIS REVIEW, PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND PUBLIC
HEARING
As explained in Chapter 1, the Draft EIS for the Complete 540 project is
a formal document, one that received oificial review and approvai by the
Federal Highway Administration. Once approved, a period of time was
allocated for other government agencies and the public and to read the
document and submit comments about it.
An official "Notice of Availability" of the Draft EIS was published in the
Federal Register on November 20, 2015. Beginning on November 7,
35
2015, printed copies of the Draft EIS were distributed for public review
at public libraries and local government offices in the project area. The
Draft EIS was also posted to the official project website (www.ncdot.
gov/projects/complete540/).
Copies of the Draft EIS were distributed to the cooperating and partic-
ipating agencies involved in the environmental review process for this
project, along with local governments and area organizations.
It is during the Drait EIS comment period that a study's formal corridor
public hearing takes place. Public hearings provide an opportunity for
members of the public to review the Draft EIS, discuss its contents with
the project's sponsors, and to make formal comments about the project
and the document. They include detailed maps showing the proposed
route alternatives and other display materials to aid in understanding
the project and the content of the Draft EIS. Various methods for com-
menting on the project are provided, including oral statements made
during a formal assembly of attendees, written comments submitted
at or followng the hearing, and oral comments recorded at individual
recording stations before and during the hearing.
The public hearing for the Complete 540 Draft EIS was held on Decem-
ber 9, 2015, at Wake Technical Community College. This location is
inside the study area boundaries, on US 401, just south of Ten Ten Road.
Three public meetings were held in conjunction with the public hearing.
These informal meetings provided additional opportunitiesforthe public
to review study details and discuss the project with NCDOT study team
members. The first was held from 6 to 8 PM on Monday, December 7,
at Barwell Elementary School, which is located in the eastern part of the
study area. The second was held from 6 to 8 PM on Tuesday, Decem-
ber 8, at Holly Springs High School, which is in the western part of the
study area. The third was held just prior to the formal public hearing at
Wake Technical Community College. This informal meeting began at 4
PM, followed by the formal hearing at 7 PM. Based on sign-in records,
attendance at these three locations was as follows:
Barwell Elementary School ......................... 210
Holly Springs High School .......................... 264
Wake Technical Community College ............. 532
Total for the three events ..... ............. 1006
Announcements about the availability of the Draft EIS and the public
meetings and hearing were made in several ways: through distribu-
tion of a study newsletter to all property owners in the study area and
those who requested to be included on the project mailing list; through
placement of printed advertisements in area newspapers; by submit-
ting press releases to area news media; and, by posting a notice on the
project website. State and federal agencies and local governments
were notified during meetings with the study team.
In addition to the Federal Register Notice of Availability published by the
USEPA for the Draft EIS, the USACE issued a Public Notice, on Novem-
ber 16, 2015, relative to the anticipated Section 404 permit application
for the project. Like the USEPA notice, the USACE notice provided infor-
mation to the public about opportunities to comment on the project.
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT EIS
Comments were received on the Draft EIS from state and federal agen-
cies, local governments and interest groups, and members of the
public. Summaries of the comments made by these four categories
of stakeholders, and responses to those comments, are presented in
detail in the study's Stakeholder Involvement Report.
State and Federal Agencies — Letters in response to the Draft EIS
were received from several state and federal agencies. Table 1 sum-
marizes the comments made on the DSAs.
Local Governments and Interest Groups — Several local govern-
ments and other stakeholder groups submitted formal comments fol-
lowing release of the Draft EIS. The City of Raleigh's Mayor and Office of
Transportation expressed support for DSA 2 and opposition to the Red,
36 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December z017
Table 1
Federal and State Agency Review Comments on the Detailed Study Alternatives
(as presented in the Draft EIS)
Agency 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 to human environment; however, they have
US Fish & Wildlife great potential to adversely affect the DWM. USFWS finds the Orange Corridor very problematic.
Service
(11125/15) DSAs 8 through 17 (Lilac Corridor) would have very similar, albeit somewhat lesser adverse effects on the
DWM.
The ability to propagate DWM and augment the population in Swift Creek will factor significantly in the
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 Environmental The USEPA environmentally prefers DSAs 6 and 7 as the alternatives having the least impacts on juris-
Protection Agency dictional streams and wetlands. DSAs 1-4 and 8-17 have the highest stream impacts, while DSAs 1-5 and
(1/4/16) 15-17 have the highest wetland impacts. Further avoidance and minimization during final design should
be considered to reduce impacts to aquatic resources.
National Marine The NMFS prefers DSAs 6 and 7 because they would avoid impacts to shad and striped bass and their
Fisheries Service habitats in Swift Creek, would have smaller impacts to the Neuse River, and would impact the smallest
(12/15/15) amount of wetlands and streams.
North Carolina Indirect and cumulative effects of the project on induced land development will be a key aspect in select-
Wildlife Resources ing the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).
Commission NCWRC has concerns about the effect of continued development in the lower Swift Creek watershed,
(12/9/15) below the Lake Benson dam, on long-term viability of the DWM and other sensitive aquatic species.
Note: NCDOT also received comment letters from the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, North Carolina Division of
Water Resources, and North Carolina Division of Waste Management. These comment letters did not specifically address support for, or opposition
to, project DSAs; they are summarized in the Complete 540 study's December 2017 Stakeholder Involvement Report and the Preferred Alternative
Report.
37
Publi � .: �, ___ _ _
L
She NCDOT #�Qm '� cs rnet wi�h�� locall,c�c��ernma�nts,- held �orrnal
�t�tl�teetings with environmental agencies; and has communicated
vvith the public through information meetings, neighborhood
� meetings, newsletters, a study website, and an information line.
�� Pictured here; the study :s formal public hearing. j
� - _
� � Y�
- � . " � � � 4 � j `
� •
'� � -�.- � 1 � � �
�. � t � � r 9 �
� � _ � 11 � , �
�. - �, �� , . _ ' _ '
�-
a�'
. � ! �` ��
� ' �
� _. . -
� • _ �,� _
- �.,r
t—
�� �,, '�
� � �
. , � £��
1 � �
. '4� � 7 '���,�, `, y�
� • 1 ' '
� ` _
� i
1 ! 1
� � � �{ � �
� f , i. a
�r ��r � '
! _
:1
� � � � ����� _
--�
��
� 1� J �I �
�
� �
r�
..� ,� „ -4 -� �. �
$��� - -� - � � _ � .!
' ` � •—
\ "' _ '
''� --� .
�_ � , � .
\ ���• . ���' � -
fi
�1
Lilac, Green, Brown, and Tan Corridors, and also noted various design-
and infrastructure-related issues. The Town of Cary commented about
greenway accommodations. The Town of Garner reiterated its support
for the Orange Corridor segment and opposition to the Red and Lilac
Corridor segments. The Town of Benson expressed support for the
Orange Corridor segment.
The RTA and the Morrisville Chamber of Commerce both submitted
comments expressing strong support for the project overall. The Trian-
gle Greenways Council commented about the project's potential effects
on greenways and natural resources.
The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) expressed concerns
about the analyses used in the project, stating its opposition to con-
structing a new roadway and suggesting that NCDOT give greater con-
sideration to options such as improving existing roadways. Later, in a
joint letter sent on March 7, 2016, SELC and RTA requested additional
information and clarifications about certain project details. (NCDOT
replied on April 28, 2016 with a letter containing the requested infor-
mation and clarifications.) A second letter from SELC, dated July 5,
2016, referenced the 2016 NC Supreme Court decision in Kirbyv. North
Carolina Department of Transportation (which declared that property
restrictions under State's Transportation Corridor Official Map Act con-
stitute the taking of private property without just compensation). In its
letter, SELC stated that NCDOT must prepare a Supplemental DEIS in
the wake of the Kirby ruling because the ruling could influence the proj-
ect's cost estimates. (In response, FHWA reviewed the cost estimates
and concluded that a Supplemental DEIS is not required.) These SELC
letters, and NCDOT's responses, can be found in the Complete 540
project's December 2017 Stakeholder Involvement Report.
Members of the Public — During the comment period for the Draft
EIS, written comments addressing the DSAs, the Draft EIS, or other
substantive project issues were received from 1,476 individuals. These
were in the form of emailed comments, letters, photocopied letters,
and a petition. In addition, 40 oral comments were made; 35 during the
formal hearing, and 5 made individually at a recording station.
The members of the public who made these comments tended to refer
to individual corridor segments rather than end-to-end DSAs when indi-
cating preferences and opposition. Key conclusions from a review of
expressed preferences and opposition in all of the comments included
the following:
• There was a very high level of support for the Orange Corridor
segment. About 93 percent of comments that mentioned a segment
west of I-40 expressed a strong preference for the Orange Corridor
segment.
• Support for the Red, Purple-Blue, and Lilac Corridor segments was
at 2 percent, 4 percent, and 2 percent, respectively.
• There was widespread opposition to the Red (58 percent of those
stating opposition to a color corridor west of I-40) and Purple-Blue
Corridor segments (34 percent of those stating opposition to a color
corridor west of I-40).
• There was also notable opposition to the Lilac Corridor segment,
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 were opposed to the Orange Corridor segment.
• There was less of a clear pattern of support and opposition to cor-
ridors east of I-40, with most comments not specifically address-
ing these options. However, among comments that specifically
addressed the corridors east of I-40, the Green Corridor segment
was most commonly preferred. The Brown Corridor segment and
the Tan Corridor segment were most commonly opposed.
While some individuals did not cite reasons for their route preferences,
those that did often mentioned concern about potential effects on their
neighborhoods, communities, and homes. This was especially the
case for those indicating support for the Orange Corridor segment
and opposition to other segments. Many noted that area communi-
ties have based their land use plans on the assumption that what is
now the Orange Corridor segment—which was protected from devel-
39
opment from the late 1990s until recently—would eventually be built.
Additionally, individuals stated that they made residential location deci-
sions based on the presence of the protected corridor, dating back as
far as its initial protection, in 1996. Often these comments contained
statements to the effect that minimizing impacts on homes, businesses,
and neighborhoods should take precedence over minimizing impacts
to the natural environment. For the smaller number of individuals that
specifically expressed interest in corridor segments east of I-40, many
stated that since a route similar to the Green Corridor segment has been
shown on planning maps for the past two decades, they have made res-
idential location decisions based on the assumption that the route that
is now the Green Corridor segment would eventually be built.
While the majority of public comments were limited to expressing
support for, or opposition to, certain DSAs or corridor segments, others
went further and discussed various concerns or comments about the
proposed project in general. Some of the more common issues raised
included:
• Questions about whether traffic volumes and toll revenues on the
existing portions of NC 540 is meeting the levels predicted by
NCDOT.
• Concern about the perceived unfairness of tolling the extension of
the 540 Outer Loop into southern Wake County when the northern
sections of the Outer Loop are not tolled.
• Statements citing that since the mid-1990s the decisions local resi-
dents 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 segment).
• Questions about why the project has taken as long as it has to
proceed and why NCDOT didn't start the environmental documen-
tation process immediately after the protected corridor was estab-
lished, in the late 1990s.
• Questions aboutwhy NCDOT can't simplywiden existing roads (NC
55, NC 42, or Ten Ten Road, for example) instead of building a new
road.
• Questions about where noise barriers would be constructed and
when a noise impact study will be done.
There were also more specific comments that addressed aspects of
the project design, the project development process, or information
included in the Draft EIS.
OTHER STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES
Stakeholder involvement has continued in the time since the Draft EIS
was released. During that time, the NCDOT met with representatives
of state and federal agencies and stakeholder groups, continued dis-
cussing project details with local governments, and has maintained the
study's information phone line and online comment form page.
More detailed information about public and agency involvement
for the Draft EIS be found in the following technical reports:
• Stakeholder Involvement Report (December 2017)
• Preferred Alternative Report (April 2016)
Chapter 5 contains a summary of each technical report incor-
porated as part of the Draft EIS and this Final EIS, including the
documents listed here.
40 Complete 540 Final Environmental Impact Statement - December �017
CHAPTER 4
The Study's Preferred Alternative
This chapter describes the study's Preferred Alternative, how it was
selected, refinements made to it, and the updates to its impact data.
INTRODUCTION
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that alternative
ways of achieving the stated purpose of a project be identified and their
environmental effects compared. The objective is to produce informa-
tion that will allow for sound, knowledge-based decisions about the
best option for achieving the purpose of the project and whether that
option's benefits would justify the costs and environmental impact it
would require.'
The Complete 540 study team has carried out a process intended to
systematically consider and narrow down a large number of options to
a Preferred Alternative for comparison with the "No-Build" alternative.
The study's technical analyses for seventeen Detailed Study Alterna-
tives (DSAs) were summarized in a Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS), which was made available to local governments, agencies,
and the public for review and comment. It was during this period that
the December 2015 public meetings and formal public hearing took
place.
After careful consideration of the technical information summarized in
the Draft EIS and the comments received during development and after
release of the document, and after considering the professional judg-
ment of NCDOT and Federal Highway Administration officials (FHWA),
NCDOT and FHWA selected DSA 2 as the Preferred Alternative (see
Exhibit 6 on the following page). The key factors that led to this selec-
tion are described below.
Relocations — Between NC 55 Bypass and I-40, the Preferred Alter-
native follows the Orange Corridor segment. The Orange Corridor
segment would require between 60 percent and 100 percent fewer
relocations (as calculated for the Draft EIS) than the other corridors
between NC 55 Bypass and I-40.
Protected Properties — The Preferred Alternative would avoid adversely
affecting any historic sites that qualify for protection under Section 106
43
1
� --- � �' • -
4�` '�:, ` '., _ � �'Z` f {-. „
"- . - . . J � '_ . . . .. � :- . . r
;�� - �
� � � � � ��
l _ � ,, I . i
- � a: � ` f�`k� KNIGHTDALE
�� .
RALEIGH r`j�� �D
�;---
� '���iii ..r \ � -- _.��—�.� �
-ls�''° � � �
4�J'�rt�-�:s ; C A R Y `'. ,. � � � I`'� 64 � 264 � �
���"�,'� 64 � � �` _ . � � � � �-
� - � � f� �
---�'�"`, r ` r..a _ � i. � " � - �._ i
y " _ � , ' ��, 1
, , ,-
t � _ �` � .• .
55 �--� , � _ � � � ., �r� _ �
A P E X . _ _.,; � , - • � i (� � A � r c�. J t' _ � / _r
_: � � o, P � � r �
� � `�;.- � - � p � � -
'_� y�� �� ? U � �
�.= S '`
��+ ,
�—
.. — ''
�/ ; �--J .�-,..--���'--'�! 401 %� ,_ ' N �Se R�L 1
- -. -. �—�_, — � � ^ � �. r � � . . . {x, � @ . P^ � .. . �-?
� � � � � - �'�' _ i . A �
� 1
'�''' �aka�he -' . GARNER •�,,\ 2: ' �. � �_ �
T LL � � ` -�
� ��\ ��T , I� elet f I�� � � � /
540 •- �
.i— i -- - `
i �. <:�-. _ � �v
�7C �f T�'q,�. v ^r L ° !;. �� i -- - l � . ' - � I , _ ;
n en Rd j,_. , , \; r\ •� � i. li., J �.` �
1 \ ��r� �, �
� �''._�_ _ � � �� � � �`'ke @enson. _`� �"�� I � —, -
� 1 � / ..�"' � i i� `� , � . � -.
�_ HOLLY _ , f . y � � ,
�._� ^� � �
�- . SPRINGS - ;- } Te�.rP,�A 5Q -, ` , �� j CLAYTON �
�.��.��r" ,` .� `�. a –� �
,� �� " • — ,�'� �
�` `` � . • _ � :� . �~ � ,�--- � j v �
�J+ � 4�� �
s'' �� �55 '`�_ ��� � � 1 ��°" � � � �- � J � '�� �-,�'�
� ., q�� 1/j. 1 0`' I � � t,
� � , � ��.. I
♦` �'� ,_ ;. ��e�,k�Y, ^ ��� --
,( � � i "'�
�� ' -1- ., `� ,— 'r�k� i ',�'� '\'i Pek N -.
-+ ' ' ' �` _ � ` _ �. , -�- � � - 42 � ' O
� � '' j t �
� -r + �� �- �- �i2 , � • ���� �' 0 1 2 3 4
FUQUAY-�--_� ,.;,� __� � �
_ _ r' . � o
VARINA � ����`---,�—�--- �� `-� mues '
- 42 a 1 f � � (aPProximate) `
- . 401 55 , -- } -
� � i y `! -, j _ _ . ',�`-� � ;"�
Exhibit 6 Of the 17 Detailed Study Alternatives under consideration, DSA 2 was selected by the
. Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation as the
Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative. This alternative consists of the Orange segment from NC 55 Bypass to
Detailed Study Alternative 2 east of I-40, and the Green segment from east of I-40 to US 64/US 264 Bypass (I-495). The
Green segment shifts to the Mint segment for a portion of its length, as shown here.
of the Historic Preservation Act and would avoid recreational properties
and other land uses protected under Section 4(f) of the US Department
of Transportation Act (other than those considered de minimis effects,
i.e., extremely minor effects).
Environmentally-Sensitive Areas — The Preferred Alternative would
avoid the Swift Creek Critical Watershed Area, and would afFect a shorter
length of streams than many of the other DSAs.
Other Sensitive Properties — The Preferred Alternative would avoid
affecting the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant sprayfields, avoid
affecting the City of Raleigh police training center, and would shift the
highway to the edge of the City's Randleigh Farm property (compared to
DSAs using the entire Green Corridor segment in this area, which would
bisect this public property).
Indirect Effects — The Preferred Alternative is expected to be less likely
to induce developmentthatwould be in confiictwith local land use plans.
Environmental Agency Input — None of the environmental resource
and regulatory agencies has identified any "issues of concern" with
respect to selecting DSA 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Because of
the absence of issues of concern, the assumption is that the Preferred
Alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alterna-
tive.
Public Support — The Orange Corridor segment has broad public
support and has been formally endorsed by most local governments
in the study area. The Mint Corridor segment is the only segment east
of I-40 that has not been formally opposed by any of the local govern-
ments in the study area and is formally supported by the City of Raleigh.
Cost — The Preferred Alternative would be the least costly of the sev-
enteen DSAs.
The above list presents the key elements that differentiate the Preferred
Alternative from the other DSAs. This list does not include all the ben-
efits or impacts of DSA 2.
It is important to note that the selection of a Preferred Alternative does
not determine the outcome of the project. The ultimate decision about
whether to approve the project is made only after this alternative has
been refined to ensure its impacts are kept to a minimum, and after the
resulting data summarized in this Final EIS has been made available for
public review. The final decision is influenced, therefore, not only by
NCDOT's and FHWA's statutory mission and priorities, but also by the
weight of organized interests and other variables beyond the assess-
ment of specific impacts.2
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative consists of the Orange Corridor segment,
the southern portion of the Green Corridor segment, the Mint Corridor
segment, and the northern portion of the Green Corridor segment (see
Exhibit 6). It would be 28.4 miles in length, from NC 55 Bypass to US
64/US 264 (I-495), with six lanes, a 70-foot wide median, and a posted
speed limit of 70 miles per hour. Interchanges would be located at NC
55 Bypass, Holly Springs Road, Bells Lake Road, US 401, Old Stage
Road, NC 50, I-40/US 70 (Clayton Bypass), White Oak Road, Rock
Quarry Road, US 70 Business, Auburn Knightdale Road, Poole Road,
and US 64/US 264 (I-495).
Independent Utility and Logical Termini — To ensure meaningful eval-
uation of alternatives, FHWA regulations require that: (1) projects have
logical limits (known as "logical termini") and be long enough that the
environmental analysis has a sufficiently broad scope; (2) projects are
usable even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are
made (known as "independent utility"); and, (3) approval of a project
would not restrict consideration of alternatives for other foreseeable
transportation improvements.3
The western project terminus is at NC 55 Bypass in Apex, where the
existing Triangle F�cpressway (NC 540) ends. The eastern project ter-
minus is at US 64/US 264 (I-495) in Knightdale, where the existing I-540
ends. These two end points are necessary for development of alter-
natives that would enhance the transportation connections between
45
the rapidly growing communities south and east of Raleigh to major
employment and activity centers in the vicinity of the 540 outer loop.
Providing enhanced transportation connections would improve system
linkage in the regional roadway network, a secondary purpose of the
project. This would provide continuity for the 540 outer loop system.
In addition to enhancing connections to locations along the existing
segments of the 540 outer loop, the Complete 540 project would also
have independent utility. The project as a whole would allow an option
for travelers to bypass I-40/I-440 south of Raleigh, providing direct
connections between I-40 in southwest Durham to I-40 near the Wake/
Johnston County line and to US 64/US 264 east of Raleigh.
Approval of the Complete 540 project would not restrict consideration
of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improve-
ments. The project has been developed in coordination with CAMPO
and the local governments in the project area.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION PROCE55
The process for identifying a Preferred Alternative was established in
the project's Section 6002 Coordination Plan�a�—a document prepared
at the beginning of the study to establish the process for environmental
resource and regulatory agency coordination and public involvement.
The plan outlined several steps for selecting a Preferred Alternative.
Once the Draft EIS was prepared and the study's corridor public hearing
was held, these steps were completed, as described below.
Step 1: Prepare a Draft Preferred Alternative Report to include: (a) a
summary of each DSA's effect on environmental features in the project
study area; (b) an overview of the comments and information provided
by resource and regulatory agencies, local governments, and the
public; (c) a summary of the impact minimization efforts carried out for
(a) The Section 6002 Coordination Plan is a document established at the beginning of the
study to document procedures for involvement of local, state, and federal agencies, local
governments, and the public. The name refers to the section in Public Law 109-59 that
applies to this topic.
the DSAs; (d) NCDOT's and FHWA'S recommendation for a Preferred
Alternative; and (e) an explanation of how information in the Draft EIS,
past comments on the alternatives, and comments made on the Draft
EIS during the formal comment period, were used in reaching this deci-
sion.
Step 2: Submit a Draft Preferred Alternative Report to the project's
cooperating and participating agencies for review and comment.
Step 3: Hold a meeting with the cooperating and participating agen-
cies to discuss the Draft Preferred Alternative Report and the Preferred
Alternative recommendation.
Step 4: Review all comments from the cooperating and participating
agencies on the draft report and the recommended Preferred Alterna-
tive.
Step 5: Prepare the final version of the Preferred Alternative Report,
documenting the Preferred Alternative selection.
The NCDOT study team carried out these steps in the months following
the formal comment period for the Draft EIS and the comment period
associated with the USACE Public Notice.
REFINEMENTS TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The DSAs were developed at a level of detail that allowed accurate
comparisons of their benefits and impacts and ensured that impacts
were avoided or kept to a minimum. While this level was appropriate
for selecting a Preferred Alternative, additional refinements have been
made to the Preferred Alternative in an attempt to respond to public and
agency comments, to further reduce impacts, and to establish the basis
for right-of-way acquisition, and to prepare construction plans. These
refinements include the following:
Property Access — A key refinement involves access to properties that
would be affected by the project. When a new, limited-access highway
is built, properties are often affected such that their size would not be
46 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement — December �017
substantially reduced but their access to the existing road network
would be changed. In these cases, it is typically necessary to construct
dedicated service roads to replace the loss in access. The other option
is for the state to purchase these parcels in their entirety.
Several such instances existed along the Preferred Alternative align-
ment. To determine which would be the better solution in each case—
construct a service road or purchase the parcel—a detailed service road
study was carried out to establish the cost difference between these two
options on a parcel by parcel basis. Based on the results of this study,
NCDOT examined 597 parcels along the Preferred Alternative's path,
making adjustments to its alignment where economically justified to
minimize or mitigate access impacts..
Accommodating Traffic Volumes — Other refinements were made to
the Preferred Alternative to ensure that design features such as turning
lanes and other interchange and intersection configurations best
accommodate the anticipated future traffic volumes, based on the latest
trafFic forecasts.
Additional Minimization of Impacts — Another category of refinement
concerns attempts to further minimize the project's potential effect on
natural systems and community resources. This included examining
locations along the Preferred Alternative where the "footprint" of the
project could be narrowed or shifted to avoid or reduce impacts at
various locations.
Changes were made at the following locations:
US 401 interchange area — The roadway's alignment was shifted to the
north by 110 feet to reduce impacts to two streams and one wetland.
This also reduced the impact to a cemetery adjacent to the interchange
and Donny Brook Road.
Turner Farms subdivision/Swift Creek — By shifting the alignment
slightly in this area, property impacts along Fantasy Moth Drive were
avoided. This shift also allowed a more perpendicular crossing of Swift
Creek, which reduced wetland and stream impacts in this area.
I-40 interchange area—The proposed design of the I-40 ramps at this
interchange was refined to reduce impacts to a wetland and a stream
in this area.
Auburn Knightdale Road interchange area — The ramps at this inter-
change were revised to reduce impacts to three wetlands, one stream,
and the surrounding fioodplain area.
Neuse River crossing — Functional designs included a culvert crossing
for the existing Neuse River Trail, adjacent to the Neuse River. The City
of Raleigh has since requested relocating the trail under the proposed
bridge for the Neuse River crossing, in lieu of a culvert. The project
design was modified accordingly.
In addition to these changes, the basis for measurement of impacts
has been modified for the Preferred Alternative's design using the more
detailed mapping that is developed for the Preferred Alternative. The
impact calculations for the functional designs developed for the Draft
EIS were based on those designs' construction limits, plus a 40-foot
buffer zone. For the refined designs developed for the Preferred Alter-
native, the calculations were based on that design's construction limits,
plus a 25-foot buffer zone.
or�„� �in�formatipn, _
In addition to the documents referenced in the Draft EIS, more
detailed information on the factors that led to the selection
and refinement of the Preferred Alternative can be found in the
following technical reports:
• Preferred Alternative Report (April 2016)
• Service Road Study (May 2017)
Chapter 5 contains a summary of each technical report incor-
porated as part of the Draft EIS and this Final EIS, including
the documents listed here.
47
EXPECTED EFFECTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Environmental Justice and Civil Rights — The analyses conducted for
the Draft EIS indicated there would be no environmental justice concerns
with any of the seventeen DSAs, nor would any concentrated pockets
of low income individuals be disproportionately affected. These same
conclusions remain valid for the Preferred Alternative.
Potential Relocations — The refined design for the Preferred Alterna-
tive resulted in changes to the estimated number of properties affected
and the number of relocations reported in the Draft EIS. The Preferred
Alternative, based on the preliminary plans for the project, would affect
1,825 acres of land on 858 parcels and would require 217 relocations.
The relocations include 209 residences, 5 businesses, and 3 non-profit
organizations.
Barrier, Access, and Neighborhood Effects — Two residential devel-
opments would be bisected by the Preferred Alternative, resulting in the
creation of a barrier. The first would occur at Woodcreek, near Sunset
Lake Road, and the other at Deerfield Park, located west of Johnson
Pond Road. It should be noted that in the case of Woodcreek, the com-
munity was developed with the knowledge that 540 could bisect it.
Three other neighborhoods would experience substantial access
changes or a relatively large number of property relocations: (1) Fairview
Wooded Acres, located on the east side of Holly Springs, near Sunset
Lake Road; (2) Blue Skies Mobile Home Park, located on Rhodes Road;
and (3) Oxford Green, located west of Bells Lake Road. While NCDOT
has attempted to avoid and minimize these effects as much as possible,
other types of constraints near these communities have made these
effects unavoidable. Other residential developments would experience
relatively minor effects, such as right-of-way acquisition along the edge
of the community or minor changes in access.
Community Facility Impacts — The Preferred Alternative would require
the acquisition of about 3.3 acres of land from the northwest corner of
Wake Technical Community College but would not affect any campus
buildings. NCDOT has coordinated with representatives of the college
during the project development process.
The Preferred Alternative would also affect land at six churches, as
described below. Church functions would not be affected at any of
these locations.
(1) There would be a 0.6 acre impact to the Hope Community Church
property on East Williams Street (NC 55). The impact is along a wooded
area at the rear of the property, beyond the existing parking lot.
(2) About one acre would need to be acquired from the Word of Truth
Church of God, located on Eddie Creek Drive, just off NC 55 near the
western project terminus. Acquisition would be from a wooded part of
the property.
(3) A small, 0.05 acre land acquisition would be required from the Tri-
angle Community Church, located off Kildaire Farm Road. This impact
area is at the extreme edge of the parcel, near Ness Drive.
(4) At Triangle Baptist Church, the project would require that overhead
powerlines in the vicinity of the church be moved closer to the parking
lot along Old Stage Road. This would require about 0.2 acres of land
acquisition for a utility easement.
(5) Approximately 0.16 acres of easement would be required from the
Juniper Level Missionary Baptist Church, located off Sauls Road, to
accommodate a temporary detour alignment. This would revert back
to the church after construction.
(6) The Preferred Alternative would require a portion of the front drive-
way area at the Mount Herman Christian Church, located off White Oak
Road, along with land from an area behind the church's baseball field.
About 1.23 acres of property would need to be acquired and 0.2 acres
of temporary construction easement would be required.
In addition to these land acquisition effects, the Preferred Alternative
might result in slight alterations to some existing school bus routes,
48 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
some of which would be temporary changes that would occur only
during project construction. The Preferred Alternative may also shorten
response times for emergency vehicles in some locations by decreasing
the number of indirect, circuitous routes currently required using local
roads.
Historic Architecture Resources — On December 10, 2014, the State
Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with NCDOT's finding that
the Preferred Alternative would have no effect on 23 of the 25 properties
in the Area of Potential Effect that are listed on or eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic P/aces (NRHP). The two properties
that would be affected are the John Strain House (located on the west
side of Lake Wheeler Road, north of the Preferred Alternative), and the
Panther Branch School, (located on the east side of Sauls Road, south
of the Preferred Alternative). For these two properties, the HPO con-
curred with NCDOT and FHWA that the Preferred Alternative will result in
"no adverse effect" to each property. The basis of the no adverse effect
determination for these properties was that "noise impacts do not show
substantial increase in decibel (noise) levels at the properties.
At Panther Branch School, the HPO required that NCDOT commit to
building a retaining wall along the property to avoid the need for a per-
manent easement and to ensure that this property would receive no
substantial increase in noise levels as a result of the project. With this
commitment, the HPO concurred with the finding that the Complete 540
project would have no adverse effect on this property.
The Preferred Alternative's preliminary designs include a retaining wall
in front of the Panther Branch School, on Sauls Road. The wall would
be built in the existing road right-of-way and the HPO will be given the
opportunity to review it, prior to completion of the designs.
The draft Traffic Noise Analysis Report Addendum confirms that neither
the John Strain House nor the Panther Branch School would experi-
ence a noise impact from the Preferred Alternative. At each site, the
predicted noise levels are below the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria
and neither shows a substantial increase in noise over existing levels.
Archaeological Resources — Professional archaeologists have con-
ducted archival research and have conducted field investigations to
determine if the Preferred Alternative would affect any archaeological
resources. This archaeological investigation has been documented in
the Archaeological Survey Report included with this Final EIS.
As a result of this investigation, one prehistoric archaeological site was
identified that qualifies forthe NRHP under Criterion D only. (Criterion D
is defined as a site that has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important in history or prehistory.) The identified site is of importance
for the data that it contains and does not require preservation in place.
The eligibility of this site for the NRHP has been confirmed through coor-
dination with the HPO.
NCDOT investigated shifting the highway alignment to avoid this site
but found that such a change would result in additional direct impacts
to wetlands, streams, and existing residential neighborhoods. While
bridging the site could potentially avoid direct effects on this site, a
review of the proposed designs and the topography in this area showed
that bridging the site would require significant design revisions if nearby
wetlands and a nearby subdivision were to be avoided. Because these
design revisions would increase the overall project footprint in this area
and result in an undesirable partial vertical curve on the bridge, NCDOT
concluded they should not be implemented.
Prior to any construction activity in the area of this site, NCDOT will
recover the data from this site and document this recovery to the satis-
faction of the HPO.
In accordance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act, a Mem-
orandum of Agreement (MOA) is under development relative to this site,
and will be completed prior to the Record of Decision on the project.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Catawba Indian
Nation have been notified of the project's potential effect on this site and
have been invited to participate in the Section 106 process for devel-
oping the MOA.
49
Final Section 4(f) Evaluation — Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966 is intended to protect specific types of rec-
reational, historic, and wildlife areas from intrusion by highway projects
unless certain conditions are met. In situations where such properties
may be only slightly affected by a transportation project, FHWA may
determine that a provision called a"de minimis" effect applies, allowing
many Section 4(f) restrictions to be relaxed—provided that active rec-
reational, historic, orwildlife functions are not involved on the portion of
the parcel that would be affected. Two parcels qualifying for protection
under Section 4(f) would be affected by the Preferred Alternative, but
FHWA has determined they would be de minimis impacts.
Middle Creek School Park—The Preferred Alternative would cross a
narrow strip of land along the northern edge of a parcel owned by the
Town of Cary and associated with Middle Creek School Park, affect-
ing about 2.8 acres of this 105 acre parcel. Because the affected area
is wooded open space, with no formal park functions (i.e., no active
recreational uses), the Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect
the park's recreational activities, features, or attributes. Because the
affected land is only a small percentage of the total parcel, and because
the function and use of the park would not be altered, FHWA has deter-
mined that it would be a de minimis impact.
Neuse River Trail—The Preferred Alternative would cross the Neuse
River Trail, a 28-mile pedestrian and bicycle path that is part of Raleigh's
Capital Area Greenway System. It is located adjacent to the Neuse River
in eastern Wake County. Prior to preparation of the Draft EIS, NCDOT
proposed installing a culvert as the method for trail users to cross the
new highway. Since that time, the City of Raleigh has requested that
instead of using a culvert, the trail be shifted so that it passes under the
Preferred Alternative's bridge over the Neuse River. NCDOT has since
incorporated that request into the project's design. While there would
be temporary construction impacts on the trail during construction of
the Preferred Alternative, after construction the trail would return to its
pre-construction condition. With the currently proposed design, the
Preferred Alternative would not permanently affect access to the trail,
nor would it adversely affect the trail's recreational activities, features, or
attributes, and trail use would be accommodated during construction.
For these reasons, FHWA has determined that it would be a de minimis
impact.
Information about the evaluation of the potential impacts of the project
on these recreational resources, and about FHWA's determination
that their recreational activities, features, and attributes would not be
adversely affected by the project, was included in an appendix to the
Draft EIS. The public, local governments, and resource and regulatory
agencies had the opportunity to review and comment on the potential
effects of the project on these resources during the comment period
for the Draft EIS. There was no expressed opposition by citizens to the
proposed de minimis determinations for these resources.
Before making de minimis determinations for these properties, NCDOT
and FHWA consulted with the officials who have jurisdiction over these
properties to ensure such determinations could be made. The City of
Raleigh has concurred with the FHWA de minimis determination relative
to the Neuse River Trail. Likewise, the Town of Cary has concurred with
the de minimis determination for the Middle Creek School Park. Copies
of concurrence letters to this effect can be found in the project's Stake-
holder Involvement Report.
In addition to the two park facilities, the Preferred Alternative would
affect one archaeological site that has been determined to be eligi-
ble for the NRHP. As noted previously, the HPO has determined that
the archaeological site is of importance only for the data it contains
and does not require preservation in place. Because the site does not
warrant preservation in place, Section 4(f) does not apply to it. The
Preferred Alternative would not result in "use" of any NRHP-eligible or
listed historic architectural sites under Section 4(f).
Visual Character and Aesthetic Effects — A few neighborhoods were
developed along what is now the Orange Corridor segment of the Pre-
ferred Alternative, prior to the time it was set aside as a protected cor-
50 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
ridor. Many of the other developments in the Orange Corridor segment
area were developed with the assumption that the road would eventually
be built along the protected path. For this reason, there are wooded
buffers shielding many of these neighborhoods from the proposed
right-of-way within this corridor segment.
Overall, visual changes experienced by those living (or in some cases
working) along the Preferred Alternative would be intermittent, with
some residents subjected to a view of the roadway and others shielded
from the roadway by topography and vegetation. In addition, area
planners interviewed during the qualitative and the quantitative Indirect
and Cumulative Effects analyses predicted that development will con-
tinue, regardless of the outcome of the Complete 540 project, causing
a reduction in the amount of open, rural areas.
Traffic Noise — NCDOT has updated the May 2015 Traffic Noise Anal-
ysis to evaluate the preliminary designs associated with the Preferred
Alternative. The analysis accounts for a change in the project's design
year, from 2035 to 2040, and the availability of traffic data for the 2016
existing condition and the 2040 Build condition. Also, minor revisions
to the preliminary design of the Preferred Alternative have occurred to
reduce impacts, and NCDOT has updated its noise policy since the 2015
report was prepared.
The 2017 update was completed using the October 6, 2016 versions of
the NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy and NCDOT Traffic Noise Manual. The
policy establishes criteria for determining at what point the highway
project is considered to have a noise impact on an adjacent land use.
There are two types of traffic noise impacts: Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC) and "substantial increase." The NAC is a federal standard that
represents noise levels at which abatement must be considered for
a given type of land use. If, for a given activity, the design year noise
levels "approach or exceed the NAC," then the activity is considered to
be impacted by noise, in which case noise abatement measures must
be considered. NCDOT policy defines "approach" as one decibel less
than the NAC.
Impacts designated as "substantial increase" are based on federal
regulations for situations when a highway project would cause a large
increase in noise levels over existing conditions, even if the levels do not
reach the NAC. NCDOT's noise policy defines a"substantial increase"
as 10 decibels (dB(A)) or more. When this is the case, a noise impact
results, and noise abatement measures must be considered.
As part of NCDOT's collection efforts for the noise analysis, long dura-
tion noise measurements were recorded at three locations and short
duration measurements were recorded at twenty locations. This was
carried out in September 2013. In May 2014, an additional seven short
duration measurements were recorded. The noise measurements were
used to identify loudest-hour ambient noise levels and to validate the
FHWA Traffic Noise Model° (version 2.5). The model was then used
to predict traffic noise levels for the base year (2016) and design year
(2040).
In total, 2,660 receptors were evaluated along the Preferred Alterna-
tive (2,639 residences, four schools, eight recreational facilities, eight
churches, and one business). Overall 132 receptors are predicted to
experience only NAC impacts, 473 receptors are predicted to experi-
ence only a substantial increase impact, and 213 receptors will expe-
rience both types of impact. With the exception of four recreational
areas, all of the receptors that would be impacted are residences. No
schools, churches, or commercial properties are predicted to experi-
ence traffic noise impacts as a result of construction of the Preferred
Alternative.
The updated analysis resulted in 279 additional impacted receptors
being identified along the Preferred Alternative, compared to the May
2015 analysis. This increase is attributable to two factors. The first is the
change that occurred in the NCDOT noise policy relative to "substantial
increase." This change is the cause for most of the added impacted
Complete 540 Fina/ Environmental Impact Statement — December 2017 51
receptors. The second factor is the land development that occurred in
the project area in the interval between the two studies. Because both
of these factors would apply to any of the DSAs previously evaluated,
with impacts similarly affected for all the DSAs, FHWA has concluded
that these factors would not have substantially influenced the Preferred
Alternative decision.
NCDOT examined various forms of noise abatement (including traffic
management, alteration of roadway alignments, creation of buffer
zones, and installation of building insulation) and found that none
would be a feasible solution. Abatement in the form of noise barriers
was considered at 42 locations where traffic noise impacts were pre-
dicted. Ofthese, 22 barrierswere preliminarilyfound to be both feasible
and reasonable and are, therefore, likely to be constructed. Another
20 barriers were evaluated and preliminarily found to not be feasible
and reasonable. Of the 818 impacted receptors, 497 would benefit�b>
from the implementation of these 22 barriers, including two of the four
affected recreational areas and 495 impacted residences. These bar-
riers would also benefit 222 additional receptors that did not have an
identified noise impact. Of the other 20 barriers, three were preliminarily
found to be not feasible and 17 not reasonable. These 20 barriers are
not likely to be constructed. In summary, by constructing the 22 feasi-
ble and reasonable barriers, 323 residences and two recreation areas
would remain with projected traffic noise related impacts. A final deter-
mination of noise barrier feasibility and reasonableness will be made
upon completion of the Preferred Alternative's design and the public
involvement process.
While the preliminary findings of the Traffic Noise Report Addendum are
sufficiently accurate to identify the general scope and location of noise
impacts and likely noise abatement, some activities required for the
report remained to be completed at the time of this writing, due to the
size and complexity of the project. These include minor adjustments to
noise model inputs and re-executions of the model. The Traffic Noise
(b) A benefit is defined as occurring when a noise barrier reduces predicted traffic
noise levels by 5 decibels (dB(A)) or more.
Report Addendum will be completed prior to the issuance of the proj-
ect's Record of Decision, and any changes in traffic noise impacts and
likely noise abatement locations reported in the Final EIS (based on
the draft study) will be disclosed in the Record of Decision. Addition-
ally, a Design Noise Report will be prepared prior to construction of the
project.
Air Quality — Both Wake County and Johnston County are in attain-
ment with respect to the USEPA's National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards. Because carbon monoxide (CO) regional and project-level con-
formity requirements in North Carolina have ended, a project level CO
microscale analysis is no longer required in North Carolina as part of the
NEPA process. As noted in the Draft EIS, the project does not require a
detailed study for particulate matter.
A qualitative analysis of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) was com-
pleted for the Preferred Alternative. This analysis predicted that con-
structing the Preferred Alternative would result in reduced MSAT emis-
sions in the immediate area of the project, compared to a No-Build sce-
nario, as a result of USEPA's MSAT reduction programs. For possible air
quality concerns during construction, no substantial long-term effects
would occur if currently adopted rules for open burning and dust control
are followed. The project is not expected to create any adverse effects
on the air quality of this attainment area.
Land Use and Economics — Because the corridor now identified as
the Orange Corridor segment was, in the 1990s, set aside as the path
of a future highway and protected from development, most local gov-
ernments in the area have written their land use plans in anticipation of
this roadway being built. As a result, planners representing the towns in
the study area have stated that the Preferred Alternative, which includes
the Orange Corridor segment, would not confiict with their future growth
and development objectives. Because the Preferred Alternative also
includes the majority of the Green Corridor segment, which was also
identified in the 1990s as a potential future highway route, the Preferred
Alternative would not confiict with local land use plans.
52 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
Along with the project's potential conflict with applicable land use plans,
business relocations are also a component in the project's overall eco-
nomic effects. The Preferred Alternative would require five businesses to
relocate. One is a greenhouse on Benson Road in STIPproject R-2828.
The other four are in STIP project R-2829. Three are on US 70 Business
and include a manufactured home sales office, an auto collision repair
shop, and a metal/parts salvage operation. The fourth is a stormwater
management business along White Oak Road.
In addition to these businesses, the Preferred Alternative would affect
operations at a private rugby facility on Poole Road and two communi-
cation towers. One of the towers, also on Poole Road, is used for cellu-
lar communications. The other tower, on Rock Quarry Road, includes
several different communications functions.
Water Resources — The potential effects of the Preferred Alternative
on water resources include: (1) increased sediment loading and siltation
due to watershed vegetation removal, erosion, and/or construction; (2)
decreased light penetration and water clarity from increased turbidity;
(3) reduced habitat suitability for Dwarf Wedgemussel and other aquatic
species due to increases in sediment; (4) reduced ability of mussels
and other aquatic species to feed because of increased suspended
sediment in the water; (5) changes in water temperature with vegetation
removal; (6) increased concentration of pollutants from highway runoff,
construction activities, and construction equipment; and (7) alteration
of water levels and fiows as a result of interruptions or additions to
surface and groundwater fiow from construction.
To keep these effects to a minimum, a sediment and erosion control
plan will be developed and elements would be implemented during con-
struction. This plan will be prepared in accordance with NCDEQ and
NCDOT guidance and accepted design standards for sensitive water-
sheds. Examples of Best Management Practices for sedimentation and
erosion control that would be used during construction include: (1) the
use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and silt fencing; (2) locating construc-
tion staging areas outside of fioodplains and away from streams and
tributaries; and (3) rapid re-seeding of sites where vegetation is dis-
turbed to help alleviate erosion and reduce sediment loading and runoff.
Streams — After minimization measures were incorporated into the
Preferred Alternative's design, the total length of streams affected was
reduced from 65,810 linear feet to 59,533—a 9.5 percent reduction.
Wetlands — As a result of new traffic volume data prepared for this
Final EIS, modifications were required in the US 64/US 264 interchange
area so it could better accommodate future traffic. This modification
increased the overall footprint of the interchange, which increased the
overall impact on wetlands and streams in this area. After this modifi-
cation, and after minimization techniques were applied throughout its
length, the Preferred Alternative's effect on total wetland acreage was
reduced from 74.3 acres to 69.5 acres—a reduction of 4.8 percent.
The Preferred Alternative would not directly affect the Swift Creek Water-
shed Critical Area.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation for Water Resources —
Through the use of minimization techniques, NCDOT has eliminated or
reduced impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent practi-
cable at the current stage of design. This included examining the use of
bridges instead of culverts over some of the larger streams and bridging
some of the larger and higher quality wetlands.
Mitigation policy for jurisdictional Waters of the United States has been
established by USEPA and USACE regulations.�°� Unavoidable impacts
of the Preferred Alternative to wetlands and streams will be offset using
the strategies described below.
For the portion of the project between NC 55 Bypass and US 401 (STIP
Project R-2721), NCDOT would follow the provisions of a 2016 Mem-
orandum of Agreement between NCDOT and the NC Division of Mit-
(c) Waters of the United States are protected by many statutes and regulations, principal
among these being the federal Clean WaterAct. Mitigation policyforjurisdictional Waters
of the US has been established by USEPA and USACE regulations in 33 CFR Part 332 and
40 CFR Part 230, Subpart J.
53
igation Services (NCDMS) for off-site mitigation of wetland, stream,
and riparian buffer impacts. NCDOT also investigated opportunities
for on-site mitigation and found no suitable sites available within the
project limits.
For the portion of the project between US 401 and I-40 (STIP Project
R-2828), NCDOT would use NCDMS for mitigation of impacts to wet-
lands and riparian buffers. Both NCDMS and private mitigation banks
would be used for impacts to streams with private mitigation banks
being the preferred option. Opportunities for on-site mitigation will also
be investigated.
For the portion of the project between I-40 and US 64/US 264 (STIP
Project R-2829), NCDOT anticipates that impacts would be offset by
compensatory mitigation, most likely through NCDMS. No specific
approach has been established because the current anticipated con-
struction start date (2027) is more than five years in the future.
Underhill Wetland Mitigation Site — This 84.5 acre parcel, which
is located adjacent to and south of Swift Creek in the Complete 540
project area, was purchased by NCDOT in 1998 as part of the wetland
mitigation efforts for the US 70 Clayton Bypass project. The parcel has
a small arm, adjacent to Swift Creek, that extends northward, crossing
most of the right-of-way width of the Preferred Alternative.
The Preferred Alternative would span this portion of the property with
dual bridges, which would be built approximately 20 feet above ground
level and designed to prohibit direct stormwater drainage into the mit-
igation site and Swift Creek. The total impact to this parcel would be
about 0.5 acres. To further aid in the protection of the Underhill Site and
Swift Creek, NCDOT would follow the design standards established in
the NC Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds.
Wetland Finding — Presidential Executive Order 11990 (issued in May
1977) addresses protection and preservation of the Nation's wetlands.
Federal agencies are directed to avoid construction in wetlands unless
there is no practicable alternative, and to include in each project all
practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.
The rationale for the selection of the Preferred Alternative was based
on many factors, including its impact on wetlands, streams, and ponds.
Measures to minimize harm to wetlands have been incorporated into the
project through the use of horizontal and vertical alignment refinements
and bridging across sensitive wetland areas. Even though service roads
have now been established for the Preferred Alternative and have been
incorporated into its impact calculations, the minimization techniques
applied to the Preferred Alternative's design have lowered total wetland
and stream impacts from those estimated in the Draft EIS.
Based on the analysis for the project, there is no practicable alterna-
tive to completely avoid impacts to wetlands. The Preferred Alternative
includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands. These
findings have been coordinated with environmental resource and regu-
latory agencies without any stated issues of concern.
Floodplains and Floodways — After minimization techniques were
applied, the Preferred Alternative's effect on 100-year fioodplain areas
was reduced from 65.9 acres to 61.2 acres. Encroachment on 500-year
fioodplain areas (an impact category that was added after the Draft EIS
stage) went from 81.7 acres to 76.2 acres. With respect to fioodway
areas, the impact was reduced from 17.6 acres to 15.4 acres.
Floodplain Finding — Presidential Executive Order 11988 (issued in
May 1977) directs federal agencies to refrain from conducting, sup-
porting, or allowing project activities in floodplains unless there is no
practicable alternative. FHWA has determined that a federally funded
transportation projectwith significantfioodplain encroachmentswill not
be approved unless FHWA finds that the proposed significant encroach-
ment is the only practicable alternative.
The study area's fioodplains are associated with its three principal
streams: Middle Creek, Swift Creek, and the Neuse River. Although
efforts have been made to minimize effects on these fioodplains, the
Preferred Alternative will unavoidably impact 100-year and 500-year
fioodplains where it crosses these streams or their tributaries. Efforts
have been made to minimize the effects on fioodplains through bridging
54 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December Z017
r ����� L���.'� �
_ ��=:= y '� _
_;� _ ���,�' `
- ���= �,
��,�_)•�
�R�,
F ,�,� a
_ ��' �"_
��� � t �
+ �_�� � �' �
� �
r�s' r-, � � . 'r�� .
�[� , �> �
f rf�- �� Wetland Miti ation
� :- � g
JJ•. . ��. .
ti
�nds.
When a government project or private development
would affect wetlands, a process known as the "mitigation
sequence" must be followed to ensure this goal is met.
First AVOID — Attempt to design the project so it would not
affect wetlands.
Second, MINIMIZE — Ensure that unavoidable wetland
impacts are as small as possible.
Third, MITIGATE — For any wetland impacts that remain,
compensate for the lost wetlands through mitigation.
There are three methods of achieving acceptable wetland
mitigation:
(1) Contribution to a mitigation bank. A mitigation bank is
a site developed for the purpose of providing mitigation
�
� ;
�� �_� I ��' � . -
j � �
� r��
� � ��`` -�
,� . .'+� . .Y _, � �
�' � . �� '��-� - t %' �
'� �'�- i "��i . ..�., i7
� y ;,` ' = p' '
F �, � \ rj !
t� i� _�
�.. �: j -� - _ � y
� ���. . _L �� �.' �
for permitted �impac�s. A miifigai�idn bank s+ells rnitigafion
credits to agencies or developers who have an obl'rgation
to provide mitigation.
(2) Payment of an "in lieu" fee. This program achieves mit-
igation through funds paid to a government or non-profit
natural resource management organization.
(3) Mitigation by the project developer. Under this scenario
the project developer takes full responsibility for achieving
acceptable mitigation.
For the Complete 540 project, a variation of the in lieu
fee method would be used, based on a Memorandum of
Agreement established between NCDOT and the NC Divi-
sion of Mitigation Services. On-site mitigation would also
be explored.
_� � ,-,- �-, -
What happens if a project's study area potentially contains a federally protected species?
Section 7 Consultation
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 was
enacted to protect and recover imperiled species
and the ecosystems upon which they depend.
Section 7 of this law may require federal project
sponsors to engage in consultation with the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure proposed
projects do notjeopardize the continued existence
of any federally endangered or threatened species.
Evaluation of
potential project
effects on the
species
atthe more substantial fioodplain crossings. Additionally, stream cross-
ings would be perpendicular or nearly perpendicular to each stream,
which would minimize impacts to the associated fioodplains. Bridges
and culverts along the project will be sized to ensure compliance with
FEMA requirements or NC fioodplain requirements.
The selection of the Preferred Alternative was based on a consideration
of the effects it would have on natural, human, and physical environ-
ments, compared to the other alternatives, and on comments received
on the Draft EIS. NCDOT and FHWA have determined that there is no
other practicable alternative that would further reduce impacts to fiood-
plains.
Terrestrial Habitat — The Preferred Alternative would contribute to
habitat fragmentation in places where it crosses larger tracts of unde-
veloped land. For larger streams and some larger tracts of vegetated
wetland areas that would be divided, bridges are planned that can serve
to support wildlife movement. In addition, forested uplands, which are
also present along the Preferred Alternative's location, often provide
important habitat for migratory birds. To comply with requirements set
Likely to Prepare Biological
May Affect Adversely Affect � Assessment r! -
-- I'� No
_ Not Likely to Receive USFWS
Adversely Affect � Concurrence?
No Effect Yes
forth in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, NCDOT will coordinate
with USFWS during project implementation to avoid incidental effects
on migratory birds. The USFWS Migratory Bird Program is working to
develop a list of standard conservation measures that can be employed
for transportation activities to help avoid and minimize impacts to
migratory birds. NCDOT would consider those measures, should they
become available prior to construction.
Protected Species — Following selection of the Preferred Alternative,
NCDOT carried out the project's quantitative indirect and cumulative
effects analysis within the Preferred Alternative's Future Land Use Study
Area (FLUSA). The FLUSA was then used to determine "action areas"
for federally protected species that could be affected by the Preferred
Alternative. As defined in the Endangered Species Act, action areas are
to include "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal
action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action" (50
CFR §402.02).
The FLUSA for Complete 540 defines the area that could potentially
experience development infiuenced by construction of the project.
56 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
USFWS Analysis USFWS
of Biological � " prepares Formal
Assessment Biological Opinion
ESA compliance
satisfied
Jeopardy
No Jeopardy
Because this development could, in turn, affect threatened and endan-
gered species, an analysis of the possible effect on threatened and
endangered species in their respective action areas was required.
The FLUSA includes portions of Wake, Johnston, and Harnett Counties.
And because threatened and endangered species are listed by county,
the possible project effects on species listed for Harnett County were
also examined.
The potential effect on threatened and endangered species within the
action areas is included in the projects's Biological Assessment, which
establishes whether the project is likely to jeopardize the survival of any
of the protected species in the project area. At the time of this writing,
the Biological Assessment has been submitted to USFWS by FHWA,
along with a request to enter into formal consultation on the species
covered in the document. FHWA expects this consultation will be com-
pleted, and the USFWS Biological Opinion will be issued, prior to the
publication of the Record of Decision for the project.
The status of the analysis for each protected species is as follows
STOP
A Jeopardy finding means the project cannot proceed
unless a different alternative can be found that avoids
the conditions that led to the jeopardy finding.
A No Jeopardy finding can allow the project to proceed
with the original alternative, but certain conditions,
including issuance of an "incidental take" permit, may
be required.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker—The analysis summarized in the Draft
EIS remains applicable. The Biological Conclusion for the species is
No Effect.
Michaux's Sumac—At the time the Draft EIS was written, the Biologi-
cal Conclusion for this species was No Effect, based on field surveys
conducted in each of the study's corridor segments. NCDOT has since
completed additional surveys and conducted additional research for
this species. While no occurrences of this species were found, the Bio-
logical Conclusion was revised to MayAffect, Not Likely To Adversely
Affect to account for the possibility that the species could exist within
the action area and thus be affected by development in that area. In
general, NCDOT and FHWA have concluded that the effects would likely
be discountable.
Rough-leaved Loosestrife—This plant species was not mentioned in
the Draft EIS because it is not known to occur within Wake or Johnston
Counties. It is, however, listed for Harnett County by the US�11/S, and
the action area established for the Preferred Alternative encompasses
areas in Harnett County that could be affected by the project's potential
57
indirect and cumulative effects. Surveys conducted by NCDOT for the
project revealed that there are no known occurrences of this species in
the action area that extends into Harnett County. Because there will be
no direct or indirect effects in any areas known to support Rough-leaved
Loosestrife, and because there are no records noting any occurrences
within or nearthe action area, the Biological Conclusion forthis species
is No Effect.
Northern Long-Eared Bat—As described in the Draft EIS, the USFWS has
in place a programmatic Biological Opinion for this species for NCDOT
projects in eastern North Carolina. Under this Biological Opinion, the
Biological Conclusion for this species is MayAffect, Likely to Adversely
Affect. In response, NCDOT has programmatically agreed to conser-
vation measures designed to minimize adverse effects and benefit or
promote the recovery of this species, where applicable. Because the
USFWS has not listed this species as protected in Wake, Johnston, or
Harnett Counties, it does not need to be addressed in the Biological
Assessment and the Biological Conclusion for this project.
Bald Eagle—As stated in the Draft EIS, while the Bald Eagle is no longer
federally listed as endangered, it is still protected by the Bald Eagle and
Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962. After a review of existing infor-
mation about the presence of this species in the study area, and after
field surveys were conducted along the Preferred Alternative, NCDOT
has concluded the project would be in compliance with the protections
established in this Act and the Bald Eagle would not be affected.
Tar River Spinymussel—Although the Draft EIS indicated that the Bio-
logical Conclusion for this species was unresolved, the species is not
known to occur and has not been found in the action area for the Pre-
ferred Alternative. Additionally, NCDOT conducted surveys for this
species, and none were found. The Biological Conclusion is No Effect.
Cape Fear Shiner—This species was not mentioned in the Draft EIS
because it is not known to occur within Wake or Johnston Counties.
The action area established forthis species does, however, encompass
additional watershed areas that could potentially be affected by the
project's indirect and cumulative effects, including locations in Harnett
County, where historic occurrences of this species have been recorded
and the species is listed by the USFWA. The project's Biological Assess-
ment concluded that the potential effects of the Preferred Alternative
would be insignificant in the Harnett County portion of the action area
and, for this reason, the Biological Conclusion is MayAffect, Not Likely
to AdverselyAffect.
Dwarf Wedgemussel—At the time the Draft EIS was written, the Biolog-
ical Conclusion for this species was unresolved. Through coordination
with USFWS, NCDOT agreed to complete additional freshwater mussel
studies to help provide information needed to assess the species' via-
bility in the Swift Creek Watershed. These studies noted that while the
relative abundance of freshwater mussel species in the Swift Creek
watershed has been declining, there is evidence that this decline has
leveled off and that the Dwarf Wedgemussel may be reproducing in the
watershed. The studies further noted that while rapid urbanization in the
Swift Creek watershed has led to relatively rapid habitat degradation in
the Creek, some areas of Swift Creek continue to provide high quality
mussel habitat. Also, as noted in the discussion of indirect and cumula-
tive effects, there are concerns about concentrations of copper in Swift
Creek at levels that may be harmful to freshwater mussels. At the time
of this writing, the effectiveness of existing conservation measures to
protect mussel viability in the Swift Creekwatershed is unclear because
they have not been in place long enough for their effectiveness to be
determined.
The species viability study conducted for the Complete 540 project con-
cluded that while there is potential for the Dwarf Wedgemussel to persist
in Swift Creek, its long-term viability is tenuous. The Biological Con-
clusion for the Dwarf Wedgemussel is May Affect, Likely to Adversely
Affect. It is important to note, however, that many of the factors threat-
ening long-term Dwarf Wedgemussel viability in Swift Creek will remain,
regardless of whether the project is constructed. Ongoing manage-
ment and propagation efforts (as explained in the graphic on the next
page) are proposed to help achieve long term viability of this species.
To achieve the propagation activities that are proposed for the Dwarf
Wedgemussel, NCDOT has agreed to provide funding to retrofit and
58 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
�
'.' ��;' .1''
- "� ,�5. . ! k �•`° ` J; . -
e
, `;y .y`iY.�
, .w . �nc
.. - . ' . . � aiV,�
� .. • , �-A; � . �
Pro a ation �� � - l ��
p g
Mussel conservation for the Complete 540 pro ject
Habitat for the endangered Dwarf Wedgemus-
sel, the Yellow Lance, and other mussel species is
present in the sections of Swift Creek and Lower
Middle Creek that flow through the Complete 540
study area. For the Dwarf Wedgemussel, low
population numbers and limited population dis-
persal are affecting the viability of this species in
Swift Creek.
Captive propagation of freshwater mussels is
becoming a useful tool in the management and
restoration of freshwater mussel populations.
USFWS and NCDOT have been working together
to establish a propagation facility in the Raleigh
area to help offset possible effects the Complete
540 project would have on the Dwarf Wedgemus-
sel and Yellow Lance populations in Swift Creek
and Lower Middle Creek.
Work to establish the Non-Game Aquatic Species
Program at the Yates Mill Aquatic Conservat�ot����
Center has been underway simultaneous to th�
development of the Complete 540 project. Th��
,��
<._
. -�`i,; .,.
1: '
_ ♦ �t - . - : Sa-. .
'r,. .
i f. ♦
. ,'f
, � �f
�i
b'S ��. . ' ' � .
� - ;�.� �. .. � �
goal of this program is to promote the long,- _: -
term survival of rare aquatic species in streams
throughout North Carolina by producing juveniles
for reintroduction. NCDOT has agreed to provide
funds to retrofit and upgrade of the existing
aquatic research facility at the A.E. Finley Center
for Education and Research at Historic Yates Mill
County Park for the purpose of propagating
aquatic species.
Funding would be provided to Wake County for
the construction of the retrofit and upgrade to
the Yates Mill Facility and Millpond and to NCSU,
through the NC Wildlife Resource Commission, to ��� �`- � `
supportthe management, operation, and mainte- " •!• , ��
nance of the facility. ��� ,� i ���'
F w w � �
US WS ould serve as a liaison bet een the enti- I �� I�
ties involved with the Yates Mill Aquatic Conser- �I I �
vation Center and would also oversee ro ress on r I'I'
P 9 �, � ,I I
t#��u� I�o� -�err�� Q��I:s Qf ih�: ,,ro p�fiio.n fa���lr� . � 1
� 'S� P � � �!- � � � I� � �
I � 'I
,. � � �,
�'. : �� i� - ,�, �' �� �
,. P
upgrade an existing research facility in the A.E. Finley Center at the
HistoricYates Mill County Park. This facility is currently owned by Wake
County and leased and operated by North Carolina State University for
the purpose of propagating aquatic species and conducting research.
The purpose of this new facility, which would be called the Yates Mill
Aquatic Conservation Center (YMACC), would be to promote the long-
term survival of rare aquatic species in streams throughout North Caro-
lina by producing juveniles for reintroduction to the wild. NCDOT would
provide Wake County with approximately $2 million in funding for the
retrofitting and upgrading of the existing research facility in the A.E.
Finley Center and Wake County would oversee and manage the con-
struction of the new Conservation Center. In addition, NCDOT would
provide approximately $3 million to North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission (NCWRC) to support the North Carolina Non-Game
Aquatic Species Program. These funds would be earmarked for NCSU,
which would provide a facility manager and an assistant at theYMACC to
oversee the propagation research and outreach, and for other expenses
needed to operate and maintain the facility for five years.
NCDOT's responsibility for the propagation facility project would be
limited to providing the initial funding. NCDOT would not be responsible
for the construction, management, or success of theYMACC or its prop-
agation goals. NCDOT has committed to provide the aforementioned
funding and would enter into a funding agreement with Wake County
for construction of the YMACC. NCDOT would enter into a separate
funding agreement with NCWRC for operation of the North Carolina
Non-Game Aquatic Species Program. These funding agreements are
being prepared and would be in place prior to permitting for the Com-
plete 540 project.
Yellow Lance—Although this mussel species was not under federal
protection when the Draft EIS was written, the USFWS subsequently
proposed listing this species as federally endangered. In response,
NCDOT conducted field surveys for this species in the project area, the
results of which are documented in the Complete 540 Aquatic Species
Survey Report. The Yellow Lance has also been evaluated in the Bio-
logical Assessment. The effects information described above for the
Dwarf Wedgemussel also applies to theYellow Lance, and the Biological
Conclusion forthis species is also MayAffect, LikelytoAdverselyAffect,
if or when it is formally listed. Conservation measures similar to those
for the Dwarf Wedgemussel, including propagation, will also be used to
offset the project's potential effects on the Yellow Lance.
Atlantic Sturgeon—On April 6, 2012, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) listed the Atlantic Sturgeon as endangered. While
this species is currently not on the USFV1/S species list for Wake, John-
ston, or Harnett Counties, designated critical habitat for this species is
present in the Neuse River in Johnston and Wake Counties.
On September 18, 2017, the NMFS designation of critical habitat for
the Atlantic Sturgeon in the Neuse River became effective. The criti-
cal habitat extends along the Neuse from the confiuence with Pamlico
Sound at river kilometer 0, below New Bern, to the base of the recently
demolished Milburnie Dam at river kilometer 349 (217 river miles), just
east of Raleigh. This designation includes the entire length of the Neuse
River within the project study area. Because all DSAs, including the Pre-
ferred Alternative, must cross the Neuse River, avoidance of this critical
habitat is not possible.
An assessment of the potential effects of the Preferred Alternative's
crossing of the Neuse River was carried out and documented in the
Biological Assessment for this species and its critical habitat. The
assessment noted that the Neuse River Atlantic Sturgeon population is
considered to be small compared to other populations in North Carolina
and that there are no recorded occurrences of the Atlantic Sturgeon
within the project crossing area or the action area, with all recorded
occurrences in the basin being further downriver.
Following NMFS critical habitat designation, NCDOT conducted a phys-
ical and biological features survey of critical habitat for the Atlantic Stur-
geon in the vicinity of the proposed project's crossings of the Neuse
River. The survey found that there are no concentrations of physical
and biological features within the footprint or immediate vicinity of the
crossing locations. Likewise, no such features were found within the
850-foot-wide survey area, neither upstream nor downstream of the
crossing location.
60 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
The Biological Assessment forthis species indicates that potential direct
or indirect impacts to the Atlantic Sturgeon or its critical habitat from
construction of the project are insignificant or discountable. Therefore,
NCDOT and FHWA have assigned a determination of MayAffect, Not
LikelytoAdverselyAffectfortheAtlantic Sturgeon and its critical habitat
in the study area.
In August 2017, NMFS and FHWA collaborated on draft project design
criteria to avoid or reduce the potential effects of transportation activ-
ities on protected anadramous fish species (such as the Atlantic Stur-
geon) and their critical habitat. Appropriate criteria will be outlined in
the Biological Assessment and incorporated into the project's design
plans.
NCDOT will submit the Biological Assessment to NMFS, along with a
request to enter into informal consultation on the Atlantic Sturgeon and
its critical habitat. This consultation is expected to be completed prior
to the publication of the Record of Decision for the project.
Two activities required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
remain to be completed at the time of this writing. The first is the formal
consultation process between FHWA and the USFWS for federally listed
species that could potentially be affected by the proposed project. The
second is the informal consultation process between NCDOT and the
NMFS regarding critical habitat for the endangered Atlantic Sturgeon
that could potentially be affected by the project. Both of these consulta-
tion processes are underway and are expected to be completed before
the project's Record of Decision is published.
Farmlands — While much of the land in the study area comprises soil
types classified as prime, unique, local or of statewide importance, the
Farmland Conservation Impact Rating score for the Preferred Alterna-
tive did not exceed the threshold for required mitigation of farmland
impacts.
One Voluntary Agriculture District (VAD) farm would be affected, located
on New Bethel Church Road, just north of the Clayton Bypass. This
45 acre wooded parcel is part of a large, multi-parcel, multi-location
VAD. It extends into an adjacent 53 acre parcel in Johnston County.
Approximately 23 acres would be required for project right-of-way at
the northern edge of the property.
Major Drainage Structures — There are 39 locations along the Pre-
ferred Alternative where a major drainage structure would be needed.
Culverts would be used at 26 of these and bridges at the remaining 13.
Of those bridges, 8 are either longer than would otherwise be neces-
sary, or are bridges instead of culverts, to avoid or minimize impacts.
The final hydraulic design would be prepared such that it complies with
all applicable design standards for construction in sensitive watersheds.
Hazardous Materials and Contamination Sites — The Preferred Alter-
native would require right-of-way acquisition at two gas stations, an
automotive salvage yard, and an auto repair shop. Because the project
would not affect the underground storage tank fields at either gas
station, NCDOT does not anticipate the need for relocation or remedi-
ation at these locations. The Preferred Alternative would require acqui-
sition of a portion of the automotive salvage yard for right-of-way, and it
is possible there could be some degree of ground contamination at this
property. The auto repair shop would need to be acquired in its entirety.
The GeoEnvironmental Report prepared for the project states each of
these four properties has a low risk for hazardous materials and none
are expected to have a substantial effect on anticipated project costs
or schedules. Additionally, the project would not require acquisition of
any known hazardous waste sites or landfills.
Sprayfields — The right-of-way for the Preferred Alternative would
affect approximately 11 acres of a 600 acre City of Raleigh sprayfield on
Wrenn Road. This site treats wastewater from the Dempsey E. Benton
Water Treatment Plant, located on NC 50. An additional 6 acres of this
site, along Swift Creek, would be landlocked by the project and would
be acquired.
Major Utility Installations — There are underground gas pipelines and
overhead electrical transmission lines at various locations along the
Preferred Alternative's corridor. NCDOT will coordinate with represen-
tatives of these facilities to discuss options for relocating these pipelines
and electric lines in locations where avoidance is not feasible. NCDOT
61
expects that all affected pipelines and electric lines would be relocated
prior to starting construction activities.
Communications Towers — The Preferred Alternative would require
the relocation of two communications towers; one near Rock Quarry
Road and another near Poole Road. NCDOT will coordinate with repre-
sentatives of these towers as the Preferred Alternative's plans are being
developed to discuss options for relocation.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects —The Draft EIS summarized a general,
qualitative-level analysis of the DSAs for their potential indirect effects
on development and land use patterns and the indirect and cumulative
effects on project-area natural resources. To more closely analyze the
potential indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) of the Preferred Alterna-
tive, the project team completed a quantitative analysis of those effects
based on comprehensive new data, which included a new 2040 No Build
land use forecast. The results of these analyses are contained in a series
of ICE technical reports. These are described in Chapter 5 and are con-
tained on the disk attached to this document and on the study's website.
The quantitative ICE analysis began with additional interviews with local
planners, who stated, as they had in earlier coordination, that growth is
anticipated with or without the project, but that the completion of 540
has the potential to infiuence the specific locations and density of devel-
opment. While local planners did not believe the project would affect the
overall level of growth in the project area, the study team deliberately
took a more conservative approach. The 2040 No-Build scenario was
designed to assess the greatest reasonable effect of the project on
future land use. To more closely evaluate the potential efFects of the
project on overall growth, the project team used computer modeling
tools currently used in regional land use forecasting by CAMPO and the
Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) to forecast the future land
use patterns in various parts of the project area under 2040 Build and
No-Build scenarios.
The results of the computer modeling continued to predict substantial
new development by 2040 under the No-Build scenario, with about
73,000 additional acres in a large area encompassing southern Wake
County and parts of Johnston and Harnett Counties converted from
undeveloped or agricultural uses to uses classified as developed by
2040. Underthis scenario, the proportion of developed land in the area
studied would increase from 39 percent under current conditions to
about 66 percent by 2040.
The model results also suggest that the project would lead to about
1,400 additional acres being converted to developed land uses under
the Build scenario as compared to the No-Build scenario—a relatively
small increase in the level of development by 2040 when compared to
the No-Build scenario. The key difference between forecast future land
use patterns under the Build and No-Build scenarios is that the model
results suggest that the Build scenario would lead to a higher likelihood
of inedium density residential development and commercial develop-
ment in some areas, particularly near proposed interchanges along the
project, while those areas would instead be developed with low density
residential uses under the No-Build scenario. This supports the finding
of the qualitative ICE analysis, suggesting that constructing the project
would lead to land use patterns more consistent with those envisioned
in local land use plans.
Another component of the quantitative ICE analysis was to use the
modeled future land use patterns under the Build and No-Build sce-
narios to predict the relative amounts of impervious surface under the
two scenarios. Greater impervious surface coverage in an area can lead
to increased stormwater runoff and negative effects on surface water
quality. This is a particularly important consideration because the viabil-
ity of protected freshwater mussel species is infiuenced bywater quality.
The model results suggest that there would be small differences in the
2040 Build and No-Build scenarios for most of the water quality indi-
cators examined. Watersheds in the study area that currently contain
populations of Dwarf Wedgemussel orYellow Lance are experiencing,
and will continue to experience, growth pressures that may lead to neg-
ative effects on water quality, with or without the Complete 540 project.
While the model results suggest that the project could lead to increased
concentrations of suspended solids and copper, two contaminants that
can be harmful to freshwater mussels, the predicted increases are small
62 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
in comparison to the overall anticipated increases by 2040 that would
result from growth predicted to occur without the project.
A further conclusion reached as a result of the quantitative ICE analysis
concerned the effect that the project's induced development could have
on traffic conditions in the FLUSA. Because the amount of development
and other land use changes actually induced by the project is expected
to be very small compared to the overall development expected to occur
in the FLUSA, it follows that changes in trafFic volumes, travel times,
and travel distances caused by this induced development would be
quite small as well. This conclusion is borne out by the quantitative ICE
results. For example, when comparing trip productions and attractions
between the BaseYear and the 2040 Build and No-Build Scenarios, the
compounded annual growth rate varies by one-tenth of one percent
(ICE Memo No. 4).
A three-tiered approach was used within the quantitative ICE anal-
ysis. Tier One examined traffic and mobility conditions at the FLUSA
level; Tier Two examined conditions at a more refined, corridor level;
and Tier Three examined conditions at a detailed, individual link level.
This approach allowed for macro level, meso (intermediate) level, and
micro level examinations of the differences between the 2040 No-Build
and 2040 Build model runs. For each Tier, traffic and mobility conditions
were screened at various levels using CAMPO's regional traffic model
(TRM version 5). A summary of the tiers used to assess the differences
between the model runs within the FLUSA boundary is provided below.
The Tier One analysis of FLUSA-level traffic conditions showed that even
though the amount of travel slightly increased in the 2040 Build sce-
nario, the level of congestion decreased.
The Tier Two analysis of aggregate corridor-level traffic conditions
within the FLUSA resulted in the same general findings. Overall, the
majority of corridors experienced compounded annual growth rates
of less than one percent difference when comparing the 2015 to 2040
No-Build and 2015 to 2040 Build scenario results. The analysis showed
increased traffic and congestion in the 2040 Build scenario on corridors
that connect with the project and reduced congestion on roads that
parallel it.
The Tier Three analysis focused on roadway segments projected to be
heavily congested in the 2040 Build scenario. The results indicated that
compared with the 2040 No-Build, these congested conditions would
develop regardless of whether the Complete 540 project is built.
Costs—The Preferred Alternative is estimated to cost between $2.0
billion and $2.3 billion, with a planning level estimate of $2.24 billion in
anticipated year-of-expenditure dollars. This represents an increase
of approximately 2.7 percent, or $58 million, over the estimated cost of
$2.18 billion reported in the Draft EIS for DSA 2. The change is the result
of updated design plans, which led to updated cost estimates for con-
struction, right-of-way, utility relocations, and environmental mitigation.
The project implementation schedules for all phases have also been
adjusted to meet current expectations. The total project cost estimate
includes construction of the project ($1.58 billion), right-of-way acquisi-
tion and relocation ($322 million), utility relocation ($61 million), agency
expenses and reserve funds ($156 million), environmental mitigation
($65 million), and prior expenditures ($53 million).
Toll Revenues — NCDOT estimated the anticipated toll revenue that the
proposed project would generate and the effect the project would have
on toll revenues from the existing Triangle Expressway.
Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources — Imple-
mentation of the Preferred Alternative would require the irretrievable and
irreversible commitment of a wide range of natural, physical, human,
and fiscal resources.
Land used for the construction of the proposed project is considered an
irreversible commitment during the time period that the land is used for
highway purposes. If, however, a greater need arises, or if the highway
is no longer needed, the land could be converted to another use. At
present, there is no reason to believe such a conversion would be nec-
essary or desirable.
63
Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and highway construction
materials such as cement, aggregate, and bituminous material would
be expended in constructing the project. Additionally, a large amount
of labor and natural resources would be required in the fabrication and
preparation of construction materials. While these resources are gen-
erally irretrievable, they are not in short supply and their use would not
have an adverse effect on their continued availability.
The commitment to expend these resources is weighed against the
knowledge that residents in the immediate area, region, and state would
benefit from the resulting improvements to the transportation system.
These benefits would consist of improved accessibility and connectivity,
shorter travel times, and increased availability of services—all of which
are seen as outweighing the irretrievable use of resources.
In addition to the documents referenced in the Draft EIS, more
detailed information on the environmental impacts of the Preferred
Alternative can be found in the following technical reports:
• Utility Analysis and Routing Report (preliminary) (July 2017)
• Archaeological Survey Report (September 2017)
• Traffic Noise Report Addendum (December 2017)
• Right-of-Way and Relocation Report (December 2017)
• Air Quality Analysis Report Addendum (December 2017)
• Dwarf Wedgemussel Viability Study (May 2016)
• Lower Swift Creek Water Quality Report (February 2016)
• Aquatic Species Survey Report (June 2017)
• Biological Assessment of Potential Effects to Federally Listed Species
(December 2017)
• Biological Assessment for Potential Effects to the Atlantic Sturgeon and
Critical Habitat (under development).
Relationship between Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts—The
most disruptive short-term impacts associated with the proposed
project would occur during land acquisition and project construction
and would include the short-term uses of human, physical, and natural
resources. However, because the projectwould contribute to long-term
productivity in the region, the short-term impacts are seen as required
to achieve the longer-term benefits.
The project is consistent with the long range transportation goals and
objectives of the NCDOT 2018-2027 STIP and the CAMPO 2040 Metro-
politan Transportation Plan, and NCDOT and FHWA expect that it would
enhance long-term access and connectivity opportunities in the area
and would support local, regional, and statewide commitments to trans-
portation improvement and economic viability.
• Jurisdictional Resources and Protected Species Review of Access
Roads Memorandum (September 2017)
• Michaux's Sumac Survey Memorandum (June 2017)
• Historic Growth Memorandum (November 2017)
• Memorandum on Local Jurisdiction Outreach and Methodology Updates
(Quantitative ICE Assessment Memo #1)(November 2017)
• Memorandum on Land Use Scenario Methodology and Results
(Quantitative ICE Assessment Memo #2) (November 2017)
• Memorandum on Water Quality Modeling Methodology and Results
(Quantitative ICE Assessment Memo #3) (November 2017)
• Indirect and Cumulative Effects Memorandum (Quantitative ICE
Assessment Memo #4) (November 2017)
Planning Level Traffic and Revenue Study (May 2017)
Chapter 5 contains a summary of each technical report incorpo-
rated as part of the Draft EIS and this Final EIS, including the docu-
ments listed here.
64 Complete 540 Final Environmental Impact Statement — December �017
TRAFFIC FORECAST AND ANALYSIS UPDATE
The screening of alternatives and the project-level traffic forecast were
updated in light of a newversion of the Triangle's regional travel demand
model and the new 2040 No-Build land use scenario prepared for the
quantitative ICE analysis. The ability of each of the alternative concepts
to meet the project's primary purposes was subsequently re-examined.
In addition, the effects on traffic conditions in the study area and envi-
ronmental impacts re-examined, based on the revised traific forecast.
Project Purposes and Screening Alternative Concepts — Early in
the study several different concepts were screened using measures of
effectiveness from the regional model to see if they could adequately
meet the two primary purposes of the project: improving mobility and
reducing traffic congestion. The result of that screening was that most
of these alternative concepts were found not to adequately meet the
project purposes. Once the study's quantitative indirect and cumulative
effects analysis was completed, this screening process was carried out
again, as a check to see if these revised regional model inputs would
alter the previous conclusions. The screening examined the following
alternative concepts:
No-Build (/CE)—Also includes all future CAMPO roadway and transit
projects without Complete 540, but, for this concept only, the socio-
economic data from the project's quantitative indirect and cumulative
effects study was used in place of the CAMPO model's official socio-
economic data.
No-Build—I ncl udes all future CAMPO roadway and transit projects, but
without Complete 540.
New Location Highway—Includes all CAMPO roadway and transit net-
works with Complete 540 included, as a toll facility.
Hybrid Concepts 1, 2, and 3—These concepts include all future CAMPO
roadway and transit projects, with various portions of the Complete 540
project in place, used in conjunction with upgrades to existing facilities.
Upgrade Existing Roadway Concepts 1, 2, and 3—These concepts
include all future CAMPO roadway and transit projects, along with
improvements to additional existing transportation facilities beyond
those in the long-range transportation plan, but not the Complete 540
project.
Mass Transit—Attempting to meet the project's primary purposes
through the use of bus or rail facilities.
Travel Demand Management(TDM)—Attempting to meet the project's
primary purposes by seeking to reduce travel on (demand for) the local
roadway network during peak travel times.
Transportation System Management (TSM)—Attempting to meet
the project's primary purposes by implementing various techniques
intended to increase the efficiency of the existing roadway network
during peak travel times.
Using the new No-Build ICE data as a baseline, the updated screening
showed that only the New Location Highway concept would adequately
meet both of the project's primary purposes.
Preferred Alternative Traffic Analysis — The updated project-level
traffic forecast was also used to assess how well the proposed proj-
ect's interchanges would function, and if there would be any problems
or deficiencies on existing or future major roadways and intersections
caused by the proposed project. The results of this assessment are
presented below.
Roadway segments—The assessment showed that nearly all major
roadway segments in and near the project study area would operate at
acceptable levels of service. This includes all new segments along the
Complete 540 project.
Intersections—The vast majority of the intersections analyzed would
operate at acceptable levels of service. For the few underperforming
intersections, improvements were considered as part of the Preferred
Alternative's preliminary design.
65
Interchanges—Except at one interchange, all interchange ramps and
merge-diverge conditions would operate at an acceptable level of
service. For this one interchange, improvements were considered as
part of the Preferred Alternative's preliminary design.
In addition to the documents referenced in the Draft EIS,
more detailed information on study's traffic forecasting and
analyses can be found in the following technical reports:
• Project Level Traffic Forecast (October 2016)
• Preferred Alternative Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum
(July 2017)
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic
Reassessment (December 2017)
Chapter 5 contains a summary of each technical report
incorporated as part of the Draft EIS and this Final EIS,
including the documents listed here.
IMPACT TABLES
Once the various avoidance and minimization techniques were applied
to the Preferred Alternative (DSA 2 in the Draft EIS), NCDOT updated
the impact calculations for it. The resulting information was divided into
groups that correspond to the three segments listed in the current STIP
for this project:
• Project R-2721 (from NC 55 Bypass to US 401),
• Project R-2828 (from US 401 to I-40), and
• Project R-2829 (from I-40 to US 64/US 264 (I-495)).
The resource categories for natural systems are shown in an impact
table prepared for the Preferred Alternative, organized around these
three STIP projects.
Two NCDOT projects that would widen and improve portions of I-40
(I-5111 and I-4739) would overlap parts of the Complete 540 project.
Because NCDOT expects these two projects to be constructed prior
to Complete 540, some of the improvements along I-40 needed for the
540 project would already be in place, and their associated impacts
already addressed, by the time construction would begin for Complete
540. While Table 2 shows the overall impacts of Complete 540 in its
entirety, Table 3 shows what the Complete 540 impacts would be with
the two other projects' impacts subtracted.
66 Complete 540 Final Environmental Impact Statement - December �017
Table 2
Preferred Alternative Impacts on Natural Systems
(organized by STIP projects)
STIP Project Streams Buffer Buffer Non- 100 Yr 500 Yr
Streams Wetlands Wetlands Riparian Ponds Ponds Floodway
and Category (Linear Zone 1 Zone 2 Riparian Flood Flood
ID Number Feet) �Each) (qcres) (Acres) (A�res) (Each) (Acres) (A�res) (Acres) (Each) (Acres) (qcres) (Acres)
Nc 55 Func. Design 18,891 45 26.33 16.72 28.96 47 24.28 4.68 5.18 8 9.14 17.16 18.76
Bypass to Prelim. Design 19,057 48 27.36 17.71 29.67 50 27.21 2.46 5.46 7 8.47 15.70 17.27
U5401 Difference 167 3 1.03 0.99 0.71 3.00 2.93 -2.22 0.28 -1 -0.67 -1.46 -1.49
(rt-z7zi) percent Difference 0.88% 6.67% 3.91% 5.92% 2.45% 638% 12.07% -47.44°/a 5.41% -12.50% -734% -8.48% -7.94%
Func. Design 29,850 55 43.83 28.22 25.79 58 24.68 1.11 9.12 15 0.23 14.27 18.48
U5 401 to prelim. Design 23,929 47 34.40 22.72 20.87 53 20.22 0.64 8.84 14 0.08 11.40 15.00
I-4o
(R_ZgZg) Difference -5,921 -8 -9.43 -5.50 -4.92 -5.00 -4.46 -0.47 -0.28 -1 -0.15 -2.87 -3.48
Percent Difference -19.84% -14.55°/a -21.52% -19.49% -19.09% -8.62% -18.06% -42.08% -3.07°/a -6.67% -64.79% -20.13% -18.85%a
I-4oto Func. Design 17,069 39 24.99 17.35 19.58 44 18.28 1.31 6.74 15 8.20 34.43 44.44
U564/US264 Prelim.Design 16,547 45 25.19 17.64 18.96 53 17.74 1.22 10.34 18 6.83 34.10 43.90
Bypass (I-a95) Difference -522 6 0.20 0.29 -0.62 9.00 -0.54 -0.09 3.60 3 -1.37 -0.33 -0.54
(R-2829) percent Difference -3.06% 15.38% 0.80% 1.67% -3.17% 20.45% -2.95% -6.87% 53.41% 20.00% -16.69% -0.95% -1.21%
Totals
Func. Design
Prelim. Design
Difference
Percent Difference
65,810
-6,277
-9.54%
139 95.15 62.29
140 86.95 58.07
1 -8.20 -4.22
0.72% -8.62% -6.77%
74.33 149.00 67.24 7.10
69.50 156.00 65.17 4.32
-4.83 7.00 -2.07 -2.78
-6.50% 4.70% -3.07% -39.11%
21.04 38
24.64 39
3.60 1
17.11% 2.63%
Note: Functional Design impacts were computed using slope stakes +40 ft• Preliminary Design impacts were computed using slope stakes +25 ft.
Note: This table shows the difference in project impacts between the earlrer functional design and the current preliminary design. A negative number indicates
a reduction in impacts, a positive defta is an increase in impacts.
17.57
15.38
-2.19
-12.45%
65.86 81.69
61.21 76.18
-4.66 -5.51
-7.07% -6.75%
67
Table 3
Preferred Alternative Impacts on Natural Systems,
(Excluding Impacts of Overlapping Projects)
(organized by STIP projects)
STIP Projea Streams Buffer Buffer Non- 100 Yr 500 Yr
Streams Wetlands Wetlands Riparian Ponds Ponds Floodway
and Category (Linear Zone 1 Zone 2 Riparian Flood Flood
ID number Feet) (Each) (qcres) (Acres) (A�res) (Each) (Acres) (Acres) (A�res) (Each) (Acres) �qcres) (Acres)
NC 55 Func. Design 18,891 45 26.33 16.72 28.96 47 24.28 4.68 5.18 8 9.14 17.16 18.76
Bypass to Prelim. Design 19,057 48 27.36 17.71 29.67 50 27.21 2.46 5.46 7 8.47 15.70 17.27
us aoi Difference 167 3 1.03 0.99 0.71 3.00 2.93 -2.22 0.28 -1 -0.67 -1.46 -1.49
(R-2721) percent Difference 0.88% 6.67% 3.91% 5.92% 2.45% 6.38% 12.07% -47.44% 5.41% -12.50% -734% -8.48% -7.94%
Func. Design 29,850 55 43.83 28.22 25.79 58 24.68 1.11 9.12 15 0.23 14.27 18.48
us aoi to Prelim. Design 20,070 45 29.20 19.19 20.61 47 20.00 0.61 8.84 14 0.08 11.40 15.00
1-40
(R_zgZg) Difference -9,780 -10 -14.63 -9.03 -5.18 -11.00 -4.68 -0.50 -0.28 -1 -0.15 -2.87 -3.48
Percent Difference -32.76% -18.18% -33.38% -32.00% -20.10% -18.97% -18.98% -45.09% -3.07% -6.67% -64.79% -20.13% -18.85°/a
I-aoto Func. Design 17,069 39 24.99 17.35 19.58 44 18.28 1.31 6.74 15 8.20 34.43 44.44
US 64/US 264 Prelim. Design 16,547 45 25.19 17.64 18.96 53 17.74 1.22 1034 18 6.83 34.10 43.90
sypass (i-a95) Difference -522 6 0.20 0.29 -0.62 9.00 -0.54 -0.09 3.60 3 -1.37 -0.33 -0.54
(R-Z8Z9) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PercentDifference -3.06/0 15.38/0 0.80/ 1.67/ -3.17/0 20.45/0 -2.95/0 -6.87/0 53.41/0 20.00/ -16.69/0 -0.95/0 -1.21/0
Totals
Func. Design 65,810 139 95.15 62.29
Prelim. Design 55,674 138 81.75 54.54
Difference -1Q136 -1 -13.40 -7J5
Percent Difference -15.40% -0.72% -14.08% -12.44%
7433 149.00 67.24 7.10
69Z4 150.00 64.95 4.29
-5.09 1.00 -2.29 -2.81
-6.85% 0.67% -3.41% -39.58%
21.04 38
24.64 39
3.60 1
17.11% 2.63%
Note: Functional Design impacts were computed using slope stakes +40 ft; Preliminary Design impacts were computed using slope stakes +25 ft.
Note: This table shows the difference in project impacts between the earlier functional design and the current preliminary design. A negative number indicates
a reduction in impacts, a positive delta is an increase in impacts.
Note: Overlapping projects include 1-5111 and 1-4739 along Interstate 40.
17.57 65.86 81.69
15.38 61.21 76.18
-2.19 -4.66 -5.51
-12.45% -7.07% -6.75%
68 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
CHAPTER 5
Summary ofTechnical Reports
This chapter presents more detail about the documents that have been
referenced throughout this Final EIS. It also provides information about
the ways those documents can be accessed, either in paper or electronic
form.
The primary purpose of this Final EIS is to explain how decisions about
the project were made and to present the information that was used to
make those decisions. The main body of this document is a summary
of this information; greater detail is contained in individual technical
reports prepared for this study. While those reports are considered to
be a part of this current document, they are not included in the main
body of text. Instead, they are incorporated by reference. The complete
set of reports can be found on the companion disk attached to printed
copies of this document and on the project's website, www.ncdot.gov/
projects/com plete540/.
Each of the reports have been reviewed and approved by NCDOT and
FHWA. As provided in the Council on Environmental Quality's guidance
on incorporation by reference, this Chapter identifies the referenced
materials and indicates the organization that prepared the documents.
Note: The documents listed below are grouped by topic. Those pre-
pared after selection of the Preferred Alternative are noted with a"New"
symbol (� ).
PURPOSE, ALTERNATIVES, AND DESIGN ELEMENTS
Purpose and Need Statement
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in May 2011
This report describes the proposed project and presents information
about why the project is needed, explaining the existing transportation
problems in the study area and the needs that the project will address.
71
Alternatives Development and Analysis Report
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in May 2014
This report summarizes the process the study team used to develop and
evaluate potential solutions to the needs identified in the Purpose and
Need Statement. These potential solutions are called alternatives. This
report also describes the identification of the set of alternatives selected
for detailed study in the project's Draft EIS.
Preferred Alternative Report ;�
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in April 2016
This report documents the selection of the Preferred Alternative, with
sections describing (1) agency, government, and public involvement as
it related to the selection process, (2) a summary of comments relevant
to the selection, and (3) efforts taken after the selection to minimize
impacts.
Service Road Study C��
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in May 2017
This report documents a study of the parcels along the Preferred Alter-
native that could lose access to existing roadways as a result of the
project. For each affected parcel, the study compared the anticipated
cost of providing property access with an estimate of the cost of parcel
acquisition.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Community Characteristics Report
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in May 2011
This report summarizes baseline conditions and trends in the commu-
nities within the project study area. This information provides the foun-
dation for the project's community impact assessment.
Community Impact Assessment
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in June 2015
This report evaluates the potential effects of the project and each of
the DSAs on the surrounding communities and on quality of life in
those communities. More specifically, this assessment documents the
potential direct effects of the project on several aspects of the human
environment, including social, physical and visual characteristics; land
use patterns and economic trends; mobility and access patterns; and
area neighborhoods. This report also includes recommendations for
avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating these potential effects. This report
includes information about the preliminary determination of Section
4(f) applicability to historic resources, parks and recreation areas in the
study area.
Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report
Completed by Mattson, Alexander and Associates in November 2014
This report documents the surveys completed for all the properties
within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project that were iden-
tified as either already listed on the Nationa! Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) or as potentially eligible for listing. NCDOT and the NC State
Historic Preservation Office (HPO) used this information to identify the
properties meeting eligibility criteria for the NRHP and to determine the
potential effects of each of the project's DSAs on the listed and eligible
historic properties.
Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of �:
the Preferred Alternative
Completed by �ommonwealth Heritage Group in September 2017
The archaeological survey and evaluation for the Preferred Alterna-
tive gave full consideration to the approximately 6,000 acres within the
project's Area of Potential Effect. The intensive investigations used a
combination of pedestrian surface survey, subsurface shovel testing,
and test unit excavation. This document reports on the various archae-
72 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
ological sites identified and an assessment of their significance. Within
the Preferred Alternative, one site has been recommended as eligible
for the NRHP.
Traffic Noise Analysis
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in May 2015
This report documents the analysis of the potential effects the traffic
anticipated for the project will have on noise conditions along each of
the DSAs. This analysis included a preliminary assessment of noise
abatement along the DSAs.
Traffic Noise Report Addendum `i� �
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in December 2017
This report documents the analysis of the effects of the project's antic-
ipated traffic on noise conditions along the Preferred Alternative. The
previous traffic noise analysis, completed for all the DSAs, was revised
to incorporate design refinements along the Preferred Alternative, new
traffic data, revised NCDOT traific noise policy, and additional develop-
ment in the project area. The report also documents a more detailed
analysis of noise abatement along the Preferred Alternative, identifying
locations where noise barriers were found to be both feasible and rea-
sonable and likely to be recommended for further consideration.
Right-of-Way and Relocation Report
Completed by HDR and H.W. Lochner, Inc. in March 2015
This reports summarizes the findings of the right-of-way and relocation
study completed for the project DSAs. This technical study identified
the number and type of parcels that will be involved in the right-of-way
acquisition process for each DSA, based on preliminary functional
designs, the number and type of relocations, and an estimate of the
right-of-way and relocation costs.
Right-of-Way and Relocation Report (update) r� =;;,
Completed by Carolina Land Acquisitions in December 2017
This reports summarizes the findings of the right-of-way and relocation
study completed for the Preferred Alternative. It identifies the number
and type of parcels that will be involved in the right-of-way acquisition
process, based on: the preliminary design plans, the number and type
of relocations, and an estimate of the right-of-way and relocation costs.
It updates the previous Right-of-Way and Relocation Report to refiect
the changes in the project since the previous evaluation was completed.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Air Quality Analysis Report
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in October 2015
This report documents the analysis of the potential air quality effects of
the traffic anticipated for the project's DSAs. This analysis was com-
pleted in compliance with the federal Clean Air Act, in accordance with
federal regulations and guidelines.
Air Quality Analysis Report (update) �:_ �;�
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in December 2017
This report builds upon the Air QualityAnalysis Report completed in 2015
for the Draft EIS, summarizing the updated evaluation of the potential
air quality effects of traffic anticipated for the Preferred Alternative. The
evaluation incorporated new traffic data and the redesignation of both
Wake and Johnston Counties to attainment for all criteria air pollutants.
Natural Resources Technical Report
Completed by Mulkey (now Calyx) Engineers and Consultants in August 2014
The purpose of this report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the
various natural resources likely to be impacted by each of the DSAs
73
under consideration. The report documents the results of various
field surveys completed to gather necessary information on natural
resources in the vicinity of the DSAs. Natural resources addressed in
the report include water resources, terrestrial habitat, and protected
species.
Waters Report
Completed by Mulkey (now Calyx) Engineers and Conslutants in
September 2014
This report documents the field delineation of jurisdictional water
resources in the vicinity of the DSAs. These resources include wetlands,
streams, and ponds.
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Completed by The Catena Group (now Three Oaks Engineering,
Inc.) in February 2012
This report documents the field surveys completed for the Dwarf
Wedgemussel and other rare freshwater mussel species in the streams
in the project study area. It also documents habitat evaluations com-
pleted during these field surveys.
Dwarf Wedgemussel Viability Study: Phase I
Completed by The Catena Group (now Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.)
in March 2014
This report documents the first phase of a study being conducted to
assess the long-term viability of the Dwarf Wedgemussel in Swift Creek.
This work included three main elements: (1) describing existing condi-
tions in Swift Creek, (2) summarizing existing conservation measures
for the Dwarf Wedgemussel in Swift Creek, and (3) assessing historic
trends and future viability of the Dwarf Wedgemussel.
Northern Long-Eared Bat Section 7 Documentation
Prepared by USFWS, USACE, FHWA, and NCDOT in July 2015
This document is a compliation of materials related to coordination
efforts concerning the recently protected (April 2015) Northern Long-
Eared Bat. These materials include a Programmatic Biological Opinion
for this bat species in eastern North Carolina (NCDOT Divisions 1- 8).
Dwarf Wedgemussel Viability Study �
Completed by Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. in May 2016
This report documents a technical study with three key purposes: (1)
to characterize existing water quality and Dwarf Wedgemussel habitat
conditions of the Swift Creek watershed, (2) to summarize conservation
measures that have already been implemented to protect the Dwarf
Wedgemussel in the Swift Creek watershed, and (3) to assess historic
trends and future viability of the Dwarf Wedgemussel population and
habitat conditions in Swift Creek.
Lower Swift Creek Water Quality Report �'�
Completed by Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. in February 2016
This report documents a study of existing water quality conditions in the
Swift Creek watershed. It was a component of the larger Dwarf Wedge-
mussel viability study described above.
Aquatic Species Survey Report r� ��
Completed by Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. in June 2017
After publication of the Draft EIS for Complete 540, USFWS proposed
adding theYellow Lance (a freshwater mussel) to the federally protected
species list as a threatened species. USFWS is also currently evaluat-
ing whether to propose adding three additional aquatic species to the
federal protected species list: the Atlantic Pigtoe (a freshwater mussel),
Carolina Madtom (a fish), and Neuse River Waterdog (a salamander).
74 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December z017
This report documents the results of field surveys for these species in
the project's FLUSA and for Dwarf Wedgemussel in parts of the FLUSA
not previously surveyed.
Jurisdictional Resources and Protected Species Review ����
of Access Roads
Completed by HDR, Inc. in September 2017
The purpose of this memorandum is to inventory, catalog, and describe
the various jurisdictional resources potentially effected by service roads
associated with the Preferred Alternative for the Complete 540 project.
The memorandum serves as an addendum to the Natural Resources
Technical Report and the Waters Report for the project. Jurisdictional
resources addressed in this memorandum include water resources,
wetlands, and protected species.
Michaux's Sumac Survey r!� �
�ompleted by HDR, Inc. in June 2017
The purpose of this memorandum is to update the status of this feder-
ally protected species in the Preferred Alternative. The memorandum
serves as an addendum to the Natural Resources Technical Report for
the project.
Biological Assessment of Potential Effects to �
Federally Listed Species
Completed by Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. in December 2017
This document is a component of the Endangered Species Act, Section
7, consultation process with USFWS for protected species in the species'
action area. The report documents NCDOT's and FHWA's conclusions
about the potential effects of the Preferred Alternative on each of the
protected species in the project's action area.
Biological Assessment of Potential Effects to �
the Atlantic Sturgeon and Critical Habitat
Under development by Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
This document is a component of the Endangered Species, Section 7,
consultation process with NMFS for Atlantic Sturgeon designated criti-
cal habitat in the species' action area. The report documents NCDOT's
and FHWA's conclusions about the potential effects of the Preferred
Alternative on this protected species.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Preliminary Hydraulics Study for Environmental Impact
and Addendum
Completed by Mulkey (now Calyx) Engineers and Consultants in September
2014; Addendum completed by Mulkey (now Calyx) Engineers and Consultants
in February 2015
These reports document the findings of the preliminary hydraulic study
completed for the project DSAs. This included identification of all loca-
tions along the DSAs that would require hydraulic structures 72 inches in
diameter or greater, based on hydrologic conditions and requirements.
The reports indicate the size and type of hydraulic structure needed at
each site to convey water across the DSAs.
GeoEnvironmental Report for Planning
Completed by NCDOT in June 2014
This report documents the results of a hazardous material evaluation
conducted along the project's DSAs. The purpose was to identify prop-
erties along the DSAs that are or may be contaminated by hazardous
materials. Hazardous material impacts include, but are not limited to,
75
active and abandoned underground storage tank sites, vehicle repair
and salvage sites, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills, and unreg-
ulated dumpsites.
Utility Impact Report
Completed by Hinde Engineering in November 2014
This report summarizes the general location, dimension and character-
istics of major utilities found within the vicinity of the project DSAs. The
report documents individual utility and some non-utility confiicts where
the potential relocation cost was anticipated to exceed $250,000.
Utility Analysis and Routing Report (preliminary) �
Completed by Hinde Engineering in July 2017
This report documents the potential conflicts of the Preferred Alternative
with existing utility infrastructure. It also provides utility contact infor-
mation and potential utility relocation routing. Cost estimates for utility
impacts are included in this report.
TRAFFIC ANALYSES
Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report
Completed by HNTB North Carolina, P.C. in December 2009
This report documents the planning-level traffic capacity analysis com-
pleted to predict conditions on the area roadway network under the
Build scenario for this project. The report identifies existing and pro-
jected roadway facility operations and deficiencies for the major road-
ways surrounding the Complete 540 project under existing and future
(2035) Build conditions. This analysis used a representative alignment
for the Complete 540 project.
No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report
Completed by HNTB North Carolina, P.C. in December 2009
This report documents the planning-level traffic capacity analysis com-
pleted to predict conditions on the area roadway network under the
No-Build scenario. The report identifies existing and projected roadway
facility operations and deficiencies for the major roadways surrounding
the Complete 540 project under existing and future (2035) No-Build
conditions.
First Tier Screening Traffic Memorandum
Completed by HNTB North Carolina, P.C. in June 2011
This memorandum provided future (2035) traffic data for use in the first
tier screening of alternative concepts. It can be found in Appendix A fo
the Alternatives Development and Analysis Report.
Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum
Completed by HNTB North Carolina, P.C. in April 2014
This report documents traffic forecasts completed for the seventeen
DSAs under existing and future (2035) conditions. The purpose of this
report was to provide forecast traffic volumes and other traific charac-
teristics under each of the DSA scenarios.
Detailed Study Alternatives Traffic Analysis Technical
Memorandum
Completed by HNTB North Carolina, P.C. in February 2015
This report documents the traffic capacity analysis completed for the 17
DSAs under existing and future (2035) conditions. The purpose of this
analysis was to identify projected operations and potential deficiencies
for the major roadways surrounding and intersecting each of the DSAs.
Project Level Traffic Forecast
Completed by HNTB North Carolina, P.C. in October Z016 `� �a a
This report documents the traffic forecast completed for the Preferred
Alternative, which included forecasts of existing (base year No-Build
and base year Build) and future (future year Build) traffic conditions.
The previous forecast, documented in the April 2014 Traffic Forecast
Technical Memorandum, was prepared using the year 2035 as the
"future" condition for projected traffic. The October 2016 document
76 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
used the year 2040 as the "future" condition and used the CAMPO TRM,
version 5.
Preferred Alternative Traffic Analysis Technical i�� �
Memorandum
Completed by HNTB North Carolina, P.C. in July 2017
This report documents the traffic capacity analysis completed for the
Preferred Alternative under existing and future (2040) conditions. The
previous traffic analysis, completed in February 2015, examined all the
DSAs with forecast 2035 traffic as the future condition. The analysis
documented in the July 2017 technical memorandum used the traffic
forecasts generated for the October 2016 Project Level Traffic Forecast,
with forecast 2040 traffic as the future condition. The purpose of this
analysis was to identify projected operations for the major roadways
surrounding the Preferred Alternative under the Build scenario.
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening �i�`:'
and Traffic Reassessment
Completed by HNTB North Carolina, P.C. in December 2017
This report updates previous first tier screening of alternatives based on
the updated Triangle Regional Model for 2040, version 5. Prior screen-
ing was based on version 4 for 2035. The updated first tier alternative
concepts screening was performed using new information from the
quantitative indirect and cumulative effects memos, and the updated
model, to refresh the previous evaluation.
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in December 2014
This report qualitatively evaluates the project's potential to cause envi-
ronmental effects as a result of induced growth, as well as the potential
incremental impacts of the project when added to other past, present,
or reasonablyforeseeable public and private projects. Note: a quantita-
tive assessment of indirect and cumulative effects was later completed
for the Preferred Alternative.
Historic Growth Memorandum �
Completed by Michael Baker International in November 2017
To supplement the qualitative assessment of indirect and cumulative
effects conducted prior to publishing the Draft EIS, this study, reported
in a series of inemorandums, includes a quantitative assessment of the
potential indirect and cumulative effects of the project on land use and
water quality in the surrounding area. This memo examines historic
demographic trends that may infiuence existing or future regional pop-
ulation and employment growth trends.
Memorandum on Local Jurisdiction Outreach and ,1 '�
Methodology Updates (Quantitative ICE Assessment Memo #7)
Completed by Michael Baker International in November 2017
This memo outlines the methodology used in the Quantitative ICE anal-
ysis to forecast land use changes in the FLUSA between 2010 and 2040
with and without the Complete 540 project. The outputs of the land
use forecasts were used in the quantitative ICE assessment and the
water quality indirect and cumulative Impacts (ICI) assessment for the
Preferred Alternative.
Memorandum on Land Use Scenario Methodology and a�.
Results (Quantitative ICE Assessment Memo #2)
Completed by Michael Baker International in November 2017
The purpose of this memorandum is to follow up on approaches sum-
marized in Quantative ICE Assessment Memo #1 and describe how
those outputs were used to forecast land use and land cover changes
between base year and future year 2040 Build and No-Build scenarios.
This memo calculates the potential land use and land cover changes in
the FLUSA using the data from the CommunityViz analyses.
77
Memorandum on Water Quality Modeling Methodology r�
and Results (Quantitative I�E Assessment Memo #3)
Completed by Michael Baker International in November 2017
This memo describes the methodology and results of the water quality
ICI, including the inputs and methods used in the water quality model-
ing. The ICI combines collected data with CommunityViz model output
from Quantitative ICE Assessment Memo #2, via a watershed model, to
estimate the water quality impacts that may occur as indirect and cumu-
lative effects from planned and anticipated development in the FLUSA
with and without the construction of the proposed facility.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Memorandum ���
(Quantitative ICE Assessment Memo #4)
Completed by Michael Baker International in November 2017
This memo describes the indirect and cumulative effects to land use,
traffic, and water quality based on the development of 2040 No-Build
and 2040 Build land use scenarios. This memo consolidates and syn-
thesizes the results of Quantitative ICE Assessment Memoranda #1, 2,
and 3.
TOLL REVENUE STUDY
Planning Level Traffic and Revenue Study I�
Completed by CDM Smith in May 2017
This report provides the data necessary for NCDOT to prepare an
updated traffic and toll revenue forecast for the existing Triangle
Expressway and to forecast toll revenues for Complete 540 under the
Build scenario.
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Stakeholder Involvement Report
Completed by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in March 2015
The purpose of this report is to document coordination with the public,
local governments, and the resource and regulatory agencies during
the course of the project, up to publication of the Draft EIS. The report
summarizes public involvement techniques used during the study and
input received from the public and local governments, and also docu-
ments interagency coordination and agency input.
Stakeholder Involvement Report (update) �
Updated by H.W. Lochner, Inc. in December 2017
This is an update and expansion of the Stakeholder Involvement Report
published at the time of the Draft EIS. The purpose of this report is to
document coordination with the public, local governments, and the
resource and regulatory agencies during the course of the project. The
report summarizes input received from the public and local govern-
ments, describes interagency coordination and agency input, and pro-
vides responses to comments received relative to the Draft EIS.
78 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
CHAPTER 6
List of Preparers and EIS Distribution
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the study team members, their qualifications,
and their roles on the Complete 540 study. This chapter also documents the agencies
that have received a copy of this Final EIS for review and comment.
LIST OF PREPARERS
This document was prepared by the FHWA and NCDOT, with assistance from a
team of consulting engineers, scientists, and planners led by H.W. Lochner, Inc.
and HNTB North Carolina, P.C. This team includes the individuals listed on the
following pages, using the format shown below.
Format for Preparer Information
Name
Study Team Title
Education
Years of Experience
Role in Complete 540 Study
Asterisk (�) denotes that the individual is no longer an employee of the organization listed
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
George Hoops, P.E.
Major Projects Engineer
M.S. Transportation Engineering
B.S. Civil Engineering
25 years
Project management; document review (Draft EIS)
Donnie Brew
Environmental Coordinator
M.S. Environmental Engineering
B.S. Civil Engineering
16 years
Project management; document review (Draft and Final EIS)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Eric Midkiff, P.E.*
Project Development Section Head, Central Region
B.S. Civil Engineering
27 years
Project management; document review (Draft EIS)
Brian Yamamoto, P.E.
Project Management Group
B.S. Civil Engineering
28 years
Project management; document review (Final EIS)
Nora McCann
Assistant Project Manager
B.S. Civil Engineering
20 years
Document review (Final EIS)
Deanna Riffey
Environmental Program Consultant
M.S. Environmental Health Science
B.S. Biology
21 years
Natural systems review
Jim Hauser
Environmental Supervisor II
M.S. Forestry
B.S. Forestry
22 years
Indirect and cumulative effects review
Jared Gray
Environmental Supervisor II
B.S. Environmental Science
19 years
Protected species review
HNTB NORTH CAROLINA, P.C.
Kiersten Bass
Planning Services Manager
B.A. Planning and Environmental Studies
25 years
Project management; document review
Jennifer Harris, P.E., CPM
Senior Project Manager
B.S. Civil Engineering
B.S. Environmental Engineering
19 years
Project management; document review
Bradley Reynolds, P.E.*
Transportation Section Manager
M.B.A. BusinessAdministration
B.S. Civil Engineering
15 years
Traffic forecasting analysis
Kenneth Gilland
Senior Project Manager
B.A. Geology
28 years
Indirect and cumulative effects assessment
82 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December z017
John Burris
Senior Transportation Planner
M.S. Urban and Regional Planning
B.S. Geography
14 years
Traffic forecasting and analysis
Donna Keener, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
B.S. Civil Engineering
29 years
Project cost estimating
Tracy Roberts, AICP
Senior Project Manager
M.P.A. PublicAdministration
23 years
Air quality and traffic noise analysis document review
H.W. LOCHNER, INC.
Roy Bruce, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
M.S. Civil Engineering
B.S. Civil Engineering
40 years
Project management; document preparation; impact analysis
Kristin Maseman, AICP, CEP
Project Manager
M.R.P. Urban Planning
M.S. Biology; B.A Biology
18 years
Project management; document preparation; impact analysis
Jeffrey Schlotter, AICP
Senior Project Manager
M.A. Cultural Anthropology
B.S. Urban Planning
32 years
Lead document writer; NEPA analysis
Brian Eason, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
B.S. Civil Engineering
26 years
Roadway design; impact analysis
Douglas Wheatley, P.E.*
Transportation Engineer
B.S. Civil Engineering
12 years
Roadway design; impact analysis
David Shannon, P.E.
Senior Engineer
B.S. Civil Engineering
22 years
Noise and air quality impact analysis
Erica Salutz, P.E.*
Engineer
B.S. Civil Engineering
12 years
Noise and air quality impact analysis
Christina Yokeley, EI
Engineer
B.S. Civil Engineering
5 years
Roadway design
MATTSON, ALEXANDER AND ASSOCIATES
Richard Mattson
Architectural Historian
Ph.D. Geography
M.A. Geography
B.A. History
24 years
Historic architectural surveys and analysis; document preparation
83
Frances Alexander
Architectural Historian
M.A. American Civilization-Architectural History
B.A. History
24 Years
Historic architectural surveys and analysis; document preparation
COMMONWEALTH HERITAGE GROUP, INC.
Susan Bamann, Ph.D., RPA
Principal Investigator/Project Manager
B.A., M.A., and Ph.D., Anthropology
30 years
Archaeological investigations and technical report
Joseph Stair, M.A., RPA
Project Archaeologist
B.A. and M.A., Anthropology
10 years
Archaeological investigations and technical report
Rhiannon Jones, RPA
Field Director
B.A. Archaeology; M.A., Anthropology
10 years
Archaeological investigations and technical report
Amy Krull, M.A.
Crew Chief
B.A. and M.A., Anthropology
7 years
Archaeological investigations and technical report
D. Allen Poyner
GIS Coordinator
Certificate in Geographic Information Science
10 years
Archaeological investigations and technical report
Amanda Stamper, M.A.
Analyst
B.S. Public History, B.A. and M.A., Anthropology
7 years
Archaeological investigations and technical report
CALYX (FORMERLY MULKEY) ENGINEERS AND
CONSULTANTS
Wendee Smith, PWS*
Senior Project Manger
B.S. Natural Resources
18 years
Natural resources surveys and analysis; document preparation
Mark Mickley
Biologist
B.S. Biology
15 years
Natural resources surveys and analysis; document preparation
Brian Dustin
Biologist
B.S. Forestry
13 years
Natural resources surveys and analysis; document preparation
Jonathan Scarce, P.E.*
Senior Project Manager
B.S. Civil Engineering
26 years
Hydraulic surveys and analysis; document preparation
HDR, INC.
Jane Nelson*
Right-of-Way Program Manager
B.A. Business Administration
33 years
Right-of-way and relocation surveys and analysis; document preparation
Vickie Miller, AICP, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist
B.S. Environmental Sciences
M.S. Natural Resources
16 years
Natural resources surveys; documentation preparation
84 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
Sara Easterly
Senior Environmental Scientist
B.S. in Biology
M.S. in Environmental Health Science
17 years
Natural resources surveys; documentation preparation
Jessica Tisdale, CE
Environmental Scientist
B.S. in Environmental Science
M.S. in Forestry
12 years
Natural resources surveys; documentation preparation
HINDE ENGINEERING
Kevin Hinde, P.E.
Project Engineer
B.S. Civil Engineering
18 years
Utility relocation analysis; document preparation
Mike Davis
Senior Utility Coordinator
A.A.S. Civil Eng. Technology
41 years
Utility relocation analysis; document preparation
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
Lorna Parkins, AICP
Vice President, Transportation Planning
B.A. Urban Affairs and Planning
M.S. Applied Economics
29 years
Indirect and cumulative land use analysis
Emaly Simone
Environmental Planner
B.S. Geology
18 years
Indirect and cumulative land use analysis
Susan Manes
Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner
B.A. Economics
M.S. Parks, Recreation, Tourism Management
30 Years
Indirect and cumulative land use analysis
Scudder Wagg, AICP"
Technical Manager II
B.A. History and Political Science
M.A. Regional and Urban Planning
11 years
Indirect and cumulative land use analysis
William Kerr, AICP
Senior Planner
B.A. Political Science
M.A. Urban and Regional Planning
10 Years
Indirect and cumulative land use analysis
Sabu Paul, Ph.D., P.E., PMP
Senior Technical Manager
B.Tech., Agricultural Engineering
M.Tech. Water Resources Development and Management
Ph.D. Biological and Agricultural Engineering
16 years
Indirect and cumulative water quality analysis
THREE OAKS ENGINEERING, INC. (FORMERLY THE
CATENA GROUP)
Michael Wood
Principal
M.S. Soil Science
B.S. Recreation Management
31 years
Aquatic species surveys; biological assessment document
Nancy Scott
Environmental Scientist
M.E.M. Water Resources
B.S. Environmental Science
11 years
Aquatic species surveys; biological assessment document
85
Tim Savage
Environmental Supervisor
M.S. Marine Biology/Biological Oceanography
B.S. Biology
Aquatic species surveys; biological assessment document
CAROLINA LAND ACQUISITION
Russell J. Hawke, III
Principal/Owner
B.S. Business Administration
28 years
Right-of-way and relocation cost estimates
Bradley Bowers
Principal/Owner
B.A. Communications
28 years
Right-of-way and relocation cost estimates
86 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December z017
ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING COPIES OF THIS FINAL EIS
Federal Agencies
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• US Environmental Protection Agency
• US Department of Transportation
• US Department of the Interior
• US Department of the Interior — US Fish and Wildlife Service
• US Department of Commerce — National Marine Fisheries
Service
• US Department of Agriculture
• US Department of Energy
• Federal Railroad Administration
• Federal Emergency Management Agency
• Office of Management and Budget
State Agencies
NC Department of Commerce
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Economic and Community Development
NC Department of Environmental Quality
NC Department of Public Instruction
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Attorney General
NC State Clearinghouse
Local Governments and Agencies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
City of Raleigh
Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce
Harnett County Board of Commissioners
Johnston County Board of Commissioners
Johnston County Schools
Regional Transportation Alliance
Town of Angier
Town of Apex
Town of Cary
Town of Clayton
Town of Fuquay-Varina
Town of Garner
Town of Knightdale
Town of Holly Springs
Town of Wendell
Triangle J Council of Governments
Wake County Board of Commissioners
Wake County Public School System
87
References Cited
Chapter 7
' Weiner, Edward
Urban Transportation Planning in the United States: An Historical
Overview. 3rd ed. US Department of Transportation ( US Government
Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1988).
2 CAMPO
2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization: Raleigh, NC. http://www.campo-nc.us/
transportation-plan/2040-metropolitan-transportation-plan
3 National Environmental PolicyActof 1969.42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370h.
° Caldwell, Lynton
The National Environmental Policy Act: An Agenda for the Future
(1998). Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.
5 ibid.
6 ibid.
' National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969. 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370h.
8 ibid.
Chapter 2
' CAMPO
2035 Long Range Transportation Plans. Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization: Raleigh, NC, May 20, 2009.
2 North Carolina Department of Transportation
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report. Prepared as part of the
Complete 540 study by H.W. Lochner, Inc. July 2014.
Chapter 3
' Federal HighwayAdministration
NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: Public Involvement and
its Role in Project Development. Environmental Review Toolkit. n/d.
https://www. environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmpi_p_d.asp
Chapter 4
' Federal Highway Administration, NC Division
"Purpose and Need Guidance for FHWA-Funded Projects in North
Carolina." (Version 2, February 2009). https://connect.ncdot.gov/
projects/planning/TransPlanManuals/IP-NCPurposeNeedGuidance-
V2-Feb-09.pdf
2 Caldwell, Lynton
The National Environmental Policy Act: An Agenda for the Future
(1998). Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.
3 23 CFR 771.111(f)
(Environmental Impact and Related Procedures: Early coordination,
public involvement, and project development).
89
Index
540 outer loop ..................................................................................................................................... i, 7, 46
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ..................................................................................................... 49
affectedenvironment ..................................................................................................................................... i
airquality .................................................................................................................................................. 83
Apex................................................................................................................................ i, 1, 8, 14, 29, 45, 87
ArchaeologicalResources .........................................................................................................................v, vi
AtlanticSturgeon ....................................................................................................................... 60, 61, 64, 75
Auburn Knightdale Road .........................................................................................................13, 17, 19, 45, 47
Battle Bridge Road ......................................................................................................................10, 14, 17, 20
BeddingfieldCreek ................................................................................................................................ 10, 13
BellsLake Road ...............................................................................................................................13, 45, 48
Best Management Practices ..........................................................................................................................v
BrownfieldRoad ................................................................................................................................... 14, 21
BryanRoad Nature Park ........................................................................................................................ 20, 21
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) ............................1, 3, 8, 15, 30, 32, 46, 77, 87, 89, 97
Cary.................................................................................................................... vi, 8, 9, 10, 14, 29, 39, 50, 87
CatawbaIndian Nation ................................................................................................................................ 49
ChapelHill ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Clayton ......................................................................................................10, 13, 14, 28, 29, 45, 54, 61, 87, 97
Clemmons Educational State Forest .................................................................................. 10, 16, 17, 20, 21, 37
congestion....................................................................................................................................... i, 7, 8, 15
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) ..................................................................................................... i, 71
deminimis ...................................................................................................................................................vi
Durham..................................................................................................................................................9, 46
Dwarf Wedgemussel ................................................... ix, 13, 16, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 37, 53, 58, 59, 60, 64, 74, 75
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) .....................................................................................v, i, 71, 81, 87, 97
91
EndangeredSpecies Act ......................................................................................................................... v, 26
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) .........................................................................................87
FederalRegister ................................................................................................................................. 1, 5, 35
Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) ................ iii, iv, i, 1, 5, 22, 26, 30, 35, 43, 45, 50, 57, 61, 74, 75, 81, 82, 89
floodplain.................................................................................................................................. 10, 24, 47, 54
Fuquay-Varina ............................................................................................................. 8, 10, 16, 20, 24, 87, 97
Garner ................................................................................................... 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, 21, 23, 29, 39, 87, 97
HarnettCounty .......................................................................................................................... 16, 57, 58, 87
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) ..........................................................................................v, 21, 49, 72
Holly Springs ...........................................................................vi, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 20, 23, 24, 36, 45, 48, 87, 97
HollySprings Road ................................................................................................................................ 13, 45
hybridconcept ............................................................................................................................................15
I-40 ....................................................................3, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 28, 31, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 54, 66
I-440 ......................................................................................................................................................... 46
I-540 ......................................................................................................................................................... 45
Johnston County .................................................................... iii, iv, v, 8, 10, 13, 22, 25, 46, 52, 57, 58, 60, 73, 87
Knightdale.................................................................................................................................... i, 45, 87, 97
Lake Benson ................................................................................................... 10, 13, 16, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 37
LakeWheeler ..............................................................................................................................10, 13, 30, 49
levelof service .................................................................................................................................. 8, 22, 23
LittleCreek ...................................................................................................................................... 10, 13, 14
MassTransit ...............................................................................................................................................15
Metropolitan Transportation Plan .......................................................................................................... 3, 8, 89
Michaux's Sumac ...................................................................................................................... 13, 25, 57, 64
Middle Creek ......................................................................................... vi, 10, 13, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 50, 59
Middle Creek School Park ........................................................................................................................vi, 10
mobility............................................................................................................................i, 7, 8, 15, 22, 23, 72
Multi-Modal ................................................................................................................................................15
National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) .........................................................iii, iv, v, 3, 4, 5, 30, 43, 52, 83, 89
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) .........................................................................................37, 60, 61
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) ........................................................................vi, 20, 49, 50, 72, 73
NC42 ......................................................................................................................................... 8, 10, 22, 40
NC50 ............................................................................................................................... 8, 10, 13, 14, 45, 61
NC55 ..................................................................................................................................................... i, 45
NC 55 Bypass .....................................................................................................3, 8, 13, 14, 23, 29, 45, 53, 66
NC540 ...................................................................................................................................................... 45
92 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
NC Department of Environment and Naturai Resources (DENR) ......................................................................87
NC Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources .................................................24, 30, 37
NC Division of Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 30
NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) ................................................................... v, vi, vii, i, 26, 81, 89, 97
Neuse River ............................................vi, vii, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 37, 45, 47, 50, 60, 74
NeuseRiver Trail .....................................................................................................................................vi, 10
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) ....................................................................30, 37, 60
Northern Long-Eared Bat ...................................................................................................... 13, 25, 29, 58, 74
Noticeof Availability ................................................................................................................................... 35
OldStage Road ...............................................................................................................................13, 45, 48
outerloop ................................................................................................................................................ i, 46
PantherBranch School ..................................................................................................................................v
PlannedSunset Oaks Park ...........................................................................................................................21
PooleRoad ................................................................................................................................ 13, 45, 53, 62
PreferredAlternative ................................................................................................................................. v, vii
primarypurpose ....................................................................................................................................21, 71
primarypurposes .................................................................................................................................... 7, 15
PublicNotice ........................................................................................................................................ 36, 46
Raleigh ............................................................. vi, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27, 36, 45, 46, 47, 50, 61, 87, 89, 97
Randleigh Farm .................................................................................................................... 10, 16, 17, 23, 45
Recordof Decision ....................................................................................................................1, 5, 49, 57, 61
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker .............................................................................................................13, 25, 57
Regional Transportation Alliance .......................................................................................................32, 39, 87
Rock Quarry Road ................................................................................................................. 13, 14, 45, 53, 62
Rough-leaved Loosestrife ...................................................................................................................... 57, 58
RTA........................................................................................................................................................... 39
SaulsRoad ................................................................................................................................ 14, 16, 48, 49
secondarypurpose .............................................................................................................................. i, 7, 46
Section 4(f) ......................................................................................................................... vi, i, 10, 21, 45, 50
Section404 ..................................................................................................................................................v
sedimentation............................................................................................................................................ 26
SoutheastRegional Park ..............................................................................................................................10
Streams..........................................................................................................................................10, 23, 53
suburbandevelopment ................................................................................................................................. 9
SunsetLake Road ............................................................................................................................10, 20, 48
93
SunsetOaks ...............................................................................................................................................10
SunsetOaks Park ........................................................................................................................................10
Swift Creek ........................................... vi, 10, 13, 16, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 37, 45, 47, 53, 54, 58, 59, 61, 64, 74
Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area ...................................................................................................13, 24, 53
TarRiver Spinymussel ......................................................................................................................13, 25, 58
TenTen Road ............................................................................................................................. 14, 22, 36, 40
TerribleCreek .............................................................................................................................................13
toll, tolling ............................................................................................................................... i, 31, 32, 40, 78
trafficcongestion .............................................................................................................................. i, 7, 8, 15
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) .................................................................................................14
TriangleExpressway ............................................................................................................................iii, iv, v, i
TriangleRegion ............................................................................................................................................. i
Transportation System Management (TSM) ..................................................................................................15
US64/US 264 ............................................................................................................. i, 1, 3, 13, 45, 46, 53, 66
US70 .........................................................................................................................................................10
US 70 Business ............................................................................................................ 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 45, 53
US 401 ..........................................................................................................3, 8, 13, 14, 36, 45, 47, 53, 54, 66
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ..............................................................iii, iv, 5, 24, 30, 36, 46, 53, 74, 87
USDepartment of the Interior ......................................................................................................................87
US Department of Transportation .............................................................................................. iii, iv, 26, 87, 89
US Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................................................................37
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) ........................................................ 22, 24, 30, 36, 37, 52, 53, 87
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ............................... 13, 25, 26, 27, 30, 37, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 74, 75, 87
Wake County ................................................................... 8, 10, 16, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 40, 50, 52, 59, 60, 87, 97
Watershed Extension Loop Trail ....................................................................................................................21
wetland ................................................................................................. 5, 13, 15, 24, 28, 37, 47, 53, 54, 55, 56
WhiteDeer Park .................................................................................................................................... 20, 21
White Oak Road ....................................................................................................................13, 29, 45, 48, 53
YellowLance ......................................................................................................................... 13, 27, 59, 60, 74
94 Complete 540 Final Environmenta! Impact Statement - December �017
Appendix 1
FINAL E15 REVIEW COPY LOCATIONS
Printed copies of the Final EIS are available for public review at the locations listed below.
Electronic copies are available on the project website at www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete540/.
NCDOT District Office—Wake County
4009 District Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
919-733-9499
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 203
Raleigh, NC 27601
919-996-4400
Holly Springs Community Library
300 W. Ballentine Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
919-577-1660
Holly Springs Dept. of Planning & Zoning
128 South Main Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
919-557-3908
Fuquay-Varina Community Library
133 S. Fuquay Avenue
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
919-557-2788
Fuquay-Varina Planning Department
401 Old Honeycutt Road
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
919-552-1429
Garner Planning Department
900 7th Avenue
Garner, NC 27529
919-773-4449
Southeast Regional Library
908 7th Avenue
Garner, NC 27529
919-662-2250
Knightdale Planning Department
950 Steeple Square Court
Knightdale, NC 27545
919-217-2241
Clayton Planning Department
111 East Second Street
Clayton, NC 27520
919-553-1545
Hocutt-Ellington Library
100 S. Church Street
Clayton, NC 27520
919-553-5542
Appendix 2
Draft EIS Errata
Some of the formal review comments from environmental agencies and local governments pointed out errors
in the Draft EIS text. Those comments are listed below, along with a description of the corrected information.
Commenter Location in Comment Corrected Text
Draft EIS
The Draft EIS states "...the dwarf
Page 29, right `�`�edgemussel...could be directly "...the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) which is found in the rivers and
USFWS column,"Protected affected by the proposed project." streams of the Neuse River watershed a�. It could be directly affected by the
Species" section USFWS believes that indirect effects proposed project and it could also be indirectly affected by land development induced
from road-induced development are by the presence of a new highway."
the greater concern.
Page 97, first Replace sentence with "Incidental take refers to any direct harm to a protected
USFWS Paragraph in right ��Incidental take" is incorrectly defined. soecies or habitat loss affecting a orotected species due to an otherwise lawful
column, third l
sentence activitv."
Replace the second sentence with "The top map shows conditions in 2011. The
City of Page 15, second Indicate what scenario the 2035 bottom map shows the projected conditions in 2035, without the Complete 540
Raleigh paragraph network figure represents. project in place, but with all the other projects included in the CAMPO 2035 LRTP in
place."
Discussion of costs transit not being
Page 40, first fully funded by fares should consider Update sentence: "It is unlikely that these expansion and ongoing operation costs
City Of paragraph, that construction, operations, and could be met by bus fares alone, although it is also true that construction. operation,
Raleigh second complete maintenance of toll road will require and maintenance of a toll highway would require qap fundinca in addition to toll
sentence gap funding in addition to toll revenue."
revenues.
Page 73, right Use a dash instead of a eriod after Modif be innin of ara ra h: "Police, Fire, and Emer enc Services.---Re ardless
TOwn Of C8ry column, second p y g g p g p g y — g
paragraph theword "Services." of..."
Town of Cary Page 81, last The word "are" should be "area." Modify second sentence: "...like the Complete 540 project through the study a�e area
paragraph would likely alter local perceptions..."
Page 87, right
Town of Cary column, beginning Heading is missing the word "on." Modify heading: "More Information on the Human Environment Effects."
of section
When the Draft EIS was prepared, the name of North Carolina's State environmental agency was the NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), so the Draft EIS refers to this agency by that
name. Subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS, this agency's name was changed to the NC Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The Final EIS refers to the agency by the new name.