The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20181192_Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report - December 2014_20151201INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REPORT For ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT � ! � ��'�� . <� Trdar��e �.x,nre�ssway - "ihm��f ¢",.,t;,.,<,•°.nr� Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 State Project Nos. 6.401078, 6.401079, and 6.401080 Federal Aid Project Nos. STP-0540(19), STP-0540(20), and STP-0540(21) WBS Nos. 37673.1.TA2, 35516.1.TA2, and 35517.1.TA1 Prepared for: Prepared By: H.W. Lochner, Inc. L�C H N E R December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report NCDOT STIP Project No. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 Wake and Johnston Counties EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... E-1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................. 2 2.1 Proposed Action and Project Purpose ........................................................ 2 2.2 Existing Roadway Network ...................................................................... 2 2.3 Project Alternatives ............................................................................... 3 3 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (ICE) ANALYSIS METHODS........... 5 3.1 Future Land Use Study Area .................................................................... 5 3.2 Time Horizon ........................................................................................ 6 3.3 Indirect Effects Analysis ......................................................................... 6 3.4 Cumulative Effects Analysis .................................................................... 8 3.5 Other Transportation and Infrastructure Projects ....................................... 8 3.5.1 Transportation Projects ..................................................................... 8 3.5.2 Water and Sewer Infrastructure ....................................................... il 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT-CAUSING ACTIVITIES ................................. 13 4.1 Travel Patterns ................................................................................... 13 4.2 Travel Patterns ................................................................................... 14 4.3 Change in Access ................................................................................ 14 4.4 Change in Access ................................................................................ 14 4.5 Land Use or Transportation Nodes ......................................................... 14 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS .................................................... 15 5.1 Population .......................................................................................... 15 5.2 Employment ....................................................................................... 16 5.3 Land Use Patterns ............................................................................... 18 5.3.1 Wake County .................................................................................. 18 5.3.2 Johnston County ............................................................................. 19 5.3.3 Harnett County ............................................................................... 19 5.4 Water and Sewer Utility Services ........................................................... 19 5.5 Notable Features ................................................................................. 21 5.5.1 Human Environment ........................................................................ 21 5.5.1.1 Communities ........................................................................21 5.5.1.2 Parks and Recreational Resources ........................................... 21 5.5.2 Natural Environment ....................................................................... 21 5.5.2.1 Water Resources ................................................................... 21 5.5.2.2 Protected Species ................................................................. 22 5.5.2.3 Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas ................................... 22 5.6 Development Regulations and Local Plans ............................................... 24 5.6.1 Land Use Plans and Regulations ........................................................ 24 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 1 STLP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829—December 2014 5.6.2 Environmental Regulations ............................................................... 31 5.6.2.1 NPDES Regulations ............................................................... 31 5.6.2.2 Watershed Regulations .......................................................... 32 5.7 Available Land .................................................................................... 33 5.7.1 Wake County .................................................................................. 33 5.7.2 Johnston County ............................................................................. 33 5.7.3 Harnett County ............................................................................... 34 5.8 Market for Development ....................................................................... 34 6 INDIRECT EFFECTS SCREENING ............................................................. 35 6.1 ICE Screening Tool .............................................................................. 35 6.2 Indirect Land Use Scenario Assessment .................................................. 37 6.2.1 Zone 1 .......................................................................................... 37 6.2.1.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................. 38 6.2.1.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives ..................................... 38 6.2.1.3 Red Corridor Alternative ......................................................... 39 6.2.1.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative ........................................... 39 6.2.1.5 Eastern Alternatives .............................................................. 40 6.2.1.6 Zone 1 Conclusions ............................................................... 40 6.2.2 Zone 2 .......................................................................................... 41 6.2.Z.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................. 42 6.2.2.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives ..................................... 42 6.2.2.3 Red Corridor Alternative ......................................................... 43 6.2.2.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative ........................................... 43 6.2.2.5 Eastern Alternatives .............................................................. 44 6.Z.2.6 Zone 2 Conclusions ............................................................... 44 6.2.3 Zone 3 .......................................................................................... 45 6.2.3.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................. 46 6.2.3.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives ..................................... 46 6.2.3.3 Red Corridor Alternative ......................................................... 47 6.2.3.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative ........................................... 47 6.2.3.5 Eastern Alternatives .............................................................. 47 6.2.3.6 Zone 3 Conclusions ............................................................... 48 6.2.4 Zone 4 .......................................................................................... 49 6.2.4.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................. 50 6.2.4.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives ..................................... 50 6.2.4.3 Red Corridor Alternative ......................................................... 51 6.2.4.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative ........................................... 51 6.2.4.5 Eastern Alternatives .............................................................. 52 6.2.4.6 Zone 4 Conclusions ............................................................... 52 6.2.5 Zone 5 .......................................................................................... 54 6.2.5.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................. 54 6.2.5.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives ..................................... 55 6.2.5.3 Red Corridor Alternative ......................................................... 56 6.2.5.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative ........................................... 56 6.2.5.5 Eastern Alternatives .............................................................. 57 6.2.5.6 Zone 5 Conclusions ............................................................... 57 6.2.6 Zone 6 .......................................................................................... 59 6.2.6.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................. 59 6.2.6.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives ..................................... 60 6.Z.6.3 Red Corridor Alternative ......................................................... 60 6.2.6.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative ........................................... 60 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 11 STLP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829—December 2014 6.2.6.5 Eastern Alternatives .............................................................. 61 6.2.6.6 Zone 6 Conclusions ............................................................... 61 6.2.7 Zone 7 .......................................................................................... 62 6.2.7.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................. 63 6.2.7.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives ..................................... 63 6.2.7.3 Red Corridor Alternative ......................................................... 63 6.2.7.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative ........................................... 64 6.2.7.5 Eastern Alternatives .............................................................. 64 6.2.7.6 Zone 7 Conclusions ............................................................... 65 6.2.8 Zone 8 .......................................................................................... 67 6.2.8.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................. 68 6.2.8.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives ..................................... 68 6.2.8.3 Red Corridor Alternative ......................................................... 68 6.2.8.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative ........................................... 68 6.2.8.5 Eastern Alternatives .............................................................. 68 6.2.8.6 Zone 8 Conclusions ............................................................... 69 6.2.9 Zone 9 .......................................................................................... 70 6.2.9.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................. 71 6.2.9.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives ..................................... 71 6.2.9.3 Red Corridor Alternative ......................................................... 71 6.2.9.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative ........................................... 71 6.2.9.5 Eastern Alternatives .............................................................. 72 6.2.9.6 Zone 9 Conclusions ............................................................... 72 7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................ 74 7.1 Notable Past Actions ............................................................................ 74 7.2 Planned Future Actions ......................................................................... 74 7.3 Notable Environmental Resources .......................................................... 75 7.3.1 Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat ..................................................... 75 7.3.1.1 Affected Environment ............................................................ 75 7.3.1.2 Potential for Cumulative Effects ............................................... 76 7.3.2 Dwarf Wedgemussel Habitat (Swift Creek Watershed) .......................... 77 7.3.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................ 77 7.3.2.2 Potential for Cumulative Effects ............................................... 77 7.3.3 Terrestrial Communities and Habitat .................................................. 77 7.3.3.1 Affected Environment ............................................................ 77 7.3.3.2 Potential for Cumulative Effects ............................................... 77 8 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................79 8.1 Build Versus No-Build Scenarios ............................................................ 79 8.2 Detailed Study Alternatives ................................................................... 80 9 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 82 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report lll STLP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829—December 2014 Table 1 Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table li. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Figure 1. Figure Z. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. LIST OF TABLES Preliminary Corridor Alternatives Comprising Each Detailed Study Alternative......................................................................................... 4 Population Trends and Projections from 1990 to 2030 .............................15 Unemployment Rates ..........................................................................16 Annual Employment Distribution - 2003/2013 (Percent) ...........................17 Indirect and Cumulative Land Use Effects Screening Tool .........................35 Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 1 .........................................40 Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 2 .........................................44 Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 3 .........................................48 Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 4 .........................................53 Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 5 .........................................58 Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 6 .........................................62 Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 7 .........................................66 Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 8 .........................................69 Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 9 .........................................72 LIST OF FIGURES (Figures Follow Text) Project Setting Detailed Study Alternatives Future Land Use Study Area FLUSA Zones Notable Features Existing Land Use Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report lV STLP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829—December 2014 Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D, APPENDICES Local Government Interviews - Questionnaire and Meeting Summaries City of Raleigh Planned Water and Sewer Improvements Public Parks and Recreational Facilities Area Land Use Plan Maps Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report V STLP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829—December 2014 EXECUTIVE SU M MARY This Indirect and Cuinulative Effects (ICE) assessment qualitatively evaluates the potential of the subject project to cause environmental effects as a result of induced growth, as well as the incremental impacts of the project when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable public and private projects. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes transportation improvements in the project study area and surrounding region to address transportation needs as defined in the project's Purpose and Need Statement (Lochner, 2011). The focus of these improvements is a potential extension of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540) from NC 55 Bypass in Apex to the US 64/LTS 264 Bypass in Knightdale. This action is designated as three projects in the NCDOT 2009-2015 STIP: R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829. Together, these STIP projects would combine to complete the 540 Outer Loop around the Raleigh metropolitan area. The Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension (540 Outer Loop) project is also included in the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO joint 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Based on the identified transportation needs, the purpose of the proposed action is to improve transportation mobility for trips within, or traveling through, the project study area during the peak travel period. A second purpose of the proposed action is to reduce forecast congestion on the existing roadway network within the project study area. Based on state and local plans, a desirable outcome of the project will be to improve system linkage in the roadway network in the project study area. The Raleigh metropolitan area is a rapidly growing mid-sized city, surrounded by numerous small cities and towns. Many of the surrounding cities and towns retain distinctive identities. There is a notable, but diminishing, amount of rural land between these areas. The area is strongly characterized by travel in single occupancy vehicles, with limited options for alternative modes of transportation. Over 80 percent of residents of Wake and Johnston Counties commute to work by driving alone, according to 2010 data from the U.S. Census. Within southern and southeastern Walce County, there are limited alternatives for efficient local and long distance travel. For residents in rapidly growing areas of southern and southeastern Wake County and northern Johnston County, routes for travel to many of the region's major employment centers consist of unlimited access, primary and secondary roads with lower posted speed limits and frequent traffic signals. ICE Analvsis Methods � A Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) was determined based on development and commuting patterns, the location of major transportation facilities, and natural features. The FLUSA boundary extends southward into northern Harnett County, such that the FLUSA also encompasses most of southern Wake County and a large portion of northern Johnston County. • Because the current long range transportation plan and population projections are based on a 2035 horizon, the planning horizon used for this ICE analysis is also 2035. This planning horizon is generally consistent with other planning documents for jurisdictions in the study area. • The NCDOT Indirect Land Use Effects Screening Tool was used to qualitatively evaluate nine factors that influence land development decisions. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report g_� STTP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829—December 2014 The NCDOT Indirect Scenario Assessment Tool was used to compare projected land use under the No-Build Alternative and under various Build Alternatives. To facilitate discussion of specific areas in the FLUSA that are most likely to experience land use changes as a result of the new location facility, the FLUSA was divided into nine zones. • Cumulative effects analysis focused on key resource issues identified by environmental resource agencies, including potential effects on the federally endangered Dwarf wedgemussel and potential effects on water quality, particularly in the Swift Creek watershed. Transportation Impact-Causing Activities • The Coinplete 540 project would notably reduce travel tunes from various project area locations to major etnployment and commercial centers in the Raleigh metropolitan area and the broader Triangle Region, which also includes the Durham and Chapel Hill metropolitan areas. • As a major new location facility, the project would permanently alter the existing road network, creating connections both within the project area and between locations in the project area and employment and commercial centers outside the project area. It will also influence changes in travel patterns across the project area. • The project will add access points for properties, which will be most notable at the project's interchange locations, where nearby parcels will become attractive for higher intensity development such as retail and other commercial uses. • By introducing a new location facility into the area, the project will permanently increase exposure to properties along ihe length of the roadway. This will be a particularly notable change in the more rural parts of the area. • Local planners fully anticipate that the project will play a major role in influencing the land uses and intensities that will develop across the project area, influencing the development of land use and transportation nodes. Existin� Conditions and Trends All of the areas in the FLUSA have experienced rapid population growth in recent decades, with Wake, Johnston, and Harnett Counties experiencing 3.7%, 3.3%, and 2.3% average annual population growth, respectively. The Raleigh-Cary metropolitan area was the nation's second fastest-growing metropolitan area from 2000 to 2010. Rapid growth is expected to continue over the next two decades. The Raleigh area has one of the nation's strongest job markets, with a 21.5°/o increase in jobs between 2010 and 2020 in Wake and Johnston counties, and a 13.5% increase in Harnett, Lee and Sampson counties over the same time period. This strong employment growth is anticipated to continue over the next decade. • Large parts of the FLUSA are not currently served by municipal water and sewer service, with no plans far these services to be introduced. However, areas near incorporated towns are generally served by municipal infrastructure. Local expansion plans include extending service into several areas, including areas west of Holly Springs and eastern Garner/southeastern Raleigh. Existing water and sewer infrastructure is sufficient to support a notable amount of growth in the FLUSA. Indirect and Cumulative Effect.s Report E-2 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829— December 2014 Availability of adequate water and sewer capacity allows for continued development in served areas. • Most areas within the FLUSA are subject to fairly stringent comprehensive growth management and development regulations and most of the jurisdictions within the FLUSA indicate that their elected officials support continued adherence to these policies. • Most of the jurisdictions in the FLUSA have anticipated the Complete 540 project for many years, tailaring their expectations and plans for future growth around the assumption that the project will evenivally be constructed, with the specific expecation that the road's alignment will follow the existing protected corridar between NC 55 Bypass and I-40. Notable Features • There are hundreds of established neighborhoods located within the FLUSA, including residential subdivisions, rural communities near crossroad areas, and communities with strong ties to local churches. There are numerous parks and other recreational resources throughout the FLUSA. • Most of the FLUSA lies within the Neuse River basin, with a portion of the western edge of the FLUSA in the Cape Fear River basin. • Several streams in the FLUSA are included on the North Carolina 303(d) list of impaired waters. These include portions of Swift Creek, Middle Creek, Little Creek, Crabtree Creek, Walnut Creek, Beddingfield Creek, and the Neuse River in the Neuse River basin; and portions of Kenneth Creek and Neills Creelc in the Cape Fear River basin. • Swifi Creek is classified as a Water Supply-III watershed with nutrient sensitive waters. Development in the Swift Creek watershed area is limited by watershed protection policies within Wake County's Swift CreekLand ManagementPlan (1990). • The Cape Fear River in Harnett County is classified as a Water Supply-IV watershed. • Hector Creek, in Harnett County, is the only High Quality Water (HQW) in the FLUSA. There are no identified Outstanding Resource Waters in the FLUSA. • There are four federally protected species documented within Wake and Johnston counties: the Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), the Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and the Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). Two additional federally protected species are documented within Harnett County: the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) and the Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia aspe�ulaefolia). • The Dwarf wedgemussel is found throughout Swift Creek in the FLUSA; however, the portion of Swift Creek downstream of the Lake Benson dam is particularly important for the long-term survival of this species. • There are numerous Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas in the FLUSA. Indirect and Cumulative Effect.s Report E-3 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829— December 2014 Development Regulations and Local Plans • The counties, cities, and towns in the FLUSA maintain zoning ordinances and land use plans that influence the location, densities, and intensities of development. • Wake County's Swift Creek Land Management Plan identifies the Swift Creek basin's Watershed Critical Area and watershed buffer areas, within which development activities are limited. It also identifies appropriate ]ow-densiry land use categories for the surrounding areas. � The City of Raleigh is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I community. As a Phase I community, Raleigh is required to maintain a citywide stormwater management program. The following jurisdictions are Phase II stormwater permittees: Apex, Cary, Clayton, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, Knightdale, Holly Springs, Wendell, Wake County, Johnston County, and Harnett County. • Development within the Neuse River basin is subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules, which require development within the basin to maintain minimum 50-foot buffers along each side of perennial and intermittent streams. Several jurisdictions in the FLUSA have more stringent buffer requirements. These more stringent buffer requirements also apply in the Cape Fear River basin for Holly Springs and Wake County. • A11 waters in the Neuse River basin are subject to the Neuse Nutrient Sensitive Waters rules, a set of permanent rules designed to address eutrophication in the Neuse basin. These rules include stormwater and agricultural regulations designed to limit nutrient loading and peak flow rates from new development. Land Use Patterns, Available Land and Market for Development Land use in the FLUSA is of mixed intensity and density, although low-densiry residential subdivisions and rural land uses are the most prevalent characteristics of the area. Low-density residential uses include both single-family subdivisions and mobile home parks. The FLUSA for the Complete 540 project is approximately 450 square miles in size. Since much of the FLUSA has only begun to develop within the last 10 to 20 years, a large proportion of this area is still available for new development and redevelopment at higher densities and intensities, particularly in southern Wake County, northern Harnett County, and northern Johnston County. There is sufficient available land in the FLUSA to accommodate a conrinuation of the rapid growth experienced in the area over the last three decades. � Population projections for the project area indicate continued rapid growth in the area, suggesting that there will continue to be a high demand for residential development in the FLUSA and increasing demand for commercial and industrial development. Potential Indirect Effects All of the build alternatives would introduce a high-speed, controlled-access facility into the FLUSA, providing faster and more direct routes to major employment and commercial centers in the region. For this reason, the Complete 540 project is anticipated to be a major driver of development patterns in the coming years. However, it should be noted that local planners and Indirect and Cumulative Effect.s Report E-4 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829— December 2014 elecied officials have indicated that there is a notable inarket for developineni within the FLUSA and continued growth is anticipated with or without the Complete 540 project. • Surrounding the Complete 540 project's interchange areas, the project would likely encourage higher land use densities, more commercial and industrial development, and a greater mix of uses tban would occur in these areas without the project. • Under the No-Build Alternative, growth and development patterns are likely to be influenced by proximity to existing inajor transportation facilities and commercial and retail centers. Given that localland use plans assume construction of Complete 540 along the protected corridor would help concentrate development in desired locations, it is possible that the No-Build Alternative would promote future development patterns that differ from those envisioned in local land use plans. • West of I-40, the Orange Corridor Alternative has the greaiest potential to support growth and development in accordance with local plans. The Lilac Corridor Alternative would also support growth patterns similar to those anticipated by local plans. The Red Corridor Alternative is expected to shift development farther to the north in a pattern somewhat different from that envisioned in local plans. • The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would likely shift development farther to the south into more rural areas, possibly increasing the overall effects of the project on induced land development, and leading to development patterns that would diverge more notably from those envisioned in local plans. This option would shift several interchange areas well to the south of the corresponding interchanges under other build scenarios, into areas without underlying plans in place or planned infrastructure to support the mixed use activity centers envisioned in local plans. These interchange areas may instead develop with more conventional strip commercial development in less concentrated, more scattered patterns. The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative has greater potential than the other scenarios to induce development along the southern edge of the FLUSA, into Harnett County. • East of I-40, the Green Corridor Alternative has the greatest potential to support growth and development in accordance with local plans, but there is little variation in the ability of the various corridors in this area to achieve this goal. • Growth and development under either the build or no-build scenarios would result in indirect effects on Swift Creek, its surrounding Watershed Critical Area, and its associated natural features. These effects could be somewhat greater under a build scenario. The Swift Creek Land Management Plan and other local land development regulations will limit development density and intensity in much of this area. • Growth and development under either the build or no-build scenario would result in indirect water quality effects on Middle Creek and its associaied natural features. These effects could be somewhat greater under a build scenario. Development regulations including the Neuse River Buffer Rules, the more stringent riparian buffer requirements in some jurisdictions, and NPDES Phase II requirements will help to minunize these effects. Potential Cumulative Effects • Overall development irends in the FLUSA for the Complete 540 project have been largely influenced and shaped by the area's proximity to the robust employment centers of the Triangle Indirect and Cumulative Effect.s Report E-5 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829— December 2014 Region. Large residential projects and some notable commercial projects began io develop in the FLUSA in the 1990s as a result of this proximity. Several past infrastructure projects have influenced development in the FLUSA, including the NC 55 Bypass, the Clayton Bypass, the Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plan, the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the South Cary Water Recla�nation Facility. Several planned development and infrastructure projects are also expected to influence development in the FLUSA. In addition to several roadway projects, these include the Veridea mixed-use project in Apex, the new Western Wake Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, and major retail development near US 70 and White Oak Road in Garner. Anticipated continued growth and development across the FLUSA will continue to affect area water quality and aquatic habitat. These effects are likely in either the build or no-build scenario. Construction of any of the new location alternatives under consideration for the project would have the potential to affect water quality and to contribute to aquatic habitat degradation. Under any of the build scenarios, however, these effects could shift farther to the south and east in the FLUSA. Continued development in the lower Swift Creelc watershed, below the Lalce Benson dam, will pose challenges for the long-tenn viability of Dwarf wedgeinussel habitat in this area. These challenges will exist in either the build or no-build scenario. 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 Dwarf wedgemussel in the lower Swift Creek watershed. Continued growth under either the build or no-build scenarios will have the potential to contribute to forest fragmentation and wildlife habitat disturbance, but the Complete 540 project could shift these effects farther to the south and east. The Complete 540 project, combined with past and planned future projects in the vicinity of US 70 between Garner and Clayton, could contribute to cumulative effects on habitat fragmentation in this area. The cumulative effect of the Complete 540 and the planned Randleigh Farm project in southeastern Raleigh may also influence habitat fragmentation. Conclusions • The FLUSA will be marked by growth and land use change under either the build or no-build scenarios. Continued growth and land use change are not dependent on construction of the Complete 540 project. However, compared to the no-build scenario, the build scenarios could lead to more rapid growth and more intense development in soine areas. In this way, any of the build scenarios would likely lead to indirect effects in the form of induced land development. Construction of any of the Build Alternatives would likely result in a higher concentration of high- density development and more intense land uses near interchange areas; these locations vary with the different Build Alternatives. The build alternatives would also likely promote residential development in proximity to these interchanges. Local governments generally anticipate that these areas will be along the Orange Corridor Alternative west of I-40 and the Green Corridor Alternative east of I-40. Indirect and Cumulative Effect.s Report E-6 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829— December 2014 • An alignment farther to the south, such as those using the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative, would push these indirect land use effects farther south into rural areas in southern Wake County and in northern Johnston and Harnett counties, possibly increasing the overall effects of the project on induced land development. • The No-Build Alternative may not support the locally desired concentration of higher density development and more intense land uses near the project's proposed interchange areas and may instead result in less concentrated, more piecemeal growth. This would differ from the future land use vision in many local land use plans. • The Complete 540 project, along with other past and planned future projects, has the potential to affect water quality and habitat fragmentation in the FLUSA. The project also has the potential to add to the cumulative effects of other past and planned future projects on the long-term viability of the Dwarf wedgemussel in the lower Swift Creek watershed. • A quantitative analysis of the potential indirect and cumulative impacts (ICI) of the Complete 540 project on water quality should be completed following selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) Indirect and Cumulative Effect.s Report E-7 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829— December 2014 1 INTRODUCTION In addition to requiring evaluation of potential direct iinpacts to the environment, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider 1) how their actions may indirectly affect the human and natural environment, and 2) how their actions, when combined with other actions over time, may cuinulatively impact the environment. In a 2011 Practitioner's Handbook, AASHTO's Center for Environmental Excellence further described these two distinct, but often related types of impacts as follows: • Indirect effects are caused by the project or plan, but are separated from direct effects by time and/or distance. Indirect effects include induced growth and related environmental impacts. • Cumulative impacts are the aggregate result of incremental direct and indirect effects of a project or plan, the effects of past and present actions, and effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions by others on resources of concern. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance (1997) states that direct effects are "caused by the action and occur at the same time and place." In contrast, indirect effects are "caused by the action and are later in time and farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." For large transportation projects, indirect effects are typically evaluated in terms of the likelihood that the project will change the location, magnitude, or pace of future development in and around the transportation facility (residential, commercial, and/or industrial development), and what environmental impacts may occur as a result of that development. It is important to emphasize that indirect effects considered during the NEPA process must be reasonably foreseeable. In other words, not every conceivable scenario needs to be evaluated. In a broader sense, an analysis of potential cumulative effects considers both the direct and indirect impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable public and private actions/projects on the environment, regardless of who undertakes that action/project. Individually, each action may have only minor environmental impacts but when looked at collectively over a period of time, those impacts may be substantial. While "indirect" and "cumulaiive" effects are often discussed together, they require two distinct methods of analysis as described Section 3. The reslilts of these qualitative analyses are presented in the remainder of this report. Direct impacts to the human, natural, and physical environment as a result of project construction and implementation are discussed at length in the Draft Enviromnental Impact Statement (EIS) by topic area, as well as in separate technical reports that acco�npany the Draft EIS. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 1 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — December 2014 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION AND PROJECT PURPOSE The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes transportation improvements in the project study area and surrounding region to address transportation needs as defined in the project's Purpose and Need Statement (Lochner, 2011). The focus of these improvements is a potential extension of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540) from its current terminus at the NC 55 Bypass in Apex to the US 64/US 264 Bypass in Knightdale. This action is designated as three projects in the NCDOT 2012-2018 STIP: R- 2721, R-2828, and R-2829. Together, these STIP projects would combine to complete the 540 Outer Loop around the Raleigh metropolitan area. In some instances, the project is referred to as having two phases: Phase I is the western portion of the study area between NC 55 Bypass in Apex and I-40 near the Wake/Johnston Counry line; Phase II is the eastern portion of the study area between I-40 and US 64/US 264 Bypass in Knightdale. NCDOT established a protected corridor for the project between NC 55 Bypass and I-40 in 1996 and 1997. For purposes of ineeting the requirements of NEPA, both phases are being examined in the current study as a single and complete project. It is likely that the project would be constructed in phases, but depending on the availability of funding, may or may not be consistent with the current phase descriptions noted. Figure 1 shows the general project vicinity. The project study area is located south of the City of Raleigh between the towns of Holly Springs to the west and Knightdale to the east. The project study area extends as far south as NC 42 between Fuquay-Varina and Clayton. While most of the project study area is wiihin Wake County, a portion of western Johnston County and a small portion of northern Harnett County are also included. Figure 2 shows the project study area. This project, referred to as the Complete 540—Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension, is intended to improve transportation mobility for trips within, or traveling through, the project study area during the peak travel period, and reduce forecast traffic congestion. The proposed action is included in the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO joint 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (2011), as well as the Capital Area MPO 2012— 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) (2011). In addition, the proposed action is included in the State's system of Strategic Highway Corridors (SHC) aimed at providing a safe, reliable, and high-speed network of highways within North Carolina (NCDOT, 2008). NCDOT developed the Purpose and Need Statement (Lochner, 2011) for this project with input from federal and state environmental regulatory and resource agencies and the Capital Area MPO at Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings and at Capital Area MPO meetings held on June 16, 2010, and September 15, 2010. NCDOT also incorporated public input solicited at public meetings held in September 2010, December 2010, and October 2013. 2.2 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK There are several majar travel routes through the project study area; these routes are shown in Figure 1. I-40 is one of the major east-west routes through North Carolina, connecting Raleigh and its surrounding communities to southeastern North Carolina and I-95 to the east. To the west, I-40 connects the area to Research Triangle Park (RTP), Durham, and other cities in central and western North Carolina. I-440, the Raleigh Beltline, is a partial loop facility around Raleigh, connecting the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report � STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829 — December 2014 suburban areas surrounding the city. Exisiing I-540/NC 540 currently extends around the north and west sides of the Raleigh area respectively, connecting outlying areas in Apex, Cary, northern Raleigh, and Knightdale. US 64 is another important east-west route through North Carolina; in the project siudy area, it traverses central Wake County. US 1 connects areas northeast of Raleigh to expanding suburban communities southwest of Raleigh. Within southern and southeastern Wake County, there are limited alternatives for efficient local and long-distance travel. For residents in rapidly growing areas of southern and southeastern Walce County and northern Johnston County, routes for travel to many of the region's major employment centers consist of unlimited access, primary and secondary roads with lower posted speed liinits and frequent traf�c signals. Much of I-40, an important transportation corridar for local freight and commuter traffic, and the major corridor for interregional traffic across the area, currently operates at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) E or F. LOS on I-40 and other major routes across the area is forecast to worsen substantially. The proposed project would be a new location, fully controlled- access toll facility. 2.3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The project's Alternatives Development and Analysis RepoYt (Lochner, 2014) evaluated several possible alternatives associated with this project through a three-tiered screening process. The alternatives remaining under consideration fall into two main categories: No-Build and Build Alternatives. The No-Build Alternative is the baseline comparative alternative. It assumes that the transportation systems in the project study area will continue to develop as currently planned in the Capital Area MPO and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO joint 2035 LRTP, but without the proposed Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Souiheast Extension project. The project's Build Alternatives were developed and evaluated as color-coded segments termed Preliminary Corridor Alternatives. Combinations of the various Preliminary Corridor Alternatives comprise end-to-end project alternatives. The end-to-end project alternatives remaining following the screening process outlined in the Draft Alternatives Development and Analysis Report are termed Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs), which will be documented and evaluated in detail in the project's Draft EIS. Ten Preliminary Corridor Alternatives comprise seventeen end-to-end DSAs. Figure 2 shows the locations of the Preliminary Corridor Alternatives that make up the DSAs for the project. Table 1 lists the Preliminary Corridor Alternatives that make up each of the DSAs. The Orange Corridor Aliernative between NC 55 Bypass and I-40 corresponds to the existing protected corridor, as described in Section 2.1. The DSAs under consideration are proposed to be toll facilities. An open road (highway speed transponder-based system) will likely be used as the primary means of toll collection. This would allow drivers to travel unobstructed through the toll collection points at highway speeds. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 3 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Table 1. Preliminary Corridor Alternatives Comprising Each Detailed Study Alternative DSA Preliminary Corridor Alternatives ] Orange to Green 2 Orange to Green to Mint Green to Green 3 Orange to Brown (South) to Tan (North) to Green 4 Orange to Brown to Green 5 Orange to Green to Teal to Brown to Green ( Orange to Red to Green '] Orange to Red to Mint Green to Green g Orange to Purple-Blue-Lilac to Green 9 Orange to Purple-Blue-Lilac to Green to Mint Green to Green 10 Orange to Pwple-Blue-Lilac to Brown (South) to Tan (North) to Green 11 Orange to Puiple-Blue-Lilac to Brown to Green 12 Orange to Purple-Blue-Lilac to Teal to Brown to Green 13 Orange to Lilac (at Sauls Road) to Green 14 Orange to Lilac (at Sauls Road) to Green to Mint Green to Green ] S Orange to Lilac (at Sauls Road) to Brown (South) to Tan (North) to Green 1( Orange to Lilac (at Sauls Road) to Brown to Green j'] Orange to Lilac (at Sauls Road) to Green to Teal to Brown to Green The Capital Area MPO and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO joint LRTP includes completion of the 540 Outer Loop (I-540 and NC 540) as a six-lane, new location toll facility within the project study area as a 2025 horizon year project. The LRTP shows interchanges proposed at the following eleven locations: • Ho11y Springs Road (SR 1152) • Bells Lake Road • US 401 (Fayetteville Road) • 01d Stage Road (SR 1006) • NC 50 (Benson Road) • I-40 • White Oak Road (SR 1209) • US 70 • Old Baucom Road • Auburn Knightdale Road (SR 2525) • Poole Road (SR 1007) Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 4 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 3 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (ICE) ANALYSIS METHODS The methods used for this ICE analysis follow current NCDOT guidance which is based on the Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina Volumes 1 and 2 developed by The Louis Berger Group in 2001 for NCDOT and NCDENR. In addition, AASHTO's 2011 Practitioner's Handbook for Assessing Indirect Eff'ects and Cumulative Impacts Under NEPA and CEQ's 1997 guidance were also consulted, as appropriate. In accordance with NEPA requirements, a study area and time horizon was defined for the ICE analysis, taking into account the potential for future development that could generate indirect effects and the location of notable environmental resources relative to potential cumulative impacts. Consistent with NCDOT guidance, the Indirect Land Use Effects Screening Tool was completed, which indicated a high level of concern for potential indirect and cumulative effects and recommended further evaluation in a Land Use Scenario Assessment (LUSA). The indirect effects analysis took into account such factors as the potential for increased mobility and accessibility in the form of faster travel times or more direct highway access, the potential for induced growth, and the environmental impacts that are likely to occur as a result of that growth. The cumulative impacts analysis considered the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable public and private projects on the Dwarf wedgemussel and Swift Creek watershed in particular. The ICE analysis is based on the NCDOT-approved functional engineering designs within the project's DSAs as of June 2414. 3.1 FUTURE LAND USE STUDY AREA The Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) is the area surrounding a construction project that could reasonably be anticipated to be affected by induced growth as a result of the completion of the proposed project and in combination with other projects. This encompasses all of the areas examined for potential increases in development pressure as a result of proposed project. The FLUSA used for analysis of the project's indirect and cumulative effects is shown on Figure 3. The southern FLUSA boundary was determined by reviewing area comprehensive plans to determine where development is anticipated due to continued growth in the Raleigh and Durham employment areas, reflecting a local labor force willing to drive northward from southern Wake County, Johnston County, and Harnett County. While Fuquay-Varina is the southernmost town in the overall project study area, future development in northern Harnett County, including Angier, is influenced by activities/employment opportunities in Wake County and RTP. Therefore, the FLUSA was extended southward into northern Harnett County (including Angier). The project study area was also expanded to include the towns of Clayton to the east and southern Knightdale to the northeast in order to evaluate potential growth- induced indirect effects in these areas from the proposed project. In addition to the towns and cities referenced above, the FLUSA also includes Holly Springs, Garner, and parts of Cary, Apex, and southern Raleigh. The northwestern boundary of the FLUSA follows US 1 because the areas north of US 1 are heavily developed, approaching buildout, and they are unlikely to experience induced development as a result of ihis project. The Swift Creek watershed boundary was also critical to establishing the study limits for the ICE analysis. In the vicinity of the proposed project, Swift Creek traverses the study area from the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 5 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 southern outskirts of Cary southeast to its confluence with the Neuse River near Smithf'ield. Two large lakes are part of the upper Swift Creek subbasin, Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson, both of which supply drinking water to the area. In order to qualitatively assess potential indirect and cumulative effects to water quality in the reservoirs, the northern boundary of the FLUSA generally follows the upper Swift Creek watershed boundary. Portions of Swift Creek, particularly in the lower portion of the watershed, have been found to contain the federally endangered Dwarf wedgemussel. Swift Creek also provides spawning and nursery areas for anadromous fish species. Based on coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the FLUSA was extended southeastward to include the southern portion of the Swift Creek watershed between Clayton and Smithfield. To facilitate discussion of specific areas within the FLUSA that are most likely to experience land use changes as a result of the new location facility, the FLUSA was divided into nine zones. The zone boundaries follow major roadways, political boundaries, and natural features to represent areas facing similar development pressures and influenced by similar local land use policies. The FLUSA zones are shown on Figure 4 and are described in more detail in Section 6.2. 3.2 TIME HORIZON The design year for the Complete 540 project is 2035, in keeping with the Capital Area MPO and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO joint 2035 LRTP planning horizon. In addition, the Capital Area MPO, NCDOT, and FHWA have agreed to use the traffic model from the 2035 LRTP for the purposes of alternatives impact analyses for the project, through preparation of the Draft EIS. The planning horizons for other local planning documents in the FLUSA range from 2025 to 2035. For consistency with the LRTP, the traffic analysis used in the Draft EIS, and with local plans, 2035 is used as the time horizon in this report for evaluating indirect effects. While population projections from the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management are only available through 2033, it was assumed that the growth trends evident in the 2033 projections would continue through 2035. For purposes of evaluating cumulative effects, which includes consideration of past actions, the timeframe includes trends from 1990, which is roughly when suburban development began to accelerate in the FLUSA, to the present, in addition to projections through 2035. Following selection of a Preferred Alternative for the project, after the Draft EIS has been published and a public hearing has been held, NCDOT will prepare a revised traffic analysis for the Preferred Alternative based on the then-current traffic model and the then-current LRTP. This information will also be used to reevaluate the indirect and cumulative effects analysis for the Preferred Alternative. 3.3 INDIRECT EFFECTS ANALYSIS Based on current NCDOT and federal guidance and policies, the methods used to assess indirect effects for the proposed project are described below. Initially, the project scoping process was used to collect baseline information and establish study parameters — i.e., the study area specifically for the ICE analysis, the time horizon, and the notable resources to consider. During scoping, information and feedback were obtained from environmental resource agencies through correspondence and through agency meetings held according to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 6002 (23 U.S.C. § 139) Project Coordination Plan developed for this project. Input from each Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 6 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 municipality within the FLUSA was obiained via individual meetings and routine correspondence with local government officials. The following local governments were interviewed: Wake County, Johnston County, Harnett County, City of Raleigh, Town of Cary, Town of Apex, Town of Holly Springs, Town of Fuquay-Varina, Town of Garner, Town of Knightdale, the Town of Clayton, ihe Town of Angier, and the Capital Area MPO. For each locality, a questionnaire was used to collect baseline information on several categories including: local transportation plans; planned developments; urilities; growth management regulations, if any; past, present, and future projects; notable environmental features; and other topics related to the ICE analysis. A copy of the questionnaire and summaries of each of the meetings to discuss local responses are provided in Appendix A. All of the local governments indicated above were also contacted in 2014 to obtain updated information on land development and land use plans and also to ensure that the responses they provided during the original interviews were consistent with the 2035 LRTP and the 2035 horizon year. All confin�ned that they were consistent. Because future land use plans generally do not change substantially, the local governments also confirmed that their responses would be consistent with the 2040 LRTP and a 2040 horizon year. To support indirect effects analyses for transportation projects in North Carolina, NCDOT has developed a two-step process for assessing potential induced growth effects (i.e., changes in the location, magnitude, or pace of future development caused by the project). Step 1 is a screening process that looks at a variety of factors to determine the likelihood that the project will need a more detailed Land Use Scenario Assessment (Step 2). To do the screening, NCDOT developed an Indirect Land Use Effects Screening Tool (Screening Tool) that qualitatively evaluates nine factors shown by others to influence land development decisions: 1. Scope of the proposed transportation project 2. Change in accessibility (travel time savings) 3. Farecast population growth 4. Forecast employment growth 5. Available land 6. Water/sewer availability 7. Market for development 8. Public policy (relative to land use) 9. Notable environmental features If the Step 1 screening process determines that a more detailed analysis is needed, a Land Use Scenario Assessment (Step 2) is then completed. Building upon the information collected during the screening process, the Land Use Scenario Assessment process is used to look in more detail at various potential land use development scenarios in the various zones delineated within the FLUSA. These scenarios were created through coordination with local officials and then assessed in terms of how each would develop under the following two general project scenarios: • The No-Build Alternative, which assumes that the transportation systems in the project study area will continue to develop as currently planned in the Capital Area MPO and Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO joint 2035 LRTP, but without the proposed Complete 540 project. • The Build Alternative, which assumes that the Coinplete 540 project will be constructed as a controlled-access highway on new location from NC 55 Bypass in Apex to US 64/US 264 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 7 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Bypass in Knightdale. This scenario also assumes that the transportation systems in the project study area will continue to develop as currently planned in the LRTP. The Build Alternative corresponds to any one of the DSAs under consideration for the project, as described in Section 2.3. Using NCDOT's Land Use Scenario Assessment Tool (Assessment Tool), the No-Build and Build scenarios were assessed for each of the nine identified zones relative to the following six factors: 1. Demand for higher impact development 2. Future shift of population growth to those areas 3. Pressure for land development outside regulated areas 4. Pressure for land development outside areas planned for development 5. Type of development pattern likely to occur (strip/sprawl development versus cluster development) 6. Planned/managed land use and impacts (development in areas without coordinated land use and stormwater management goals versus in development areas consistent with land development and stormwater management goals) The greater the difference between the No-Build and Build scenarios for each factor, the greater the potential for indirect land use impacts. Given the magnitude and scope of the Complete 540 project and the presence of sensitive environmental resources, NCDOT elected to complete both steps of the process and document them both in this report. 3.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS In looking at cumulative impacts, the Council on Environmental Quality emphasizes in their guidance that the analysis should focus only on "what counts" -- notable environmental resources that are likely to be most substantially affected (both directly and indirectly) by the proposed project. To identify the key resource issues for purposes of the cumulative impacts analysis, input was solicited from resource agencies during the project's scoping process. Of particular concern to the USFWS is the possibility that the cumulative impact to the federally endangered Dwarf wedgemussel might threaten the viability of the species in the lower portions of Swift Creek watershed. Given the importance of the Swift Creek watershed to other species, and its importance to water supply in the region, concern for potential cumulative impacts to water quality within the watershed was also raised by other resource agencies. Therefore, those two resource issues are the major focus of this cumulative impacts analysis. 3.5 OTHER TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRO]ECTS 3.5.1 Transportation Projects NCDOT Draft 2013-2023 STIP capacity roadway projects located wholly or partially within the FLUSA are listed below. • R-2609 (Wake, Harnett, and Cumberland Counties) — This project will increase capacity along about 39 miles of US 401 from north of Fayetteville (outside the FLUSA for Complete 540) to north of Fuquay-Varina. It may include widening and/or new location segments. The project is Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 8 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 currently in the planning and environmental study phase; funding has not yet been programmed for right-of-way acquisition or construction. • R-2635D (Wake County) — This project will construct a new interchange on the existing Triangle Expressway (NC 540) at Old Holly Springs-Apex Road, along with two miles of auxiliary lanes along the Triangle Expressway between US 1 and NC 55 Bypass. Funding has not yet been programmed for right-of-way acquisition ar construction. • R-3410 (Johnston County) — This project will widen NC 42 from NC 50 to US 70, a distance of about 8 miles. Right-of-way acquisition is not scheduled to begin before 2023. • R-3825 (Johnston County) - This project will widen NC 42 from US 70 to Buffaloe Road (SR 1003), a distance of approximately 6 miles. Right-of-way acquisition is not scheduled to begin befare 2023. This project is currently in the planning and preliminary design phase; funding has not yet been programmed for right-of-way acquisition or construction. • I-4739 (Johnston County) — This project will improve the I-40/NC 42 interchange with possible new interchanges at Cleveland Road (SR 1010) and Cornwallis Road (SR 1525). The project is currently in the planning and preliminary design phase; funding has not yet been programmed for right-of-way acquisition or construction. • I-51 l 1(Wake and Johnston Counties) — This project will widen 11 miles of I-40, from I-440 in southeast Raleigh to NC 42 in Johnston County. The project is currently in the planning and environmental study phase. NCDOT anticipates constructing this project in segments, beginning in 2018 at the northern end of the project, with construction complete in 2022. • U-2901 (Wake County) — This project will widen 2.8 miles of NC 55, from US 1 to US 64 in Apex. Construction is complete on the northern end of this project. Right-of-way acquisition and construction of the southern end of the project are not scheduled to begin before 2023. • U-3334 (Johnston County) — This project will extend Booker Dairy Road (SR 1923) 3.7 miles, from US 70 Business West in Smithfield to US 30L Construction is complete on the western end of this project, from US 70 Business West to Buffaloe Road. Funding has not yet been programmed for right-of-way acquisition and construction of the eastern end of the project. • U-3605 (Johnston County) — This project will extend Front Street in Clayton 0.9 miles from Mill Sireet to NC 42. Construction of this project is in progress and is expected to be complete in 2014. • U-5301 (Wake County) — This project will upgrade the 3.0 miles of the US 64 corridor, from Laura Duncan Road (SR 1308) to US 1, to partial control of access, including conversion of two at-grade intersections to interchanges. It will be completed in phases, with construction of the interchange at Laura Duncan Road scheduled to begin in 2022. Right-of-way acquisition and construction of the remaining phases are not yet funded. • U-5302 (Wake County) — This project will convert about 1 mile of US 401 near Garner, from Legend Road to US 70, to a superstreet. Right-of-way is not programmed to begin before 2020, and construction is not programmed to begin before 2021. • U-5317 (Wake County) — This project, known as the North Judd Parkway, will extend Judd Parkway around the northwest side of Fuquay-Varina, from NC 55 to NC 42, a distance of about 1.5 miles. The Town of Fuquay-Varina is currently completing the planning and environmental study for ihis project. Funding has not yet been programmed for right-of-way acquisition or construction. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 9 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 • U-5318 (Wake County) — This project will extend Main Street in Holly Springs southward from Ralph Stephens Road to Piney Grove Wilbon Road, a distance of approximately 1.7 miles. This is a locally administered project funded in part by NCDOT. The Town of Holly Springs is currently acquiring right-of-way and anticipates completing this project by 2017. • W-5600 (Johnston County) — This project will convert a portion of US 70, from Sadisco Road (SR 2565) to Turnage Road (SR 1915), to a freeway facility. It is currently under construction. The Capital Area MPO and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO joint 2035 LRTP includes numerous planned transportation projects in the FLUSA. Some of these projects are minar improvements but others are noted as regionally significant projects. Regionally significant roadway projects in the FLUSA, organized by planning horizon, are listed below: 2015 Horizon • A380 (Wake County) — Upgrade US 64 from US 1 to Laura Duncan Road (2.49 miles). 2025 Horizon • A49b (Wake County) — Widen Poole Road from two to four lanes between Barwell Road and I-540 (1.57 miles). • A72 (Wake County) — Widen Holly Springs Road from two to four lanes between Tryon Road and Southeast Cary Parkway (0.61 miles). • A118b (Wake and Harnett Counties) — Widen NC 55 from two to four lanes between Jicarilla Road to Rawls Church Road (1.60 miles). • A] 57b (Wake County) — Eastern Parkway, a new location four-lane facility between NC 55 and US 401 (1.79 miles). • A302d (Wake County) — Southern Fuquay-Varina Bypass, a new location four-lane facility between Angier Road and Piney Grove Wilbon Road (2.40 miles). • F44a/b (Wake County) — Widen I-40 froin I-440 to NC 42 2035 Horizon • A214 (Wake County) — Widen Garner Road from two to three lanes between Tryon Road and Rock Quarry Road (7.16 miles). • A228a/b (Wake County) — Widen NC 50 from two to four lanes between Timber Drive and NC 42 (6.76 miles). • A407 (Wake and Johnston Counties) — Widen NC 42 from two to four lanes between NC 401 and I-40 (11.8 miles). • A426 (Wake County) — Widen NC 55 from two to four lanes between Holly Springs Road and Bobbitt Road (2.96 miles). • F44c/d (Johnston County) — Widen I-40 from four to six lanes from NC 42 south to the southern boundary of the Capital Area MPO metropolitan area (13.56 miles). • Jhns2a12b (Johnston County) — Widen NC 42 from two to four lanes between US 70 Business and I-40 (638 miles). The Town of Holly Springs Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2013 also includes a notable planned transportation improvement. This project would construct an interchange on US 1 at Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 10 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Friendship Road to serve a planned industrial site on the south side of US 1. Funds have not yet been programmed for construction of this project, but the Plan lists this project in the 2018 horizon year. 3.5.2 Water and Sewer Infrastructure The City of Raleigh 2013-2014 Adopted Capital Improvement Program includes several planned expansions of water and sewer infrastructure in the Complete 540 FLUSA. These projects are mainly in the southern Garner area and in the area south of Knightdale. A map of these improvements is shown in Appendix B. These include: Fiscal Year 2015 • Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant 15 MGD Expansion — Expansion of capacity at Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant from 60 million gallons per day (MGD) to 75 MGD. • Ten Ten Road Water Tank — Construction of new 1.0 MGD elevated water storage tank in the vicinity of Ten Ten Road and Old Stage Road to support increasing water demand in this area. Fiscal Year 2016 • DEBWTP Transmission Main — 41,600 linear feet of new 30-inch water transmission line along Walnui Creek from near I-440 to Poole Road/Hodge Road in Knightdale. Fiscal Years 2019 throu h,g 2023 • Oregon Trail Road Transmission Main — 5,670 linear feet of new 24-inch water transinission line from Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant along Oregon Trail (near NC 50) to New Bethel Church Road. • Clifford Road Transmission Main — 5,530 linear feet of new 24-inch water transmission line along Clifford Road from New Bethel Church Road to Hebron Church Road. • Hebron Church Road Transmission Main — 4,510 linear feet of new 24-inch water transmission line along Hebron Church Road from Clifford Road to White Oak Road. • Rand Road Transmission Line — 12,400 linear feet of new 24-inch water transmission line along Rand Road from NC 50 to Ten Ten Road. • Ten Ten Road Transmission Main — 5,200 linear feet of new 12-inch water transmission line along Ten Ten Road from Rand Road to Old Stage Road. The Town of Cary Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal year 2014 includes an expansion of the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant from its current treatment capacity of 40 MGD to 56 MGD. Construction of this expansion is underway and is anticipated to be complete in 2016. The Town of Holly Springs Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2013 also includes several planned expansions of water and sewer infrastructure in the Complete 540 FLUSA. These include: Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 1] STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 • A new puinp station force main on Avent Ferry Road west of NC 55 Bypass, near the Braxton Village subdivision. This is scheduled for completion in 2016. • A new l2-inch waterline along Duncan Cook Road to tie to an 8-inch waterline in Harnett County, a distance of about three miles. This is scheduled for completion in 2015. • A new sewer pump station and two-mile waterline to serve a certified site for new industry on Friendship Road, near US 1. This is scheduled far completion in 2015. • A new 24-inch force main along Earp Street from Bass Lake Road to Main Street. This is scheduled for completion in 2014. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 12 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT-CAUSING ACTIVITIES When analyzing the potential for change in land use/induced development as a result of a transportation project, certain transportation impact causing activities (TICA) are assessed including: change in direct access, change in accessibility/travel time savings, change in travel patterns, change in exposure and whether or not a transportation/land use node is created. For transportation projects, looking at whether the proposed project is on new location and whether the project will change direct access is often the starting point for assessing potential indirect effects. In theory, if access is increased as a result of constructing the project, then the potential for induced growth is also increased. Secondly, changes in accessibility, which reflects travel time savings due to increased access and new travel patterns, are examined and can be measured in a variety of ways. Some geographic areas may experience greater travel-time savings than others, depending on changes in access or changes to existing travel patterns. Changes in access also influence travel patterns, such as how people commute to work. This section describes these changes in relation to the Complete 540 project as well as the likelihood that the proposed project and other projects in the area will create a transportation or land use node. 4.1 TRAVEL PATTERNS The purpose of the Complete 540 project is to improve transportation mobility for trips within, or traveling through, the project study area during the peak travel period, and to reduce traffic congestion in the project area. An additional desirable outcome of the project is to ii�nprove system linkage in the area roadway network. Inherent in each of these outcomes is the understanding that the project will have a notable effect on travel patterns and travel times in the project area, helping to provide a more direct route for commuters and regional travelers to reach their destinations and to shorten travel times. Much of the FLUSA is characterized by lower density residential development, and many residents of the area commute to major employment and activity centers along the 540 Outer Loop and along roadways connecring to the Outer Loop, such as I-40, NC 147, and US 1/64. Existing high-speed controlled-access facilities do not provide a direct route between many key locations and inany of these facilities face notable and worsening traffic congestion. Other routes are available but include primary and secondary roads with lower posted speed limits, no control of access, and numerous traffic signals. It is expected that many of those who currently travel between locations in the project area and employment and commercial centers within and outside the project area would use the proposed facility because it would provide a faster, more direct route to these areas. Traffic traveling between regions south and east of Raleigh and regions west of Raleigh, including interregional truck traffic, is generally limited to I-40/I-440 south of Raleigh. Since these routes serve high volumes of local traffic, interregional traffic limited to these same routes adds additional traffic volumes and also results in inefficient travel across the region. Some interregional traffic, including commercial truck traffic, would also be likely to use the proposed facility as a faster, more direct route to destinations. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 13 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 4.2 TRAVEL TIME As described in the project's Alternatives Development and Analysis Report (Lochner, 2014), a new location build alternative would reduce travel times in 2035 from various project area locations to RTP by an average of about 14 percent as compared to the no-build scenario. It would also reduce travel times from those same area locations to the Brier Creek/Raleigh Durham International Airport area by an average of about 12 percent. By increasing system capacity and providing an alternative route for travelers, the Complete 540 project has the potential to similarly reduce travel times between other major locations and destinations in both the immediate project area and the broader FLUSA. 4.3 CHANGE IN ACCESS As a major new location facility, the Complete 540 project would dramatically increase access boxh within the FLUSA and between locations in the FLUSA and employment and commercial centers outside the project area. It will permanently alter the existing roadway network, creating numerous new connections to the region's high-speed, controlled access system. As a fully controlled access facility, increased direct access will be most notable at the project's interchange locations, where nearby parcels will become attractive for higher intensity development such as retail and other commercial uses. Local planners fully anticipate that the project will play a major role in influencing the land uses and intensities that will develop across the project area. In light of this anticipated influence on development, local jurisdictions have incorporated the project into local plans, as described in Section 5.6.1. 4.4 CHANGE IN EXPOSURE This major new location facility will also create new exposure to the properties along the length of the roadway. Much of the area in the vicinity of the project's DSAs is currently characterized by rural and low-density residential development, so this new exposure from the new roadway will be a notable change from existing conditions. 4.5 LAND USE OR TRANSPORTATION NODES All of the jurisdictions in the project area fully expect the Complete 540 project to influence the development of land use and transportation nodes, or areas of concentrated development, particularly at interchange areas. Many jurisdictions have planned for the development of activity centers at anticipated interchange areas along the protected corridor (described in Section 2.1) and have incorporated these anticipated activity centers into their future land use plans, as described in Section 5.5.1. An analysis of the potentiallocations where concentrated development would be likely to occur is included in Section 6.2. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 14 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS The project area lies south of Raleigh, at the eastern point of the area known as the "Triangle" region of North Carolina. The City of Durham/Durham County and the Town of Chapel Hill/Orange County form the Triangle's other two points. The Research Triangle Park (RTP), one of the oldest and largest research parks in North America, lies at the center of the Triangle and is a major economic engine in the area. RTP is an approximately 7,000 acre development housing more than 170 companies which employ over 42,000 full-time and 10,000 contract employees (RTP, 2011). The area's economy is influenced by State government, numerous universities, and by its proximity to RTP. Within this context, this section summarizes population, development and economic trends within the FLUSA. 5.1 POPULATION Table 2 presents a summary of the population changes in the region between 1990 and 2010, along with projected population in 2033. Although the time horizon for the ICE analysis is 2035, population projections are available only through 2033. It is assumed that growth trends predicted through 2033 will continue similarly through 2035. Table 2. Population Trends and Projections from 1990 to 2030 Annual Population Growth Growth Projected Population Jurisdiction Rate 1990 2000 2010 1990- 2000- 1990- 2000-2010 2033 2010-2033 2000 2010 2010 Po ulation Growth North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 9,535,485 1,420,676 1,486,172 2,906,848 1.71°/o 12,000,560 �>465,075 (21.4%) (18.5%) (43.9%) (25.9%) Wake Count 423,380 627,846 900,993 �04,466 273,147 477,613 3.68% 1,383,017 482,024 Y (48.3%) (43.5%) (112.8°/a) (53.5%) Johnston Count 81,306 121,965 168,878 40,659 46,913 g�,s�� 3.31% 219,695 50,817 Y (50.0%) (38.5°/a) (10�.7%) (30.1%) Harnett County 67,833 91,029 114,678 �3 196 23,649 46,845 2,34°/o 180,502 65 824 (34.2%) (26.0%) (69.1%) (57.4%) Source: US Census Bureau (2010) Summary File 1 Total Population (100-Percent Data), Summary File 1(100-Percent Data), Table Pl — TOTAL POPULATION (2000); North Carolina Office of Management and Budget, 2033 Popularion Projections (September 2013). All of the areas in the FLUSA have experienced rapid population growth since 1990, with growth outpacing the statewide rate in all three counties. This reflects the rapid population growth that has characterized the broader Raleigh-Cary Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and the Raleigh-Durham- Chapel Hill Combined Statistical Area (CSA). U.S. Census data show that the population of the Raleigh-Cary MSA increased by nearly 108 percent between 1990 and 2010, and that the population of the Raleigh-Durhain-Chapel Hill CSA increased by nearly 125 percent over the same time period. The Raleigh-Cary MSA was the nation's second fastest-growing MSA from 2000 to 2010 and the third fastest between 1990 and 2010. All of the municipalities in the FLUSA, along with Wake, Johnston, and Harnett counties, experienced greater population growth between 1990 and 2010 than North Carolina as a whole. The populations of all of the municipalities in the study area increased over this time period, with the fastest growth in Holly Springs (over 2600 percent), Apex (over 650 percent), and Knightdale (over 500 percent). All three of these municipalities had fairly small populations in 1990, but over the next twenty years they experienced substantial new suburban development and annexations that increased their incorporated Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 15 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 areas. In addition, the larger, more established municipalities in the FLUSA, such as Raleigh and Cary, also experienced continued rapid growth. According to the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, population in all three of the counties in the FLUSA is expected to continue to grow rapidly. All three counties are projected to experience faster growth than the state as a whole. Between 2010 and 2033, population is projected to grow by about 30 percent in Johnston County (1.2 percent average annual growth), by about 53 percent in Wake County (1.9 percent average annual growth), and by about 57 percent (2.0 percent average annual growth) in Harnett County. The projected statewide growth rate for the same period is about 26 percent (1.0 percent average annual growth). 5.2 EMPLOYMENT Home to North Carolina's capital and numerous universities, and adjacent to RTP, Wake County has a robust and diversified economy featuring many of the State's largest employers. State government has always been the foundation of the area's job base, but biotechnology, information technology, higher education, and health care are also important and growing components of the area's employment mix. In addition to widespread residential developmeni, the Clayton area in Johnston County has also experienced commercial and industrial growth. It has become an important part of the region's high- technology industrial economy, with several major biopharmaceutical companies, including Talecris, Hospira, and Novo Nordisk, locating there. More than ten percent of the State's biopharmaceutical jobs are in Clayton (Town of Clayton, 2013a). Table 3, which compares unemployment rates over time for Wake, Johnston, and Harnett counties and the Raleigh-Cary Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) to State unemployment rates, illustrates that the project area maintains a stronger job base than the State as a whole. Unemployment rates in all areas rose in the late 2000s as a result of the nationwide economic recession, but have been steadily decreasing since early 2010, when unemployment rates peaked. Unemployment rates are consistently lower in Wake County, Jobnston County, and the Raleigh-Cary MSA than in the State as a whole. Table 3. Unemp Area North Carolina Wake County Johnston County Harnett County Raleieh-Carv MSA t Rates 2003 Annual Average 6.5% 5.3% 5.4% 6.6% 5.4% Source: North Carolina Division of Einployment Security. 2013 Annual Average 8.0% 6.2% 6.9% 9.2% 6.4% June2014 6.5 % S.l% 5.5% 7.4% 5.2% Table 4 lists the share of total employment in various supersectors or domains for industries in North Carolina, Wake, Johnston, and Harnett counties, and the Raleigh-Cary MSA. These shares are shown for 2003 and 2013 to illustrate employment trends in each of these areas. The manufacturing sector continues to decline in Wake, Johnston, and Harnett counties, although it still makes up a larger share of Johnston's employment distribution than the other counties. The education and health sectors make up a growing share of each county's job base. The distribution in other sectors has been fairly consistent between 2003 and 2013 in the three counties, although Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 16 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Table 4. Annual Employment Distribution - 2003/2013 (Percent) 2003 2013 Employment Industry North Wake Johnston Harnett Raleigh- North Wake Johnston Harnett Raleigh- Carolina County County County Cary MSA Carolina County County County Cary MSA Goods-Producin Domain Natural Resources/Mining 0.9 0.5 2.7 ].4 0.8 0.8 0.2 1.9 1.3 0.4 Construction 5.7 6.9 8.2 8.3 73 4.4 5.4 7.1 6.3 5.6 Manufacturing 16.2 5.8 18.1 11.1 53 11.1 4.8 15.4 5.9 5.9 Service-Providing Domain Trade/Transportation/Utilities 20.1 19.8 21.3 21.0 20.5 19.7 17.9 222 21.8 18.3 Information 2.1 �}.4 1.4 2.0 4.2 1.8 3.7 0.5 1.6 3.4 Financial Aceivities 5.0 5.4 2.8 3.9 53 5.1 5.3 2.7 3.0 4.7 ProfessionalBusiness 11.4 17.4 7.6 7.0 16.8 13.9 21.0 7.7 6.6 19.8 Education and Health 21.0 17.4 20.5 28.0 18.4 23.8 19.0 232 32.3 19.5 Leisure and Hospitality 9.3 10.4 9.5 7.5 9.6 11.0 112 11.0 11.0 11.1 Other Services 2.6 3.2 23 1.8 3.2 2.5 3.1 2.4 2.0 3.1 Public Administration 5.8 8.7 5.6 8.0 8.7 6.0 8.4 6.0 8.1 8.2 Total Government Sector 16.7 19.2 19.3 21.8 16.2 17.2 16.0 20.8 24.9 16.2 Total Private Sector 83.3 80.8 80.7 78.2 83.1 82.8 84.0 79.2 75.1 83.8 Source: North Carolina Division of Employment Security. Notes: Employment numbers are Annual Average EmploymenY for aggregate of all types by Super sector or pomain. Year 2013 most recent year in which annual data available. lndirect and Cumulative Effects Report STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2728, and R-2729 - December 2014 17 Johnston and Harnett counties have experienced declines in the proportion of private sector jobs and increases in the proportion of government jobs. Much of this shift is due to the continued loss of manufacturing jobs, reflecting a larger statewide and nationwide trend. Wake County's lower dependence on manufacturing jobs has helped make its economy somewhat more resilient than in other areas of the State. The North Carolina Depart�nent of Commerce-Division of Employment Security (DES) projects continued job growth in the project area. DES projects that the Capital Area Workfarce Development Board (WDB) area, which includes Wake and Johnston counties, will gain 112,810 jobs between 2010 and 2020, for an increase of 21.5 percent (2.0 percent average annual growth). The Triangle South WDB, which includes Harnett, Lee and Sampson counties, is projected to gain 11,940 jobs over that same period, an increase of 13.5 percent (1.3 percent average annual growth). Local planners also anticipate continued job growth in the project area and many jurisdictions anticipate that commercial land uses will make up a growing share of local land uses. 5.3 LAND USE PATTERNS Land use in the FLUSA is of mixed intensity and density, although low-density residential subdivisions and rural land uses are the most prevalent characteristics of the area, as shown in Figure 5. Much of the project area was, until recently, characterized by agricultural and rural residential land uses. Many of the communities in the FLUSA have become increasingly popular locations for suburban development as people commuting to jobs in RTP, Raleigh, and other employment centers in the region seek lower-cost housing, open space, and the quality of life offered by southern Wake, Johnston, and Harnett counties. Low-density residential uses include individual rural single-family residences, single-family subdivisions and mobile home parks, typically at nei densities of less than four dwelling units per acre. Interspersed with these land uses are numerous churches, schools, daycare centers, and other similar types of development. A review of Census data shows that much of the residential development within the FLUSA consists of housing built since 1990. Much of the housing in the western part of the FLUSA in particular was built after 2000. Older housing is mainly clustered in the central areas of Garner, Fuquay-Varina, Clayton, and Angier. 5.3.1 Wake County The western part of the FLUSA includes substantial commercial, industrial, and office development along NC 55 and NC 55 Bypass. There are also commercial shopping centers along Holly Springs Road and Kildaire Farm Road. The Holly Springs/Apex/Cary area includes numerous large planned residential subdivisions with homes on lots smaller than one-third acre. There are a few multi-family residential developments in this part of the study area, generally along Kildaire Farm Road and West Lake Road. Downtown Holly Springs features uses such as small offices, government buildings, and small retail stores. The southwestern portion of Wake County includes the Fuquay-Varina area. This coinmunity's downtown areas also feature retail stores, restaurants, small offices, churches, schools and government buildings. South and west of Fuquay-Varina, land uses become rural, with numerous farms along with rural, large-lot residences and fann-oriented commercial uses. Areas north and northwest of Fuquay- Varina are characterized by a mix of rural and agricultural uses, horse farms and stables, and newer residential subdivisions. Areas along and near US 401, which connects Fuquay-Varina to Garner and Raleigh to the north, include a higher concentration of industrial uses including automotive businesses, Indirect and Cum�ulative Effects Report 18 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2728, and R-2729 — December 2014 light manufacturing facilities and warehouses, along wiih commercial uses, restaurants, bars, and small offices. East of US 401, much of the FLUSA becomes increasingly rural. South of Lake Benson, low-density residential subdivisions and numerous farms and farm-oriented businesses predominate. North of Lake Benson, the central area of Garner is characterized by older, more urban residential development, numerous multi-family residential developments, and substantial commercial development. West and south of central Garner, newer single-family residential developments continue to develop. The US 70 corridor between Garner and Clayton features regional shopping centers and numerous industrial developments, including manufacturing and research and development facilities. Industrial and regional commercial development also characterizes the areas surrounding I-40 east of Garner. East of I-40 and US 70, southern Wake County is highly rural, with widespread agricultural development and related rural land uses. Suburban residential development is starting to spread into this area, although this type of development is not as common as in the western part of the FLUSA. To the northeast, land uses again include more commercial and industrial developments, particularly near the US 64/US 264 Bypass and along US 64 Business in Knightdale. 5.3.2 Johnston County Johnston County lies southeast of Walce County. While more rural than Wake County, its location along I-95 midway between New Yark and Florida helps to promote commercial, transportation and travel-oriented development in parts of the County (Johnston County, 2013). In areas near the Wake County border, residential, commercial and industrial growth is strongly influenced by the area's proximity to employment centers in Raleigh and RTP. Northern Johnston County is characterized by a mix of agricultural, rural residential, and newer suburban residential development. The area surrounding the NC 42 interchange on I-40 includes highway-oriented commercial development, with numerous motels, restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores and other retail uses. The new Johnston Health Clayton medical center is located on NC 42 east of the US 70 Bypass (Clayton Bypass) interchange. Central Clayton features a mix of small-town urban land uses and older residential neighborhoods. US 70 Business through this part of Johnston County features coinmercial shopping centers, industrial parks, and office uses. South of Cleveland Road, in the Clayton area, Johnston County remains highly rural and agricultural. 5.3,3 Harnett County South of Wake County, land use in Harnett County is generally rural with low to medium density residential development. The portion of the county within the FLUSA includes the Town of Angier and surrounding medium to low-density residential development. 5.4 WATER AND SEWER UTILITY SERVICES The City of Raleigh is the major provider of water and sewer service in Wake County. Incorporated areas in the eastern and north-central portions of the FLUSA are served by Ciry of Raleigh water and sewer. The City of Raleigh provides water and sewer service to approximately 500,000 customers in Raleigh, Garner, and Knightdale, as well as the Wake Forest, Rolesville, Knightdale, Wendell, and Zebulon areas (City of Raleigh Public Utilities, 2014). Raleigh also is a wholesale seller of bulk water supply to customers including the Town of Fuquay-Varina. Raleigh operates two water treatment plants, with a combined treatment capacity of 106 million gallons per day (MGD) and a current average daily demand of about 70 MGD. One of these, the Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 19 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Plant, is within the FLUSA, just west of I-40. Raleigh also operates three wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), with a combined treatment capacity of 65 MGD and a current average daily demand of about 44 MGD. One of these, the Neuse River WWTP, is in the FLUSA, approximately 12 miles southeast of Raleigh, near the Johnston County line. As described in Section 3.5.2, a planned expansion of the Neuse River WWTP would add an additional 15 MGD in treatment capacity to the system. Incorporated areas in the northwestern part of the FLUSA are served by Cary and Apex water and sewer. The Towns of Cary and Apex jointly own a water treatment plant (WTP) west of the project area. This WTP has a treatment capacity of 40 million gallons per day (MGD), with current average daily demand at about 34 MGD. As described in Section 3.5.2, a expansion of this facility's current capacity to 56 MGD is under construction and anticipated to be complete in 2016. Each of these towns maintains a water distribution system; together these two systems serve over 65,000 customers (Town of Apex Public Works and Utilities Department, 2014, and Town of Cary Public Works and Utilities Department, 2014). Cary and Apex each also provide sewer service to large parts of western Wake County. The Town of Cary currently operates two WWTPs, with a combined capacity of about 25 MGD and current daily demand at about 12 MGD. One of these facilities is just south of the study area in the West Lake Road area. The Town of Apex operates a WWTP near the western terminus of the project. It has a capacity of 3.6 MGD, with current daily demand at about 2.4 MGD. A new Western Wa1ce Regional WWTP opened in the northwestern corner of the FLUSA in 2014. It will serve Cary, Apex, Holly Springs, and Morrisville (Western Wake Partners, 2011). It will ultimately increase the region's wastewater treatment capacity by 18 MGD. Holly Springs receives its public water supply from Harnett County and is also able to purchase water supply from the City of Raleigh. Holly Springs operates a wastewater treatment plant and provides wastewater treatment to over 25,000 residents, with the capacity to treat 6 MGD of wastewater (Town of Holly Springs Public Utilities Department, 2014). This WWTP currently treats an average of about 1.5 MGD. The Holly Springs service areas includes the western part of the study area. The Town of Clayton purchases its water supply from Johnston County (Town of Clayton, 2013a). Clayton provides water distribution and sewer service to areas in the eastern portion of the FLUSA. Johnston County maintains a public water system, but most of its service area is outside the FLUSA (Johnston Counry, 2013). Clayton operates the Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility, which has a treatment capacity of 2.5 MGD and a current average demand of about 2 MGD. Clayton augments its wastewater treatment capacity through agreeements with the City of Raleigh and Johnston County, bringing the town's total available wastewater treatment capacity to about 4 MGD (Town of Clayton, 2013a). Johnston County owns and operates the Central Johnston County Wastewater Treatment Plant, a 9.5 MGD capacity facility in Smithfield; it has a current average demand of about 5 MGD. To the south, Harnett County provides water to the Town of Angier and various water purveyors in Wake and Johnston counties. The county owns and operates the Harnett County Regional Water Treatment Plant which uses the Cape Fear River as the system's water source. The raw water intake facility on the Cape Fear River has a current average demand of about 12 MGD and is currently being expanded, which will increase the amount of available capacity from 27 MGD to 42 MGD. Harnett County also owns two active wastewater treatment plants with a combined capacity of 20.6 MGD and a current average demand of about 10 MGD (Harnett County, 2014). In general, development in unincorporated areas, which comprise large parts of the FLUSA between US 401 and US 64/264 Bypass, is limited to septic systems and well water. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 20 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Local government staff interviewed for this project generally indicate that there is ample water and sewer capacity in the FLUSA to support continued growth in the area. Section 3.5 lists planned infrastructure extensions and expansions of water and sewer service in the FLUSA. 5.5 NOTABLE FEATURES Resources including NC OneMap, NCDOT GIS data, and local GIS resources were used to assemble an inventory of notable features in the FLUSA. These include human environmental features and natural environmental features. Notable features in the FLUSA are shown on Figure 6. 5.5.1 Human Environment 5.5.1.1 Communities The FLUSA includes portions of three counties (Wake, Johnston, and Harnett) and all or part of nine cities and towns: Raleigh, Cary, Apex, Holly Springs, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, and Knightdale in Wake County; Clayton in Johnston County, and Angier in Harnett County. There are hundreds of established neighborhoods located within the FLUSA. These include areas such as residential subdivisions, rural communities near crossroad areas, and communities with strong ties to local churches. 5.5.1.2 Parks and Recreational Resources There are numerous existing and planned parks and recreational facilities in the FLUSA. A list of these facilities in in Appendix C. 5.5.2 Natura/ Environment 5.5.2.1 Water Resources Most of the FLUSA lies within the Neuse River basin, with a portion of the western and southern edges of the FLUSA in the Cape Fear River basin. The Neuse River runs roughly north to south through Wake and Johnston counties, extending across the eastern edge of the study area. There are three general watersheds in the Neuse River basin within the FLUSA: Middle Creek and its tributaries, Swift Creek and its tributaries, and the Neuse River and its tributaries. Middle Creek extends across the southwest corner of the study area and includes Sunset Lake near Holly Springs. Swift Creek traverses the study area from the southern outskirts of Cary, southeast to near the intersection of NC 42 and the Clayton Bypass (US 70 Bypass). Two large lakes are part of the Swift Creek watershed, Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson; both of these lakes supply drinking water to the area. White Oak Creek, a tributary of Swift Creek, traverses the study area from north to south, east of I-40. Middle Creek and Swift Creek within the immediate project area are included on the Draft 2014 North Carolina 303(d) list, in which NCDENR identifies impaired waters as required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (NCDENR, 2014). Middle Creek, which is classified as a Class C watershed with nutrient sensitive waters, is listed as impaired from south of US 1 to the backwaters of Sunset Lake due to fair benthic integrity. From the dam at Sunset Lake to just upstream of US 401, Middle Creek is listed as impaired due to poor fish community. Terrible Creek, a tributary of Middle Creek, is also identified as an impaired water between Johnson Pond and Middle Creek due to fair benthic integrity. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 2] STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Several other waterways in ihe Neuse River basin are also included on the North Carolina 303(d) list. Crabtree Creek west of the Neuse River, near US 64/264 Bypass, is listed as impaired due to a fsh tissue advisory of potential polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination. Walnut Creelc west of the Neuse River, also near US 64/US 264 Bypass, is listed as impaired due to a fish tissue advisory of potential PCB contamination and fair benthic integrity. Also in this area, Beddingfield Creek from its source to the Neuse River is listed as impaired due to fair benthic integrity. Little Creek in Johnston County is listed as impaired from its source, near Clayton, to Swift Creek, about eleven miles south, due to fair benthic integrity. The Neuse River itself between Crabtree Creek and Auburn Knightdale Road is listed as impaired due to a fish tissue advisory of potential PCB contamination. Kenneth Creek and Neills Creek, which are within the Cape Fear River basin in Harnett County, are also included on the North Carolina 303(d) list. Kenneth Creek is listed as impaired from the Wake- Harnett county line to Neills Creek, about four miles south, due to fair benthic integrity, low pH, and low dissolved oxygen. Neills Creek is listed as impaired from its source to the southern boundary of the FLUSA, near Angier, due to poor benthic integrity. Swift Creek is classified as a Water Supply-III watershed with nutrient sensitive waters (WS-III NSW). As described in Section 5.5.1, development in the Swift Creek watershed area is limited by watersbed protection policies within Wake County's Swift Creek Land Management Plan (1990). Between the Lalce Wheeler dam and Lake Benson, Swift Creek is listed as impaired due to poor benthic integrity. The twenty mile stretch of Swift Creek from the dam at Lake Benson downstream to Little Creek is listed as impaired due to fair benthic integrity. The Cape Fear River within the FLUSA in Harnett County is classified as a Water Supply-IV watershed (WS-IV). Harnett County maintains development restrictions in this watershed area. One of the water bodies in the FLUSA is classified as a High Quality Water (HQW). It is Hector Creek, in Harnett Couniy at the southwestern corner of the FLUSA. None of the water bodies in the FLUSA are classified as Outstanding Resource Waters. 5.5.2.2 Protected Species There are four federally protected species documented within Wake and Johnston counties: the Red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), the Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and the Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). Two additional federally protected species are documented within Harnett County: the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) and the Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia). The Dwarf wedgemussel is found throughout Swift Creek in the FLUSA; however, the portion of Swift Creek downstream of the Lake Benson dam has been identified by USFWS as particularly important for the long-term survival of this species in the region (USFWS, 1993). In the small segment of Swift Creek between Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson, Dwarf wedgeinussel individuals would be isolated by the Lake Benson dam from the downstream population of the species, limiting the ability of this part of Swift Creek to influence long-term survival of the species in the broader Swift Creek watershed. 5.5.2.3 Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas There are several sites in the FLUSA thai are designated by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) as NHP Natural Areas (North Carolina NHP, 2003a and 2003b). While NHP Natural Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 22 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Area designation doesn't afford any special protection, it does indicate that the designated site is unique from an ecological perspective. NHP Natural Areas include the following: Blue Pond Salamander Site — In the Sunset Lake area in Holly Springs, this is one of Wake County's most important amphibian breeding sites. Middle Creek Aquatic Habitat — This designation covers Middle Creek from the area near Sunset Lake Road in Holly Springs to Smithfield in Johnston County. It is significant because it supports several rare aquat�c species. Middle Creek Bluffs and Floodplain — This is a segment of the Middle Creek system in the area between Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina. It features a wide floodplain and slopes supporting an extensive mesic mixed hardwood forest natural community and good quality alluvial forest communities. Shearon Harris Lon�leaf Pine Forest — This area near Harris Lake in western Walce County is the only remaining example of Piedmont Longleaf Pine Forest in the region. Utley Creek Slopes — This area is also near Harris Lake in western Wake County. It contains an extensive Dry Oak-Hickory Forest natural community, rock outcrops with caves along Utley Creek, and occurrences of the rare plant species Virginia spiderwort. Hollemans Crossroads Salamander Pools — In southwestern Wake County near Fuquay-Varina, this area consists of two small vernal pools that serve as breeding habitat for several species of amphibians, including four-ioed salamander. Hollemans Crossroads Slopes — Near Harris Lake in southwestern Wake County, this area consists of narrow ridges and ravines containing mature hardwood forests over slightly acidic to nearly circumneutral soils in the Triassic Basin. It contains a rare Wake County example of Basic Oak- Hickory Forest. Jim Branch/Buckhorn Creek Forests — Near Harris Lake in southwestern Wake County, these areas feature fairly rich hardwood slopes and a moderate-size nesting colony of great blue herons. Yates Millpond — On Lake Wheeler Road, this is an old millpond with a floodplain above it. A large population of the rare plant species Carolina least trillium is found here. Middle Creek Amphibolite Slope — This is an area along Middle Creek in Johnsion County featuring an outcropping of amphibolite, a metamorphic rock rare in Johnston County. Middle Creek Floodplain Knolls — This site is comprised of two knolls featuring an unusual Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest community, with an abundance of Silky camellia in one area. The slopes of the knolls contain notable plant species such as Smallflower PawPaw, Mountain holly, and Bigleaf Snowbell. Swift Creek Ma�nolia Slopes — This is an area along Swift Creek near Cleveland Road in Johnston County featuring magnolia trees. Neuse River (Clayton, Forests — This is an area along the Neuse River south of the US 64/US 264 Bypass. It contains several types of forested natural communities. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 23 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Swift Creek Aquatic Habitat — This designation covers Swift Creek from downstream of Lake Benson to Smithfeld in Johnston County. It is significant because it supports several rare mussel species, including the federally proiected Dwarf wedgemussel. Walnut Creek Sumac Site — Near Barwell Road in southeastern Raleigh, this area supports one of North Carolina's best known populations of the federally protected Michaux's sumac. Walnut Creek Bottomland Forests — In southeastern Raleigh, this area contains a number of moderate to large beaver ponds. Marks Creek Floodplain — Near Wendell, this area consists of beaver ponds, with a portion dammed to form Lake Myra. The State Species of Special Concern least brook lamprey had been found in Marks Creek. The federally protected Michaux's sumac occurs within this site and a series of granite flatrocks have been found within the upland areas of the site. 5.6 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND LOCAL PLANS 5.6.1 Land Use P/ans and Regulations The following sections include a summary discussion of relevant planning documents and initiatives for each jurisdiction in the FLUSA. Wake County. The Wake County Land Use Plan, last updated in March of 2004, establishes policies designed to influence the timing, type, location, and quality of future development in Wake County's planning jurisdiciion. These policies are intended to accommodate growth of urbanized areas within or adjoining the County consistent with the Plan's goals and strategies. Much of unincorporated Wake County is within the extraterritorial jurisdictions (ETJs) or the urban service areas (USAs) of area municipalities (including Fuquay-Varina, Holly Springs, Garner, and Knightdale), and for that reason those areas are not covered by Wake County future land use planning. The Land Use Classifcations and General Classifications maps in the Wake County Land Use Plan, which show the limits of municipal ETJs and USAs, are shown in Appendix D. The Wake County Land Use Plan does, however, cover areas outside these municipal ETJs and USAs. The Plan includes several small area land use plans. Three small area land use plans cover areas within the Complete 540 FLUSA. Maps showing planned land uses designated in each of these are shown in Appendix D. The East Raleigh-Knightdale Area Land Use Plan (ALUP) identifies a Special Transportation Corridor along a representative corridor for Phase II of the Complete 540 project, east of I-40. Activity Centers, intended for mixed and higher density land uses, are designated along this corridor at the Rock Quarry Road/Auburn-Knightdale Road area and near Battle Bridge Road. The Fuquay-Varina—Garner ALUP identifies areas along the protected corridar for Phase I, west of I-40, and a representative corridor for Phase II as a Special Highway Overlay District. Mixed land uses, including higher density residential, commercial, and industrial, are encouraged at activity centers near potential interchanges along these corridors. The remainder of the area is mainly planned for lower density residential uses. The Southwest ALUP designates mainly low-density residential land uses in the FLUSA, with areas closer to Harris Lake designated for preservation and very limited development. The Wake County Land Use Plan also includes a special Land Management Plan for Swift Creek. The Swift Creek Land Management Plan, adopted in 1990, identifies the Swift Creek basin's Water Supply Watershed Critical Area and Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 24 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 watershed buffer areas, within which development activities are liinited, and appropriate low-density land use categories for the surrounding areas. A copy of the Land Use Management Plan map is in Appendix D. The Plan also sets impervious surface limits of 6 percent in critical areas and 12 percent in non-critical areas. Critical areas are those closest to the water supply source. Wake County also maintains a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), adopted in 2006. Most of the area under Wake County's jurisdiction within the FLUSA is zoned for low-density residential uses, with a special watershed residential designation corresponding to the Swift Creek Critical Watershed Area. Only very low-density residential development of no more than one dwelling unit per two acres is permitted in the Critical Watershed Area and of no more than one dwelling unit per acre in the Non- Critical Watershed Area. Development in these areas is required to include stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and to limit impervious surface coverage. There is also a separate Water Supply Watershed Non-Critical Area zoning designation for areas between Rand Road and White Oak Road in southern Garner. Densities and impervious surface coverage are similarly limited by this designation. The UDO also sets standards for riparian buffers along surface waters in the Neuse River and Cape Fear River basins. These standards require undisturbed vegetative buffers of 100 feet on each side of intermittent and perennial streams and of 30 feet around other water bodies. The UDO also designates flood hazard areas based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Development within flood hazard areas is limited accordingly with respect to site planning, construction methods and materials, and drainage. As part of the mitigation process associated with the Clayton Bypass project, completed in 2008, Wake County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NCDOT and USFWS. In the MOU, Wake County agreed to prohibit fill and new development in floodways or floodway fringes on lots created after May 19, 2003, in the Swift Creek area. The MOU also limits nitrogen export load from new developments to 3.6 pounds per acre per year. Residential development exceeding a nitrogen export load of 6 pounds per acre per year and other development exceeding a load of 10 pounds per acre per year must implement stormwater control measures to achieve the threshold loads. The MOU also generally limits peak stormwater runoff from new development to no greater than the 1-year, 24-hour storm event. As part of the mitigation measures, Wake County also created a resource conservation overlay zoning district in the Swift Creek area where 100-foot buffers are established along perennial streams. Raleigh. The City of Raleigh adopted a new 2030 Comprehensive Plan in November of 2009. The Plan is the City's key policy document shaping all aspects of the community's physical development and influencing related economic and social issues. One of the goals of the Plan is to enhance land use and transportation coordination. The Complete 540 project is not specifically mentioned in the Plan, although the Plan does identify an objective of coordinating transportation planning and funding with neighboring jurisdictions and local transportation agencies so that sufficient right-of-way for future transportation corridors may be preserved. The Plan includes a Future Land Use Map; a copy of the map is in Appendix D. Along the northern edge of the FLUSA, west of I-40, future land use designations are a mix of institutional, conunercial, residential, and rural categories. Along the east side of I-40, the map designates commercial and industrial uses. Directly south of US 64/264 Bypass, the map designates commercial uses. The remainder of the area under Raleigh's planning jurisdiction within the FLUSA is designated mainly for low-density and rural residential uses and public facilities. A 428-acre tract known as Randleigh Farm, on Battle Bridge Road, south of the Neuse River, is jointly owned by the City of Raleigh and Wake County. The City and County are developing plans to create Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 25 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 a mixed-use community on this site, with planned uses including parkland, iwo public schools, private development, and an environmental education center. The City of Raleigh adopted a new Unified Developrnent Ordinance (UDO) in 2013. Along major thoroughfares under Raleigh's jurisdiction within the FLUSA, zoned uses include industrial and commercial development. The remainder of the area between I-40 and the Town of Garner is zoned mainly for residential uses. East of I-40, low-density residential is the most common zoned use. The UDO also sets standards for riparian buffers along surface waters in the Neuse River basin, which follow State-mandated riparian buffer rules, described in Section 5.6.2Z. In addition, any development greater than 12,000 square feet in area requires submittal of a sediment and erosion control plan. The UDO also designates flood hazard areas based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Development within flood hazard areas is limited accordingly with respect to site planning, construction methods and materials, and drainage. Cary The Town of Cary is currently preparing a new comprehensive plan; if the new plan is adopted before the Draft EIS for the Complete 540 project is published, it will be documented in the Draft EIS. The Town's existing Comprehensive Plan is a compilation of several separate plans and elements that together describe the Town's of6cial vision for Cary's future. The plan addresses issues including growth, land use, transportation, and housing. The Town of Cary Land Use Plan, adopted in 1996 and last ainended in 2009, is the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan presents the Town's official policy regarding the form and pattern of future development. One of its functions is to direct provision of public infrastructure. The Land Use Plan Map identifies the protected corridor for Phase I of the Complete 540 project as "Planned Outer Loop Right of Way." Much of the area in Cary's planning jurisdiction within the Complete 540 FLUSA is already developed, and much of the remaining area is already platted for development. Development in this part of Cary consists mainly of large, low-density residential subdivisions, with commercial and office land uses concentrated near US 1. A neighborhood activity center is planned for the area near a potential interchange between the protected corridor and Bells Lake Road; neighborhood-oriented retail development would be located here. A copy of Cary's Land Use Plan Map is in Appendix D. Cary adopted its Land Developrnent Ordinance in 2003. The small area inside Cary's municipal limits within the Complete 540 FLUSA is zoned according to its current uses (mainly residential, with recreation designated for the park area). The Land Development Ordinance also requires 100-foot vegetative buffers on all perennia] and intermittent streams. The Land Development Ordinance also designates Special Flood Hazard Areas based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Development within these areas is limited accordingly with respect to site planning, construction methods and materials, and drainage. Apex• The Town of Apex adopted Peak Plan 2030: The Apex Comprehensive Plan in 2013 with a goal of presenting a vision of the community's future to inform development decisions. The Plan includes a map illustrating proposed land uses in the Town in 2030; a copy of this map is in Appendix D. The map designates several activity centers—key areas to accommodate higher-density, mixed-use growth. One of the proposed activity centers is just north of the western terminus of the Complete 540 project at NC 55, corresponding to the Veridea development, a very large planned and approved mixed-use project. It is anticipated to include 10 million square feet of office development, 3.5 million square feet of commercial space, and 8,000 residential units. The Plan designates additional offce and industrial uses for the areas south of US 1, west of existing NC 540, with low-density residential development designated closer to Harris Lake. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 26 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Apex adopted its Unified Development Ordinance in 2000 and has updated it regularly since then. The Veridea area is zoned for Sustainable Development, which permits a mix of uses subject to the requirements of a Sustainable Development Plan prepared for the development. Surrounding areas are zoned for light industrial, commercial, and other similar uses. The Town's UDO also designates all of its municipal area within the Complete 540 FLUSA as a Secondary Watershed Protection Overlay District. Proposed developments in this area must submit a development plan that complies with a range of requirements, including impervious surface area standards, structural BMPs for stormwater, and vegetative buffers of an average width of at least l00 feet along perennial streams and of at least 50 feet along intermittent streams. The UDO also designates a Flood Damage Prevention Overlay Disirict for flood hazard areas as designated by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Development within flood hazard areas is limited accordingly with respect to site planning, construction methods and materials, and drainage. Fuquay-Varina. The Town has a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, adopted in 2005 and amended regularly as needed. The Plan seeks to guide future development within the Town's Urban Services Area (USA). The plan includes a Land Use Map, which designates desired future land uses in the USA; a copy of this map is in Appendix D. Higher density residential uses, along with commercial and indlistrial uses, are designated for areas closer to US 401 and NC 55. Other areas are generally designated for low-density residential uses. The alignment of the protected corridor for the Complete 540 project is shown as a recommended major thoroughfare on the Land Use Map. As part of its future land use planning, Fuquay-Varina has identified seven Preferred Growth Areas (PGAs), where the Town has made or intends to make investments in infrastructure in support of nonresidential mixed-use growth or residential growth. Most of the area within the Town's planning jurisdiction along or west of US 401 is within a PGA. A copy of the PGA map is also in Appendix D. The Official Zoning Map for Fuquay-Varina shows that inuch of the area within the existing municipal limits is zoned for residential uses, with lower densities northeast and south of central Fuquay-Varina. Commercially-zoned land is mainly concentrated downtown and along US 40] and NC 55. Fuquay-Varina does not have its own stormwater regulations, but State-mandated riparian buffer rules requiring 50-foot buffers along each side of perennial and intermittent streams (Section 5.5.2.2) apply to development in the town. Garner. Garner's Comprehensive Growth Plan (2006) is intended to provide a long-range vision for land development and redevelopment opportunities, community infrastructure decisions and community image. Water quality issues in the Lake Benson area are especially prominent. A map of designated future land uses is in Appendix D. The Plan is organized around several activity centers, where commercial, higher density residential, and mixed uses can be located. Farther away from the central part of each activity center, lower density residential development is the planned future land use. The Plan also prioritizes growth areas for targeted infrastructure investment. The highest priority growth area is the White Oak area, east of NC 50, south of US 70, and west of White Oak Road. Downtown Garner is also a priority area for investment for redevelopment and revitalization. The Plan identifies future activity centers at the potential interchanges along the protected corridor for Complete 540 at US 401 and Old Stage Road. The area south of Lake Benson is identified as part of the Wake County Land Management Plan for Swift Creek. Garner adopted its Unified Development Ordinance in 2003. The Official Zoning Map concentrates much of the town's commercial and industrial zoning near US 70 and I-40. This area has a fairly large concentration of industrial and more intense commercial development as compared to the rest of the FLUSA for Complete 540. The area between US 70 and Timber Drive is mainly zoned for higher Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 27 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 density residential development. West and south of Timber Drive, lower density residential zoning is more prevalent. The UDO identifies Lake Benson Conservation Overlay District along the north side of Lake Benson and a Swift Creek Conservation Overlay District below Lake Benson. These two districts limit uses, densities, and impervious surface coverage. The UDO also includes stormwater management regulations, which establish buffer setbacks from Lake Benson and 50-foot buffers along streams, measured from the edge of the 100-year floodplain. The UDO also includes floodplain management regulations that limit development within special flood hazard areas as designated by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, with respect to site planning, construction methods and materials, and drainage. As a conservation measure associated with the Clayton Bypass project, completed in 2008, Garner also entered into an MOU with NCDOT and USFWS. In addition to affirming existing regulations, the MOU established limits for nitrogen export load from new developments to 3.6 pounds per acre per year. Residential development exceeding a nitrogen export load of 6 pounds per acre per year and other development exceeding a load of 10 pounds per acre per year must implement stormwater control measures to achieve the threshold loads. Garner was a signatory of the 1990 Swift Creek Land Management Plan and adheres to the rules it established, including the impervious cover limits of 6 percent and 12 percent for critical and non-critical areas, respectively. Holly Springs. Vision Holly Springs is the Town of Holly Springs comprehensive plan. It was last revised in 2008. The Plan seeks to establish and enhance a town-wide identity, encourage economic development, and pramote livability. It establishes a future land use strategy, including a map of planned future land uses. A map of designated future land uses is in Appendix D. The Plan identifies regional centers, called Community Growth Areas, for mixed use developinent at higher densities along major transportation routes through the town to ensure the best possible access while minimizing negative impacts on area residential development. One of these regional centers, surrounding the intersection of Kildaire Farm Road and Holly Springs Road, includes the potential Holly Springs Road interchange on the protected corridor for Phase I of the Complete 540 project. Other regional centers include central Holly Springs, areas on Avent Ferry Road and NC 55 in southern Holly Springs, and the area near a planned future interchange on US 1 at Friendship Road in northwestern Holly Springs. Ouiside of these regional centers, planned future land uses are mainly residential, with of6ce and commercial uses designated along the south side of US 1 and along Green Oaks Parkway, east of NC 55 Bypass. Holly Springs adopted its Unified Development Ordinance in 2002 and has updated it regularly. The Town's Zoning Map designates commercial and office zoning categories at the intersection of Holly Springs Road and Kildaire Farm Road, and also at the anticipated location of the Holly Springs Road interchange on the protected corridor for Complete 540. Commercial, office, and industrial zoning is also concentrated along NC 55 Bypass and along NC 55. Existing and platted residential subdivisions, which are mainly east of NC 55 and north of Bass Lake Road, and along Avent Ferry Road, are zoned for low to medium residential development. Most of the remaining rural land, mainly in southern Holly Springs, is zoned for low-density residential development. Holly Springs maintains stormwater management controls under the NPDES Phase II program. Beyond State-mandated riparian buffer rules in the Neuse River basin (Section 5.6.2.2), the Town's stormwater controls also include required ] 00-foot undisturbed buffers around Bass Lake. Developers are required to implement stormwater BMPs and to demonstrate that proposed developments will not increase nutrient loading. Holly Springs adopted its Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in 2006, limiting development within special flood hazard areas as designated by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, with respect to site planning, construction methods and materials, and drainage. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 28 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Knightdale. The Town of Knightdale's 2027 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2003 and revised in 2011, is a direct response to the community's rapid growth, crearing the building blocks for the Town's future development. It includes a section outlining the Town's vision for its future and sections addressing individual topics including land use and transportation. Knightdale's plan is oriented around design features, rather than land use types. Maps showing the planned design districts and the locations of planned activity centers are shown in Appendix D. The portion of Knightdale within the Complete 540 FLUSA is mainly designaied as either part of ihe Countryside Design District, which is rural in character, or the Neighborhood Design District, which is suburban residential in character. Urban Village Design Districts, which are more urban and mixed-use in character, are designated near the interchange on the US 64/US 264 Bypass at Hodge Road and near the intersection of Smithfeld Road and Poole Road. Knightdale adopted its Unified Development Ordinance in 2005. The Town's Zoning Map designates most of the area within the Complete 540 FLUSA for low-density residential uses, with mixed use, commercial and industrial uses designated in the area surrounding the intersection of Hodge Road and Poole Road. Beyond State-mandated riparian buffer rules in the Neuse River basin (Section 5.6.2.2), the Town's UDO also requires development to include stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and to limit impervious surface coverage. The UDO also includes floodplain management regulations which limit development within special flood hazard areas as designated by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, with respect to site planning, construction methods and materials, and drainage. Wendell. The Town of Wendell's comprehensive plan, called The Town Plan of Wendell, was adopted in 2007. A map of designated future land uses included in the Plan is in Appendix D. A very small portion of Wendell's planning jurisdiction is within the Complete 540 FLUSA. It corresponds to a part of the planned Wendell Falls development. Wendell Falls is an approved mixed-use development intended to include 4,000 residential units and 100 acres of retail space. It also includes a school and designated open space along Lake Myra and Marks Creek. The Town's Unified Development Ordinance, adopted in 2010, assigns a low-density residential zoning category to all of the area in Wendell's planning jurisdiction that is within the Complete 540 FLUSA. The UDO identifies Riparian Buffer Zones and Flood Protection Zones. These designations limit development, require minimization of impervious cover, and require stormwater BMPs. Johnston County. The .Iohnston County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in March 2009, is organized around seven goals for County growth including managing growth and infrastructure, expanding economic opportunities, providing housing and protecting neighborhoods, preserving farmland and rural character, protecting environment and cultural sites, enhancing mobility, and intergovernmental coordination. The Plan indicates that the County's growih patterns have typically been driven by the location of major transportation facilities and that the County will continue to support key roadway improvements. While promoting future growth, the County also seeks to protect area farming operations, both for community character and economic benefits. A copy of the map included in the Plan is in Appendix D. The Plan designates most of the area within the FLUSA for Complete 540 as a Primary Growth Area. The exceptions are the area west of Smithfield and south of Swift Creek and the far western corner of the County. Within the Primary Growth Area, the Plan identifies commercial activity nodes at interchanges on I-40 and on major east-west roadways near I- 40, such as NC 42 and NC 210. The Plan also anticipates that the County will eventually provide water and sewer service to much of the Primary Growth Area, but the County's policy is to extend water and sewer service only to planned unit developments (PUDs) or to commercial/industrial areas. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 29 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 The Johnston County Land Development Code, adopted in 2000, designates most of the area in the FLUSA for low-density residential or rural land uses. The County developed an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) zoning designation that limits impervious cover and nitrogen loading rates near water bodies. The ESA was first established around Little Creek from US 70 Bypass to Swift Creek. As part of the mitigation process associated with the Clayton Bypass project, completed in 2008, Johnston County also entered into an MOU with NCDOT and USFWS. In this MOU, the county agreed to expand the boundaries of its ESA; the ESA now includes the Swift Creek watershed area. Stormwater restrictions within the ESA limit impervious coverage to 12 percent in residential areas and 50 percent in non-residential (versus 15 percent and 60 percent, respectively, outside of the ESA). The MOU also established limits for nitrogen export load from new developments to 3.6 pounds per acre per year. Based on the MOU, the County also prohibits development within flood hazard areas. A 100-foot undisturbed riparian buffer is required along perennial streams in the ESA, which Johnston County has defned as the main stem channels of Swift Creelc, White Oak Creek, Little Creek (from US 70 to Swift Creek) and Little River (from county line to NC 39). All other streams in the ESA do not require the increased ] 00-foot buffer, but do fall under Neuse River buffer requirements. Clavton. The Town of Clayton adopted a Strategic Growth Plan in March 2008 to prepare for increasing population growth and its effects on transportation, open space, and oiher community features. The Plan addresses the incorparated town as well as its extraterritorial jurisdiction, which extends approximately two miles around the town limits. The P1an indicates that much local traffic congestion is aitributable to the many Clayton residents that commute to jobs in Raleigh and other surrounding areas. The Plan includes a map designating proposed land uses within the town and its extraterritorial jurisdiction; a copy of this map is in Appendix D. The Complete 540 project is shown as a Proposed Freeway on this map. The map designates commercial and industrial uses along US 70 and along NC 42 on the west side of town. Clayton has also developed a small area plan for the area around the interchange on the Clayton Bypass at NC 42. The new Johnston Health Clayton medical center is located just east of this interchange, and the County anticipates further development of this area as a major mixed use center, including higher density residential uses, offices, hotels, and retail developments. Clayton also plans to prepare a small area plan for the interchange area between the Clayton Bypass and US 70 Business, south of downtown Clayton. The Town envisions this area developing as a commercial/research area as an extension of the biopharmaceutical companies currently present there. Clayton is developing concepts and plans for extension of water and sewer service to both of these interchange areas along the Clayton Bypass. Clayton adopied a Unified Develop�nent Code in 2005. The Official Zoning Map designaies commercial and office zoning along US 70 and NC 42, industrial zoning along US 70 south of downtown, and residential zoning in much of the rest of the town. It also designates planned mixed- use developments at the northern end of town (Riverwood area) and the area north of NC 42 and east of I-40. Clayton maintains stormwater management controls under the NPDES Phase II program; developers are required to implement stormwater BMPs and to demonstrate that proposed developments will not increase nutrient loading. State-mandated Neuse River buffer requirements are also applicable (Section 5.5.2.2). Clayton adopted its Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in 2005, limiting development within special flood hazard areas as designated by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, with respect to site planning, construction methods and materials, and drainage. Harnett Countv. Harnett County last updated its Land Use Plan in 1999. This plan guides future land use decisions in the County, and it includes a map designating general future land use categories, as shown in Appendix D. Within the Complete 540 FLUSA, the County designates the area west of US 401 for agriculture and low-density residential uses. A rural development node is designated Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 30 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 around the intersection of US 401 and NC 210, with compact mixed use designated along US 401 north of this area. The plan designates the area east of US 401 for medium density residential uses. Zoning designations in the part of Harneti County within the Complete 540 FLUSA are generally low- density residential categories. The County's Unified Development Ordinance, adopted in 20l 1, also designates conservation zones along major waterways. For the creeks in the FLUSA, the required conservation zones are designated as 200 feet from each side of the main channel. Within these conservation zones, development requires 100-foot setbacks from the creeks. Within the Cape Fear River Water Supply-IV Watershed, 100-foot minimum stream buffers are also required. Harnett County also maintains stormwater management controls under the NPDES Phase II program; developers are required to implement stormwater BMPs. The UDO also limits development within special flood hazard areas as designated by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, with respect to site planning, construction methods and materials, and drainage. Angler. Harnett County assists Angier in its planning and zoning functions. Tl�e Town of Angier Land Use Plan was last updated in 2007. A copy of the Plan's future land use map is in Appendix D. The Plan designates low-density residential uses for most areas within the town's jurisdiction, with medium density residential and commercial uses in central Angier and near the Wake Couniy border. The Town's Zoning Map, as codified in the Unified Development Ordinance (2010), includes commercial and office designations in central Angier and along US 401, with medium density residential designations closer to US 401, and low-density residential designations farther from US 401. The UDO limits development within special flood hazard areas as designated by FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, with respect to site planning, construction methods and materials, and drainage. Development in Angier is subject to stormwater management controls under the Harnett County NPDES Phase II program. 5.6.2 Environmental Regulations 5.6.2.1 NPDES Regulations In 1972, the NPDES program was established under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Phase I of the NPDES stormwater program was established in 1990. It requires NPDES permit coverage for large or medium municipalities with populations of 100,000 or more. In North Carolina, there are six Phase I communities, including the Ciry of Raleigh. As a Phase I community, Raleigh was required to develop and implement a citywide stormwater management program. The Phase II program under NPDES extends permit coverage to smaller communities (with populations under 100,000) and public entities that own or operate a muncipal separate stormwater sewer system (MS4). This program requires these communities to apply for and obtain a NPDES permit for stormwater discharge. To obtain the permit, the community must meet one of two conditions: Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 3] STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 1) The MS4 is located in an urbanized area as determined by the latest decennial United States Census. If the MS4 is not located entirely within an urbanized area, only the portion that is within the urbanized area is regulated. 2) The MS4 is located in an urbanized area as determined by the latest decennial United States Census. If the MS4 is not located entirely within an urbanized area, only the portion that is within the urbanized area is regulated. The following jurisdictions are Phase II stormwater permittees: Apex, Cary, Clayton, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, Knightdale, Holly Springs, Wendell, Wake County, Johnston County, and Harnett County. 5.6.2.2 Watershed Regulations Development within the Neuse River basin is subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules, administered by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources. These rules require development within the Neuse River basin to maintain minimum 50-foot buffers along each side of perennial and intermittent streams; as described in Section 5.6.1, several jurisdictions in the FLUSA have more stringent buffer requirements. These more stringent buffer requirements also apply in the Cape Fear basin for Holly Springs and Wake County. As of 1998, all waters in the Neuse River basin have been subject to the Neuse Nutrient Sensitive Waters rules, a set of permanent rules designed to address eutrophication in the Neuse River basin (North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, 1998). These rules include the Neuse Agriculture Rule, which requires agricultural uses to implement BMPs such that a collective nitrogen loading reduction goal can be achieved. The Neuse Nutrient Strategy also includes the Neuse Stormwater Rule, which required certain local governments, including Cary, Garner, Raleigh, Wake County and Johnston County to adopt local stormwater prograins, which set specific nutrient export goals for new development projects. Under this rule, new development cannot exceed nitrogen loads of 3.6 pounds per acre per year and post-developinent peak flow rates cannot be any greater than flows from pre-development conditions for the 1-year 24-hour storm. The Swift Creek Water Supply Watershed Critical Area is located in the northern part of the FLUSA; it is a water supply watershed encompassing Lake Wheeler, Lake Benson, and Swift Creek between these two lakes. As described in Section 5.61, development in the Swift Creek watershed area is limited by watershed protection policies within Wake County's Swift Creek Land Management Plan (1990). This Plan identifies the Swift Creek basin's Watershed Critical Area and watershed buffer areas, within which development activities are limited to appropriate low-density land use categories for the surrounding areas. Hector Creek, in Harnett County at the southwestern corner of the FLUSA, is classified as a High Quality Water (HQW). The Cape Fear River within the FLUSA in Harnett County is classified as a WS-IV Watershed; Harnett County maintains development restrictions in this watershed area. Harnett County also maintains required conservation zones for streams in the FLUSA. None of the streams in the FLUSA on the 303(d) list are impaired due to sedimentation or turbidity. For this reason, NCDOT Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds are not required to be implemented during project consiruction for these streams or their tributaries. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 32 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 5.7 AVAILABLE LAND The FLUSA for the Complete 540 project is approximately 450 square miles (nearly 300,000 acres). Since much of the FLUSA has only begun to develop within the last 10 to 20 years, a large proportion of this 450-square mile area is still available for new development and redevelopment at higher densities and intensities, particularly in southern Wake County, northern Harnett County, and Johnston County. While the recession of 2007-2009 somewhat slowed the pace of residential development in the FLUSA, development activities have resumed in recent years, and local planners expect the pace of development to continue to accelerate as the region's economy continues to improve. There is sufficient available land in the FLUSA to accommodate a continuation of the rapid growth experienced in the Raleigh area over the last three decades. 5.7,1 Wake County The western part of the FLUSA in Wake County is already fairly developed, with larger parcels of land available for development or redevelopment at higher densities or intensities generally limited to areas west of NC 55 Bypass in the Apex and Holly Springs areas, and areas surrounding central Fuquay-Varina. Near US 1, there is a substantial amount of land zoned for commercial, ofiice, and industrial development. Southwest of central Holly Springs, and in Fuquay-Varina, land near NC 55 and US 401 is also zoned for these higher-intensity uses, with surrounding areas generally zoned for low-density residential development. Much of the northern part of the FLUSA in Wake County is extensively developed. This area includes parts of Cary, southern Raleigh, Garner, and unincorporated areas between them. Development in these areas would generally be limited to smaller infill parcels and redevelopment of commercial land uses along major roadways. East of US 401 and south of Lake Benson, there are larger areas of available land. However, development near Lake Benson is limited by the Swift Creek Water Supply Watershed Critical Area development regulations. Development in parts of this area is also somewhat limited by the current lack of water and sewer infrastructure. Far southern Wake County, near NC 42, is characterized by ruralland uses on large parcels. Much of this land could be available for development, but the current lack of water and sewer infrastructure through most of this area is a limiting factor to development. East of I-40 and US related rural land uses limited water and se roadways. 70, southern Wake County is highly rural, with widespread agricultural and There is a large amount of available land in this area, although there is fairly wer infrastructure currently available in areas farther from existing major 5,7,2 Johnston County There is a large amount of available land in the portion of Johnston County in the FLUSA. Along and surrounding major roadways around Clayton, such as NC 42 and US 70, there is a notable amount of developable land that is zoned for mixed land uses, including higher density residential uses, offices, hotels, and retail development. There is also a notable amount of available land near the interchanges on I-40 at NC 42 and NC 210, and near the intersections on NC 50 at NC 42 and NC 210. The Town of Clayton will extend water and sewer infrastructure to planned unit developments (PUDs) in these areas. Most of the southern half of the Johnston County portion of the FLUSA is highly rural, with Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 33 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 widespread agricultural and relaied land uses. While much of ihis land could be available to development, the current lack of water and sewer infrastructure through much of this area is a limiting factor to development. 5.7.3 Harnett County Most of the portion of Harnett Counry in the FLUSA is characterized by rural land uses, with large parcels that could be available for development. Access to water and sewer infrastructure is generally limited to areas near Angier, but Harnett County utility systems have ample capacity to suppart potential extension of infrastructure. 5.8 MARKET FOR DEVELOPMENT As shown in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, and as confirmed by discussions with local officials, most of the FLUSA has been experiencing rapid growth, particularly in residential development, and the area is expected to see continued rapid residential growth and increasing non-residential growth. This is because the FLUSA lies within the broader Triangle Region, which has been and continues to be one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the nation. In particular, the western part of the project area (Holly Springs, Fuquay-Varina, Apex, and Cary) has grown rapidly in recent years due to the area's proximity to employment centers in RTP and Raleigh and the availability of developable land. The opening of the existing Triangle Expressway (NC 540) is also influencing the pace of growth in this area. U.S. Census data show that Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina more than doubled their populations between 2000 and 2010 and local planners report continued brisk growth. Apex also experienced rapid growth during that period, and the portions of incorporated Cary within the FLUSA have also grown rapidly. The Clayton area in Johnston County has also grown rapidly, with Census data showing that the town's population more than doubled between 2000 and 2010. According to Clayton town off"icials, the opening of the Clayton Bypass in 2008 has influenced growtb trends in the Clayton area, creating a land use node at the interchange at NC 42 and stimulating development in the surrounding area. Population projections point to continued rapid population growth in the area, suggesting that there will continue to be a high demand for development in the FLUSA. As described in Section 5.1, the populations of both Wake and Harnett counties are projected to grow by over 50 percent by 2030, and Johnston County's population is projected to grow by over 30 percent. The Triangle Region is considered to have one of the nation's strongest job markets (Bloomburg Businessweelc, 2014; Forbes, 2014; NerdWallet, 2014). Much of the FLUSA is within easy cominuting distance of major employment centers in the Triangle Region, suggesting that the area will continue to be attractive for residential development. As residential development within the FLUSA continues, more commercial and office development is lilcely. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 34 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6 INDIRECT EFFECTS SCREENING 6.1 ICE SCREENING TOOL The categories listed on the Indirect Land Use Effects Screening Tool, shown in Table 5, have been shown to influence land development decisions in numerous areas statewide and nationally. Each characteristic is assessed individually and the results of the table are looked at comprehensively to determine the indirect effects potential of the proposed project. The scope of the project and change in accessibility categories are given extra weight to determine if future growth in the area is related to the project modifications. Table 5. Indirect Land Use Effects Screening Tool Forecast Forecast Notable Scope of Change in Available Water/ Sewer Market for Public Rating project Accessibility Population Employment Land Availability Development Policy Environmental Result Growth Growth Features Major >3 % annual Substantial # of All services Lcss >10 minute travel SOOO+acres Developinent sfingent; no Targeted or Ncw population newjobs existing/ More Location n�ne savings arowth expected of land available activity abundant growth threaTened resource Concern managemenf � Indiicct �r X X X �r Scniario Assessment RccommendeA X X X X 1 Less More Concern Very No population No service No travel [ime No new joUs or Limited land Development stringent; Features incorporated Limited growth or availeble now Scope savings �ecline job losses available or in future activity lacl<ing growth in local protecTion managemenC Scope of Project — The Complete 540 project would be a major new location project, so there is a high potential for indirect land use effects based on this factor. Change in Accessibility — By introducing a new controlled-access faciliiy, the Complete 540 project will dramatically change accessibility within the FLUSA and between the FLUSA and employment and retail centers outside the FLUSA. This will lead to varied but notable travel time savings for those traveling within and through the FLUSA, reducing some travel times by as much as or more than ten minutes. There is a high potential for indirect land use effects based on this factor. Forecast Population Growth — As described in Section 5.1, rapid population growth is expected to continue in the Complete 540 FLUSA and in the broader Triangle Region. There is a high potential for indirect land use effects based on this factor. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 35 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Forecast Employment Growth — As described in Section 5.2, reasonably high employment growth is forecast to occur in the FLUSA over the next two decades. There is a moderately high potential for indirect land use effects based on this factor. Available Land — Due to the substantial size of the FLUSA, a detailed calculation of the amount of available land was not performed. As much of the 450-square mile FLUSA is still fairly rural, there is a very large amount of land available to future development and to redevelopment at higher densities and intensities. Well over 5,000 acres of land is available for development, the highest threshold value for this factor. There is a high potential far indirect land use effects based on this factor. Water/Sewer Availability — Water and sewer are generally available in and near the incorporated municipalities in the FLUSA, and there is substantial water and sewer capacity available to support continued population growth in those areas. However, there are also large areas of the FLUSA with no existing water or sewer infrastructure, and local governments with jurisdiction over these areas generally do not anticipate extending infrastructure outside planned growth areas. There is a moderate potential for indirect land use effects based on this factor. Market for Development — As described in Section 5.8, the Complete 540 FLUSA has been characterized by rapid population growth in recent decades, which has corresponded with rapid development activity. Population is expected to continue to grow rapidly and accompanying abundant development activity is expected to continue in the next decades. There is a high potential for indirect land use effects based on this factor. Public Policy — Most areas within the FLUSA are subject to fairly stringent comprehensive growth management and development regulations and most of the jurisdictions within the FLUSA indicate that their elected officials support continued adherence to these policies. It is also important to note that most of the jurisdictions in the FLUSA have anticipated the Complete 540 project for many years, tailoring their expectations and plans for future growth around the assumption that the project will eventually be constructed, with the specific expectation that the road's alignment will follow the existing protected corridor between NC 55 Bypass and I-40. There is a moderately-low level of concern about indirect land use effects from the perspective of public policy. Notable Environmental Features — As described in Section 5.5, there are numerous notable environmental features in the FLUSA. However, as described in Section 5.6, there are also a number of state and local regulations in place to mitigate the effects of development on those features. There is a moderately-high potential far indirect land use effects based on this factor. Based on this range of factors, the matrix shown in Table 5 indicates a high level of concern for potential indirect and cumulative effects, warranting further evaluation of indirect and cumulative effects in a Land Use Scenario Assessment, as described in Section 6.2. Jurisdictions in the project area agree that this project will be a major driver of development patterns in the coming years, but generally indicate that tbe project will have greater influence on the timing, location, and intensity of development, rather than the amount of development itsel£ In other words, there is already a notable market for development in the area and continued growth is anticipated with or without the Complete 540 project. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 36 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6.2 INDIRECT LAND USE SCENARIO ASSESSMENT The Indirect Land Use Scenario Assessment evaluates in greater detail the potential for notable indirect and cumulative effects, both with and without the project. It also examines more closely the potential for these effects in specific areas, noting locations where future development is expected to be influenced by the project. As described in Section 3.1, the FLUSA was divided into nine zones to facilitate discussion of specific probable development areas that are most likely to experience land use changes as a result of the Complete 540 project. The discussion below is organized according to these zones. For each zone, the analysis included examination of several factors that will influence the locarion and intensity of development, including development pressures and regulations, proposed future land use, proximity to transportation infrastructure, availability of water and sewer infrastructure, and proximity to population and employment centers. This included examining how those factors would influence the densities of residential development, characterizing anticipated development as low density (net density of less than four dwelling units per acre), medium density (four to six dwelling units per acre), or high density (greater than six dwelling units per acre). The analysis then evaluated the potential effects of various project alternatives, including the No-Build Alternative (described in Section 3.3) in light of these factors. For simplicity, discussion of the analysis groups some of the project's Preliminary Corridor Alternatives together based on location. These groups include: • Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives • Red Corridor Alternative • Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative • Corridor Alternatives east of I-40 (Green, Mint Green, Brown, Tan and Teal) — grouped as "Eastern Alternatives" It is important to note that the Orange Corridor Alternative between NC 55 Bypass and I-40 generally corresponds to the protected corridor established for the project, described in Section 2.1. The predictions for potential land use change in each zone are the basis for determining the likelihood and potential magnitude of impacts to notable features in the FLUSA. Potenial effects of the Eastern Alternatives (Preliminary Corridor Alternatives east of I-40—Green, Mint Green, Brown, Tan and Teal) on land use change are dependent on the alignments west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to. For this reason, the discussion below does not specifically address them in the Zones west of I-40 (Zones 1 through 6). 6.2, I Zone 1 This zone includes the area north of Ten Ten Road, south of US 1, and west of Lake Wheeler Road. The northeastern boundary is the Swift Creek watershed boundary. This area includes incorporated portions of Cary and Apex and unincorporated areas of Wake County. Much of this area is extensively developed with low-density suburban development and notable commercial development along Tryon Road and the US l/64 corridor. Swift Creek and its surrounding Watershed Water Supply Critical Area are the key notable natural features in Zone 1. This area's proximiry to Raleigh and to I-40/I-440 and US 1/64 are the major factors influencing the demand for development in this area. All of the land in Zone 1 is addressed by local land use plans Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 37 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 and development regulations established by Wake County, the Town of Apex, and ihe Town of Cary. Most of the area in Zone 1 is included in the Swift Creek Land Management Plan, which is described in Section 5.61. This plan designates most of the area between Holly Springs Road and Lake Wheeler Road to remain in rural land use, limited to agricultural and low-density residential uses. Under this plan, the Watershed Critical Area around Swift Creek is subject to even more stringent development regulations. There is also a substantial amount of land at the northeastern corner of Zone 1, near Lake Wheeler Road and Tryon Road, owned by North Carolina State University and maintained under rural use for agricultural research. Development in much of Zone 1 east of Holly Springs Road is also limited by lack of water and sewer infrastructure, with no plans for extension of these services. West of Holly Springs Road, virtually all of the land has already been developed or platted for low-density suburban development. Future land use plans for Wake County and the Town of Apex assume that the Complete 540 project will be constructed along the protected corridor, which is congruent with the Orange Corridor Alternative, with interchanges at Bells Lake Road and US 401, just south of Zone 1. The potential indirect effects on land use in Zone 1 under the no-build scenario and the various build scenarios are discussed below. 6.2.1.1 No-Build Alternative Large parts of Zone 1 are already fully developed, particularly areas west of Holly Springs Road and areas along Tryon Road. Between Holly Springs Road and Lake Wheeler Road, development densities and intensities are notably limited by the Swift Creek Land Management Plan and by the lack of water and sewer infrastructure. The proximity of this area to Raleigh and to I-40/I-440 and US 1/64 has driven the demand for development in Zone 1. Under the No-Build Alternative, which would not include construction of the Complete 540 project, these factors will continue to drive demand for development, with remaining developable land along Ten Ten Road and near the Tryon Road and US 1/64 corridors approaching buildout. Overall demand for development will lilcely be similar under the No-Build Alternative as under a build scenario, given these factors. Because there is limited developable land in Zone 1 and because this area's proximity to I-40/I-440 and US 1/64 will continue to have a strong influence over its development patterns, future land use patterns under the No-Build Alternative may not differ much from the build scenarios. One exception may be the Ten Ten Road corridor, which could develop slightly differently under the No-Build Alternative than under a build scenario. There is a growing population near the Ten Ten Road corridor, which will lead to more demand for nearby commercial development. Commercial development that would otherwise concentrate near Complete 540 interchanges to the south of Zone 1 on Bells Lake Road and US 401, as envisioned in local plans, may instead develop in a less concentrated, more piecemeal fashion along Ten Ten Road, differing slightly with local visions for future land use. 6.2.1.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives Construction of the Orange Corridor Alternative will improve access to the southern end of Zone 1, near Ten Ten Road; DSAs using the Lilac Corridor Alternative would follow the Orange Corridor Alternative in this area and therefore result in the saine effect. However, overall demand in Zone 1 is likely to be influenced more by the area's existing proximity to Raleigh and access to I-40/I-440 and US 1/64, so the overall demand for development in Zone 1 is not likely to differ much from the No- Build Alternative. There is also somewhat limited developable land in Zone 1 as inuch of the area is already developed, protected from more intense development by the Swift Creek Land Management Plan, or by the lack of water and sewer infrastructure. The Ten Ten Road corridor, at the southern end Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 38 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 of Zone 1, is the primary area where development patterns could be influenced by the various scenarios under consideration for the Complete 540 project. Although the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives would not include any interchanges in Zone 1, DSAs using either of these corridors would create new interchange areas just to the south, on Bells Lake Road and US 401. There would also be an interchange about two miles south of Zone l, on Holly Springs Road. These factors suggest potential increased demand for development and land use change at the southern end of Zone 1, along Ten Ten Road between West Lake Road and Lake Wheeler Road. The intersection of Ten Ten Road and Bells Lake Road, in particular, could face more demand for commercial development due to its close proximity to the Complete 540 interchange just to the south, on Bells Lake Road. Wake County and Town of Apex land use plans assume construction of the Complete 540 along the protected corridor (Orange Corridor Alternative) and anticipate that this will help concentrate development near interchanges along the new road. For this reason, the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives may have somewhat more potential to support the land use goals specified in local plans than the No-Build Alternative, which could lead to more commercial development pressure along Ten Ten Road. The Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives may also have more potential to support these goals than the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative, which would shift farther south the demand for higher density residential development and more intense development, characterized by more commercial and industrial uses. Although ]ocal land use goals could be modified to adapt to a different scenario, it is important to note that the current land use goals reflect long-established local visions for future land use patterns. 6.2.1.3 Red Corridor Alternative Because the Red Corridor Alternative would connect to the Orange Corridor Alternative near the southern edge of Zone 1, the Red Corridor Alternative would be likely to have similar effects on development in Zone 1 as the Orange Corridor Alternative, resulting in a similar build scenario. The Red Corridor Alternative, however, would cross Lake Wheeler Road and would interchange with US 401 north of the locations on the protected corridor (Orange Corridor Alternative) anticipated by local land use plans. This may lead to slight differences in the development pressures in the Lake Wheeler Road/Ten Ten Road area. However, as for the other scenarios, local land use plans, including the Swift Creek Land Management Plan, and the lack of water and sewer infrastructure in much of this area, will limit future development in Zone 1 beyond that which is already planned. 6.21.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would result in a Complete 540 alignment that would take a sharp southern turn just east of Holly Springs Road, south of Zone 1. In this way, it would direct traffic farther away from Zone 1 and could lead to slightly decreased demand for development in Zone 1 compared to the other scenarios, because it could pull more high-intensity development that is likely to occur in the FLUSA farther to the south. However, by shifting the project's anticipated interchange at Bells Lake Road to a different facility farther south and shifting the interchange on US 401 farther to the south, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative may be somewhat less likely to support the development patterns in Zone 1 envisioned by local land use plans. However, as for the other scenarios, local land use plans, including the Swift Creek Land Management Plan, and the lack of water and sewer infrastructure in much of this area, will limit future development in Zone 1 beyond that which is already planned. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 39 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6.2.1.5 Eastern Alternatives As described above, potential effects of the Eastern Alternatives (Preliminary Corridor Alternatives east of I-40—Green, Mint Green, Brown, Tan and Teal) on land use change are dependent on the DSAs they connect to west of I-40 and the resulting build scenario would be similar. 6.2.1.6 Zone 1 Conclusions Table 6 displays the relative concern for potential effects on land use change in Zone 1 under the no- build scenario and the various build scenarios, based on the factors that will influence the location and intensity of development. Each factor is discussed below. Table 6. Land LTse Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 1 Pressure / Future Shift of Pressure for Land Pressure for Land Demand for Planned I Regional Development Development Development Rating Typically Higher Managed Land Impact Population Growth Outside Regulated Outside Planned Pattern Use and Impacts Development to the Growth Area Areas Areas Commcrcial / Large nwnber of ncres in Large number of acres in indt�stnal Sh�ong atn-action fm� Land development development widi development in this the Probable the Probable Strip or sprawling and stormwater More large parking lots area Dcvelopment Areas are Development Areas are development likely g�als not sef �_�e�Y outsidc regulated areas oufside planned areas Concern � Orange/Lilac Orange/Lilac Red Red Red Purple/Bluc No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario Red Purple/Bloe Porple/Blue Porple/Blue No-Baild Scenario � All Scenariosx All Scenariosx Orange/Lilac Orange/I.ilac Less Commercial / Development areas Concern development and/or All Probable All Probable Likely to support are consistent witU large residential No population shift' Development Areas in a Develop�nent Areas in a clustered land development developments not ��ke�Y regulated area planned area development and stormwater likely management goals Notes: Yotenhal eitects oY the "N;astern Alternahves," the comdor alternahves east oi 1-40, on land use and development m Gone 1 are dependent on the corridor alternatives west of 1-40 that the Eastern Altematives connect to; for this reason tl�ey are not included in the above table. * The potential effects of all scenarios are expected to be influenced to the same extent by this factor. Demand for Development and Population Growth — Demand for development and population growth in Zone 1 is likely to continue to be influenced mainly by existing factors. These include: the area's proximity to Raleigh and to I-40/I-440 and US 1/64, which make the area attractive to development; the relatively small amount of developable land in Zone 1; the development limitations established by the Swift Creek Land Management Plan; and, the lack of water and sewer service in some areas. For these reasons, population growth and the demand for denser and more intense development are not likely to vary much between the build and no-build scenarios and among the different build scenarios. It is possible that the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative could slightly reduce population growth and the demand for more intense development in Zone l, as compared to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 40 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 other build scenarios, since this option would take the Complete 540 alignment much farther south of Zone l. Pressure for Development Outside Regulated/Planned Areas — All of the land in Zone 1 is addressed in local land development regulations and local future land use plans. Development Pattern — Development patterns in Zone 1 are likely to be influenced mainly by existing factors, as described above. Far this reason, development patterns under the no-build and the various build scenarios are not likely to vary widely. Steady developtnent is likely to continue and will be shaped by local land use regulations and future land use plans. Under all scenarios except the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative, more commercial development is likely to occur along the Ten Ten Road corridor, with the other build scenarios possibly leading to more concentrated commercial development at its intersection with Bells Lalce Road. Under the no-build scenario, commercial development may occur along the Ten Ten Road corridor in a less concentrated, more piecemeal fashion. PlannedlManaged Land Use Impacts — Local land use plans assume that the Complete 540 project will be constructed along the protected corridor (Orange Corridor Alternative), helping to concentrate development near potential interchanges along the proposed road. Two of these interchanges are just to the south of Zone 1. As a result, the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives may have more potential to support growth in accordance with local plans than the other options. Under the other build scenarios, and under the no-build scenario, land development patterns could be slightly different than those envisioned in local plans. The build scenarios for the Complete 540 project are not likely to affect Swift Creek and its surrounding Watershed Critical Area differently than the No-Build Alternative because, as described above, overall demand for development in Zone 1 is likely to be influenced inainly by existing factors. In addition, the Swift Creek Land Management Plan and other local land development regulations will limit development density and intensity in much of this area, and will also mitigate the stormwater effects of development in this area. 6.2.2 Zone 2 Zone 2 follows NC 55 and the NC 55 Bypass through Holly Springs, US 401 from Fuquay-Varina to Ten Ten Road, and Ten Ten Road to US L In addition to parts of Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina, Zone 2 includes portions of incorporated Apex and Cary. There are numerous existing and platted large residential developments in Zone 2, and this area continues to develop relatively rapidly. While the southern end of Zone 2, just outside central Fuquay-Varina, is still somewhat rural, with a few remaining small farms, residential development is spreading into this area. Local land use plans envision continued suburban growth in this area, with more commercial development along US 401. There are several notable environmental features in Zone 2, such as the Middle Creek Aquatic Habitat and the Middle Creek Bluffs and Floodplain. Local land use plans designaie areas along Middle Creek for protection, emphasizing limits to development along this water body. All of the build scenarios under consideration for Complete 540 would notably improve access to Zone 2, providing a direct, high-speed, controlled-access connection to employment centers in the Triangle Region. Future land use plans for Holly Springs, Fuquay-Varina, and Wake County assume that the Complete 540 project will be constructed along the protected corridor (Orange Corridor Alternative), with mixed land uses and higher densities and intensities at potential interchanges at Holly Springs Road, Bells Lake Road and US 401. All three of these areas are located in Zone 2. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 4] STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 The potential indirect effects on land use in Zone 2 under the no-build scenario and the various build scenarios are discussed below. 6.2.2.1 No-Build Alternative Without the Complete 540 project, development in Zone 2 will continue, but it will likely continue at a somewhat slower pace and at lower densities and intensities than if the project is constructed. Much of Zone 2 has experienced rapid development over the past ten to fifteen years, even without a high- speed, controlled-access roadway to provide more direct connections to regional employment and commercial centers. Zone 2 is likely to continue to develop in a similar pattern on the remaining available land in the southern portion of this zone, particularly near existing facilries including US 401, Sunset Lake Road, and Hilltop Needmore Road. Future land use plans far Holly Springs, Fuquay-Varina, and Wake County anticipate higher densities and intensities and more mixed land use types at the potential interchanges along Complete 540. Because this land use pattern is more dependent on access to high-speed, controlled-access roadways, the No-Build Alternative may not support development of these areas into regional activity centers that include larger-scale retail and other commercial land uses. Existing intersections of major roadways may not provide sufficient capacity and regional access to support these uses. The area may then remain more uniformly characterized by low-density residential development and smaller-scale commercial development, and area residents would likely continue to travel to existing retail and commercial centers farther away. It is therefore possible that the No-Build Alternative could promote future development patterns that differ from the local land use vision of promoting more mixed land use types, including more commercial development at planned regional activity centers. 6.2.2.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives Construction of the Orange Corridor Alternative would notably improve access to Zone 2; DSAs using the Lilac Corridor Alternative would follow the Orange Corridor Alternative in this area and therefore result in the same effect. These options would introduce a high-speed, controlled-access facility into this growing area, providing faster and more direct routes to employment and commercial centers in the Triangle Region. These options would also introduce three new interchanges into this area—at Holly Springs Road, Bells Lake Road, and US 401. Zone 2 has experienced rapid growth over the past fifteen years and area planners anticipate that this growth will continue. While this growth is not dependent on the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives, construction of a DSA using one or both of these options would influence the timing, location, and intensity of the development in this area. Zone 2 would likely develop faster, with higher densities and intensities more likely than in the no-build scenario. The more rural areas in Zone 2, including the areas along Hilltop Needmore Road and Johnson Pond Road, are areas likely to see continuing development of new residential subdivisions. Developers in these areas can generally pay the corresponding jurisdiction to extend water and sewer service in these areas, so the current lack of infrastructure is not likely to be a major limiting factor for growth. The three interchange areas in Zone 2 would experience the most notable land use changes in Zone 2. The US 401 interchange area includes Wake Tech, high-density residential development, and nearby commercial development. US 401 is already a busy north-south regional thoroughfare. Introducing a new interchange in this area, along with the presence of Wake Tech's busy campus in this area, would promote rapid commercial development on the available land and more intense development on existing developed land near this potential interchange area. This interchange would also likely spur continued commercial and industrial development surrounding the exisiing intersection at Ten Ten Road, just to the north. The local land use plans covering this area assume that the interchange area on Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 42 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 US 401 will continue to develop as a regional activity center and the area is well served by infrastructure to support this development. The Holly Springs Road interchange area on the Orange Corridor Alternative is located in close proximity to numerous large residential developments. The presence of this interchange would make the nearby area even more attractive for new residents, likely causing the nearby area to reach build- out. Much of the land in the iinmediate vicinity of the potential interchange is still available for development and is zoned for commercial and higher density residential land uses. Construction of this interchange would promote development of these uses. Holly Springs envisions this interchange area as a major regional activity center and the town's plans will promote mixed land uses, urban village commercial development, and high-density residential development in this area. Holly Springs planners indicate that achieving this vision is dependent upon construction of the Complete 540 interchange in this location. In this way, a DSA following the Orange Corridor Alternative in this location would support local planning goals to a greater extent than the no-build scenario or other build scenarios. The Bells Lake Road interchange area is currently surrounded by residential subdivisions and rural, developable land. The increased access that Complete 540 would provide to this area would promote further residential development, along with new commercial development in this area. Future land use plans for the Town of Cary and Wake County both show this area developing as a neighborhood activity center, which would include retail development. A DSA following the Orange Corridor Alternative in this location would support this vision to a greater extent than the no-build scenario or other build scenarios. 6.2.2.3 Red Corridor Alternative The Red Corridor Alternative would connect to the Orange Corridor Alternative at the northeast corner of Zone 2, near Lake Wheeler Road, so the Red Corridor Alternative would be likely to have similar effects on development as the Orange Corridor Alternative. Tbe Red Corridor Alternative, however, would interchange with US 401 north of the location anticipated by local land use plans, likely shifting the focus of future developinent to the north. This development pattern could differ slightly from local future land use plans. The interchange location on the Red Corridor Alternative would likely be close enough to Ten Ten Road and Wake Tech that it would still pro�note increased development of the regional commercial activity center in this area, which would support the local future land use vision far that area. 6.2.2.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would result in a Complete 540 alignment that would take a sharp southern turn just east of Holly Springs Road. Compared to the Orange Corridor Alternative, it would retain the potential interchange on Holly Springs Road, but would eliminate the anticipated interchange at Bells Lake Road and instead incorporate an interchange on Hilltop Needmore Road. It would also shift the interchange on US 401 over two miles to the south of the area anticipated by local governments. The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would cross Middle Creek, an impaired waterway, in Zone 2. Like the Orange Corridor Alternative, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would increase access between Zone 2 and area commercial and employment centers. It will likely lead to similar faster growth and development at higher densities and intensities than the no-build scenario. The Purple to Blue Corridor Aliernative crosses the more rural areas in Zone 2, including the areas along Hilliop Needmore Road and Johnson Pond Road. This could lead to greater development pressure, mainly for Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 43 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 resideniial development, than with the Orange Corridor Alternative, resulting in faster growth in this part of Zone 2. Developers in these areas can generally pay the corresponding jurisdiction to extend water and sewer service in these areas, so the current lack of infrastructure is not likely to be a major limiting factor for growth. The potenrial interchange area on the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative at Hilltop Needmore Road would likely experience pressure to develop with commercial and higher density residential uses. This would conflict with local land use plans. By eliminating the interchange at the planned activity center on Holly Springs Road, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would also lead to reduced demand for commercial and higher density residential development in that area, resulting in additional conflict with local land use plans. 6.2.2.5 Eastern Alternatives As described above, potential effects of the Eastern Alternatives (Preliminary Corridor Alternatives east of I-40—Green, Mint Green, Brown, Tan and Teal) on land use change are dependent on the alignments west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to. 6.2.2.6 Zone 2 Conclusions Table 7 displays the relative concern for potential effects on land use change in Zone 2 under the no- build scenario and the various build scenarios, based on the factors that will influence the location and intensity of development. Each factar is discussed below. Table 7. Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 2 Pressure I Demand Future Shift of Pressure for Land Pressure for Land Planned I Rating for Typically Higher Regional Development Development Development Managed Impact Population Growth Outside Regulated Outside Planned Pattern Land Use and Development to the Growth Area Areas Areas Impacts Commercial / SCro»g ath'action for Large number of acres in Large nomber of acres in Land industrial development the Probable the Probable Strip or sprawling development with large parking lots development in this Development Areas are Development Areas are development likely and stormwater More likely a��a outside regulated areas outside planned areas goals not se[ Concern � OrangdLilac Red PurpleBluc Purple/Blue Orange/Lilac Red �'u-Build Scenario Purple/Blae No-Auild Scenario No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario Red Rcd Purple/Blue All Seenarios* All Scenarios* Orange/Lilac Orange/Lilae Less Development COnCCrn Cotninercial / areas are development and/or All Probable All Probable Likely to support consistent with large residential No population shift Development Areas in a Development Areas in a clustered land developments not likely regulated area planned area devalopment developmenC likely and stormwater management oals Notes: Yotenhal eYtects ot the "Eastern Alternatives," the comdor alternatrves east ot 1-4U, on land use and development m Gone Z are dependent on the corridor alternatives west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to; for this reason they are not included in the aUove table. * The potential effeets of all scenarios are expected to be influenced to the same extent by this factor. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 44 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Demand for Development and Population Growth — Demand for development and population growth in Zone 2 will be relatively strong under the no-build scenario, due to this area's already robust growth and development, existing access to transportation facilities including NC 55 and US 401, and the fairly widespread availability of water and sewer service. Any of the build scenarios would introduce a high-speed, controlled-access facility into the area, notably increasing access to employment and commercial centers in the Triangle Region. This would make population growth and the demand for denser and more intense development even stronger. Because all of the build scenarios would cross Zone 2 and would introduce new interchanges into the area, there would not likely be a notable difference in overall demand for development among the different build scenarios. Pressure for Development Outside Regulated/Planned Areas — All of the land in Zone 2 is addressed in local land development regulations and local future land use plans. Development Pattern — All of the build scenarios are likely to affect the timing, location and intensity of future development, encouraging faster growth and more commercial development, particularly around interchange areas. Zone 2 will experience land use change and growth under the No-Build Alternative, but growth likely will be slower. In addition, land uses would be less likely to include the large-scale commercial uses, higher density residential uses, and mixed use developments envisioned by local plans for the interchange areas along the Orange Corridor Alternative. The locations of some of the interchange areas would differ with the other build scenarios, resulting in some interchange areas in locations less able to support the denser, more intense development envisioned for the interchange areas. PlannedlManaged Land Use Impacts — The assumption in local land use plans that the Complete 540 project will be constructed along the protected corridor (Orange Corridor Alternative), helping to concentrate development near interchanges along the new road, means that the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives have more potential to support land use goals in accordance with local plans than other options. DSAs using the Red Corridor Alternative would differ only slightly from the Orange Corridor Alternative in Zone 2, so this option would lead to land use patterns only slightly different from those envisioned by local plans. DSAs using the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would differ notably from the Orange Corridor Alternative, leading to pressure for denser, more intense development in interchange locations not planned for these uses. While future land use plans could be modified according to this different pattern, it is important to note that current development patterns, including existing residential development,may make it difficult to shift planned activity centers to these interchange locations. There are several notable environmental features in Zone 2, such as the Middle Creek Aquatic Habitat and the Middle Creek Bluffs and Floodplain. While additional development near these features has the potential to negatively affect water quality, development regulations including the Neuse River Buffer Rules, the more stringent riparian buffer requireinents in Apex and Holly Springs, and NPDES Phase II requirements, would help to minimize these effects. 6.2,3 Zone 3 Zone 3 lies between NC 55 and the NC 55 Bypass and Harris Lake in southwestern Wake County, west of the western terminus of the Complete 540 project, and west of NC 55/NC 55 Bypass. The existing Triangle Expressway extends across the northern end of Zone 3, and STIP project R-2635D will add a new interchange on this part of the Triangle Expressway at Old Holly Springs-Apex Road, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 45 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 serving the planned Veridea development. Holly Springs has also identified a planned future interchange in this area, on US 1 at Friendship Road. Zone 3 is predominantly rural. The exceptions are just west of central Holly Springs, where there is new commercial and light industrial development along with residential development; along Avent Ferry Road, where there are numerous existing and planned residential subdivisions; and at the southeast corner of Zone 3, which is part of central Fuquay-Varina. The South Wake Landfill is located in this area, west of NC 55 Bypass and south of the existing Triangle Expressway. The Apex 2030 Land Use Map envisions the Veridea area at the northeast corner of Zone 3 becoming a major employment and commercial center serving a large region. The Holly Springs Future Land Use Plan Map envisions that the area just to the south of Veridea and the existing Triangle Expressway will also develop with industrial and commercial uses. Holly Springs also envisions future light industrial/business park development along US 1 and along Holly Springs New Hill Road, wixh residential development filling in the areas between these locations. Development in the western portion of Zone 3 is constrained by the fact that Duke Power owns and regulates much of the ]and surrounding Harris Lake. Fuquay-Varina envisions the southern portion of Zone 3 developing with mainly low-density residenrial uses. The potential indirect effects on ]and use in Zone 3 under the no-build scenario and the various build scenarios are discussed below. 6.2.3.1 No-Build Alternative Without the Complete 540 project, development in the northeast corner and along the northern edge of Zone 3, near US 1/64 and the existing Triangle Expressway, would continue according io local land use plans, with more commercial and industrial development occurring. However, this development may proceed at a somewhat slower pace and at a slightly lower intensity than if the project is constructed. The development plans for the Veridea area are based on the assumption that a new interchange is built at NC 540 and Old Holly Springs-Apex Road under STIP R-2635D and that tbe Complete 540 project will connect this area to I-40 south of Raleigh, providing a continuous controlled-access facility to I-40 near RTP. Without the interchange and this link in the 540 Outer Loop, the businesses local governments hope to attract to Veridea and nearby areas may be somewhat less likely to locate there. Planned commercial and industrial development along Holly Springs New Hill Road and US 1 may also proceed more slowly without completion of the Complete 540 project, but these areas would nonetheless likely develop according to local plans. The remainder of Zone 3 is likely to continue to develop with low-density residential uses under either the no-build or build scenario, with the pace of development likely slower in the no-build scenario. Future land use plans in Holly Springs are dependent on construction of the Complete 540 project to concentrate development along an alignment following the Orange Corridor Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, the development that would otherwise concentrate near interchanges along a build scenario could develop in a less concentrated, more piecemeal fashion, and this pattern could extend inio Zone 3. 6.2.3.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives Construction of the Orange Corridor Alternative would improve access to Zone 3, particularly to the northeastern corner of Zone 3, near US 1/64 and the existing Triangle Expressway. DSAs using the Lilac Corridor Alternative would follow the Orange Corridor Alternative in this area and therefore result in the same effect. These options would also create a new interchange area at Holly Springs Road, about two miles away from Zone 3. These factors suggest potential increased demand for Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 46 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 development and land use change at the northeastern corner of Zone 3. Local plans aniicipate that this area and the area along US 1 will develop with higher intensity commercial and industrial uses. By providing the linlc in the 540 Outer Loop that would connect the facility to I-40 south of Raleigh, all of the build options under consideration would make these areas of Zone 3 more attractive to these uses. Overall demand in the rest of Zone 3 will continue to be influenced by the area's existing proximity to Raleigh and access to the existing Triangle Expressway, so the effect of the Orange Corridor Alternative on overall demand for development in Zone 3 as compared to the No-Build Alternative is likely to be fairly small. It is important to note, though, that Wake County and Town of Apex land use plans assume construction of the Complete 540 project along the protected corridor (Orange Corridor Alternative) and anticipate that this will help concentrate development around the planned interchanges along the Orange Corridor Alternative. For this reason, the Orange and Lilac Corridar Alternatives may have more potential to support future land use patterns envisioned in local plans than the No-Build Alternative or the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative. The improved access provided by the build options would likely stimulate moderate residential development spreading from the existing residential areas along the eastern side of Zone 3, particularly along Avent Ferry Road. Development in the western portion of Zone 3 is constrained by the fact that Duke Power owns and regulates much of the land surrounding Harris Lake. This ownership pattern is not expected to change. 6.2.3.3 Red Corridor Alternative The Red Corridor Alternative would connect to the Orange Corridor Alternative well to the east of Zone 3, so the Red Corridor Alternative would be likely to have similar effects on development in Zone 3 as the Orange Corridor Alternative. 6.2.3.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative Like the Orange Corridor Alternative, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would increase access between Zone 3 and area commercial and employment centers. This would likely lead to slightly faster growth and development than the no-build scenario. Growth would likely follow local planned uses of commercial and industrial develoment at the northeast corner and along the northern edge of Zone 3, with lower density residential uses throughout most of the rest of the area. In contrast to the Orange Corridor Alternative, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would result in a Complete 540 alignment that would take a sharp southern turn just east of Holly Springs Road, bringing this alignment somewhat closer to Zone 3. Also, in addition to the interchange at Holly Springs Road, this option would create interchanges on Hilltop Needmore Road and US 401 closer to Zone 3 than the analogous interchanges on the Orange Corridor Alternative at Bells Lake Road and US 40L These factors could result in slightly greater residential development pressure in Zone 3, as the southern part of Zone 3 could have faster access to the new facility and to regional commercial and employment centers. 6.2.3.5 Eastern Alternatives As described above, potential effects of the Eastern Alternatives (Preliminary Corridor Alternatives east of I-40—Green, Mint Green, Brown, Tan and Teal) on land use change are dependent on the alignments west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 47 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6.2.3.6 Zone 3 Conclusions Table 8 displays the relative concern for potential effects on land use change in Zone 3 under the no- build scenario and the various build scenarios, based on the factors that will influence the location and intensity of development. Each scenario is discussed below. Table 8. Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 3 Pressure / Future Shift of Pressure for Land Pressure for Land Demandfor Planned/ Regional Development Development Development Rating Typically Higher Managed Land Impact Population Growth Outside Regulated Outside Planned Pattern Use and Impacts Development to the Growth Area Areas Areas Commcrcial / l.arge number oC acres in Large number of acres in industrial Strong attraction for Land devalopment development widi development in this the Probable fhe R�obable Strip or sprawling and stormwater large parking lots area Development Areas are Development Areas are development likcly �oals not set More outsida regulatad areas outsida plannad areas Concern likely � Orange/Lilac Orange/Lilac Red Red Porple/Blue Purple/Bluc Purple/Blue No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario Red No-Build Scenario Orange/Lilac AII Scenarios* All Scenarios* Red Orange/Lilac Purpic/Blue Less Commercial / Development areas Coneern development and/or All Probable All Probable Likely to sopport are consistent with large residential No population shifl Developmcnt Areas in a DeveLopment Areas in a clustcred land development developments not ��Ce�y regulated area planned area development and stormwater likely management goals Notes: Yotentral etf8ets of the "�astern Alternahves," the comdor alternaUves east of 1-40, on land use and development m Gone 3 are dependent on the corridor alternatives west of 1-40 that the Eastem Altematives connect to; for this reason they are not included in the above table. * The potential effects of all scenarios are expected to be influenced to the same extent by this factor. Demand for Development and Population Growth — Population growth and demand for development in Zone 3 would be higher under any of the build scenarios than under the no-build scenario. Access to the existing Triangle Expressway and NC 55 Bypass would ensure continued growth in this area under the no-build scenaria However, any of the build scenarios would make the northern part of Zone 3 more attractive to development because they would provide the link in the 540 Outer Loop to connect the facility to I-40 south of Raleigh. By connecting the Triangle Expressway east to I-40, the build scenarios would make the northeast portion of Zone 3 particularly attractive to future development. Pressure for Development Outside Regulated/Planned Areas — All of the land in Zone 3 is either addressed in local land development regulations and future land use plans or is owned and regulated by Duke Power. Development Pattern — Under either a build or no-build scenario, the northeast corner of Zone 3, near Veridea, and the area near US 1 will continue to develop with more commercial, industrial, and mixed land uses, according to local plans. Any of the build scenarios would similarly affect the timing and Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 48 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 intensity of this development, making the area more attractive to the intense, regional commercial and office development envisioned by local plans and leading to more rapid development. Along the eastern side and southern sides of Zone 3, low-density residential development wil] likely continue under the build and no-build scenarios. The build scenarios will all improve overall access to Zone 3, creating additional nearby interchanges on a controlled access facility, and so could result in slightly faster development in these areas. Compared to the other build options, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative could result in slightly greater residential development pressure in Zone 3 as this option would include more interchanges closer to Zone 3, leading to improved access to the new facility and to regional commercial and employment centers. Development in the western portion of Zone 3 is constrained by the fact that Duke Power owns much of the land surrounding Harris Lake, so this area is likely to remain undeveloped. Planned/Managed Land Use Impacts — The assumption in local land use plans that the Complete 540 project will be constructed along the protected corridor (Orange Corridor Alternative), helping to concentrate development near interchanges along the new road, means that the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives have slightly more potential to support the future land use patterns envisioned in local plans than the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative or the No-Build Alternative. There are several notable environmental features in Zone 3, such as Utley Creek Slopes, Hollemans Crossroads Slopes and Pools, the Shearon Harris Longleaf Pine Forest, and Harris Lake. While additional development near these features has the potential to negatively affect water quality, development regulations including the Neuse River Buffer Rules, the more stringent riparian buffer requirements in Apex and Holly Springs, and NPDES Phase II requirements, will help to minimize these effects. 6,2,4 Zone 4 Zone 4 encompasses Garner and portions of southeast Raleigh between Lake Wheeler Road and I-40. This zone includes older urban development in central Garner and along the major transportation facilities in this area, including US 70, US 401, and I-40. Near US 70 and I-40, there is a substantial amount of intense commercial and industrial development. The northern half of Zone 4 is the most densely and intensely developed part of the Complete 540 FLUSA. Zone 4 also includes Lake Benson and the less developed areas south of Lake Benson. This area's proximity to Raleigh and to I-40/I-440 is the major factor influencing the demand for development in this area. All of the land in Zone 4 is addressed by local land use plans and development regulations. A portion of Zone 4, near Lake Benson, is included in the Swift Creek Land Management Plan, which is described in Section 5.6.1. Under this plan, the Swift Creek Water Supply Watershed Critical Area, including Lake Benson, is subject to stringent development regulations. The northwestern corner of Zone 4 includes a notable amount of land owned by North Carolina State Universiry and maintained under rural use for agricultural research. Development in Zone 4 west of US 401 is somewhat limited by lack of water and sewer infrastructure, with no plans for extension of these services. In Zone 4, relatively little of the developable land (unconstrained by existing land use regulations or current public ownership) is not already developed with urban or suburban uses or platted for development of these uses. Most of the remaining available land is at the southeast corner of Zone 4, near the intersection of Ten Ten Road and NC 50. The City of Raleigh 2013-2014 Adopted Capital Improvement Plan includes projects that would expand infrastructure through this area from the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 49 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant, west across Zone 4 to Ten Ten Road near Rand Road (Section 3.5.2). Future land use plans for the Town of Garner and Wake County assume tbat the Complete 540 project will be constructed along the protected corridor, with interchanges at US 401, Old Stage Road, and NC 50, just south of Zone 4. The potential indirect effects on land use in Zone 4 under the no-build scenario and the various build scenarios are discussed below. 6.2.4.1 No-Build Alternative Much of the northern half of Zone 4, north of Lake Benson, is already fully developed or platted for future development. In areas near Lake Benson, development activity is limited by local plans and regulations including the Swift Creek Land Management Plan. For these reasons, there is a fairly small amount of developable land north of Lake Benson. The proximity of this area to Raleigh and to major transportation facilities, including I-40/I-440, US 401, and US 70, have driven the demand for development in much of this area. If the Complete 540 project is not constructed, there would continue to be moderate demand for future development of remaining developable parcels. Demand for future commercial development would likely be concentrated near existing faciliies, such as I-40 and US 70. There is also developable land along the US 401 corridor; this area is likely to continue to develop with commercial uses, driven by this area's proximity to Raleigh and to I-40/I-440, and by the planned widening of US 401 under STIP R-2609. The southeastern portion of Zone 4, near Ten Ten Road and NC 50, contains most of the developable land in this area. Under the no-build scenario, this area may develop more slowly than under a build scenario. Local land use plans assume construction of Complete 540 along the protected corridor (Orange Corridar Alternative), and anticipate that this will help concentrate development near interchanges along the new road—several of these planned interchanges are close to the southern boundary of Zone 4. It is possible that the No-Build Alternative could promote future development patterns that differ somewhat from this future land use vision. 6.2.4.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives Construction of the Orange or Lilac Corridor Alternative would improve access to Zone 4, particularly to the southern edge of Zone 4. Because these two options follow a similar alignment, their effects on development are likely to be similar. These options would also create new interchange areas just to the south of Zone 4, on US 401, Old Stage Road, and NC 50. These factors suggest potential increased demand for development and land use change at the southern end of Zone 4, near Ten Ten Road. Most of the remaining available land is at the southeast corner of Zone 4, near the intersection of Ten Ten Road and NC 50. This area would likely continue to develop with low-density residential uses and may also experience some commercial development. However, overall demand in Zone 4, particularly north of Lake Benson, is lilcely to continue to be influenced by the area's existing proximity to Raleigh and access to I-40/I-440, US 401, and US 70, so the overall demand for development in Zone 4 is not likely to differ much from the No-Build Alternative. Development regulations in the Swift Creelc Watershed Critical Area will strictly limit development within a roughly half-mile radius around Lake Benson. Future land use plans for Garner and Wake County assume construction of Complete 540 along the protected corridor (Orange Corridor Alternative), and anticipate that this will help concentrate development near interchanges along ihe new road, just to the south of Zone 4. For this reason, the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives may have more potential to support the land use patterns envisioned in local plans than the No-Build Alternative or the other build scenarios. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 50 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6.2.4.3 Red Corridor Alternative The Red Corridor Alternative would extend through the southern portion of Garner, leading to a dramatic change from this area's existing low-density suburban development. While much of ihis part of Garner is already developed with residential uses, introduction of a new, high-speed facility in this area would encourage shifts to higher densities and more commercial development, particularly near the interchange areas. The Red Corridor Alternative would also cross the Swift Creek Waier Supply Watershed Critical Area. There is a large amount of vacant land in the vicnity of the potential interchange on US 401, which is just north of Ten Ten Road. The current intersection on Ten Ten Road and US 401 is developed with commercial land uses, is served by City of Raleigh water and sewer infrastructure, and development is spreading from that node. A new interchange just to the north would notably accelerate the commercial development along US 401 in this area. While local governments do anticipate continued mixed use development on this part of US 401, near Wake Tech, the Red Corridor Alternative would shift the focus of this continued development slightly north of the planned location on the protected corridor. There is also a large amount of vacant land in the vicinity of the potential interchange on Old Stage Road, and this area is currently served by City of Raleigh water and sewer infrastructure. This area overlaps the current intersection of Old Stage Road and Vandora Springs Road, and the Town of Garner anticipates that this area will develop as a small, neighborhood-oriented commercial area. Introducing a Complete 540 interchange in this area would make this area much more attractive to larger scale commercial development, which conflicts with Garner's vision for this area. East of Old Stage Road, there is widespread low-density residential development. This area would continue to develop without the project, due to proximiry to Raleigh and existing transportation facilities, but with a new interchange in this area, the pace of development would be much faster, and would possibly include higher density uses. Open space would remain in the several parks located in this area, and in the areas closer to Lake Benson, which are protected by Swift Creek Water Supply Watershed Critical Area regulations. The area surrounding the potential interchange on NC 50 also includes a large amount of vacant and rural land and is generally served by City of Raleigh water and sewer infrastructure. There is existing residential development on the east side of NC 50 and to the north, closer to Timber Drive. The existing intersection of Timber Drive and NC 50 includes commercial development and Garner anticipates that this intersection will continue to experience commercial development, becoming a regional commercial center. A new interchange just to the south would accelerate commercial development at the intersection of Timber Drive and NC 50 and would also encourage it to spread south to the area surrounding the Complete 540 interchange. The section of NC 50 between Timber Drive and Complete 540 has the potential to become a commercial corridor. North of Complete 540, this would comply with Garner's future land use plans, but south of Compleie 540, commercial development would differ from the future land use patterns envisioned by local plans, which call for more residential uses near this part of NC 50. Most of the area around the Red Corridor Alternative interchange at I-40 is planned and zoned for commercial and industrial development. There is a notable amount of existing commercial and industrial development in this area, and Garner is actively seeking to attract more commercial and industrial development there. Introduction of a new interchange in this area on I-40 would make the area even more attractive to large-scale commercial and industrial development, likely spurring faster development than under other scenarios. However, it is important to note that the Town of Garner is Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 5] STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 concerned about the direct impacts that the Red Corridor Alternative would have on several commercial parcels in this area. This is described in more detail in Section 6.2.7.3. 6.2.4.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would result in a Complete 540 alignment that would take a sharp southern turn just east of Holly Springs Road, southwest of Zone 4. In this way, it would direct traffic farther away from Zone 4 and could lead to somewhat decreased demand for development in the western portion of Zone 4 compared to the other scenarios. The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would shift the project's anticipated interchanges at US 401 and Old Stage Road much farther to the south than the corresponding interchanges along the Orange Corridor Alternative, which could also shift the focus of future development farther to the south. Unlike the western portion of Zone 4, which could experience decreased demand for development as compared to other scenarios, the area near the intersection of Ten Ten Road and NC 50 would likely experience increased demand for development. This is because the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternarive would connect to the Lilac Corridor Alternative at an interchange on NC 50 just south of Zone 4. As with the Orange or Lilac Corridor Alternatives, the nearby interchange would likely promote somewhat faster development in this area. Development would likely be characterized by low-density residential and some commercial uses. 6.2.4.5 Eastern Alternatives As described above, potenial effects of the Eastern Alternatives (Preliminary Corridor Alternatives east of I-40—Green, Mint Green, Brown, Tan and Teal) on land use change are dependent on the alignments west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to. 6.2.4.6 Zone 4 Conclusions Table 9 displays the relarive concern for potential effects on land use change in Zone 4 under the no- build scenario and the various build scenarios, based on the factors that will influence the location and intensity of development. Each factor is discussed below. Demand for Development and Population Growth – In the no-build scenario, there would be moderate demand for development and population growth in Zone 4, influenced by the area's proximity to Raleigh and to I-40/440, US 401, and US 70. There may be a greater demand for development and population growth with the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives, particularly near NC 50 and I-40, where these options would include interchanges just south of Zone 4. This area has available land not constrained by development regulations or lack of access to water and sewer infrastructure. The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would lead to somewhat decreased growth and development in Zone 4 except for near NC 50 and I-40. Under the Red Corridor Alternative, there would likely be a notable increase in population growth and demand for development as this option would directly cross Zone 4 and would introduce several new interchanges into this area. Pressure for Development Outside Regulated/Planned Areas – All of the land in Zone 4 is addressed in local land development regulations and local future land use plans. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 52 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Table 9. Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 4 Pressure / Demand Future Shift of Pressure for Land Pressure for Land Planned / Managed for Typically Higher Regional Development Development Development Rating Impact Population Growth Outside Regulated Outside Planned Pattern Land Use and Development to the Growth Area Areas Areas Impacts Commercial / Sn'ong atlraction for Larec number of acres in Largc number of aeres in Land development and industrial development developmcnt in this the Probable the Probablc Strip or sprawling stonnwatcr goals not with large parking lots Development Areas are Development Areas are development likely More likely area outside regulated areas outside planned areas set Concern � Red Red Red Orange/Lilac Orange/Lilac Purple/Blue No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario Purple/Blue Purple/Blue No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario Purple/Blue Purple/Bluc Orange/Lilac Red � All Scenarios* All Scenarios* Orange/Lilac Less Commcrcial / Development areas are Concern development and/or All Probable All Probable Likely to support consistent with land large residential No population shift pevelopmenf Areas in a Develo�ment Areas in a clustered development and developmenCs not likely i�egulated area plamied area developmenC stormwater likely management goals Notes: Potential ettects of the "rastern Altemafives," the corridor alternatives east of I-40, on land use and development m Gone 4 are dependent on the corridor alternatives west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to; for this reason they are not included in the aUove table. * The potential effects of all scenarios are expected to be influenced to tha same extent by this factor. Development Pattern — Overall development patterns in Zone 4 are likely to continue to be influenced by existing factors, including the area's proximity to Raleigh and to I-40/I-440 and US 70, which make the area attractive to development. In the southeast corner of Zone 4, the various build scenarios would have notable effects, because all of the build scenarios would improve access and there is available land not constrained by development regulations or lack of access to water and sewer infrastructure. This area will likely experience faster development under any of the build scenarios; development would likely include low-density residential and small-scale commercial uses. The Red Corridor Alternative would have notable effects at its interchange areas in Zone 4, which would experience more and faster development under this scenario, with land use patterns shifting to include more commercial development. In the southwest corner of Zone 4, the Purple/Blue Corridor Alternative is more likely to result in sprawling development patterns due to its distance from existing development. Planned/Managed Land Use Impacts — Garner's land use plans include a series of Community and Neighborhood Cores that are intended to produce an integrated land use pattern with a fully connected pedestrian and vehicular network. Several of these cores are along the proposed Red Corridor. Introducing a restricted access road in these areas would interrupt the network connections between different land uses and be contrary to the desired development pattern. Local land use plans assume construction of Complete 540 along the protected corridor (Orange Corridor Alternative), and in anticipation have designated activity centers with concentrated development near proposed Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 53 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 interchanges, just to the south of Zone 4. Far these reasons, the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives may have more potential to support the land use patterns envisioned in local plans than the Red Corridor Alternative or the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative. The most notable natural features in Zone 4 are Swift Creek, Lake Benson and the surrounding Swift Creek Water Supply Watershed Critical Area. While the Swift Creek Land Management Plan and other local land development regulations will limit development densities near the Critical Area, it is important to note that the Red Corridor Alternative is the only option that crosses the Critical Area. The Red Corridor Alternative would also include an interchange at Old Stage Road less than half a mile away from the Critical Area, promoting more intense development in this nearby area. 6.2.5 Zone 5 Zone 5 is bounded by US 401 in the west, Ten Ten Road in the north, I-40 in the east, and NC 42 in the south. Much of Zone 5 is rural, particularly the areas closer to NC 42, where there is widespread agricultural land and related rural residential uses. Closer to Ten Ten Road, there are low-density residential subdivisions. Along US 401, there are cominercial and industrial uses, and Wake Tech is located at the northwest corner of Zone 5, on US 401. There are small commercial activity centers at major intersections along NC 42 along the southern edge of Zone 5. The southeast corner of Zone 5, at the NC 42 interchange on I-40, is a major commercial activity center. All of the build scenarios under consideration for Complete 540, except the Red Corridor Alternative, would notably improve access to Zone 5, providing a direct, high-speed, controlled-access connection to employment centers in the Triangle Region by connecting the area to the existing Triangle Expressway to the northwest and to I-40 to the east. Most of Zone 5 is covered by Wake County's Area Land Use Plan for the Fuquay-Varina—Garner area (Section 5.6.1), which envisions much of the area continuing to develop with low-density residential uses. This Plan assumes that the Complete 540 project will be constructed along the protected corridor (Orange Corridor Alternative), with mixed-use, higher density activity centers around the potential interchange at US 401 and on the north sides of the potential interchanges at Old Stage Road and NC 50. These areas are located in Zone 5. Most of Zone 5 is not currently served by public water and sewer service, but the City of Raleigh 2013-2014 Adopted Capital Improvement Plan includes projects that would expand infrastructure westward from the Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant to Ten Ten Road near Rand Road, in Zone 5 (Section 3.5.2). Johnston County's Land Use Plan envisions its portion of Zone 5 as supporting low-density residential growth, with a regional commercial node at the interchange on I-40 at NC 42, and a smaller coinmercial node at the intersection of NC 50 and NC 42. Johnston County's policy is to only extend water and sewer service to planned unit developments (PUDs) or to commercial/industrial areas, so this will limit the pace of development farther away from these commercia] nodes. The potential indirect effects on land use in Zone 5 under the no-build scenario and the various build scenarios are discussed below. 6.2.5.1 No-Build Alternative Without the Complete 540 project, most of Zone 5 would continue to slowly develop with low-density residential uses; the pace of development would be notably slower than under the build scenarios. Access to regional transportation facilities such as I-40, NC 50, and US 401, which provide routes to employment centers to the north and south, have driven past development in this area and this will Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 54 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 continue to be the main factor influencing development under the No-Build Alternative. In general, development would likely remain closer to existing transportation facilities, such as US 401, NC 42, NC 50 and I-40. Development in much of Zone 5 is currently constrained by lack of public water and sewer infrastructure, and this will continue to constrain development density and intensity, particularly in the southern half of Zone 5. This means that development in much of Zone 5 would be limited to large-lot rural residential subdivisions. Notable exceptions are the northeast corner of Zone 5, where planned water infrastructure could facilitate higher densities and intensities, and the cormnercial areas on NC 42 in Johnston County, where local policy seeks to extend service to new commercial development. The higher densities and more mixed land use types that are anticipated by local land use plans at the potential interchanges along Complete 540 are more dependent on high-speed, controlled-access roadway access, and on available public water and sewer infrastructure. Without the Complete 540 project, these areas are not as likely to develop into regional activity centers that include retail and other commercial land uses. These areas may then remain more uniformly characterized by low- density residential development, and area residents may need to travel to existing retail and commercial centers farther away. It is therefore possible that the No-Build Alternative could promote future development patterns in this part of Zone 5 that differ from local land use goals of promoting more mixed land use types, including more commercial development at planned regional activity centers. 6.2.5.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives Construction of the Orange Corridor Alternative or the Lilac Corridor Alternative would notably improve access to Zone 5. Because these two options follow a similar alignment, their effects on development are likely to be similar. These options would introduce a high-speed, controlled-access facility into this area, providing faster and more direct routes to employment and commercial centers in the Triangle Region. These options would also introduce two new interchanges into this area—at Old Stage Road and NC 50—and would also be near a third new interchange, at US 401. Zone 5 has experienced moderate low-density residential development. Continued low-density residential growth is not dependent on the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives, but construction of a DSA using one or both of these opiions would influence the timing, location, and intensity of the development in this area. Zone 5 would likely develop faster than in the no-build scenario, and would likely include higher densities and intensities in some locations. The new interchange areas in Zone 5 would experience the most notable land use changes. Tl�e Old Stage Road interchange area, which would be in the same location with either the Orange or Lilac Corridor Alternative, is currently rural with a few small residential subdivisions nearby. This interchange area is less than a mile south of Ten Ten Road, so access to this area would improve dramatically. There is a large amount of land in this area that is currently in agricultural use. This land would become attractive for commercial and higher density residential development. Water and sewer service are generally not currently available in this area, but it is likely that infrasiructure could be extended from locations north of Ten Ten Road. Tbe NC 50 interchange area would be slightly further north with the Lilac Corridor Alternative than with the Orange Corridor Alternative, but the characteristics of the two locations are similar. The effects are also likely to be similar. The large amount of land in this area currently in agricultural use would become attractive for commercial and higher density residential development. In addition, planned expansion of water infrastructure near Ten Ten Road in this area will facilitate development with higher densities and intensities. Wake County land use plans anticipate the development of the NC 50 and Old Stage Road interchange areas on the Orange Corridor Alternative as regional activity centers, with higher densities and intensities. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 55 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 The US 401 interchange is just west of Zone 5 and is likely to influence land use change in the northwest corner of Zone 5. This area includes Wake Technical Community College (Wake Tech), high density residential development, and nearby commercial development. US 401 is already a busy north-south regional thoroughfare. Introducing a new interchange in this area, along with the presence of Wake Tech's busy campus in this area, would promote rapid commercial development on the available land and more intense development on existing developed land near this potential interchange area. Wake County land use plans assume that the interchange area on US 401 will continue to develop as a regional activity center and the area is well served by infrastructure to support this development. The pace of commercial and higher density residential development at the southeast corner of Zone 5, near I-40 and NC 42 in Johnston County, could accelerate if either the Orange or Lilac Corridor Alternatives are constructed. These build scenarios would provide faster access between this existing regional activity center and the existing Triangle Expressway, making it easier to travel between Clayton and points south to points west of Raleigh, including RTP, which could make the area more attractive to development. 6.2.5.3 Red Corridor Alternative Compared to the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives, the Red Corridor Alternative would have a more modest effect on land development in Zone 5. Tbe Red Corridor Alternative would improve overall access in the broader area, but because it would follow an alignment several miles north of Zone 5, this improvement would not be as notable as with the Orange or Lilac Corridor Alternatives. The Red Corridor Alternative, however, would cross US 401 at a potential interchange north of the location anticipated by local land use plans. For this reason, it is possible that it could promote future development patterns that would differ slightly from local land use plans. The interchange location on the Red Corridor Alternative would likely be close enough to Ten Ten Road and Wake Tech tbat it would still promote increased development of the regional commercial activiry center in this area. 6.2.5.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative Like the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would notably improve access to Zone 5. It would introduce a high-speed, controlled-access facility into this area, providing a faster and more direct route to employment and commercial centers in the Triangle Region. It would introduce two new interchanges into this area at Old Stage Road and NC 54—and would include an interchange on US 401 well to the south of the location used by the other build scenarios. While continued low-density residential growth in Zone 5 is not dependent on the Complete 540 project, construction of a DSA using the Purple to Blue Corridor would influence the timing, location, and intensity of the development in this area. Zone 5 would likely develop faster than in the no-build scenario, and would likely include higher densities and intensities in some locations. Some of tbese effects would also differ from the future development patterns envisioned in local plans. By shifting the US 401 interchange several miles south toward Fuquay-Varina, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would also shift the increased demand for commercial development on US 401 to this area. While additional commercial development along US 401 is envisioned by local plans, Wake County plans envision the major commercial center in ihis area to take shape where the Orange Corridor Alternative crosses US 401, near Wake Tech. In this way, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative differs from the local vision for this area. Shifting the US 401 interchange to the south Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 56 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 would also dramatically improve access io regional employment and commercial centers for the areas along US 401 and NC 42 near Fuquay-Varina. Developers in these areas may be able to fund the extension of water and sewer service to proposed developments, so infrastructure availability is not a major limiting factor for growth in this part of Zone 5. With the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative, this area is likely to experience notably increased demand for residential development. The NC 42 corridor is also likely to experience notably increased demand for commercial development near intersections and for nearby residential development. The other interchange areas in Zone 5 would also experience notable land use changes. The Old Stage Road interchange area is currently mostly rural, with a large amount of nearby land in agricultural use. This land surrounding the interchange would become attractive for commercial development and nearby residential development. Water and sewer service are not widely available in this area, but could potentially be extended from areas along US 401. The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative connects to an NC 50 interchange on the Lilac Corridor Alternative. The large amount of land in this area currently in agricultural use would become attractive for commercial and higher density residential development. In addition, planned expansion of water infrastructure near Ten Ten Road in this area will facilitate development with higher densities and intensities. Wake County plans anticipate the development of the NC 50 and Old Stage Road interchange areas as regional activiiy centers, with higher densities and intensities. The pace of commercial and higher density residential development at the southeast corner of Zone 5, near I-40 and NC 42 in Johnston County, could accelerate with the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative, connecting to the Lilac Corridor Alternative. This build scenario would provide faster access between this existing regional activity center and the existing Triangle Expressway, making it easier to travel between Clayton and points south to points west of Raleigh, including RTP, which could make the area more attractive to development. 6.2.5.5 Eastern Alternatives As described above, potenial effects of the Eastern Alternatives (Preliminary Corridor Alternatives east of I-40—Green, Mint Green, Brown, Tan and Teal) on land use change are dependent on the alignments west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to. 6.2.5.6 Zone 5 Conclusions Table 10 displays the relative concern for potential effects on land use change in Zone 5 under the no- build scenario and the various build scenarios, based on the factors that will influence the location and intensity of development. Each factor is discussed below. Demand for Development and Population Growth – While overall growtb trends suggest moderate population growth and development demand would likely occur in Zone 5 without the Complete 540 project, the build scenarios have the potential to notably increase population growth and development demand. All the build scenarios would improve access between Zone 5 and major transportation facilities such as I-40 and US 401 and notably shorten travel times to major employment centers such as RTP. Due to its greater distance away from Zone 5, the Red Corridor Alternative would have a smaller effect on development demand than the other build alternatives. Pressure for Development Outside Regulated/Planned Areas – All of the land in Zone 5 is addressed in local land development regulations and local future land use plans. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 57 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Development Pattern — All of the build alternatives west of I-40 except the Red Corridor Alternative would introduce interchanges into Zone 5. These areas would face particularly strong commercial development pressure, and nearby areas would become more attractive for residential development. These development patterns would be dependent on a nearby high-speed, controlled-access roadway. For this reason, these areas may remain more uniformly characterized by low-density residential development under the no-build scenario. Table 10. Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 5 Pressure / Demand Future Shift of Pressure for Land Pressure for Land planned I Managed for Typically Higher Regional Development Development Development Rating Impact Population Growth Outside Regulated Outside Planned Pattern Land Use and Development to the Growth Area Areas Areas Impacts Commcrcial / Large numbcr of acres in Largc numbcr of acres Srrong attraction for in the Probable Land development and industrial dcvclopment the ProbaUle Strip or sprawling with large parking lots development in Uiis Development Areas are Development Areas devclopment likely stormwater goals not More ��ke�y area outside regiilated areas are outside planned set Concern arcas � Orange/Lilac Purple/Blue Purplc/Blue Orange/Lilac Red No-Build Scenario Purple/Blue No-Build Scenario Purple/Blue �o-Build Scenario Red No-Build Scenario Red Red � All Scenarios* AII Scenarios* Orange/Lilac Orange/I.ilac Less Commercial / Development areas are COnC¢rn development and/or All Probabla All Probable Likely to support consiste��t with land large residential No population sl�ift Development Areas in a Development Areas in clustered development and developments not ��ke�Y regulated area a planned area development stm�mwater likely management goals Notes: Potential eYtects of the "Eastern Alternatrves," the corridor alternatives east of I-40, on land use and development in Zone 5 are dependent on the corridor alternatives west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to; for this reason they are not included in the above tablc. * The potential effects of all scenarios are expected to be influenced to the same extent by this factor. Planned/Managed Land Use Impacts — Local land use plans anticipate that the Complete 540 project will be constructed along the protected corridor, helping to concentrate denser, higher intensity, and mixed use development near interchanges along the new road in Zone 5. This means that the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives would have notably more potential to support future land use patterns in accordance with local plans than the other options, particularly the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative. West of NC 50, the Purple to Blue Corridor would shift the planned interchange areas and the demand for development in Zone 5 well to the south into areas without underlying plans in place or planned infrastructure to support the mixed use activity centers envisioned in local plans. These interchange areas may instead develop with mare conventional strip commercial development in less concentrated, more scattered patterns The higher densities and greater mix of land uses that are anticipated by local land use plans at the potential interchanges along Complete 540 are dependent on high-speed, controlled-access roadway access. With the Red Corridor Alternative or the No-Build Alternative, these areas may remain more uniformly characterized by low-density residentia] development, promoting future development Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 58 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 patterns in Zone 5 that differ from local land use goals of promoting mixed land use, including more commercial development at planned regional activity centers. The most notable natural feature in Zone 5 is Middle Creek and its associated aquatic habitat. While additional development near Middle Creek has the potential to negatively affect water quality, development regulations including the Neuse River Buffer Rules and NPDES Phase II requirements will help to minimize these effects. 6.2.6 Zone 6 Zone 6 lies along the southwestern edge of the FLUSA, south of NC 42 and west of I-40. This area includes Fuquay-Varina, Angier, northeastern Harnett County, and northwestern Johnston County. It also includes the southwest quadrant of the developing area between NC 50 and I-40 in Johnston County—this area is experiencing commercial development near the I-40 interchange at NC 42 and residential development along NC 50 and Old Drug Store Road. There is a small amount of coinmercial development near the I-40 interchange at NC 210. Most of the rest of Zone 6 is very rural, with numerous farms and scatiered low-density residential development. The most active areas for current development are near Fuquay-Varina and near I-40. Access to water and sewer infrastructure in Zone 6 is generally limited to areas near Fuquay-Varina, Angier, and I-40. None of the build scenarios cross into Zone 6, although the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would be relatively close to the northern edge of Zone 6 and could result in more induced development than the other build scenarios. However, by improving overall access to the regional high-speed, controlled-access roadway network, all of the build scenarios have varied potential to influence land use patterns in Zone 6. Much of Zone 6 is covered by Wake County's Area Land Use Plan for the Fuquay-Varina—Garner area (Section 5.6.1), which envisions much of the area continuing to develop with low-density residential uses, wiin growth generally spreading outward from Fuquay-Varina. This Plan assumes that the Complete 540 project will be constructed along the protected corridar, with mixed-use, higher density activity centers around the potential interchange at US 401 and on the north sides of the potential interchanges at 01d Stage Road and NC 50, which are each several miles north of Zone 6. Johnston County's Land Use Plan envisions its portion of Zone 6 as supporting low-density residential growth, with regional commercial node at the interchanges on I-40 at NC 42 and NC 210, and smaller commercial nodes at the intersections on NC 50 at NC 42 and NC 210. Johnston County's policy is to extend water and sewer service only to planned unit developments (PUDs) or to commercial/industrial areas, so this will limit the pace of development farther away from these commercial nodes. Harnett County's Land Use Plan envisions its portion of Zone 6 as supporting agriculture and low- density residential uses west of US 401, and somewhat higher density residential uses east of US 401. A rural development node is designated around the intersection of US 401 and NC 210, with compact mixed use designated along US 401 north of this area. Public water and sewer infrastructure is generally limited to the areas near Angier, but Harnett County utility systems have ample capacity to support potential extension of infrastructure. The potential indirect effects on land use in Zone 6 under the no-build scenario and the various build scenarios are discussed below. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 59 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6.2.6.1 No-Build Alternative Without the Complete 540 project, development surrounding Fuquay-Varina, at the northwestern corner of Zone 6, and between NC 50 and I-40 in Johnston County, at the eastern edge of Zone 6, is expected to continue according to local land use plans. In the Fuquay-Varina area, this development would be mainly residential. Between NC 50 and I-40 in Johnston County, commercial development would continue near the interchanges and major intersections, wiih residential development extending along the major roads. Development in these areas is likely to be mainly influenced by existing factors including access to existing roadways, overall development trends, and local land use and infrastructure policy. With the No-Build Alternative, development in the more rural parts of Zone 6, in the central and southern parts of this area, would likely proceed very slowly. Most of these areas are distant enough from major transportation facilities and employment centers that there would be only modest demand for new development. 6.2.6.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives Construction of the Orange Corridor Alternative or the Lilac Corridor Alternarive would introduce a high-speed, controlled-access facility several miles north of Zone 6. Because these two options follow a similar alignment, their effects on development are likely to be similar. These options would improve overall access to the surrounding roadway network, but the most notable effects in Zone 6 are likely to be near US 401 in Fuquay-Varina and the northeastern corner of Harnett County and in the area between NC 50 and I-40 in Johnston County. This is because these areas have easy access to roadways that would connect to the Complete 540 project, which would then offer a travel time savings over existing routes to employment and commercial centers in the Triangle Region, and to the commercial centers that are anticipated to develop at the Complete 540 interchanges in Zones 2 and 5. Improved access would encourage increased residential development in these areas of Zone 6. This pattern would be congruent with the land uses and development envisioned by Walce County's Area Land Use Plan for the Fuquay-Varina—Garner area and by Johnston County's Land Use Plan. Farther away from existing major roadways, the effects of the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives on land development is likely to be more modest. While the overall improved access in the project study area would make the central and southern parts of Zone 6 somewhat more attractive for small- scale residential development, these areas would be too far away from Complete 540 and from other major roadways to experience large changes in access or travel times. 6.2.6.3 Red Corridor Alternative The Red Corridor Alternative would be at least six miles north of Zone 6, so its effect on development in Zone 6 is not likely to differ much from the No-Build Alternative. The I-40 interchange on the Red Corridor Alternative is well to the north of the I-40/NC 42 interchange area in Johnston County, such that the Complete 540 project would be unlikely to offer much travel time savings between Johnston County and points east or west of Raleigh. For this reason, the effects of the Red Corridor Alternative on this growing area in Johnston County are not likely to differ notably from the No-Build Alternative. The Red Corridor Alternative is unlikely to have a notable effect on land development in the central and southern parts of Zone 6 as these areas are too far away to experience notable changes in access or travel times. 6.2.6.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative Compared to the other build scenarios, the Purple to Blue Corridar Alternative has greater potential to induce land use changes in Zone 6. This option would follow an alignment much closer to Zone 6 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 60 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 than the other build options. For the area between US 401 and Rock Service Staiion, this alignment is a mile or less away from the northern boundary of Zone 6. This segment includes two interchanges— one at US 401 and another at Old Stage Road. These factors would much more notably improve access to Zone 6 as compared to the other build options, stimulating development pressure near US 401 and NC 42. The areas along US 401 and NC 42 would likely experience notably increased demand for commercial development near intersections and for nearby residential development. The effects of the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would be similar to the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives in the area around NC 42 between NC 50 and I-40 in Johnston County, because this option connects to the Lilac Corridor Alternative near NC 50. This area would have somewhat improved access to roadways that would connect to the Complete 540 project, which would then offer a travel time savings over existing routes to employment and commercial centers in the Triangle Region, and to the commercial centers that are anticipated to develop at the Complete 540 interchanges in Zones 2 and 5. Improved access would encourage increased residential development in these areas of Zone 6. Along the southern portion of Zone 6, near Angier in Harnett County, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative has a notably greater potential for inducing development and land use change than other project scenarios. While this alignment would still be several miles away from the Angier area, it would provide easy access to NC 55 souih of Fuquay-Varina, via an interchange on US 401. Areas near the NC 55 corridor in northern Harnett County could become more attractive for low-density residential development and small-scale commercial development. 6.2.6.5 Eastern Alternatives As described above, potential effects of the Eastern Alternatives (Preliminary Corridor Alternatives east of I-40—Green, Mint Green, Brown, Tan and Teal) on land use change are dependent on the aligmnents west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternarives connect to. 6.2.6.6 Zone 6 Conclusions Table 11 displays the relative concern for potential effects on land use change in Zone 6 under the no- build scenario and the various build scenarios, based on the factors that will influence the location and intensity of development. Each factor is discussed below. Demand for Development and Population Growth – Development in Zone 6 areas is likely to continue to be influenced by existing factors including access to existing roadways, overall development trends, and local land use and infrastructure policy. For these reasons, there will be continued demand for development and accompanying population growth under either the build or no- build scenario. The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would likely have the most notable effect on population growth and demand for development, as it would be much closer to Zone 6 than the other build scenarios. Pressure for Development Outside RegulatedlPlanned Areas – The land in Zone 6 is addressed in local land developinent regulations and local future land use plans. Development Pattern – Under the No-Build Alternative, moderate residential development would likely continue in the areas surrounding Fuquay-Varina, with more modest development to the south and east. Because it is several miles away from Zone 6, the effects of the Red Corridor Alternative are not likely to be notably different than with the No-Build Alternative. The other build scenarios would improve overall access to the surrounding roadway network, but the most notable effects in Zone 6 are Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 6] STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 likely to be near US 401 in Fuquay-Varina and the northeastern corner of Harnett Couniy and in the area between NC 50 and I-40 in Johnston County. These areas have easy access to roadways that will connect to the Complete 540 project, offering travel time savings to employment and commercial centers in the Triangle Region. Near US 401 in Fuquay-Varina and the northeastern corner of Harnett County, this effect would be notably greater under the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative. Table 11. Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 6 Pressure / Demand Future Shift of Pressure for Land Pressure for Land Planned I Managed for Typically Higher Regional Development Development Development Rating Impact Population Growth Outside Regulated Outside Planned Pattern Land Use and Development to the Growth Area Areas Areas Impacts Commercial / Largc numbcr of acres Laree numbcr of acres Strong attraction for in thc Probablc in the Probablc Land development and industrial developmen[ development in this Development Areas Development Areas Sh�ip or sprawling stormwater goals not with large parking lots area are outside re lated are outside lanned development likely set !Vlore likcly � p Concern areas areas � Purple/Blue Purple/Blue Purple/Blue purple/Blue No-Build Scenario Orange/Lilac Orange/Lilac Orange/Lilac Rcd Red Red Red No-Boild Scenario No-Boild Scenario No-Boild Scenario � All Scenarios* All Scenarios* Orange/Lilac Less Commercial / Development areas are Coocern develo�ment and/or All Probable All Probable Likely to support consistent wiYh land large residential No population shift Development Areas in Development Areas iu clustered development and develo�ments not ��k��Y a regulated aren a pla�ned area developmcnt stormwater Iikely management goals Notes: Yotenhal eYtects ot the "h;astern Alternat�ves," the corr�dor alternatrves east ot l-4U, on land use and deveJopment m Gone 5 are dependent on the corridor alternatives west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to; for this reason they are not included in the above table. * The potenYial effects of all scenarios are expected to be influenced to the same extent by this facYor. Planned/Managed Land Use Impacts — The Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives would likely support development in Zone 6 in accordance with the land uses and development envisioned by local land use plans. The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative has greater potential to induce land use changes in Zone 6 than the other build scenarios because it would follow an alignment and introduce new interchanges much closer to Zone 6. The development patterns encouraged by the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative may therefore differ from the future land use visions in the local plans. The most notable natural features in Zone 6 are Middle Creek and its associated aquatic habitat, Hector Creek, a High Quality Water (HQW), and the Cape Fear River Water Supply Watershed in Harnett County at the southwestern corner of the FLUSA. While additional development near these features has the potential to negatively affect water quality, development regulations including the Neuse River Buffer Rules (in the portion of Zone 6 in the Neuse basin) and NPDES Phase II requirements, will help to minimize these effects. Harnett Couniy also maintains required conservation zones for streams in the FLUSA Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 62 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6,2.7 Zone 7 Zone 7 includes the area in Wake County between I-40 and the US 64/US 264 Bypass, including the southern portion of Knightdale, the eastern portion of Garner, and portions of southeast Raleigh. It also includes a small portion of western Wendell. The northwest corner and western edge of Zone 7 are the two parts of Zone 7 with widespread development, with commercial and industrial development near I-40 and I-440 and residential development along Rock Quarry Road, New Hope Road, and Barwell Road. The Greenfield South Business Park, a partially-developed industrial park, is located on the east side of I-40 at the US 70 interchange. The northeast corner of Zone 7 includes a portion of the approved Wendell Falls mixed use development, which is intended to include 4,000 residential units and 100 acres of retail space. Residential development in this area is mainly along the zone's western and northern edges, with much of the rest of the zone fairly rural. All of the build scenarios under consideration for Complete 540 would improve access to Zone 7, providing a direct, high-speed, controlled-access connection to employment centers in the Triangle Region by connecting the area to the existing Triangle Expressway, I-40, and the US 64/264 Bypass. Zone 7 is covered by future land use plans for Knightdale, Wendell, Garner, Raleigh, and Wake County (Section 5.6.1). Wake County's East Raleigh-Knightdale ALUP and Fuquay-Varina-Garner ALUP identify areas along a representative corridor for Phase II of the Complete 540 project, east of I- 40, with a Special Transportation Corridor designation. It also identifies planned mixed use and higher density activity centers at the Rock Quarry Road/Auburn-Knightdale Road area and near Battle Bridge Road. Randleigh Farm, a 428-acre tract on Battle Bridge Road jointly owned by the City of Raleigh and Wake County is planned for future mixed use development. The potential indirect effects on land use in Zone 7 under the no-build scenario and the various build scenarios are discussed below. 6.2.71 No-Build Alternative Without the Complete 540 project, development in Zone 7 would continue at a moderate pace, influenced by the area's existing proximity to US 64/264 Bypass, I-40, and I-440. Future development would likely concentrate closer to these existing facilities, spreading to the south and east at a moderate pace. Although it is unknown if the Randleigh Farm project will begin development in the absence of plans to construct the Complete 540 project, this project would also act as a catalyst for mixed use growth and development. Development of the Wendell Falls project would also act as a catalyst for development at the northeast corner of Zone 7. The southeast corner of Zone 7 would likely remain fairly rural in this scenario. The Walnut Hill Historic District, a small rural historic district along Mia1 Plantation Road in this area, will also limit the spread of suburban development. 6.2.7.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives The Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives would connect to the Eastern Alternatives near I-40, connecting Zone 7 to the existing Triangle Expressway to the west. This would improve access to points west of Raleigh to some extent, and would also improve access to regional north-south facilities including US 401 and NC 50. The Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives would include interchanges in slightly different locations on I-40. Each potential interchange area has the potential to promote denser and more intense development, particuarly commercial land uses. With the Lilac Corridor Alternative, this effect could be shifted slightly to the north as compared to the Orange Corridor Alternative. In general, though, the most notable effects on Zone 7 would result from the Eastern Alternatives (Section 6.2.7.5). Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 63 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6.2.7.3 Red Corridor Alternative As described in Section 6.2.4.4, most of the area around the Red Corridor Alternative interchange at I-40 is planned and zoned for commercial and industrial development. There is a notable amount of existing commercial and industrial development in this area, and Garner is actively seeking to attract more commercial and industrial development there. Introduction of a new interchange in this area on I-40 would make the area even more attractive io large-scale commercial and industrial development, likely spurring faster development than under other scenarios. However, it is important to note that the Town of Garner is concerned about the direct impacts that the Red Corridor Alternative would have on commercial parcels in the Green�eld South Business Parlc. Construction of the Red Corridor Alternative would require NCDOT to acquire parcels within the Greenfield South Business Park, removing a notable portion of Garner's prime commercially-zoned land from the local tax and employment base. The Red Corridor Alternative would connect to the Green or Mint Green Corridor Alternatives east of I-40 near the interchange at Rock Quarry Road. These interchange areas would be the focus of more intense commercial development, so the Red Corridor Alternative would shift this effect closer to Garner and Raleigh and farther away from Johnston County and Clayton as compared to the other build scenarios under consideration. 6.2.7.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative connects to the Lilac Corridor Alternative well to the west of Zone 7, so the effect of this option on Zone 7 would be the same as those anticipated with the Lilac Corridor Alternative (Section 6.2.7.2). 6.2.7.5 Eastern Alternatives Construction of any of the Eastern Alternatives would improve access to Zone 7. Because there is not a large difference in the locations of the Eastern Alternatives, the overall effects on Zone 7 would likely be similar. The notable difference between the Eastern Alternatives would be the effects on interchange areas. Any of the Eastern Alternatives would introduce a high-speed, controlled-access facility into this area, providing faster and more direct routes between US 64/264 Bypass and I-40. By connecting to I-40 and a Complete 540 alignment west of I-40, these options would also provide another route to access the exisring Triangle Expressway and points west and north of Raleigh. Areas in Zone 7 near existing major transportation facilities have experienced moderate growth over the past fifteen years, and this moderate growth is likely to continue. While this growth is not dependent on the Eastern Alternatives, construction of a DSA including one of these oprions would influence the timing, location, and intensity of the development in this area. Zone 7 would likely develop faster, with higher densities and intensities more likely than in the no-build scenario. The more rural areas in Zone 7, at the zone's southeastern corner would likely remain fairly rural, even if one of the Eastern Alternatives is constructed, due to this area's distance from the alignments and other existing major roadways and the general lack of water and sewer infrastructure in this area. The interchange areas in Zone 7 would experience this area's most notable land use changes. All of the Eastern Alternatives would include an interchange on White Oak Road in the same general location, near the Johnston County line. This area currently has a mix of rural and ]ow-density residential uses, and a new interchange in this area would likely caLise more demand for commercial and higher density residential uses. Wake County land use plans assume that the Complete 540 project interchange in this area will support development of a commercial and retail activity center and Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 64 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 these plans anticipate the denser and inore intense land uses that would likely develop surrounding the interchange. The US 70 Business interchange areas already contain some commercial development, particularly near the Johnston County line and closer to Clayton. The Eastern Alternatives each use one of two interchange locations on US 70 Business. The Brown Corridor Alternative (and by extension, the Tan Corridor Alternative) interchange would be near the Johnston County line, while the Green Corridor Alternative (and by extension, the Mint Green and Teal Corridor Alternatives) would be about a mile to the northwest, closer to Garner. Wake County land use plans assume that the Complete 540 project interchange in this area will be at the Green Corridor Alternative location, where a commercial and retail activity center is anticipated to develop. Constructing an interchange in this area would support that vision. Constructing an interchange in the Brown Corridor Alternative location would shift the demand for this type of development to the southwest, but this area would also likely support orderly commercial and retail development without notably dampening the demand for this type of development in the planned area to the northwest. In either scenario, this stretch of US 70 Business would be bounded by two major transportation facilities—I-40 and Complete 540—and it is likely that the entire stretch would develop with commercial and retail uses. The next interchange along the Eastern Alternatives would be in the Old Baucom Road/Rock Quarry Road area. Local plans envision the Complete 540 alignment following the Green Corridor Alternative in this area. The Green and Mint Green Corridor Alternatives would include an interchange in the area anticipated by local plans. The other Eastern Alternatives would include an interchange to the east on Old Baucom Road. Most of the land in these areas is rural land available for denser and more intense development. Commercial development would likely occur in the immediate interchange areas, with residential development surrounding these areas. The Green and Mint Green would focus this effect closer to planned growth areas and to existing developed areas. The other Eastern Alternatives would likely shift this effect slightly farther to the east, into areas that local plans assume will remain rural. Any of these options would likely stimulate development of the planned Randleigh Farm project. There is a notable amount of land in this area that is in public ownership and used for public services, including the Neuse River WWTP and a Walce County/City of Raleigh police training facility. These areas will remain in public ownership and would therefore not be subject to redevelopment at higher densities or intensities. All of the Eastern Alternatives would include an interchange in the same general location on Auburn Knightdale Road. Wake County plans assume a project alignment similar to this location. Each of these options would stimulate commercial development in the immediate interchange area and residential development in the surrounding area. Any of these options would likely stimulate development of the planned Randleigh Farm project. Nearby areas in public ownership will remain in their current states. A11 of the Eastern Alternatives would use the same interchange on Poole Road. Town of Knightdale and Wake County future land use plans envision that the area south of Poole Road will continue to be characterized by rural and low-density residential uses, with activity centers along Poole Road and surrounding the interchange area that would be formed by completion of the 540 Outer Loop at the US 64/264 Bypass. Construction of any of the Eastern Alternatives would generally support these visions, and could increase the demand for nearby residential development. Lack of existing water and sewer infrastructure generally limits development in the rural areas near Poole Road, but this may not be a major limiting factor to future development as developers could extend these services from nearby developed areas. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 65 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6.2.7.6 Zone 7 Conclusions Table 12 displays the relative concern for potential effects on land use change in Zone 7 under the no- build scenario and the various build scenarios, based on the factors that will influence the location and intensity of development. Each factor is discussed below. Table 12. Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 7 Pressure / Demand Future Shift of Pressure for Land Pressure for Land Planned / Managed for Typically Higher Regional Development Development Development Rating Impact Population Growth Outside Regulated Outside Planned Pattern Land Use and Development to the Growth Area Areas Areas Impacts Commcrcial / Strong ath'action lor Largc number of acres in Largc number of acres in Land development and indusn�ial development development in this the Probable the Probable Strip or sprawling stormwater goals not with large parking lots Development Areas are Development Areas are development likely More likely area ou[side regulaCed areas outside planned areas set Concern � Orange/Lilac Orange/Lilac Red Red No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario Purple/Blue Purple/Bluc EasCern Alternatives Easteru Alternatives Orangc/Lilac Orange/Lilac Red Red No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario Purple/Blue purple/Blue Fastern Eastern Alternatives Alternatives � All Scenarios* All Scenarios* Less Commercial / Development areas are Concern development and/or All Probable All Probable Likely to support consistent with land large residential No population shift pevelopment Areas in a Development Areas in a clustered development� and dcvelopments not likely �egidated area planned area development stormwater likely roanagement goals * The potcntial effects of all sccnarios are expectcd to be influenced to the same extent by this factar. Demand for Development and Population Growth — Zone 7 has been characterized by fairly modest growth, with development activity mainly concentrated near existing transportation facilities, such as US 64/264 Bypass, I-40 and I-440. Without the Complete 540 project, this moderate population growth and demand for development would likely continue. Constructing the project would improve access between Zone 7 and activity centers in the Triangle Region, and all the build scenarios have the potential to increase the demand for development, particularly close to the proposed interchange areas. There would be relatively little difference among the build scenarios in their effects on growth and development. Pressure for Development Outside Regulated/Planned Areas — The land in Zone 7 is addressed in local land development regulations and local future land use plans. Development Pattern — Under the No-Build Alternative, moderate development would continue near existing transportation facilities in Zone 7, such as US 64/264 Bypass, I-40, and I-440. Future commercial development would likely concentrate closer to these existing facilities, and scattered low- density residential development would continue near these areas. Two planned development projects, Randleigh Farm and Wendell Falls, would be catalysts for expanded mixed-use development, although Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 66 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 development of the Randleigh Farm project is likely to be somewhat dependent on the Complete 540 project. All the build scenarios would have the potential to affect the location, densities and intensities of new development. All of the build alternatives east of I-40 will introduce interchanges into Zone 7. These areas would experience stronger pressure for commercial and higher densiry residential devopment, and nearby areas would also become more attractive for residential development. The more rural areas in Zone 7, at the zone's southeastern corner would likely remain fairly rural under either a build or no-build scenario, due to this area's distance from the DSAs and other existing major roadways and the general lack of water and sewer infrastructure in this area. Planned/Managed Land Use Impacts — Local land use plans generally assume that the Complete 540 project interchanges east of I-40 will be in the locations on Green Corridor Alternative location, where more commercial and retail development is anticipated. Constructing interchanges in these area would support that vision. Without the Complete 540 project, these potential interchange areas may remain more uniformly characterized by low-density residential development and scattered, small- scale commercial development, promoting future development patterns in Zone 7 that differ from local land use goals of promoting more mixed land use types, including more concentrated commercial development at planned regional activity centers. The most notable natural features in Zone 7 are the Neuse River and its tributaries and their associated aquatic habitat. While additional development near these features has the potential to negatively affect water quality, development regulations including the Neuse River Buffer Rules and NPDES Phase II requirements will help to minimize these effects. 6.2,8 Zone 8 Zone 8 includes the Clayton area in Johnston County. It is bounded by the Clayton Bypass in the south, and the Neuse River, NC 42, and the boundary of the Swift Creek watershed in the east. Zone 8 has developed fairly rapidly in the last two decades and is anticipated to continue to grow, as the area has existing easy access to three major transportation facilities: I-40, the Clayton Bypass, and US 70 Business. Central Clayton has a compact central care, surrounded by strip commercial development, low-density residential developments, and rural areas. The western corner of Zone 8, in the area between I-40, NC 42, and the Clayton Bypass, is a major commercial activity center. The Town of Clayton envisions this area continuing to develop as a regional commercial and employment center. There are also a number of light industrial developments on US 70 Business south of Clayton, reflecting this area's growing presence of biopharmaceutical jobs. The Town of Clayton also envisions this area continuing to develop as a major employment center. All of the build scenarios under consideration for Complete 540 would improve access to Zone 8, providing a direct, high-speed, controlled-access connection to employment centers in the Triangle Region by connecting the area to the existing Triangle Expressway to the northwest and US 64/264 Bypass to the east. Zone 8 is covered by Clayton's Strategic Growth Plan and Johnston County's Land Use Plan (Section 5.6.1). These plans envision orderly development spreading outward from denser and more mixed uses along major roadways including NC 42 and US 70. NC 42 is a particular focus, as Clayton and Johnston County envision the new Johnston Health Clayton medical center as a catalyst for further development of this area, surrounding the NC 42 interchange on the Clayton Bypass, as a major mixed-use center. This would include higher density residential uses, offices, hotels, and retail developments. Clayton anticipates continuing to expand water and sewer service to this area and to the area surrounding the US 70 Business interchange on the Clayton Bypass. Local Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 67 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 policy is to only extend water and sewer service to planned unit developments (PUDs) or to commercial/industrial areas, so this will ]imit the pace of development farther away from these commercial nodes. The potential indirect effects on ]and use in Zone 8 under the no-build scenario and the various build scenarios are discussed below. 6.2.81 No-Build Alternative Without the Complete 540 project, Zone 8 would continue to develop, with commercial and mixed use development expanding along the NC 42 corridor and along the Clayton Bypass, in accordance with Jobnston County and Town of Clayton plans to promote these areas as regional commercial and employment centers. There is a notable amount of developable land remaining across Zone 8, and the area's existing access to inajor regional transportation facilities suggests that planned residential communities would also continue to develop across Zone 8. 6.2.8.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives Construction of the Orange Corridor Alternative or the Lilac Corridor Alternative would introduce a high-speed, controlled-access facility at the western edge of Zone 8. In general, because these two options follow a similar alignment, their effects on Zone 8 would likely be similar. The notable exception is at the I-40 interchange area, where the Lilac Corridor Alternative crosses I-40 slightly to the north of the Orange Corridor Alternative. While this area currently has easy access to regional facilites including I-40, the Clayton Bypass, and US 70 Business, introducing an additional high-speed, controlled-access facility will notably shorten travel times from this area to commercial and employment centers such as RTP, such that the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives would likely cause the Clayton area to develop faster than with the No-Build Aliernative. These options could also make the NC 42 corridor area more attractive for larger-scale commercial and office development and could also help spur continued commercial and industrial development at the NC 42 interchange on the Clayton Bypass, supporting the local future land use vision for these two areas. Because the Lilac Corridor Alternative crosses I-40 slightly to the north of the Orange Corridor Alternative, its effects would be slightly different at the western edge of Zone 8. The option would shift the I-40 interchange slightly farther to the north of NC 42, which could slightly moderate the project's development pressure on the NC 42 corridor. However, local plans aim to support denser and more intense development along NC 42, so this effect would differ slightly from these plans. 6.2.8.3 Red Corridor Alternative Compared to the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives, the Red Corridor Alternative would have a more modest effect on land development in Zone 8. The Red Corridor Alternative would improve overall access in the broader area, but because it would follow an alignment several miles north of Zone 8, this improvement would not be as notable as with the Orange or Lilac Corridor Alternatives. This option could shift more of the focus on commercial and industrial development anticipated near I-40 in Jobnston County farther to the north, closer to Garner. 6.2.8.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative connects to the Lilac Corridor Alternative, which crosses I-40 slightly to the north of the Orange Corridor Alternative. Therefore, the effects would be the same as those described above for the Lilac Corridor Alternative. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 68 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6.2.8.5 Eastern Alternatives Similar to the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives, any of the Eastern Alternatives would introduce a high-speed, controlled-access facility near the western edge of Zone 8. The Eastern Alternatives would all have the effect of shortening the travel time between this area and the US 64/264 Bypass, improving access to the Knightdale area and to the existing eastern terminus of I-540 and points along the north side of Raleigh. This could also contribute to slightly faster development in the Clayton area than with the No-Build Alternative. These options could also contribute to continued commercial and industrial development in the area between I-40, the Clayton Bypass and NC 42. This development would likely follow local visions for future land uses. All of the Eastern Alternatives would include an interchange at US 70 Business, just northwest of Clayton. This interchange would also contribute to more commercial development pressure along US 70 Business and increased pressure for nearby residential development. The interchange on the Brown Corridor Alternative would be slightly closer to Clayton, leading to slightly greater development pressure in this area than the other Eastern Alternatives. 6.2.8.6 Zone 8 Conclusions Table 13 displays the relative concern for potential effects on land use change in Zone 8 under the no- build scenario and the various build scenarios, based on the factors that will influence the location and intensity of development. Each scenario is discussed below. Table 13. Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 8 Future Shift of Pressure for Land Pressure / Demand Pressure for Land Planned / Managed Regional Population Development Development Rating for Typically Higher Growth to the Growth Development Outside Outside Planned Pattern Land Use and Impact Development Area Regulated Areas preas Impacts Commercial / industrial Largc number of acres in Large number of acres in Land development and Strong attraction for the Probabie Development the Probable Strip or sprawling development with large development in this area Areas are outside Development Areas are development likely stormwater goaLs not More parking bts likcly regulated areas outside planned areas set Concern � Orange/Lilac Orange/Liiac Purple/Blue Purple/Blue Eastern Alternatives Eastern Alterna[ives Red Red Red No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario No-Bui dScenario Brown No-Build Scenario � Orange/Lilac Orange/Lilac All Scenarios* AII Scenarios* Purple/Blue Purple/Blue Eastern Alternatives Eastern Alternafives (except Brown) Less Develop�ient areas are Concern Commercial / All Probable consistent widi land development and/or All Probable Development Likely to support large residential No population shift likely Areas in a regulated area Development Areas in a clustered development development and developments not likely planned area stormwater management goals * The potential effects of all scenarios are expected to be influenced to tlie same extent by this factor. Demand for Development and Population Growth — Overall development in Zone 8 would likely continue to be influenced by existing factors, including the area's proximity to three major Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 69 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 transportation facilities: I-40, the Clayton Bypass, and US 70 Business. Without the Complete 540 project, fairly rapid population growth and demand for development would likely continue, reflecting existing growth and development trends. All of the build scenarios will improve access and shorten travel times between Zone 8 and commercial and employment centers such as RTP and also points east and north of Raleigh. For this reason, the build scenarios would stimulate slightly faster population growth and demand for development. The Red Corridor Alternative would have a more moderate effect coinpared to the other build scenarios because this option is farther away from Zone 8. Pressure for Development Outside Regulated/Planned Areas — The land in Zone 8 is addressed in local land developinent regulations and local future land use plans. Development Pattern — The improved access and shorter travel times between Zone 8 and commercial and employment centers would likely lead to moderately faster residential and commercial development in the Clayton area under any of the build scenarios except for the Red Corridor Alternative. The effect on commercial development along corridors such as NC 42 and US 70 Business may be particularly notable. The Red Corridor Alternative would have a weaker effect than the other build options, as this potential interchange area is far enough north that the Complete 540 project would be unlikely to offer much travel time savings between Johnston County and points east or west of Raleigh. Among the Eastern Alternatives, the Brown Corridor Alternative could lead to slightly greater commercial development pressure on US 70 Business closer to Clayton. Planned/Managed Land Use Impacts — In general, development patterns anticipated under any of the build scenarios except the Red Corridor Alternative or the Brown Corridor Alternative would be consistent with local land use plans. By shifting northward some of the more concentrated commercial and industrial development anticipated in local plans near the Complete 540 interchange with I-40, the Red Corridor Alternative could lead to somewhat different development patterns than those envisioned in local land use plans. By shifting development pressure on 70 Business slightly closer to Clayton than under the other build scenarios, the Brown Corridor Alternative could also lead to somewhat different developinent patterns than those envisioned in local plans. The No-Build Alternative could lead to slightly less concentrated, less intense development near I-40, a pattern that would also differ slightly from that envisioned in local plans. The most notable natural features in Zone 8 are Swift Creek and its associated aquatic habitat and natural features. Johnston County maintains an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) zoning designation that limits impervious cover and nitrogen loading rates in the Swift Creek watershed area and also along White Oak Creek, Little Creek, and Little River. Neuse River buffer requirements also apply to streams in this area. 6.2.9 Zone 9 Zone 9 is bounded by the Clayton Bypass and NC 42 in the north, I-40 in the east, and the Swift Creek watershed boundary in the south and east. In this zone, suburban development is generally limited to the areas near I-40, along Cleveland Road, where there are a number of planned residential developments. Additional residential development is spreading slowly southeastward from this area. Johnston County's policy is to only extend water and sewer service to planned unit developments (PUDs), which limits the spread of smaller, piecemeal developments. There is also existing coinmercial development on NC 42 near the I-40 interchange, and Johnston County is actively supporting futher mixed use development along NC 42. The rest of Zone 9 is rural, with many active farms and related rural land uses. Johnston County's Land Use Plan envisions suburban development Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 70 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 slowly spreading north and south of Cleveland Road, with the southeastern part of Zone 9 remaining rural. The potential indirect effects on land use in Zone 9 under the no-build scenario and the various build scenarios are discussed below. 6.2.9.1 No-Build Alternative Without the Complete 540 project, the northwest corner of Zone 9 would continue its moderate development, with commercial and mixed use development expanding along the NC 42 corridor, in accordance with Johnston County and Town of Clayton plans to promote this area as a regional commercial and employment center. Planned residential communities would also continue to develop along Cleveland Road, east of I-40. South and east of these areas, development would proceed at a slower pace. Additional commercial uses may develop near the I-40 interchange at NC 210, but much of the rest of Zone 9 is expected to remain fairly rural. 6.2.9.2 Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives Construction of the Orange Corridor Alternative or the Lilac Corridor Alternative would introduce a high-speed, controlled-access facility several miles just to the north of the northwest corner of Zone 9. Because these two options follow a similar alignment, their effects on Zone 9 would likely be similar. While this area currently has easy access to regional facilites including I-40 and the Clayton Bypass, introducing an additional high-speed, controlled-access facility would notably shorten travel times from this area to commercial and employment centers such as RTP. While the distance between Zone 9 and locations like RTP would limit induced development to some extent, these shorter travel times will make the northwest corner of Zone 9 more appealing for both residential and commercial development. In this way, the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives would likely cause this part of Johnston County to develop faster than with the No-Build Alternative. This development would be in accordance with Johnston County's future land use plans. These options could also make the NC 42 corridor area more attractive for larger-scale commercial and office development and could help spur commercial development at the NC 210 interchange on I-40. This would help achieve Johnston County's desired future land use vision for these two areas. For the southern and eastern parts of Zone 9, Effects of the Orange and Lilac Corridor Alternatives are not likely to differ notably from the No-Build Alternative. These areas are likely too far away for the potential travel time savings to offset the longer distances from RTP and other similar destinations on the west side of Raleigh. 6.2.9.3 Red Corridor Alternative The Red Corridor Alternative would be about six miles north of Zone 9, so its effect on development in Zone 9 is not likely to differ much from the No-Build Alternative. The I-40 interchange on the Red Corridor Alternative is well to the north of the I-40/NC 42 interchange area in Johnston County, such that the Complete 540 project would be unlikely to offer much travel time savings between Johnston County and points east or west of Raleigh. For this reason, the effects of the Red Corridor Alternative on this growing area in Johnston County would be much less pronounced than with the Orange or Lilac Corridor Alternatives. The Red Corridor Alternative is also unlikely to have a notable effect on land development in the central and southern parts of Zone 9 as these areas are too far away to experience notable changes in access or travel times. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 7] STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 6.2.9.4 Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative The Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative connects to the Lilac Corridor well to the northwest of Zone 9, and the two interchanges nearest to Zone 9 on this alignment (NC 50 and I-40) are in the same area as the interchanges using the Lilac Corridor Alternative. For this reason, the effects of the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative alignment on Zone 9 development patterns would likely be the same as effects of the Lilac Corridor Alternative, described in Section 6.2.9.2. 6.2.9.5 Eastern Alternatives As described above, potential effects of ihe Eastern Alternatives (Preliminary Corridor Alternatives east of I-40—Green, Mint Green, Brown, Tan and Teal) on land use change are dependent on the alignments west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to. 6.2.9.6 Zone 9 Conclusions Table 14 displays the relative concern for potential effects on land use change in Zone 9 under the no- build scenario and the various build scenarios, based on the factors that will influence the location and intensity of development. Each factor is discussed below. Demand for Development and Population Growth – Population growth and demand for development are likely to continue at a moderate pace in Zone 9, but proximiry to existing major transportation facilties and other existing factors are likely to have inore influence on this pace than the various scenarios for Complete 540. The one part of Zone 9 where population growth and demand for development could accelerate due to the project is its northwestern corner, near I-40 and US 70. The Orange, Lilac, or Purple to Blue Corridor Alternatives would somewhat improve access to these areas, leading to slightly greater development demand there. Pressure for Development Outside Regulated/Planned Areas – The land in Zone 9 is addressed in local land development regulations and local future land use plans. Development Pattern – Overall development patterns in Zone 9 are likely to continue to be influenced by existing factors, with or without Complete 540. The area's proximity to I-40 and the Clayton Bypass make the northwestern corner of Zone 9 area attractive to development. DSAs following the Orange or Lilac Corridor Alternatives would improve access and shorten travel times between this part of Zone 9 and commercial and employment centers such as RTP. This would likely lead to moderately faster residential and coinmercial development in this part of Johnston Counry under these scenarios. DSAs crossing I-40 on the Red Corridor Alternative would be less likely to influence development, as this potential interchange area is far enough north that the Complete 540 project would be unlilcely to offer much travel time savings between Johnston County and points east or west of Raleigh. None of the build scenarios would likely have a notable influence on development in the southern and eastern parts of Zone 9, due to the longer distances between these areas and the Complete 540 project and the lack of public water and sewer infrastructure in these areas. PlannedlManaged Land Use Impacts – All scenarios would likely support development in Zone 9 in accordance with the land uses and development envisioned by local land use plans. The most notable natural features in Zone 9 are Swift Creek and its associated aquatic habitat and natural features. Johnston County maintains an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) zoning designation that limits impervious cover and nitrogen loading rates in the Swift Creek watershed area and also along White Oak Creek, Little Creek, and Little River. Neuse River buffer requirements also apply to streams in this area. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 72 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Table 14. Land Use Scenario Analysis Matrix for Zone 9 Pressure / Demand Future Shift of Pressure for Land Pressure for Land Planned / Managed for Typically Higher Regional Development Development Development Rating Impact Population Growth Outside Regulated Outside Planned Pattern Land Use and Development to the Growth Area Areas Areas Impacts Commercial / Sn'ong atlraction for Larec number of acres in Largc number of aeres in Land development and industrial development developmcnt in this the Probable the Probablc Strip or sprawling stonnwatcr goals not with large parking lots Development Areas are Development Areas are development likely More likely area outside regulated areas outside planned areas set Concern � Orange/Lilac Orangc/Lilac Rcd Purple/Blue Purple/Blue No-Build Scenario Red Ked Orange/Lilac pp Scenarios* No-Build Scenario No-Build Scenario Purple/Blue � AII Scenarios�- All Scenarios* Less Commercial / Development areas are Concern development and/or All Probable All Probable Likely to support consistent with land large residential No population shift Development Areas in a Development Areas in a clustered development and developments not likely regulated area planned area development� stormwater likely management goals Notes: Potential eYtects of the "Eastern Alternatrves," the corridor alternatives east of I-40, on land use and development in Zone 5 are dependent on the corridor alternatives west of I-40 that the Eastern Alternatives connect to; for this reason they are not included in the above table. * The potential effects of all scenarios are expected to be influenced to the same extent by this factor. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 73 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As described in Section 3.4, the key resource issues for purposes of the cumulative effects analysis were identified using the input from resource agencies during the project's scoping process. The two major resource issues raised were the potential for cumulative effects on the viability of the federally endangered Dwarf wedgemussel in the lower portions of Swift Creek watershed, below the Lalce Benson dam, and on water quality within the entire Swift Creek watershed. There is also concern about the potential for cumulative effects on terrestrial communities and the potential for habitat loss and/or fragmentation in the project area. 7.1 NOTABLE PAST ACTIONS Overall development trends in the FLUSA for the Complete 540 project have been largely influenced and shaped by the area's proximity to the robust employment centers of the Triangle Region, particularly to RTP. Until the early 1990s, much of the FLUSA was rural, with the exception of the central Garner area. Large residential projects including Sunset Ridge in Holly Springs, Ballentine in Fuquay-Varina, Eagle Ridge in Garner, and River Ridge in southeast Raleigh began to develop in the FLUSA in the early and mid-1990s. More residential development followed these projects, and coinmercial development also began to spread in parts of the FLUSA. Some of the notable commercial projects included New Hill Place in Holly Springs and White Oak Crossing in Garner. Greenfield Business Park and White Oak Business Park, two commercial and industrial parks near I- 40 and US 70 in Garner, also began development in the mid-1990s. A more recent major industrial development was the Novartis vaccine production facility, which broke ground in 2007 in Holly Springs west of NC 55 Bypass. Johnston Health Clayton, another major employer in the area, opened in 2010 on NC 42 in Clayton. On the southeast side of Clayton, biopharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk opened a manufacturing plant in 1996 and an existing Talecris Biotherapeutics plant underwent a major expansion in 2010. Several past infrastructure projects have also influenced development in recent decades in the FLUSA for Complete 540. The NC 55 Bypass, which extends around the west side of Holly Springs, opened in 2002. It has spurred both general residential development in Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina and commercial development along the west side of the bypass. The Clayton Bypass (US 70 Bypass), a controlled access facility that carries US 70 through traffic around Clayton, opened in 2008. It has influenced development throughout the Clayton area, particularly along the NC 42 corridor. The Dempsey E. Benton Waier Treatment Plant, with a maximum capacity of 20 MGD opened in 20]0 along NC 50, near I-40 in the Garner area. The Neuse River WWTP, on Battle Bridge Road in southeast Raleigh, originally opened in 1989 and has been expanded several times since, now treating 44 MGD. The South Cary Water Reclamation Facility, west of Bells Lake Road along Middle Creek in Cary, opened in 1990 and now treats 12 MGD. 7.2 PLANNED FUTURE ACTIONS Section 3.5 describes the transportation and other infrastructure projects planned for the reasonably foreseeable future. There are also planned residential and commercial projects across the FLUSA. Most of these are small and are continuations of existing development trends, but there are several notable large planned projects in the area. These include: Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 74 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 • The Veridea development, a large planned and approved mixed-use project in Apex, west of NC 55 and south of US l. It is anticipated to include 10 million square feet of office development, 3.5 million square feet of commercial space, and 8,000 residential units. Development of this project has not yet begun, but Apex planners report that development is anticipated to begin soon. • A new Western Wake Regional WWTP is under construction and nearing completion west of the project area. It will serve Cary, Apex, Holly Springs, and Morrisville, and will ultimately increase the region's wastewater treatment capaciiy by 18 MGD. • A major retail development, with up to 800,000 square feet of commercial space, is being planned at the northwest corner of the intersection of US 70 and White Oak Road in Garner, beginning around 2015. This will be adjacent to the existing White Oak Crossing commercial development. • The Randleigh Farm project, a planned multi-use development on a 417-acre tract on Battle Bridge Road in southeast Raleigh. The property is jointly owned by the City of Raleigh and Wake County and its planned uses include residences, commercial development, and recreational uses. It is unknown when this project will begin development. • The Wendell Falls project, an approved mixed-use development at the far northeastern corner of the FLUSA. It is intended to include 4,000 residential units and 100 acres of retail space. It also includes a school and designated open space along Lake Myra and Marks Creek. 7.3 NOTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 7,3.i Water Qua/ity and Aquatic Habitat 7.3.1.1 Affected Environment Aquatic resources in the FLUSA are part of the Neuse River and Cape Fear River basins. The Neuse River basin portion of the FLUSA is within subbasin 03-04-02. As described in Section 5.4.2.1, there are three general waiersheds in the Neuse basin within the FLUSA: Middle Creek and its �ributaries, Swift Creek and its tributaries, and the Neuse River and its tributaries. The Swift Creek watershed includes two large lakes, Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson. The Neuse River Basinwide Water Qualiry Plan (NCDENR, 2009) indicates that rapid development in this subbasin and its accompanying rapid increases in the amount of impervious area have contributed to notable increases in stream flow after rainfall event, leading to stream bank erosion and sedimentation, wbicb in turn leads to aquatic habitat degradation. Increased stormwater runoff also contributes high nutrient and bacterial loads, which lead to low dissolved oxygen levels and poor biological integrity. Middle Creek and Swift Creek within the immediate project area are listed as impaired on the North Carolina 303(d) list (NCDENR, 2014). Middle Creek is listed as impaired from south of US 1 to US 401. Terrible Creek, a tributary of Middle Creek, is also identified as an impaired water in this area. Swift Creek is listed as impaired from Lake Wheeler to Little Creek. A portion of the Neuse River in the FLUSA is listed as impaired, as are several tributaries to the Neuse River. Swift Creek is also a water supply watershed, with a designated Critical Area surrounding the area between and including Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson. As described in Section 5.6.1, development in the Swift Creek watershed area is limited by watershed protection policies within Wake County's Swift Creek Land Management Plan (1990). This Plan identifies the Swift Creek Water Supply Watershed Critical Area and buffer areas, within which development activities are limited, and appropriate low-density land use categories for the surrounding areas. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 75 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Kenneth Creek and Neills Creek, which are within the Cape Fear basin in Harnett County, are also included on the North Carolina Draft 2014 303(d) list. Hector Creek, also in the Cape Fear basin in Harnett County, is classified as a High Quality Water (HQW). The Cape Fear Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDENR, 2005) also indicates that development, increases in impervious surface, and increased stormwater runoff threaten water quality and aquatic habitat. 7.3.1.2 Potential for Cumulative EFfects Anticipated continued growth and development across the FLUSA will continue to affect area water quality and aquatic habitat. These effects are likely in either the build or no-build scenario. Construction of any of the new location alternatives under consideration for the project would have the potential to affect water quality and to contribute to aquatic habitat degradation. Under the build scenario, however, these effects could shift farther to the south and east. Direct natural environmental impacts by NCDOT projects will be addressed by avoidance, minimization, or mitigation, consistent with programmatic agreements with the natural resources agencies through interagency coordination during the environmental study and during the permitting process. All developments will be required to follow local, state, and federal guidelines and permitting regulations. All of the build scenarios will cross the Swift Creek system in the vicinity of several past projects, including the Clayton Bypass, the Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant, and general residential and commercial development along I-40 and US 70 Business between Garner and Clayton. Commercial and residential development continues in this area, and there are several planned future transportation improvements in the area, including widening of I-40 and NC 42, and improvements to the I-40/NC 42 interchange, with possible new interchanges at Cleveland Road and Cornwallis Road (Section 3.5). The addition of the Complete 540 project to this area will add to the cumulative effects of these projects on water quality and aquatic habitat in the Swift Creek watershed. The Red Corridor Alternative is the only build aliernative wiihin a Water Supply Watershed, and therefore has the potential to add to potential cumulative effects of general growth and development on water quality in the Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area. Water quality and aquatic habitat in Middle Creek is likely to continue to be affecied in the no-build scenario by robust growth in the Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina areas at the west side of the FLUSA for Complete 540. By encouraging faster growth in this area, the build scenarios all have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects on Middle Creek, along with other planned projects including the widening of US 401 and NC 42, the opening of the Western Wake Regional WWTP, and development of the Veridea project. As it is closest to the Middle Creek watershed, and crosses Middle Creek twice, the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative has the strongest potential to result in notable cumulative effects on water quality and aquatic habitat in Middle Creek. The Purple to Blue Corridor also has the most notable potential to contribute to cumulative effects on streams south of NC 42 and in Harnett County. According to Raleigh and Wake County officials, the planned Randleigh Farm project is more likely to begin to be developed if the Complete 540 project is constructed nearby. Cumulatively, these two projects will contribute to effects on water quality and aquatic habitat in the Neuse River, which is near Randleigh Farm. This effect could be slightly reduced with DSAs using the Brown Corridor Alternative, as this option is farther from Randleigh Farm than the other options and could somewhat limit the development potential of that project. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 76 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 7,3.2 Dwarf Wedgemussel Habitat (Swift Creek Watershed) 7.3.2.1 Affected Environment The federally protected Dwarf wedgemussel is found throughout Swift Creek across the FLUSA; however, the portion of Swift Creek downstream of the Lake Benson dam, near NC 50, is particularly important for the long-term survival of this species in the region. Poor water quality and habitat conditions have led to the decline and loss of populations of the Dwarf wedgemussel and threaten the remaining populations (USFWS, 2011). The Dwarf wedgemussel is extremely sensitive to urban pollutants, especially in its early life stages. In addition, urban development activities lead to soil erosion and sedimentation that also harms the species. The alteration of floodplains or the removal of forested stream buffers can be especially hari�nful. 7.3.2.2 Potential for Cumulative Effects Continued development in the lower Swift Creek watershed, below the Lake Benson dam, will continue to pose challenges for the long-term viability of Dwarf wedgemussel habitat in this area. Even under the no-build scenario, the long-term viability of the species in the Swift Creek watershed is at risk. All of the build scenarios could contribute to more rapid growth in this area, although the Red Corridor Alternative could minimize this effect to some extent. Notable past projects in this area have included the Clayton Bypass and the Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant. As part of the mitigation process associated with the Clayton Bypass projeci, Wake County, Johnston County, and the Town of Garner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NCDOT and USFWS. As described in Section 5.6.1, the MOU included several commitments for mitigation sirategies to protect the Dwarf wedgemussel in Swift Creek. Commercial and residential development continues in the lower Swi$ Creek watershed, and there are several planned future transportation improvements in the area, including widening of I-40 and NC 42 (Section 3.5). The addition of the Complete 540 project to this area has the poiential to add to the cumulative effects of these projects on the long-term viability of the Dwarf wedgemussel in the lower Swift Creek watershed. 7.3.3 Terrestrial Communities and Habitat 7.3.3.1 Affected Environment Based on information presented in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Mulkey, 2014) prepared for this project, forested land cover in the study corridors for the project's DSAs ranges from about 35 to 40 perceni of the total area. This is compared to about 25 to 30 percent maintained/disturbed areas, which correspond to urban development. The counties in the FLUSA have experienced loss of forested area in recent decades and notable increases in urban developed areas (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010). Loss of intact forested land, leading to increased forest fragmentation and habitat disturbance, threatens the habitat viability for terrestrial species. 7.3.3.2 Potential for Cumulative Effects Habitat loss is a result of conversion of undeveloped land to urban development. There is undeveloped land throughout most of the FLUSA, except in the areas along its northern edge. As discussed in Sections 5.1 and SZ, robust growth is anticipated to continue across the Triangle Region, and this growth is not dependent on construction of the Complete 540 project. For this reason, loss of terrestrial habitat will continue under the No-Build Alternative, influenced by general trends in the region and by the planned projects discussed in Sections 3.5 and 8.2. Under the No-Build Alternative, terrestrial habitat loss will likely be most notable in areas closer to existing major roadways, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 77 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 particularly those that are planned for capacity improvements, such as US 401, I-40, and Ten Ten Road. Planned water and sewer capacity projects will also contribute to land use conversion around Ten Ten Road west of I-40. The Veridea project in Apex will also have a notable effect on land use conversion at the western edge of the FLUSA, and the new Western Wake Regional WWTP and the increased capacity that it will provide will influence land use conversion across the western side of the FLUSA. Construction of any of the new location alternatives under consideraiion for the project would have the potential to contribute to forest fragmentation and wildlife habitat disturbance. The key difference from the no-build scenario is that the Complete 540 project could shift these effects farther to the south and east. Areas where cumulative effects are likely to be most pronounced are described below. Past projects in the vicinity of US 70 between Garner and Clayton, including the Clayton Bypass, the Dempsey E. Benton Water Treatment Plant, Johnston Health Clayton, construction of the Novo Nordisk plant and the expansion of the Talecris Biotherapeutics plant, have contributed to land use conversion in this area. Commercial and residential development continues in this area, and there are several planned future transportation improvements in the area, including widening of I-40 and NC 42 (Section 3.5). The addition of the Complete 540 project to this area will add to the cumulative effects of these projects on land use conversion in this area (Zone 8). The planned Randleigh Farm project is more likely io begin to be developed if the Complete 540 project is constructed nearby. Cumulatively, these two projects will contribute to land use conversion in Zone 7. This effect could be slightly reduced with DSAs using the Brown Corridor Alternative, as this option is farther from Randleigh Farm than the other options and could somewhat limit the development potential of that project. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 78 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 8 CONCLUSIONS The Raleigh metropolitan area and the broader Triangle Region are among the nation's most rapidly growing regions. The region also has one of the nation's most robust job markets, and much of the FLUSA for the Complete 540 project lies within easy commuting distance of major employment centers in the Triangle Region. Population projections point to continued rapid growth in this area, suggesting that there will continue to be a high demand for residential, commercial, and office development in the FLUSA. As a major new location facility, the Complete 540 project would dramatically increase access both within the project area and between locations in the project area and employment and commercial centers outside the project area. Local planners fully anticipate that the project would play a major role in influencing the land uses and intensities that will develop across the project area. In light of this anticipated influence on development, area local governments anticipate that the Complete 540 project will be constructed and have developed plans and goals based on that assumption. 8.1 BUILD VERSUS NO-BUILD SCENARIOS The project is likely to influence the type, timing, location and intensity of development in the project area, particularly near potential interchange areas, and any of the build scenarios would result in indirect effects in ihe form of induced land development in ihe FLUSA. However, predicted growth and land development trends suggest that the area overall will continue to develop with or without the project. Under the No-Build Alternative, the project, growth and development would likely remain closer to existing major transportation facilities, such as I-40/I-440, NC 55, US 401, NC 50, NC 42, and Ten Ten Road. It is important to note that most local plans are based on an assumption that the project will be constructed and will support development of mixed use activity centers at interchange areas along the Complete 540 project, concentrating more intense development in these areas. The No-Build Alternative may not be able to support the desired higher land use densities and intensities that local governments anticipate for these areas. While future land use plans could be modifed according to different patterns that would take shape under a No-Build Alternative, it is important to note that current development patterns, traffic volumes on existing roadways, and existing infrastructure investments may make it difficult to shift planned activity centers to other locations or to achieve the types of concentrated development envisioned for these planned activity centers. Under the No-Build Alternative, the lilcely land use pattern would include more numerous and less concentrated activity centers. This pattern would be inconsistent with local future land use plans. Growth as an indirect effect of the construction of a Build Alternative would be guided by underlying local zoning and development regulations and future land use plans, which would help to direct growth to appropriate areas and within acceptable densities. The lack of existing ar planned public water and sewer infrastructure in many parts of the FLUSA would also help direct growth to areas targeted by local jurisdictions for development. Regardless of whether a build alternative or the no-build alternative is selected, growth and development is expected to continue in the FLUSA. This growth would likely result in indirect and cumulative effects on notable features in the FLUSA, although the more rapid growth in some areas as a result of the project could result in a greater effect on these features under a build scenaria Under both scenarios, development will likely increase in the watersheds located in the FLUSA; in particular, development is expected to increase in the Swift Creek watershed, the Middle Creek watershed, and near the Neuse River in the eastern part of the FLUSA. The Swift Creek Land Management Plan and Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 79 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 other local land development regulations will help to limit development density and intensity near the Swift Creek Watershed Critical Area, helping to mitigate the effects of continued growth on water quality in Swift Creek. The Neuse River Buffer Rules, the more stringent riparian buffer requirements in soine jurisdictions, and NPDES Phase II requirements will also help to minimize effects on water quality. By facilitating development farther to the south and east, the Orange and Lilac build scenarios may have a somewhat greater potential for affecting water quality and habitat for the Dwarf wedgemussel in the lower Swift Creek watershed, below the Lake Benson dam. Along with other past and planned future infrastructure and major development projects, any of the build scenarios for the Complete 540 project would have the potential to affect water quality and cause habitat fragmentation. The build scenarios would also have the poiential to add to the cumulative effects of other past and planned future projects on the long-term viability of the Dwarf wedgemussel in the lower Swift Creek watershed. As part of this project, NCDOT is currently conducting a study examining Dwarf wedgemussel viability in the lower Swift Creek watershed. The results of this study will be documented in the project's Draft EIS. The build scenarios under consideration for the Complete 540 project have the potential to affect water quality in the project FLUSA. For this reason, a quantitative analysis of the potential indirect and cumulative impacts (ICI) of the project on water quality as a result of increased impervious surface should be completed following selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), after publication of the Final EIS. Except for direct impacts to prime farmland soils, for which there is no mitigation, direct natural environmental impacts by NCDOT projects would be addressed by Programmatic Agreements with resource agencies, and will be further evaluated by the NCDOT Natural Environment Section during project permitting. 8.2 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES The various DSAs under consideration for the project reflect a range of different build scenarios under consideration. The wide differences in locations in these scenarios would result in notable variations in the primary locations of potential induced development. Under each build scenario, it is anticipated that the project's interchange areas would encourage increased commercial and industrial development, along with a greater mix in land uses and higher density residential development which is consistent with locally adopted land use plans. Because interchange locations vary according to DSA, these locations of increased and more concentrated development would also vary according to DSA. Because most of the adopted local land use plans are based on the assumption that the project will be constructed along the Orange Corridor Alternative west of I-40 and along the Green Corridor Alternative east of I-40, DSAs including these corridors have the greatest potential to support these development patterns in the locally desired locations. West of I-40, the Lilac Corridor Alternative would also support growth patterns similar to those anticipated by local plans. The Red Corridor Alternative would likely shift induced land development farther to the north, while the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative would likely shift this effect farther south. Because the Purple to Blue Corridor Alternative extends into more rural areas farther from existing cities and towns, DSAs using this corridor could result in overall induced land development spread over a larger area, promoting development farther to the south than the other DSAs, leading to a more sprawling development pattern than under other scenarios and contributing to increased impervious surface cover over a larger Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 80 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 area. This development pattern would be in greater conflict with local land use goals than ihe other scenarios. For this reason, there is a greater potential for indirect land use effects with the DSAs including the Purple to Blue Corridor. East of I-40, there is less variation among the corridors under consideration in terms of induced land development, although the Brown Corridor Alternative could push these effects slightly farther to the south and east than the other options. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 8] STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 9 REFERENCES Bloomberg Businessweek. January 13, 2014. "America's Strongest Job Markets." Retrieved May 30, 2014 from http://images.businessweek.com/ss/10/07/0713_americas_strongest_job_markets/17.htm. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). 2011. 2012-2018 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. CAMPO and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2011. Joint 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Cary Economic Development. 2013. Business life. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.caryeconomicdevelopment.com/business_life.html . City of Raleigh. 2009. Raleigh 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved May 14, 2014 from http://www. raleighnc.gov/business/content/P1anLongRange/Articles/203 OComprehensivePlan.html. Ciry of Raleigh. 2013. Adopted Capital Improvement Program 2013-2014. Retrieved May 21, 2014 from http://www.raleighnc.gov/content/Books/BudgetManagemen�/FY14AdopiedCIP.pdf. City of Raleigh. 2013. Unified Development Ordinance. Retrieved May 29, 2014 from http://www. raleighnc. gov/content/extra/B ooks/P1anDev/UnifiedDevelopmentOrdinance/. City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department. 2013. Public utilities. Retrieved May 14, 2014 from http://www.raleighnc.gov/home/content/Departments/Articles/PublicUtilitiesDept.html. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. 1996. Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation. Forbes. Apri128, 2014. "The Best Cities for Jobs 2014." Retrieved May 30, 2014 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2014/04/28/the-best-cities-for jobs-2014/. Fuquay-Varina Economic Development Commission. 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.fvedc.com/82.htm1. Harnett County. 2014. Capital Improvement Plan. Retrieved August 19, 2014 from http://www.harnett.org/boc/files/15budget/15hcpucip.pdf. H.W. Lochner. 2014. Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Alternatives Development and Analysis Report. H.W. Lochner. 2011a. Triangle Expressway Community Characteristics Report. H.W. Lochner. 2011b. Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Purpose andNeed Statement. HNTB. 2011. Southeast Extension First Tier Screening Traffic Memorandum. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 82 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Johnston County. 2009. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved May 20, 2014 from http://www.johnstonnc.com/mainpage.cfm?category_level_id=766. Johnston County. 201 L Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/planning/johnstonCo.html. Johnston County. 2013. Johnston County facts. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.johnstonnc.com/mainpage.cfm?category_level_id= 295&content id=320. Johnston County. 2000. Land Development Ordinance. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http://www.j ohnstonnc.com/mainpage.cfm?category_level_id=779. Knightdale Chamber of Commerce. 2011. Welcome to Knightdale. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://knightdalechamber. org/pages/W elcometoKnightdale/ Mattson, Alexander and Associates. 2014. Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report. NerdWallet. January, 7, 2014. `Best Cities for Job Seekers." Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/cities/economics/best-cities-for-job-seekers/. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Natural Resources Inventory. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/national/technical/nra/nri/. North Carolina Department of Commerce Division of Employment Security (NCESC). 2014. Unemployment rates. Retrieved Apri12, 2014 from http://www.ncescl .com/lmi/workForceStats/workForceMain.asp. NCESC. 2014. Einployment and wages by industry. Retrieved Apri12, 2014 from http://www.ncescl .com/lmi/industry/industryMain-NEW.asp. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2005. Cape Fear Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Retrieved May 29, 2014 from http://portal. ncdenr. org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/capefear/2005. NCDENR 2009. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Retrieved May 29, 2014 from http://portal. ncdenr. org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/neuse/2009. NCDENR. 2014. Draft North Carolina Integrated Report Categories 4 and 5 Impaired Waters. Retrieved May 29, 2014 from http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2012. 2012-2018 State Transportation Improvement Program. Retrieved Apri12, 2014 from https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/STIP-Maps.aspx. NCDOT. 2004. Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Employment Security. 2014. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Retrieved August ] 3, 2014 from http://esesc23.esc.state.nc.us/d4/LausSelection.aspx. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 83 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 North Carolina Division of Employment Security. 2014. Quarterly Census Employment and Wages. Retrieved August 13, 2014 from http:Uesesc23.esc.state.nc.us/d4/QCEWSelection.aspx. North Carolina Environmental Management Coinmission. 1998. Neuse Nutrient Sensitive Waters Rules. Retrieved June 2, 2014 from http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/nps/neuse. North Carolina Forest Service. 2013. Clemmons Educational State Forest. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.ncesf.org/CESF/home.htm. North Carolina History Project. 2013. Town of Apex. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/11/entry. North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund. 2003a. An Inventory of Significant Natural Areas in Johnston County, North Carolina. Retrieved May 21, 2014 from http://triangleland.org/assets/images/uploads/JohnstonNatural%20Heritage%20Inventory.pdf North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund. 2003b. An Inventory of Significant Natural Areas in Wake County, North Carolina. Retrieved May 21, 2014 from http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0913/ML091330573.pdf Novartis. 2012. Holly Springs site fact sheet. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://novartisvaccines.com/downloads/flucelvax/Holly_Springs_Site_Fact Sheet.pdf. Raleigh Economic Development. 2013. Industry base. Retrieved Apri12, 2014 from http://www. raleigh4u. com/page/industry-base. Research Triangle Park. 2011. About RTP. Retrieved Apri12, 2014 from http://www.rtp.org/about-rtp. Town of Angier. 2010. Unified Development Ordinance. Retrieved June 5, 2014 from http://www. angier. org/planning/draft-unified-development-ordinance. asp. Town of Angier. 2008. Land Use Plan. Retrieved June 5, 2014 from http://www.angier.org/planning/land-use-info.asp. Town of Apex. 2013. Around Apex. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www. apexnc. org/around_apex. Town of Apex. 2004. Apex Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved May 14, 2014 from http://www. apexnc. org/services/planning/documents-pl ans-maps/comprehensive-plan. Town of Apex. 2000. Unified Development Ordinance. Retrieved May 27, 2014 from http://www. apexnc. org/servi ces/planning/unified-development-ordinance-udo. Town of Apex Public Works and Utilities Department. 2013. Water distribution and treatment. Retrieved May 14, 2014 from http://www.apexnc.org/services/publio-works/water. Town of Cary. 2013. New to Cary? Retrieved April 2, 2014 from http://www.townofcary. org/newtocary.htm. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 84 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Town of Cary. 2013. Middle Creek School Park. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Parks_Recreation_Cultural_Resources/Parks_and Green ways/Parks/Mi ddle_Creek_School_Park.htm. Town of Cary. 2008. Town of Cary Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Planning_Department/Projects Plans/ Comprehensive_Transportation_Plan.htm. Town of Cary. 1996, as amended. Town of Cary Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Plan. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Planning_Department/Projects Plans/ Comprehensive Plan.htm. Town of Cary Public Works and Utilities Department. 2013. Wastewater treatment. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Public Works_and_Utilities/Sewer/Wastewater_Treatment.h tm. Town of Clayton. 20l 3a. Annual Water Quality Report. Retrieved August 19, 2014 from http://www.townofclaytonnc. org/client_resources/ccr.pdf. Town of Clayton. 2013b. Economic development. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www. townofclaytonnc. org/Business/EconDev. aspx. Town of Clayton. 2014. Infrastructure. Retrieved August 19, 2014 from http://www.townofclaytonnc.org/Business/EconDev Infrastructure.aspx. Town of Clayton. 2005. Unified Development Code. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http://www.townofclaytonnc.org/Business/Planning_PlansOrdinances.aspx. Town of Clayton. 2008. Strategic Growth Plan. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.townofclaytonnc.org/client_resources/planning%20documents/strategic%20growth%20p1a n%20update%202008.pdf. Town of Clayton. 2012. Utilities. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.townofclaytonnc. org/resi dents/uti liti es. aspx. Town of Garner. 2006. Town of Garner Comprehensive Growth Plan. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.garnernc.gov/Publications/Planning/Comprehensive%20Growth%20Plan%20document.pd f. Town of Garner. 2013. Town of Garner parks. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.garnernc.gov/Departments/Parks%20and%20Recreation/Default.aspx#. Town of Garner. 2003. Unified Development Ordinance. Retrieved May 30, 2014 from http://www.garnernc.gov/departments/Planning/UnifiedDevelopmentOrdinance. aspx. Town of Fuquay-Varina. 2006. Community Transportation Plan. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www. fuquay-varina.org/departments-and-services/planning-department/adopted-plans.html. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 85 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Town of Fuquay-Varina. 2005. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www. fuquay-varina. org/departments-and-services/planning-department/adopted-plans.html. Town of Holly Springs. 2013. About us. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.hollyspringsnc.us/index. aspx?NID=9. Town of Holly Springs. 2012. Bass Lake Park. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.hollyspringsnc.us/index. aspx?NID=320. Town of Holly Springs. 2013. Capital Improvement Plan — Fiscal Year 2013. Retrieved May 28, 2014 from http://www.hollyspringsnc.us/DocumentCenter/View/5371. Town of Holly Springs. 2006. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from https://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=13360. Town of Holly Springs. 2008. Vision Holly Springs. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www. hollyspringsnc. us/index. aspx?NID=327. Town of Holly Springs. 2002. Unified Development Ordinance. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http ://www. ho llyspringsnc. us/index. aspx?NID=418. Town of Holly Springs Public Utilities Department. 2013. Building the system. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.hollyspringsnc.us/index.aspx?NID=226. Town of Knightdale. 2003. 2027 Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.knightdalenc.gov/index.aspx?page=165. Town of Knightdale. 2005. Unified Development Ordinance. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http://www.knightdalenc.gov/index.aspx?page=164. Town of Wendell. 2007. The Town Plan of Wendell. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http://www. townofwendell. com/departments/pl anning/development/zoning/comprehensive-plan. Town of Wendell. 2010. Unified Development Ordinance. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http://files.wendell.gethifi.com/departments/planning/zoning/udo-unified-development- ordinance/Table_of Contents= _amended 012813.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. American Community Survey 2012 One-Year Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. American Community Survey 2007-2011 Five-Year Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Decennial Census. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 Decennial Census. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel Recovery Plan. Retrieved August 13, 2014 from http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/dwm.pdf. Wake County Economic Development. 2013. Research parks. Retrieved May 19, 2014 from http://www. raleigh-wake. org/page/research-parks. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 86 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 Wake County Government. 2006. Unifed Development Ordinance. Retrieved May 27, 2014 from http://www.wakegov. com/planning/zoning/Documents/adoptedordinance.pdf. Wake County Government. 2013. Crowder District Park. Retrieved May 19, 2014 from http://www.wakegov. com/parks/crowder/Pages/default. aspx. Wake County Government. 2003. Wake County Transportation Plan. Retrieved May 19, 2014 from http://www.wakegov. com/planning/transport/pages/transportplans.aspx. Wake County Planning. 2004. Wake County Land Use Plan. Retrieved May 19, 2014 from http://www. wakegov. com/planning/growth/Pages/lup. aspx. Western Wake Partners. 20ll . Frequently asked questions. Retrieved Apri13, 2014 from http://www.westernwakepartners. com/faq.php. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Dwarf Wedgemussel. Retrieved May 19, 2014 from http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/listedspecies/dwarf wedgemussel.html. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report 87 STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-272$ and R-2729 — December 2014 ,o� ►i Orange County �� 64 ;� \\�� 15 gq 64 15 e Unfy 15 oLexington-Fayette � �� g�w � � � .� � � � - � � � � Virginia�i�'ach � � A � ', c��. i i 75 140 Z6 40 85 77 5i ' 40 240 �� , 79: ^ � 95 • �� - � �` ♦ � ♦ � ♦ ♦ ` � � ♦ ♦ ♦ � � -..' � -..-.,. : � ��, OChapel II 55, 55 Carrboro � �� AI \I � ►� I\ � O►5I \I 15 � :.. � ,� �� _ �4: � „ ,� 15 C O ld '7 �.f I\ ►I Chatham County Jordan Lake e Research Triangle � Park � �i -. ;5; \I Wake ►� i� Counf ;; Apex �'', ' I\ � 5• Begin Project --� aleigh-C nterna, �� Airpc E . . � � � . . . . . . . ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � 401 ,� � 401 1, � ` 1 �9 �� '� ►i - _ -"� Morrisville ,,, ►�� L- ►I � ��-_ � �o � 401 Knightdale CePy ;� I�\ \I 54 �_ � � �� ►i Ralel jh End Project O � � Holly Springs � Siiearon Harris Reservoir �� . 4 Fuquay` 401 �� -�``�� Harne�— � �� County 401 �� 401 Garner `,.'�, o ,�\\; \ I ��\ , L.C9d'$� Y��:ddSCbld �!, 7 `,, � � Fra klin ;;Co �n ty 96 '" 64 64 — �@bU�011 : j /// 64 � Clayton Johnsio COUlIf �� Wendell � � �3; ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ` ♦ � � 64 �3; �8� ►i ��sh COUIIfy ,, 264 \� N W E � � � � � � � � � Miles 0 3 6 Legend �� Study Area Boundary � Triangle Expressway � Pdf]RTH r.; .�-i..��r,n � Turnpike Authority Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension State Project No. 6.401078 & 6.401079 & 6.401080 MORRISVILLE 5�-,. , � ,o - - � -' 64 � ., ►i - --.._ ; _ -�� r� _�� ;� KNI HTDALE �A _- �,--�A-----_-� I i - p _ �% ,PO.L � ��0 �� o — � . . ``��' � ��' , �:- ERo V � WENDELL "' � �,P ERR - e: 0 ;� `� � �� `' ,, -SBYP �`,,� Cj`J �� _ ' � RALEIGH '�-- , _ - , ; - : � � w, CARY , ,�._ � . s4 __ - ,. Q' ._� I, � _. . �, , 264 i �'� , � '�� 1-'OOLE l?p ' � �� - � L'� � . ,, , m ��f�0 -�-�� _ - �71' - 64 � �, ._ � �� . '��;;- � `' � R� �c 64 � o � o eaR � - - %,J OL/VE CHAP� ��VTFR � + - — ``�.�.�/� G� --- � �{` (1/ �� 4°� - wG � � . ) . .. �O I ' j! ` , J � A APEX . � 1 �,�� o o�,.� ~'; f ,: , �� - ! .: 5Q '-` ,�` ��< �oP�� - �� . ; , � a � ,�,� � ';-.� �G V,. �. ,��-r. �o�� i � — c� v , GARNER , , � _ O � �� i OLD,BAUCOMRD ,--�% _�� Lake Wheeler �-° � �� _rT.. ��, P a Wake ,, `� _ � q�6 � o � � �y � - ' T N �� v �Q J �o _ , �r; �--s.,'-�_ � . , F _ P — - _ Ro~ �� - 2 RD � � � — � LO�� =-� I Q � �� I i � � � - - , � ' / i�►'-m �,P� hQ' � , ` - , - I' �` 1 . 10 m ^ , .,. ' -_ y ' , . .. 9q A� F> 87 S` PL M'$ ,' _. - _' � �� . y � . , - C '. � � . . � '`J . �•• j S �io�� y r p La� - – � ` ' '. , S,o yy HILL Rpr n � v. , ��."� 70 `` - --- a � � RINGS NE 1 � y ` Q ; ° �'o TFN T � �' � ��--'"– _"- - , HOLLY y F,L RD �- i� , y =_ ` � . ,,� o � .�- � � o Z � CLAYTON � 3 SPRINGS -- o � ��z� y � 401 � _ - ' �tn�s �'��,Q' I °, AVEN� ,n H/LLTOPNEEDMORERD � fj� ��L a�, BYP ,' 'S'D I\ Q � �`'EXRD ; _ ,j \I � � Tex� � � � 70 Go,f, � .� - - , _� �_ , �,�'•..� _ 4. , � � � ✓9 -i oo,L ; . I . _ � �� ` � � O Shearon � ;�<` , ^ a > _: , Harris __ �T ,`'. - FUQUAY-VAR/NA , _1: .- � ' _ ��`` ,�`�L J� 9 � � ILSON S , �`._ __ � �� s� o . . , Reservo►r ,� � �, ;; /� �,�2 4 c� Ati�2 � ,� 1 � �� - / � \I �ah�=�o J o� � ��S � �. {y'� % � `�I ` � LounfYn O� . . � ' . � -. � �c y~�' �, y �`�_ . I �� rl � �, \�l �0 �O �i � , s � �. - - �� - �;..� � � '�`'; l. BUS ..:Chathain 't_ -.._ ' , .. � ' ,- I ,� : '"I , . Covnry - . . , � � ' V 1 � I _ __ . -�i i� � � � � . I _.., � � �, ,�-. ' " '.. f.. �. . � .. . _. . . IJ f�l _ '. I -'. � '.�I ��x ,` - -� . = i '. ' � . I P / - � � 70 Legend ; �� \I .�j � �- - --- � � - ._� ~ i � o w . /' � �., � � __ ,. � , �� --- , �� -; �� ;: �y FLUSAZone ��_ � � 4 % - -�.--- �- _ ; �`_ i� � 0 jI �. . ,,• , _. , � Q �� Triangle Expressway '� �`� ? �`• - J�� `' -- -, � - - � � .: Detailed Study Alternatives y�-;;� -_. /��,�, , �� a� �� - �, � , 9 � '': �_. ,� � �reen� � ,, , �o � �� ' SMI THFI.EL.D".� -, � , , . a � � � . ANGIER � "' � ' `` , ssir ' - -� - Red . 401 � - �0 ' F'Q,Q� � 4, �� 'r� � �. s' f#r LII�iC Na � ... ., �i"'�` , . _ ,i ��1. � A. � � ,,� ��3.9 � N O F. - H C '� F. :1 L : � .. � Purple f n„�',' � v 1 � 1,;� `�" Turnpike Au#I'iority �,� - . - _. �'��;' r��- - --_ � j _ � Blue �"� � - , ; � �'�, , ��:� - I - Brown N _ ��+'_ � . , �� y -- ` Triangle Expressway w E F �o - Southeast Extension Mint / �FI�AT�ON � Tan S ,�� „ � I �\ � y f� State Project No. 6.401078 B 6.401079 6 6.401080 , Teal � 'v Miles \I `` AR�ER.Rp 0 1 2 P� � Legend , y�,r� � �- � .- � _ � �::.�. „ -- Future Land Use StudyArea _ " �� ,- � , -�: ` ,,. - - 64 �� 64 \ I _. _ _ �� `�„_ I \ � � � � � _ � �- V � . - - - _ '�,.� Existin Land Use `> - �� 4 -� - � , . � � ,� -. g CARY � _,_ ►� ` � �+ T � � ; -_ Low Density Residential/RuraUAgricultural � � _ , ,, � �4 , � - '�� ' ' KN�VH / �QLE _ Q,t`n�0 �� _, ; . ,,, y - Medium Density Residential � � � , � � � �J� F �R � _ ,, � _ BsqP �J�� ., � .� ' - � _ � - ; . �-- � , � ; �:,� � � IEI�±1� zs4 � �� High Density Residential �, `�,^,,�t-,- �. . + Q � ��L Vn 4 � _ - . a _ _ ' ,� � , - - - ' Commercial __,- . �. - `�- �� _ ,. . , � , -.., ' i � � e �, e ., . �s .�1, �' I � ,, �. 64 , _ ,.,- , '� ` � m . � L ,.} � , � _ .. , t ,, - � �, 9 � -"`�.._ , . - _ Industrial f-IPEX � � , � ` ` ��- ' - �' 1'� _ __ _ -- �� _ , : ; -.. f _ _ , .� - � , „ i r � , � � < < r• - � _�_ ' , f,. _ . _ , � _ � 1. � j � � � � Mixed Use/Office �'�/VT R � '. � ; �_ �� — � _ � , � ' f � rt _�� _ ' � _ p p F ;: 64 �� I ' �� —� � �� ' �_ �,, i'`'L (� , , -. �` ,_ _ .�' `,'>;{ - - - �Q � ! ' Conservation/O en S ace/Park/Golf Course � � , i � `�� - � �-� �. , t I�-• _ �- r� � � `!�^- � r � � ,_ ' 1'� I _, �,� ,� r� o � � �4 t""c' : � � [ l,y � T1 ---•�_�e:'. . . � � Z -� f- Q � I i _ � Educational Institution Area � �� I � �;f..��• 70 � I , 5� _ _ ��G � - � ` , � , � . ,�� ' � ,_ i � �'� _ ,_ p _ _ . _ . � � Residential Subdivision '� I� � �� ' - � � ,='� ,�. � .�,� . � -� ��--- . _�, , , ,,, r ��,�� ,t�' , ' � s�ry �' � �� . , Lake Wheeler'� GARNER�``.�- '` ,, � , ��' � � � � _ ,_ �"- �� , �� ,, �, � l � , , �j , �- �-: ;� � i � � � O �' � - : � � . , � � � ; _ .. r , . TF , - ' QR . - __� �, _ ; o , � , . , , ; �. , , � , _ , - < ;. �. ,.� _ { _ ti ,'� c; f- .. , _ 1 _; D' Lp� ' ,�y�� , W _ . . : -. R � , 1 L_ ' , � , P � 'x.,.,,, � , . — . , I /} I, � I F . , _ .n� �. _ , 1,� fi � f Q - . � - ,�p ' `- � ' h � j � p _ ��. . -- . G� s�'� `� HOLLY SPR/NGS � � - . �. , _ , , Lake Benson - , �� ; � , "� � f 1 � ' r , O .` - '- G�"� - �4 _ .� _ � - � � E BYP � ��` �` ' � E _ � , , � ' -� o ,. . _ , - �, � �, , i ..�_ -,__ . , �__ �� , .� '� ,� r� ► - � . , �, � � � 1 �, - - � � � �� ,,��ti , : , �,� � , , � - 55 �" .. � - n � r .,, , _. . „ � , , o , . � \ �,, � - - � � � C'`, � � '1, ; ' _ _ _, _ , l/T , , .__ � ..,�,- , L-,� ; � �; �' � CLA. --' 40�N �o. Ro +. �.: ` - ``�. _ ..: , ,,. RR�1 � ��- �- ` '� 401 . �__ : ; - . � ,. _ .. - • ' � ��' V/NS, �.,�'�Q�O � �i N FE. ,� ._ _ , ; �f �, � - B OS o� �_ A�E t� ; r /\ �� - , f- � --_ .. _u. � , . ,� � � ;' \/ , ; , - ,.�?s T -- r �Qp , _ � _ ,, . ; � , _ _ 1 , � `; � _ RFXRD - � , _ BYP � r -- ,. , r� .:� F -�, �; .. . r 7_ j,' "i _ I _ ' %0 r- - GO i ^_ _ � ~ � , � , -- _ _ . . . , , - � _ _ , ,,. �, �Aa � I � ��--� �� t , _ . _�:r �.- � -. '--., �- � �,_ � � � � r _ .� _ _ - -- oti ry � l . .�, ,� :� . _ . � �_ . .. . , ''- -- - r ' �� , . : -...� � , . i. ,; � � � z � � _ _ � � �_ �,� �� ✓,q � �;� .Q� - ° . - � ' , = —� i ? . , �� - . - - �-� � `.,,�-�a, < _ ' � _f �I.. � ` , ' _ - _ J� r k _ � ` ; - �. �t '�� _ ._ - �. - , � - , � -q h ` , �. -� � FUQUAY-VARINA �.s. ' � ° ;' ; �: _ ; � s ��, '�a , F,o � . , 6 . �--- � t� '� o y ; - , , �. . � 42 �r , Jc� � � ;- � �- � , ` � �' ' � � \ I �o`� �� -� - � i _ F �. �. , � a �Q , � ` ��`� 4 --- � ., � �� `'` --� , >_� , �e o. ._ ,' y - r � � x �c° �� G � - i N � � �, 0 --� � j,, v � � - 4 ., � � o s I .- � �;�y f � : � ,. - - � _ - ��, . � -'-� -. �� _... j� � —. �: � �,� �.,�- - �o � . I , �� , � W E � .__ _ � - -- � S '�� ' -- + , . _ �.� o� { -, - . ;.� . �� . �syf�, [ . - �.• . �... a � �� - � �y � f t� . . -. �:, , � �l � _ _ .� _ . � %`� , - -- I � �, t.. T .,- � � , � _ � / � . r . 4..Sr'. j�P(rC. i 1 . ,.. . _ . _.1 ) _ _-T i "--� L a �•: _ - ' ~� � �� S ��i� �,��i , � � � -�.,� ��: -� � � `-''j {_ � , � - .. � ,,_, ' �i• � .: }' �.. � .�. i t �. i. J 1 _� � _.� ' .". y I �r f � _ L � , �� fi _ _ :� .�r � , � �i, �. , �: +� � � � �o �.. �� Miles `� � T, :��;i — �� ,-,� � � � I � i . A� � �_ �; � � .� r A i� 0 � 0 1 2 �� 401 ' , . � � ; = �"�,. - - - - _ .. �, , _. -- � -.i��- � 1 � — _ �� - . , �, � � � �. � �,`� , ,� �- , � �- _ ` J�t. � - , ,, � z- � !=- � � ' ' : , . , , � . , ; : � � � „ _,: � ,. � _ I � _ _,_� ,�, � � . / , � � ; . , � � - ' °. Detailed Study Alternatives ;:��,�� _ `:, _'' -v- �. �, _. ' �� ,� i � I �.�� `", , ' , _. Orange � 3 �'�' v �� ' + Z I --- - - � r - =�' �� '1 � -' N � y I � ,�� -- Green � `' _ � �.� - _, _ o �qs - ' F ' ANGIER � S�TF � � � � ��' -- � � � � � ��l . � Red �� -' �� f , ----� __ '�,Q — , _ _ _ _ ^ ,. �. . � �-_ : 0 ' _ '�=-�i - i Lilac s�� -., , _ ; ..-�. ,,, � �-� Q� ., - _ � i �� s'�`i� r� o P � ., � � r: [ T} 1 _ _ _ OI � � p , "c� � ,.�� r : ��=4� � ' - r ��., �` _; r R�pG� � ` � � _ '�9 � Turnp�ke Authrority � Pur le �� , �, � ` :. �%� ` . `' rf �J � . � -� � _ , � , �� --=- B�ue ; � �, 1 1 , 4r �. , � � [,�' I \ �� -��j �- ' ' ° , - 4 ,�_ � � � 1 ` � -�, r'� 9 � � \ % -�� ' - Com /ete 540 - Trian le Ex resswa - Brown 1 �; - �� ,�, L ; � p 9 p Y Mint ; �� ` � o '^�, �' � ' - � . � i '� Southeast Extension �, �� p '` f ��, �1� ' �a ';�r �, .; �' � r :l� �r � -- F�F N�. ,�,._� Tan '' ! � � \ � - (`, �J �:��Lr `A TID ' - State Project No. 6.401078 8 6.401079 8 6.40f080 / _,5� �1 r � �j ` �� Teal ��'�d ;`� `` F ` " . � � �� ' � I � n� .. � ' _ � _,', ;� �o%S , rca � c4 a� � "pe� Legend �� Qv, erd \?, S � m y�ym PPc . Future Land Use Study Area �e ��n 5� �; ,� ao� PP,� 8� �--..) G/ , N ` C . Water Body 7u�k � o��a�.e il/ � m � �� ti m ,o` ' e� CARY � �� `e �� 303(d) Stream � � � � --� �^ ` � �� m � yc� � � P� `Y°� � qo� � Swift Creek Water Supply Watershed Critical Area p�te�� o � '' < � �� < e , WaterSupplyWatershed u�a ��P��hnS�V�a1n��Yeek R/�1��LpElV17 - �a/��k ,� � Hector Creek High Quality Water � ___ : ' � � - / � 64 �.,.. . � ' �_ - _ � - �� Park / Recreation Area a�,tn � , / �� Y �m��u � /� �/ tC+� _ � � �� . . � i �� m (_�; Natural Heritage Program Natural Area /�iP�/.� �� , �� C �— � � � � � � � � � � � ' I ,� �, ��r � � � _, - ��, � � � � :�C11e Aim B - � - �� eµ � � ' �' ,� � ��, � o� — I e- e � 64 � � - Bea� er Creek Bea�¢C GC m � / - �"�. Cao w_ r a S�lf1C^re�+ � / ( g � ��. -� aco o. �., ep r d a — ��0�y � tchmansCreek �� S,u►i�Creek � %0 � �-�' , /� ��e� ��'��" °° ,Water Supply Watershed � ��r , '�' l � ,/y/, ��e�� TOLL„ � �,� ��r�h"�a�sCreek eW eeler) � V��lT`��IT1 � �� ' � � ' � a � d`� �� S wy�ErQeK-l�ak �11 m � ��r� / �� Gtm � � �4� ma, f � �__ � �' � P � ; -� F'� c`3- � �' � _ c O�° r, l� 1a o _' . ?�� i 0 B! ,. . CPP , . -. ... � se � HOL�LY�SPR/NGS� � Y �`��e e� � d� - � � �"�� e�son) �ro � � � �� . BYP a - �� -` � , �� m - e \ �� r, �i� ((('''��'�� \� " � �� M��'/elG�re�k _ �8�� Nea/BrancB��` ` � e � �� i�e � / � u��ey Creek Ut/eYGeev., � M/o'd/1 Qm� �� ,�? � �l i�-�� .. Creek "�� Y�� \\�^�%�G�ffYera'n - �f o � x ` �� ! � �at� B�a �� 2 _ ,� � � � ,� �. _ � d _ . � . . �� - � ` _-,- �' _ ��". � �� 64 �� . �_ � � 64 � � _� I Q . P �'.: � _........ i� ti��.� o� � ,..� � i ' �reek -. v � py P� / �m� �or �, / � M� � �KNIGHTD�ALE �� / SA i ' , o'� BYP �� 64 � � � 264 / - (I c� i .. _ _. � � `� � � `n F ek �dhai� - Cr�,Pk�c . ,t�, 4�� d�d �� l� � Qa � ��r ' eo � � � �� NP se Ri✓er `Fe�� . . \ B�g9� � e mCreek �� Bedld�ngfi.e(d1�� V _ i . 5 �"� � � %/ (- //j��,,� I % "�� "� /� � . j � ;� � - , � � -- �� . , � - �, - .... , . , » �/ ,y� � �fittle C�P `�� . . _ . �" '��i , . P� .. . , ' / . _ __ . __' __ �, �' CLAYTON � � BU.S � � �� i � � _ �ranch �� a-� \ � :. ` —_\ BYP �' � �� . / , � �, _ � �at� � _ . � x T riil5�e g�p k � �✓ c � %0 � � '� u,. �� a' � . ,, � g , � , , . \°' � o , . � \ . , . , � - . J n+ � � _ __ _ " . �_ p �� p� , — - '� �� GU . � . � T'- -,. � �--t��J"�� 'o'0�,� ..I �� _ � � i �� y � . �, , ��m �k, �`' � � � �f i ��_ - p��. . . %� ;e � ��,�� '-� 8U pYP � . � o . _ , i . � �Kh ,.� � � i � ( �,> � '/ - � � , �� ; � FUQUAY-V�I RINA �� P , �� _ , � ; � � � ►i � � , .. - \ 5 � � //. �� , m � / �� / ,�D o 'Pe � �� / " . N �� A,� � ,o� � � � �� , � >. :. � � ��//�� /� Pay � -b_ �� _ ��. �, � 0.�� 3 � � _ �� ~ - .�' �1 ' -� . l, 3 � �o � � '� . ' �j � � �'-v- o � W E �\� - � �, / � S��ft C��,e � <. '°�a � � � ' '� � �p s7'P A / �� rPP ! �. S �-� ,\\ e' �j �Br�'c� P.o,y/� „ ? l� S3.y��;c �' � �",�, MiIICr ee k . � . 401 � \`\ � i: '.�, / / �F �NW ,� \, ��oh mmt. "i //J j -I/atselm �� Miles � � � ��' � / /,,r � � / 0 1 2 � � '\ tirr i � m� ` �� r p } / � F , /ee / a \ � � . '��l�� ! r�,� s. /;', � m1 �,,�� ack �K 's � �t`� � - _ . _ . , , , � Cape Fear R�v�er ►� � �� ,,F ` , e�dam e�a ,! Q�, j ��,�, �= �@t81�@C� .StUC) Q1�t@1'11atIV@S � �", �� _ � geav �,�o J �� guffa�oCreek y Water Supply Wafershed ff � � 210 �, � Orange e �'_ , Pole Branch � %"' apch �i �ts �ie � Sassarixa �rPek/sdssa �°adle�eek� � � P �� Green o�� j �� ANGIER � ,�, a d � �° - Red � � ---, � � ;- � N �I�BC �'� sBranch � �'f �°'3 q�le�8� � - .� �� p�¢Y � �'� -o� � PJ CY R 7 M C A R O U Pt 8+ � Purple 1 __� I � � � �_ � B, I� � Turn��ike ►4uthori#y � �., � � �� - � � 55 � �� , � �° � Blue �( j � � � �i� R �'� � ��' � � a'�'1 rrf_ ' � � � � Brown `�q�°F,� / � � � � � � � �\ �„ � ��, �,tee� � , - Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway � F � � � ��' Bra" a`" � Southeast Extension 9s, \ � 1 m __ dee M B� G� ,�_ _ - Mlllt �� ' � ` �e i ,� �� ar � m Swamp Tan ��k �� e�� . j � �, _ / _ ��d� � � "' � State Project No. 6.401078 6 6.401079 8 6.40f080 � Gt �F� rj.y %, Qt � � �� ; $IOryY,o Nm T2a� ��e� � �, V�e�' � �" �� /,� `�� - � �� Junipers�� CamelsGree ��' � � ��V � �� '�/G�k��er,�� S�h APPENDICES APPENDIX A LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTERVIEWS - QUESTIONNAIRE AND MEETING SUMMARIES Project: Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Questions Related to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis/Community Impact Analysis General 1) Have there been any updates to your local plans since this time last year? 2) Have any of your annexation plans changed since this time last year? 3) Has your growth rate been affected by current economic conditions? 4) What do you consider to be "Notable Environmental Features" in future land use study area (examples of Notable Environmental Features defined as important, special or unique features including parks, historic districts, water supply areas, preservation areas, habitat areas, impaired streams, community resources, etc.)? Socioeconomics 5) In looking at the current conceptual alternatives, are you aware of any pockets of low-income or minority residents that could potentially be affected? 6) Did you provide existing/future socioeconomic data by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) to CAMPO for their Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)? If yes, go to #8. If no, go to #7. 7) Did you review and do you endorse the existing/future socioeconomic data used in the CAMPO MTP for the TAZs within your jurisdiction? If yes, go to #8. If no, please be prepared to provide us with revised numbers by TAZ in the near future. 8) Does the CAMPO MTP socioeconomic data for your jurisdiction assume the project would be constructed? If yes, go to #9. If no, go to #10. 9) If the project is NOT built, would you revise the socioeconomic data in your community to reflect the absence of the project? If no, go to #11. If yes, pleased be prepared to provide us with revised numbers by TAZ in the near future. Go to #11. 10) If the project IS built, would you revise the socioeconomic data in your community to reflect the presence of the project? If no, go to #11. If yes, please be prepared to provide us with revised numbers by TAZ in the near future. Go to #11. 11) Is there a need to revise the existing and/or socioeconomic data (unrelated to the project) in the CAMPO MTP for your jurisdiction? If yes, please be prepared to provide us with revised numbers by TAZ in the near future. Planned Future Development 12) What major commercial, residential and industrial developments are planned in your locality (including both public and private actions)? 13) What major roadway and/or other transportation improvements (transit, bus, airports, etc.) are planned in your locality? 14) Do you have any planned water/sewer line extensions? New or expanded water/sewer facilities? If so, what will be the planned capacity at water/wastewater treatment plants? 15) What are your policies regarding the extension of water/sewer lines? 16) Are there any major planned actions that have been either cancelled or delayed? If delayed, for how long? Development Constraints/Re�ulations/Land use Controls 17) What are the major constraints to development in your locality in terms of the natural and manmade environment? 18) Describe your stormwater management regulations, any regulations pertaining to riparian buffers, protection of local watersheds, local runoff management programs or other similar land use controls. 19) Have you enacted any specific regulations for the purpose of protecting the dwarf wedgemussel? 20) How often are variances/exceptions granted to these regulations (referred to in questions 19 and 20)? 21) Are you aware of any monitoring that has been done to determine compliance and/or effectiveness of these measures? Are you aware of any local water quality monitoring efforts (past or current) or sources for local water quality data over time? 22) Do you have any plans and/or policies that prioritize potential development areas? What are the development priorities in your locality? 23) What other local policies and/or polices do you have that notably affect how development may occur? For example, any service district boundaries? 24) In general, how would you describe your locality's commitment to development? (Pro-growth? anti-growth? Something in between?) Potential Proiect Effects 25) What has induced recent development patterns in your locality? 26) In your opinion, what is the potential for new residential/commercial development if the Tri-Ex Southeast Extension project is built? 27) Will the project influence the timing, intensity or pattern of development? 28) If the Tri-EX Southeast Extension project is NOT built, what is the potential for new development in your locality? 29) In your opinion, what type of economic impacts would widening of existing roads in your locality have? Building a new toll road? Past Actions 30) What past projects (within the past 20 +/-) have had major effects on the human and natural environment in your locality? (i.e. large residential subdivisions, large commercial centers, major employment centers, timbering, etc.) 31) Do you have any maps/data that show past land uses in watershed areas? Contact Kristin B. Maseman, AICP LOCHNER 2840 Plaza Place, Suite 202 Raleigh, NC 27612 P (919) 571-7111 kmaseman@hwlochner.com � NQRTi-1 CAR�LII�DA , Xurnpik� �uthority � � � - S+�►j��NEA,�T �-�.•—�o-�. ��,;-�, Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 Date: Time: Place: Purpose: Attendees: MEETING SUMMARY December 10, 2012 1:00 p.m. Conference Call Indirect and Cumulative Effects Name Organization Email Address Tim Maloney Wake County PDI tmalonevC�wakeqov.com Tim Gardiner Wake County PDI tim.qardiner(a�wakeqov.com Bryan Coates Wake County PDI bryan.coates(c�wakeqov.com Jeff Schlotter H.W. Lochner, Inc. Ischlotter(a�hwlochner.com Kristin Maseman H.W. Lochner, Inc. kmaseman(c�hwlochner.com Summary: This topic was introduced, and the list of "Questions Related to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis/Community Impact Analysis" was provided, at an in-person meeting with Wake County representatives on September 18, 2012. The September 18 meeting focused on other topics and questions related to the Southeast Extension project's purpose and need. The conference call documented here was arranged specifically for the discussion of the project's indirect and cumulative effects (ICE). Below is a summary of comments received from Wake County. Notable Environmental Features • Middle Creek corridor • Farmland Land Use Plans and Socioeconomics • Much of unincorporated Wake County is within the extraterritorial jurisdictions (ETJs) or the urban service areas (USAs) of municipalities within the County. Municipalities govern land use planning decisions within ETJs (growth anticipated within the next 10 years) and USAs (growth anticipated within 10-20 years). The Wake County Land Use Plan (adopted in 2004) covers areas in the south central and southeastern portion of the project study area. Wake County's land use planning objectives within these areas are designed with the primary goal of ensuring that the municipalities can successfully enact their plans for their ETJs and USAs. Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 • There are three Wake County subarea land use plans in the project area: the Southwest Area Plan, the Fuquay-Varina/Garner Plan and the East Raleigh/Knightdale Plan. The Southwest Area Plan was updated in 2010 and the other plans were adopted prior to that. • One land use plan amendment was completed in the project area in 2012 in a Neighborhood Center in the Fuquay-Varina/Garner Plan. The amendment expanded the Neighborhood Center. It is comprised of 22 acres of mixed use development at the intersection of White Oak Road and Escondido Farm Road • Wake County's standing annexation policies encourage voluntary municipal annexation as developers request municipal water and sewer. Wake County does not provide water or sewer. • Growth in Wake County has slowed somewhat but still continues at an annual rate of over 2%. Current development trends suggest that the western and southern portions of the project area (Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina) will see larger proportions of the overall growth than the eastern portions (Garner, Knightdale, and Wendell). • Existing/future socioeconomic data, by TAZ, was provided by Raleigh to CAMPO for their Metropolitan Transportation Plan and they do not see a need to revise their data at this time for any reasons unrelated to this project. Planned Future Development/Transportation Improvements • Wake County is not anticipating large developments on land under County jurisdiction. This is because of the slower economy and the lack of water and sewer. The County would likely permit residential development and small commercial development (on well and septic) if requested. • The biggest planned transportation improvement is the commuter rail line proposed in the Wake County Transit Plan. This line would run from Greenfield Parkway in Garner to Durham. • The Randleigh Farm property was acquired from an interested property owner rather than acquired for a specific goal. As a result it has not had a formal timeline. The concept was to develop a model "green" development. Although construction of Phase II of the Southeast Extension would likely support development of this property, there are other political, financial and planning obstacles that remain. Water/Sewer • Wake County does not manage water or sewer. • Wake County encourages proposed developments within 2500 feet of an existing utility line to request annexation and utility ties to municipal areas. Development Constraints/Regulations/Land Use Controls • The constraints to development within Wake County's jurisdiction are the relatively high cost of land, the high number of rural properties, strong intra-county recognition of the importance of employment centers, and pro-growth municipalities. • The County has extensive stormwater regulations, as detailed in Article 9 of the Wake County UDO. The main objective of these regulations is to ensure that post-development runoff is similar to pre-development conditions. These regulations are complemented by erosion control regulations that manage runoff during construction. • The zoning classifications of many parcels in sensitive areas, including areas in the vicinity of Dwarf Wedgemussel habitat, are designated as Resource Conservation Overlay District 2(RCOD 2). Parcels with this designation require more stringent stream buffers and stormwater management. These regulations were put in place in response to the Clayton Bypass project. • Variances and exceptions to regulations are rarely granted. • Wake County regularly collects water samples from all of its watersheds. • Municipal service boundaries between municipalities and the unincorporated County serve to regulate boundary relationships between them. These boundaries are intended to limit "land grabs" by municipalities. • Wake County is pro-growth. Page 3 of 3 Potential Project Effects • The County's strong economy and significant employment centers have induced recent development patterns in the area. • The project will likely stimulate development of major and minor retail centers near interchanges and residential development nearby. Areas with particularly high development potential are the US routes and Interstate connections. It is important to note, however, that the County and municipalities and the development community are all anticipating and planning for this project. • The project will shift development investment from other areas if constructed. • If the Southeast Extension project is not built, development will continue using current nodes as the basis for development decisions. Proximity to these existing nodes to the project area may suggest that development will occur in the project area with or without the project. Past Actions • Residential subdivisions • The County GIS department tracks residential developments based on year built and also has electronic-format historical land use maps for all uses going back to 2001. The County also has land cover maps from 1996, 2006, and 2008. Action Items: ➢ None � NQRTi-1 CAR�LII�DA , Xurnpik� �uthority � � � - S+�►j��NEA,�T �-�.•—�o-�. ��,;-�, Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 Date: Time: Place: Purpose: Attendees: MEETING SUMMARY December 19, 2012 9:00 a.m. Conference Call Indirect and Cumulative Effects Name Organization Email Address Matt Keough Raleigh Senior Planner matthew.keough@raleighnc.gov Kristin Maseman, AICP H.W. Lochner— Raleigh, NC kmaseman@hwlochner.com Summary: This topic was introduced, and the list of "Questions Related to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis/Community Impact Analysis" was provided, at an in-person meeting with the City of Raleigh on October 4, 2012. The October 4 meeting focused on other topics and questions related to the Southeast Extension project's purpose and need. The conference call documented here was arranged specifically for the discussion of the project's indirect and cumulative effects (ICE). Below is a summary of comments received from the City of Raleigh. Notable Environmental Features • Neuse River • Swift Creek Land Use Plans and Socioeconomics The City of Raleigh adopted a 2030 Comprehensive Plan in November 2009. Raleigh did not experience a large decrease in growth during the recent economic downturn; however, the City did experience notable changes in types of growth. There was a shift from single family development to multi-family development. Existing/future socioeconomic data, by TAZ, was provided by Raleigh to CAMPO for their Metropolitan Transportation Plan and they do not see a need to revise their data at this time for any reasons unrelated to this project. Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 Planned Future Development/Transportation Improvements • Olde Towne, a 600-acre master planned community near the intersection of New Hope Road and Rock Quarry Road • Randleigh Farm—planning and development of uses for this site likely will not continue until there is a better understanding of where the Southeast Extension will be located • A 120-acre site near Old Baucom Road and Auburn Knightdale Road, planned for mixed uses including regional retail commercial uses. • The City plans to consider corridor improvements to address capacity issues along New Hope Road/Jones Sausage Road and Rock Quarry Road (these projects are on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. • Barwell Road is planned for extension. Water/Sewer • The City of Raleigh provides water and sewer service within its jurisdiction and also to other neighboring jurisdictions. • The Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant is planned for future expansion. • Sunnybrooke • For Raleigh to extend water and sewer lines, a property has to be annexed into the City. There are no level of service or density requirements. The developer of the property must pay for the extension. Development Constraints/Regulations/Land Use Controls • The major constraint to development in Raleigh over time is the quantity and quality of water supplies. • The development priorities for Raleigh are the development of transit-oriented mixed use centers and multimodal connecting corridors, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Among these are areas strategically targeted for economic development. • Rock Quarry Road, Tryon Road and Lake Wheeler Road are targeted for multimodal corridor development. • The Rock Quarry Road/Battle Bridge Road area is targeted for future development as a small commercial area. A Small Area Plan is expected for this area congruent with development interest there. • Areas within Raleigh's ETJ are prioritized for urban services in the short term future. Areas within the City's urban services boundary are slated for long term development. • Raleigh promotes urban services concurrent with growth. Potential Project Effects • Raleigh's accessibility to major job centers in the Triangle Region has influenced development patterns. The Region's university system and high number of business startups have influenced business development patterns. • If built, the Southeast Extension project would create more certainty in the market for new residential and commercial development. Regional mobility will be enhanced. • The Southeast Extension project would likely influence the timing and intensity of development in the area while promoting increased densities. Increased densities would require expansion in water and sewer service by the City of Raleigh. • If the Southeast Extension project is not built, development densities will likely be lower, leading to less efficient use of available land. Past Actions • Development of the Dempsey Benton Water Treatment Plant on Swift Creek. • Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant with adjoining land uses including police facilities, bio-solid application areas, and solar array initiative, Page 3 of 3 Action Items: ➢ Lochner will follow up with Danny Bowden (919-996-3940) regarding stormwater management regulations and related topics. � NQRTi-1 CAR�LII�DA , Xurnpik� �uthority . � � - S�►j��NEA,�T �-�•-ru-�.. �w�,;-�, Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 Date: Time: Place: Purpose: Attendees: MEETING SUMMARY September 12, 2012 10:00 a.m. Cary Town Hall Indirect and Cumulative Effects Name Organization Email Address Meredith Chandler Cary Planning Department meredith.chandler@townofcary.org Kristin Maseman H.W. Lochner kmaseman@hwlochner.com Summary: This topic was introduced, and the list of "Questions Related to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis/Community Impact Analysis" was provided, at an in-person meeting with the Town of Cary on September 24, 2012. The October 5 meeting focused on other topics and questions related to the Southeast Extension project's purpose and need. The conference call documented here was arranged specifically for the discussion of the project's indirect and cumulative effects (ICE). Below is a summary of comments received from the Town of Cary. Notable Environmental Features • Swift Creek Land Use Plans and Socioeconomics The Cary Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996, last amended in 2009, and is about to be updated again. Cary also has a Comprehensive Transportation Plan, adopted in 2008. The Southeast Extension project is shown on maps in the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Cary is nearing "build-out," with about 9,000 acres of undeveloped land remaining. Most of Cary's growth has been occurring and is anticipated to continue occurring in western Cary, outside the boundaries of the Southeast Extension study area. There is some development occurring in the West Lake area, which is within the study area, but this development is in subdivisions that were platted and began developing several years ago. Existing/future socioeconomic data, by TAZ, was provided by Cary to CAMPO for their Metropolitan Transportation Plan and they do not see a need to revise their data at this time for any reasons unrelated to this project. The data provided assumed that the Tri-Ex Southeast Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 Extension project would be constructed. If the project is NOT built, Apex would not see a need to revise their socioeconomic data. Planned Future Development/Transportation Improvements • Since Cary is nearing build-out, most future development will mainly occur on a smaller scale or will take the form of redevelopment in and near downtown Cary. Mixed-use activity centers are being developed at major intersections in western Cary, particularly along Davis Drive, NC 55, McCrimmon Parkway, and Carpenter Fire Station Road. • Areas near the interchanges along the Western Wake portion of the Triangle Expressway are becoming important growth areas. • Most of the planned transportation improvements in Cary over the near term are in central and western Cary. Roads planned for improvements include Carpenter Fire Station Road, Morrisville Parkway, Green Level Church Road, Harrison Avenue and NC 54. Water/Sewer • A new wastewater treatment plant is under construction near US 1 west of the current Apex town limits. The plant is expected to open in 2014 and will serve Apex, Cary and Morrisville, helping to facilitate continued growth. The Kit Creek pump station in northwest Cary is planned for expansion, and a new sewer line will be constructed to connect this pump station to the O'Kelly Chapel Road/Green Level Church Road intersection area to help increase sewer capacity in this area. The town plans to construct the Holly Brook pump station in southwest Cary, near Kildaire Farm Road and Ten Ten Road. Cary and Apex are jointly working toward expanding the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Facility on Wimberly Road. The Town also plans to construct a 2 to 4.3 million gallon water storage tank along NC 55 near Petty Farm Road. Development Constraints/Regulations/Land Use Controls • The availability of water and sewer capacity (which will be affected by the opening of the new wastewater treatment plant in 2014) and the approach of build-out are the major constraints on future development in Cary. • Cary requires Urban Transition Buffers (UTBs) within its jurisdiction and its ETJ. Cary requires 100 foot UTB buffers on all USGS streams, and 50 foot buffers on all streams mapped on the Wake County Soil Survey. • Cary does not have any regulations related Dwarf Wedgemussel protection. • Variances and/or exceptions to the above regulations are not granted. • Cary prefers not to state its viewpoint on future development. • The Town is trying to encourage more mixed-use and downtown development. There is increasing focus on devoting resources to improving the downtown area. Potential Project Effects • The Town of Cary generally views the project as providing support to broad Town goals of promoting regional connectivity, but the project would have a neutral relationship to local land use planning objectives-these objectives could be met without the project. • The locations of various build alternatives would not affect the extent to which the project would support Cary's planning objectives. • Given the distance between most of Cary and potential interchanges for the Southeast Extension, the project is not likely to have a largo effect on the timing, intensity or pattern of future development in Cary. The exception would be the West Lake Road area, but much of this area is already developed or platted for development. • If the proposed project is NOT built, Cary would not expect much difference in future development patterns and intensities. Page 3 of 3 Past Actions • Location relative to growth in Raleigh/Cary/RTP; Cary has been a major population growth center in the Triangle since the 1980s. Action Items: ➢ None � NQRTi-1 CAR�LII�DA , Xurnpik� �uthority � � � - S+�►j��NEA,�T �-�.•—�o-�. ��,;-�, Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 MEETING SUMMARY Date: September 12, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Apex Town Hall Purpose: Indirect and Cumulative Effects Attendees: Name Organization Email Address Dianne Khin Town of Apex Planning Director dianne.khin@apexnc.org Reed Huegerich Town of Apex Transportation Planner reed.huegerich@apexnc.org Kristin Maseman H.W. Lochner kmaseman@hwlochner.com Jeff Schlotter H.W. Lochner jschlotter@hwlochner.com Summary: The September 12 meeting had two functions: 1) to discuss the Town's responses to the list of "Questions Related to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis/Community Impact Analysis" was provided and 2) to discuss topics and questions related to the Southeast Extension project's purpose and need. Discussion of the second topic is summarized in a separate document. Below is a summary of comments received from the Town of Apex regarding indirect and cumulative effects. Notable Environmental Features • Middle Creek, which has a large floodplain • Closed landfill near NC 55 south of US 1/64 Land Use Plans and Socioeconomics • The Town's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2004 and is updated regularly, as needed. The Plan designates the Veridea area, near the western terminus of the Southeast Extension, as an activity center to accommodate higher-density, mixed use development, with office space a key feature of this area. • Apex does not do involuntary annexation, so there is no annexation plan. • Growth did slow during the economic downturn but is starting to return to pre-downturn levels. There is increasing developer interest in commercial and multi-family development. The Town would like to expand its non-residential tax base and employment base. The opening of the western Wake portion of the Triangle Expressway is stimulating growth. • Existing/future socioeconomic data, by TAZ, was provided by Apex to CAMPO for their Metropolitan Transportation Plan and they do not see a need to revise their data at this time for Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 any reasons unrelated to this project. The data provided assumed that the Tri-Ex Southeast Extension project would be constructed. If the project is NOT built, Apex would not see a need to revise their socioeconomic data. Planned Future Development/Transportation Improvements • The Veridea project is the primary location for the Town's future growth in the vicinity of the Southeast Extension study area. Veridea developers plan to begin development in the next two years and are working with Town officials to extend Town water and sewer infrastructure to the site. Developers are also trying to get a new interchange located on the western Wake portion of the Triangle Expressway to serve Veridea. Buildout is expected within the next ten to fifteen years. The NC Department of Health and Human Services is considering locating a large facility in Veridea. • Areas near the interchanges along the Western Wake portion of the Triangle Expressway are also anticipated to be important growth areas, with new commercial and multi-family development expected. The Westford PUD is one of these areas. • The Wake County Public School System owns land near US 1 west of the current Apex town limits and plans to build a new high school on the site. • Wake County is considering building a park on the closed landfill site near NC 55 and US 1/64. Water/Sewer A new wastewater treatment plant is under construction near US 1 west of the current Apex town limits. The plant is expected to open in 2014 and will serve Apex, Cary and Morrisville, helping to facilitate continued growth. A pump station may be constructed in the Veridea development. Developers must provide utility lines and pump stations if they want their developments to be served by Town facilities. They must also be annexed into the Town to receive service. Development Constraints/Regulations/Land Use Controls • The major constraints to development in Apex are transportation capacity (roads), stream buffer regulations, and the availability of water and sewer capacity (which will be affected by the opening of the new wastewater treatment plant in 2014.) � Stream buffer regulations require setbacks of 50 or 100 feet, depending on location. There are also buffer requirements around Jordan Lake, and the USACE-owned land near Harris Reservoir. • Stormwater regulations include required BMPs for any developments disturbing at least one acre of land. Regulations dictate the allowable limits of impervious surface for various types of developments. • New stormwater rules for Jordan Lake are planned for development. • Apex does not have any regulations related Dwarf Wedgemussel protection. • Variances and/or exceptions to the above regulations are not granted. • In the past, Apex has been fairly pro-growth, but this sentiment has been tempered somewhat as the town has expanded. There is less interest in encouraging more residential development (particularly multi-family development) and more interest in commercial development and expansion of the local tax base. However, there is currently notable developer interest in multi- family residential projects. Developers are also becoming more interested in commercial projects. • The Town is trying to encourage more mixed-use development and prefers that multi-family residential development be brought in as a component of mixed-use development. Potential Project Effects • The Town's land use and economic development objectives are highly dependent on the construction of the Southeast Extension. Veridea, in particular is heavily dependent on the project and on construction of a new interchange on the Western Wake portion of the Triangle Expressway that would serve the development. Page 3 of 3 A build, new-location alternative is needed to support the Town's planning objectives including development of employment centers, accommodating development at higher densities, and expanding Apex's position as a strong business center to balance tremendous residential growth. The project will also help cluster development, possibly encouraging more wa�kability and bikeability. If the proposed project is NOT built, Apex may not see the increased densities and greater commercial development it would like to see. Past Actions • Triangle Expressway • Expansion of water and sewer capacity • Location relative to growth in Raleigh/Cary/RTP. Action Items: ➢ None � NQRTi-1 CAR�LII�DA , Xurnpik� �uthority � � � - S+�►j��NEA,�T �-�.•—�o-�. ��,;-�, Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 Date: Time: Place: Purpose: Attendees: MEETING SUMMARY October 10, 2012 10:00 a.m. Fuquay-Varina Town Hall Indirect and Cumulative Effects Name Organization Email Address Mike Sorensen Fuquay-Varina Planning Director msorensen(c�fuquav-varina.orq Danny Johnson Fuquay-Varina Asst. Planning Director diohnson(c�fuquav-varina.orq Samantha Ficzko Fuquay-Varina Planner sficzko(c�fuquav-varina.orq Roy Bruce H.W. Lochner, Inc. rbruce c(D.hwlochner.com Kristin Maseman H.W. Lochner, Inc. kmaseman(a�hwlochner.com Summary: The October 10 meeting had two functions: 1) to discuss the Town's responses to the list of "Questions Related to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis/Community Impact Analysis" was provided and 2) to discuss topics and questions related to the Southeast Extension project's purpose and need. Discussion of the second topic is summarized in a separate document. Below is a summary of comments received from the Town of Fuquay-Varina regarding indirect and cumulative effects. Notable Environmental Features • Middle Creek • Open space • Parks (including a planned park on Banks Road) Land Use Plans and Socioeconomics • The Town does not have a single master plan, but does have a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, adopted in 2005 and amended regularly as needed. There has been an increasing focus on mixed used development on major corridors, especially US 401. • The Town also has a Community Transportation Plan, which was adopted in 2006 and is also amended regularly. • The Town has seven identified Preferred Growth Areas (PGAs), areas where the Town has made or intends to make investments in infrastructure in support of nonresidential mixed-use growth or residential growth. Four of these PGAs are in in the vicinity of project alternatives. The PGA policy was adopted in 2006. Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 • The Town also has a Greenway Plan (1999) and an Open Space Plan (2003). • Fuquay-Varina does not do involuntary annexation, so there is no annexation plan. • Growth has slowed somewhat since to the economic downturn, but remains moderately steady. Most current development is occurring in approved subdivisions being revived or smaller commercial projects. • Existing/future socioeconomic data, by TAZ, was provided by Fuquay-Varina to CAMPO for their Metropolitan Transportation Plan and they do not see a need to revise their data at this time for any reasons unrelated to this project. The data provided assumed that the Tri-Ex Southeast Extension project would be constructed. If the project is NOT built, Fuquay-Varina would not see a need to revise their socioeconomic data. Planned Future Development/Transportation Improvements • Growth is expected to continue along the US 401 corridor, near NC 55 and NC 42, and along Hilltop-Needmore Road. • The Town has identified targeted major urban centers on US 401 and is actively marketing these areas to developers. The Town would like to do a Corridor Area Plan study for US 401. • The US 401 Bypass (currently being studied by NCDOT) is the other major transportation project in the area. • The Town is trying to get regional bus service expanded along US 401, south from Raleigh/Wake Tech. Water/Sewer • There is sufficient existing and planned water and sewer infrastructure to support growth in these areas for the next 20 years. • In the past, the Town has identified desired growth areas and has extended water and sewer service into these areas. Development Constraints/Regulations/Land Use Controls • The major constraints to development in Fuquay-Varina are Middle Creek and its ETJ boundary. • The Town doesn't yet have its own stormwater regulations in place, but the Town engineering department is working to implement regulations. There are State-mandated riparian buffer regulations for both the Cape Fear and Neuse basins that development in the Town must adhere to. Apex does not have any regulations related DwarF Wedgemussel protection. Fuquay-Varina is fairly pro-growth, with a growing preference for mixed use and multi family development, and performance-based development concepts. Pofential Project Effects • Recent development patterns in the Town have been influenced by broader economic trends and an influx of commuters to jobs in RTP and nearby areas. • If the Southeast Extension project is built, there will be much more development focus on US 401. Right now, most of the focus is on the NC 55 corridor. • This project will influence both the timing and intensity of development because it will become easier for residents to commute to jobs. • If the proposed project is NOT built, Fuquay-Varina will need to recalibrate its expectations for future growth and will have to rework its local plans as these are based on the assumption that the project will be built in the protected corridor. Past Actions • Subdivisions: South Lakes, Brighton Forest, Ballentine • Mixed use/commercial development on US 401 near NC 55 and NC 42 Action Items: Page 3 of 3 ➢ None Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Revised 11-19-2012 Questions Related to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis/Community Impacts Analysis Town of Garner Responses General Questions 1. No updates to the 2006 Comprehensive Growth Plan or 2010 Garner Transportation Plan occurred during the last year. 2. No changes to the Town of Garner's annexation plans has occurred during the last year (no active statutory annexation plans currently). 3. Garner growth has been impacted by current economic conditions (based on the 2011 Growth and Development Report). 4. Notable environmental features in Garner include Lake Benson and its protected critical watershed area. Swift Creek and associated tributaries including floodplain areas and riparian buffers are located in the study area. Lake Benson Park, White Deer Park, South Garner Park and Bryan Nature Park are also located in this area. Socioeconomics 5. A portion of the red and modified red corridor alternatives cross several Census Tracts with poverty levels between 10% to 20% (Tracts 053009, 053111, 052809 and 052807). Portions of the green, tan and brown corridors alternative also cross a couple of Census Tracts with poverty levels above 10%. Source: American Community Survey 5 Year Summary 2007-2011 6. Garner staff provided CAMPO with land use and density information (based on our growth projections) at the parcel level. CAMPO generated population and income projections from that input. 7. Yes, the Town of Garner did review and revise existing/future socioeconomic data from CAMPO for the MTP after it was generated. 8. Yes (based on Orange Corridor). 9. Yes. Garner staff would need to contact CAMPO (they have the data) and suggest revisions to the data are needed to reflect the no-build option. Since the information was generated by CAMPO (with municipal input) coordination with them is required in order to generate revised numbers by TAZ. More discussion is needed here. 10. It depends on where the project is built (final corridor) as to whether revisea data is needed. If the project is built along the Orange Corridor then Garner does not believe revisions to the data are needed. However, if the project is built in other corridors (red or modified red for example) then revised data would be necessary to account for the devastating and significant impacts those scenarios would have to community. Again coordination with CAMPO is required in order to regenerate data at the TAZ level. 11. No. 12. The WakeMed Garner HealthPlex (50,000 s.f.) emergency care facility located on US 70 is under construction. Major retail development (up to 800,000 s.f.) built over a 5 to 7 year time period is expected at the intersection of US 70 and White Oak Road. First phase is expected by 2014 or 2015. A 336 unit apartment at the White Oak Mixed Use Development is slated to start construction in 2013. In addition, discussion continues regarding another large apartment complex for Garner. At this time a formal site plan has not been submitted. The Garner Economic Development Corporation is actively marketing the 100 acre Garner Technology Center site (former ConAgra Food property) for redevelopment as industrial/office use. The future site of the Garner YMCA is located in the red corridor. 13. The Timber Drive East Road Project was completed in December 2011. This facility is a 1.3 mile four lane divided road from NC 50 to White Oak Road. A$5.2 million road improvement project is planned for the I-40 East ramp and US 70 along with major improvements at the intersection of US 70 and White 2 Oak Road. Construction is expected to start in 2013 and be completed in 12 to 15 months. The $800,000 Buffaloe Road / Vandora Springs Roundabout Project is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in December 2012. Enhanced bus service is recommended by the Wake County Transit Plan for the Town of Garner. Availability of the enhanced bus service depends on voter approval of the'/z sales tax in Wake County. Currently a date for the referendum has not been set by the Wake County Commissioners. Commuter rail service is also recommended by the Plan for the Town of Garner. Two transit stations are recommended for Garner. One station is located in downtown Garner and is designed for walk up traffic with some limited parking available. The second station is designated at the eastern terminus of the commuter rail service line (near Greenfield Park) and will be designed as a park and ride facility. This transit service is also dependent on voter approval of the'/2 sales tax as well. If voter approval is obtained in 2013, enhanced bus service could be implemented in 2-3 years while commuter rail service could be implemented in 7-8 years. 14. No major water/sewer line extensions are planned at this time. Garner is part of the city of Raleigh public utility system. 15. The Town has a Utility Extension Policy as well as regulations requiring development to extend water/sewer lines to and through property when it is constructed if public utilities are available and within a certain distance. Connection to public water and sewer is subject to available capacity which is controlled by the Town's Utility Allocation Policy. 16. At one time the city of Raleigh had the Southwest Garner Sewer Pump Station in its Capital Improvement Program. The project has been delayed due to lack of funding at this time. 17. The largest natural constraint to development in Garner is Lake Benson and the critical watershed area associated with it. Only low density residential development is allowed in these areas. Floodplains and riparian buffers while small in area also constraint development. Man-made constraints include US 70 which effectively divided Garner in half cutting through existing neighborhoods and separating the small downtown area from the rest of the community. 3 18. The Town of Garner has very comprehensive stormwater management regulations. These regulations deal with both stormwater quantity and quality. From a quantity perspective the Town requires that post-development peak run-off for the 1, 25 and 100 year storm events be attenuated to pre- development peak flows. Also, with a few exceptions, no new development is allowed within the 100 year flood plain. From a water quality perspective the Town has four programs in force: a) Sediment and erosion control program; b) Water supply watershed controls; c) Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management and; d) Phase II Stormwater Program. Wake County administers the sediment and erosion control program while the Town manages the other three programs. 19. Swift Creek Conservation Overlay Zoning District was enacted in 2005 to protect the dwarf wedge mussel as a result of the construction of the Clayton Bypass. 20. There have been very few variances granted regarding the Town's stormwater management requirements. A total of 3 variances regarding floodplain regulations have been granted since the Unified Development Ordinance was adopted in 2003. No variance or exception has been granted regarding requirements outlined in the Swift Creek Conservation Overlay Zoning District. 21. Garner staff is not aware of any monitoring to determine the effectiveness of our stormwater standards. The city of Raleigh most likely has a water quality monitoring program for Lake Benson since it is a source of drinking water for Raleigh and Garner. 22. The Comprehensive Growth Plan adopted in 2006 outlined six growth areas in the community. Based on infrastructure investment decisions made by the Town Council, the top priority growth area is the White Oak area which is generally the area east of NC 50, south of US 70 and west of White Oak Road. Also, the adoption of the 2010 Historic Downtown Garner Plan by the Town Council placed a high priority on the revitalization and redevelopment of the Town Core area in north Garner. 23. None. 4 24. The Garner community tends to pro-growth provided development is well planned and is done in a responsible manner. Potential Proiect Impacts 25. Construction of new infrastructure (roads, water and sewer lines) has influenced development patterns in the Town of Garner. Most recent examples include the Timber Drive East road project that connects NC 50 to White Oak Road. That road facility alon� with past Town expenditures to extend public water and sewer lines into the area have and will continue to induce new development in this area of the community. The Town over the years has invested heavily in developing a great park system. Several of the parks have influenced development decisions (Lake Benson Park, White Deer Park, South Garner Park and Centennial Park). 26. To some degree if the Tri-Ex Southeast Extension project is built along the Orange Corridor, Garner staff believes the potential for new residential/commercial would be enhanced. We believe this would be true particularly for residential growth based on recent residential growth in Apex and Holly Springs where portions of I-540 have been recently completed. 27. Yes (see above). However if this road facility is constructed in the Red, Modified Red or Pink Corridors not only will there be devastation to existing residential neighborhoods and business parks, but the potential for new growth will be significantly diminished in the community. 28. Without the Tri-Ex Southeast Extension the potential for new development in South Garner (along the Orange Corridor) is diminished. While we expect some growth to continue in the area it would less intense and likely to be mostly low density residential. We would expect to see significant growth in the White Oak area near I-40 in the future. Without the facility we would expect to see increasing traffic volumes on the major thoroughfares in Garner (US 70, US 401, NC 50, Timber Drive, Old Stage Road) which could negatively impact future growth potential due to significant increases in congestion and travel delays. 29. Widening existing thoroughfares in the Garner could have positive impacts for economic development in the community if done at strategic locations. However, to advocate that as a substitute for the Tri-Ex Southeast Extension (Orange Corridor) could eventually lead to long term diminished economic development potential due to increased traffic volumes, congestion, and travel delays. While many do not like toll roads, overall we believe the construction of Tri-Ex Southeast Extension (Orange Corridor) would have positive potential for economic development in Garner. Past Actions 30. The following past projects had major effects on the human and natural environment. - extension of I-40 on the eastern side of Garner (late 1980's) - Greenfield Business Park - Eagle Ridge Golf Community - White Oak Mixed Use Center at US 70 and I-40 31. See Map. h:\pla-02\myfiles\triexpresswayse_2nd_lochnerquestions_11-19-2012.doc � N(7RTH CAR��.INA , Turnpike Aut�ority Friaa� fx�are�sway ``'� - ��Z.JTI II� �'�T —,- :Y} -, Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 Date: Time: Place: Purpose: Attendees: MEETING SUMMARY Final March 21, 2011 1:00 PM 128 S. Main Street, Holly Springs, NC Community Impact Assessment/Indirect and Cumulative Effects Name Organization Email Address Gina Clapp, AICP Town of Holly Springs Planning Director Gina.clapp@hollyspringsnc.us Jenny Mizelle, CEcD Town of Holly Springs Economic Dev. Dir. Jenny.mizelle@hollyspringsnc.us Stephanie Sudano, PE Town of Holly Springs Engineering Director Stephanie.sudano@hollyspringsnc.us Kendra Parrish, PE Town of Holly Springs Senior Engineer Kendra.parrish@hollyspringsnc.us Mike Rutkowski Kimley-Horn Michael.rutkowski@kimley-horn.com Kristin Maseman, AICP H.W. Lochner — Raleigh, NC kmaseman@hwlochner.com Karin Ertl, AICP H.W. Lochner — Richmond, VA kertl@hwlochner.com Summary: Handouts provided at the meeting included: • Meeting Agenda (copy attached) • Potential Detailed Study Alternatives map (copy attached) • Draft Future Land Use Study Area map (copy attached) Questionnaire (copy attached) Following introductions, Karin Ertl provided an update on the study's progress as follows: • Purpose and Need report in the process of being finalized. • Draft Alternatives Analysis report is being refined. At this point, the final list of Detailed Study Alternatives to be carried forward in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has not been determined. • Study Team is conducting field surveys (including endangered mussel surveys) and documenting existing conditions within the study area for the EIS. • Study Team is initiating the Community Impact Assessment and qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis — toward that end, input from the localities is being solicited, including input on the Draft Future Land Use Study Area map. Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 Below is a summary of comments received from the Town of Holly Springs. Notable Environmental Features • Woodcreek subdivision greenway crossing and one other planned greenway • Sunset Lake • Habitat for tiger salamander along Middle Creek • Middle Creek on 303d list Draft Future Land Use Study Area Map • No comment. Land Use Plans and Socioeconomics • The Town is currently doing a Small Area Plan for potential Kildaire Farm/Holly Springs Road interchange area. • Transportation Plan currently being updated — expect completion June 2011. • Holly Springs has a Secondary & Cumulative Impacts Master Mitigation Plan (SCIMMP) document that needs to be updated. This document addresses mitigation measures to use when implementing infrastructure projects with secondary and cumulative impacts. • Residential growth has been slowed by the economic downturn (went from 800 single family permits/year to 200 last year) but they are still growing. • Recent economic downturn resulted in delays and/or cancellations of several planned projects: ➢ New Hill Center — delayed by a year and scaled back to have less retail ➢ Planned sections of Bridgewater and Holly Point subdivisions — cancelled but other developers coming in ➢ Langston Ridge subdivision — on hold (put road/gutter in, but no homes) ➢ New Hampton Inn near 64 Bypass — delayed — hope to get financing within 6 months • Exiting/future socioeconomic data, by TAZ, was provided by Holly Springs to CAMPO for their Metropolitan Transportation Plan and they do not see a need to revise their data at this time for any reasons unrelated to this project. The data provided assumed that the Tri-Ex Southeast Extension project would be constructed. If the project is NOT built, Holly Springs does not see a need to revise their socioeconomic data at this time. Planned Future Development/Transportation Improvements • Shopping center anchored by Target (700,000 square feet) and residential component • New Hill Place — 150-acre development near 55 Bypass and New Hill Road — opening Spring 2013 • Woodcreek subdivision • Planning for transit/bus service • Protecting corridor between Apex and Fuquay for rail — very conceptual Water/Sewer • Holly Springs gets water from Raleigh and Harnett County. Still have a lot of water capacity. • 1.2 mgd allocated to the Town from Raleigh, and 2 mgd allocated to Town from Harnett with potential of up to 10 mgd. • Planning extension to NW area of Town. • Planning to extend water/sewer to new Route 1 interchange. • Planning treatment plant expansion to meet demand • Developers can extend utility lines to serve their projects, but they have to be brought in according to Town standards. • The Town is extending water/sewer to certified Shovel Ready Sites for industrial recruitment. Page 3 of 3 Development Constraints/Regulations/Land Use Controls • The major constraints to development in Holly Springs are: ➢ Numerous branches of the Cape Fear River bisect properties in the western portion of the Town ➢ Progress Energy — occupies 14,000 acres in NW portion of the Town. • Holly Springs is a Phase II community for NPDES compliance purposes and the town does not conduct any water quality monitoring of its own. • Stormwater management controls are fairly stringent. ➢ Set limits on SWM — developer must show that nitrogen/total suspended solids go down ➢ Require BMP's on all sites ➢ Locally administered program that does not allow disturbance of 100-year floodplain ➢ Neuse/Cape Fear watershed buffers — voluntary right now ➢ Bass Lake - 100-foot undisturbed buffers ➢ Policy that requires a flood study if development could potentially impact a flood-prone area downstream; mitigation on site to prevent downstream impacts if needed. • In order to protect Dwarf Wedgemussel habitat in Middle Creek, Holly Springs implemented voluntary riparian buffers. • Variances and/or exceptions to the above regulations are not granted. • In general, the Town is pro-growth but emphasizes quality growth. • The Town seeks to concentrate development and utility expansions in the Core Growth Areas (CGAs) as identified in their future land use map. • Development is prioritized in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, UDO, Parks/Rec Plan, etc. Potential Project Effects • If the proposed project IS built, more commercial development would occur at interchanges and along 540 itself. • Building the proposed road would result in better access/transportation mobility — this increases their market share and improves their local economy. • If the proposed project is NOT built, development would still occur but not as rapidly. The development pressures will still exist because Holly Springs is still a desirable area. • Not building the project will result in worse impacts because existing roads will need to be widened and development would be limited. The Town would have to bear the brunt of the expense of widening the roads. Past Actions • As a bedroom community to Raleigh/RTP, development has been a natural outgrowth of the area's population and employment growth. • Recent development has been induced by Novartis (2009) and the 55 Bypass project (2002). • Past projects that have had major effects on the human and/or natural environment include: ➢ Progress Energy (plant opened in 1987) ➢ Sunset Ridge residential development/golf course (1991) — first big development in Holly Springs ➢ WalMart/Shops of Holly Springs ➢ Public water/sewer • The primary environmental impact from past development has been to Mingo Creek primarily as a result of development along Hodge Road (and to a lesser extent from the new Hodge Road Siphon project). Action Items: ➢ Town of Holly Springs requested another meeting in the future to discuss potential impacts to their planned greenway system. � N(7RTH CAR��.INA , Turnpike Aut�ority Friaa� fx�are�sway ``'� .- ��UT"I II� �'�T' . ..' �� fl�' �. ' Y } - • Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 Date: Time: Place: Purpose: Attendees: MEETING SUMMARY Final March 21, 2011 3:00 PM 950 Steeple Square Court, Knightdale, NC Community Impact Assessment/Indirect and Cumulative Effects Name Organization Email Address Chris Hills, AICP, CZO Town of Knightdale Planning Director chris.hills@knightdalenc.gov Jeff Triezenberg, AICP, GISP Town of Knightdale Long Range Planning jeff.triezenberg@knightdalenc.gov Jennifer Currin, LEED AP Town of Knightdale Planning jennifer.currin@knightdalenc.gov Jonathan Williamson, AICP H.W. Lochner — Raleigh, NC jwilliamson@hwlochner.com Karin Ertl, AICP H.W. Lochner — Richmond, VA kertl@hwlochner.com Summary: Handouts provided at the meeting included: • Meeting Agenda (copy attached) • Potential Detailed Study Alternatives map (copy attached) • Draft Future Land Use Study Area map (copy attached) • Questionnaire (copy attached) Following introductions, Karin Ertl provided an update on the study's progress as follows: • Purpose and Need report in the process of being finalized. • Draft Alternatives Analysis report is being refined. At this point, the final list of Detailed Study Alternatives to be carried forward in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has not been determined. • Study Team is conducting field surveys (including endangered mussel surveys) and documenting existing conditions within the study area for the EIS. • Study Team is initiating the Community Impact Assessment and qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects — toward that end, input from the localities is being solicited, including input on the Draft Future Land Use Study Area map. Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 Below is a summary of comments received from the Town of Knightdale. Notable Environmental Features • Neuse River Panther Rocks — outcropping near Hodge Road/64 bypass interchange that is privately owned but owner wants to conserve this area for parks/rec credits Rugby club Draft Future Land Use Study Area Map � Suggest that the study area be extended eastward to include the Town of Wendell since their land use patterns and economy would also be affected by the proposed project. Land Use Plans and Socioeconomics • The Town recently updated their Comprehensive Plan (January 19, 2011), including revisions to their Land Use Plan, Transportation Plan, Parks and Recreation Plan. The Town has incorporated a Gateway Plan, Arterial & Collector Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and other elements into their revised Comprehensive Plan. (Hard copy of plan provided at meeting.) • Knightdale has seen approximately 50% decline in single-family residential building permits since 2008 (from 264 in 2008 to 126 in 2010). However, multi-family units have gone up (600 units in 2009/2010). • Recent economic downturn resulted in delays and/or cancellations of several planned projects: ➢ Fire Station/Public Safety Center #2 - delayed ➢ New Wal-Mart — cancelled ➢ Langston Ridge subdivision — on hold (put road/gutter in, but no homes) ➢ New Hampton Inn near 64 Bypass — delayed — hope to get financing within 6 months • Pockets of low-income and/or minority populations found in vicinity of Poole Road/Hodge Road intersection (trailer/RV park), SW quadrant of proposed interchange (Hispanic), and Kemp Road (mobile homes). • Exiting/future socioeconomic data, by TAZ, was provided by Knightdale to CAMPO for their Metropolitan Transportation Plan and they do not see a need to revise their data at this time for any reasons unrelated to this project. The data provided assumed that the Tri-Ex Southeast Extension project would be constructed. If the project is NOT built, Knightdale does not see a need to revise their socioeconomic data in the near term. Planned Future Development/Transportation Improvements • Army Reserve Training Center (44,840 square feet) off of I-540 north of I-64 • Subsequent phases of several residential projects • Mingo Village Apartments (72 Units) off of I-540 • Mingo Spring Apartments (48 Units) • Laurel Crossing Apartments (60 Units) • W&W Residential Subdivision (up to 800 dwelling units) • Potential 200,000 square foot office park in Legacy Oaks • Knightdale Park (75 acre park) off of 1St Ave. • Carillon Assisted Living (96 units) near Hodge Road • Rex Wellness Center off of I-64 • Potential expansion to existing KRX Express Bus Service • Creation of Knightdale Circulator Bus Service Water/Sewer � Knightdale's utility system merged with Raleigh, and is owned by CORPUD. • Total system capacity of 60 mgd with recent expansion — of that amount, Knightdale owns 2.2 mgd, but only uses 0.8 mgd. Page 3 of 4 • New Poplar Creek Sewer Line along Poplar Creek — construction 80°/o complete, expect to open by end of year • Just completed new Hodge Road Siphon to replace pipes under Neuse — no additional capacity • New 32-inch water main on north side of Poole Road all the way to Wendell • All Town capital improvement water/sewer projects will have been completed with the completion Poplar Creek Sewer Line. All other public improvements will be considered CORPUD projects. • Developers can extend utility lines to serve their projects, though they may need to be oversized in accordance with CORPUD policies. • Utilities are put in Planned Growth Areas Development Constraints/Regulations/Land Use Controls • The 3 major constraints to development in Knightdale are: ➢ Subsurface rock and rock formations ➢ Wake Stone Quarry — very large property expected to operate for over 200 years ➢ Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way — cost prohibitive to provide road overpasses • Knightdale is a Phase II community for NPDES compliance purposes and they do not conduct any water quality monitoring. • Water quality/water resources protection regulations are as follows: Riparian Buffer Protection UDO Chapter 6.3 and 6.5 Floodplain Protection UDO Chapter 6.5 Erosion and Sediment Control Neuse Buffer Rules apply. Built-upon area to be 50 feet from perennial and intermittent streams. The environmental survey requires the identification of watercourses and buffers for preservation. FEMA requirements apply; ordinance applies to future flood elevations. Areas of Special Flood Hazard are those identified by FEMA in its Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) for the Town of Knightdale dated March 3, 1992. The FIRM maps have been updated as of May 2, 2006. Structures must be located 2 feet above base flood elevation. The Town of Knightdale has a contract with Wake County under which the County oversees, administers, implements and enforces the erosion and sediment control program for the Town. UDO Chapter Mass grading in residential developments is not allowed. The initial clearing and 6.2 grading of major residential subdivisions shall be limited to dedicated public rights- of-way and easements for the installation of streets, utilities, and other infrastructure. Stormwater and Low-density development (<24 percent impervious) must implement stormwater Impervious measures that control and treat the difference in stormwater volume between pre- Surface and post- development conditions for the 1-year, 24-hour storm. High-density Limitations projects must also remove 85 percent of total suspended solids. UDO Chapter Approval of stormwater permits requires enforceable restriction on property usage 6.3 and 16.13 to ensure that future development/redevelopment maintains the site consistent with the approved project plans. Ordinance requires annual maintenance and inspection of stormwater BMPs. Homeowners Associations must establish escrow account for repair of BMPs. Member of NC Clean Water Education Partnership (CWEP) providing stormwater education. CWEP ran educational TV ads on proper use of lawn chemicals and vehicle maintenance. • The Town has not enacted any specific regulations for the purpose of specifically protecting the Dwarf Wedgemussel. However, the UDO would require that developers conduct an analysis if the dwarf wedge mussel is potentially an issue. Page 4 of 4 • Variances and/or exceptions to the above regulations are not granted. • In general, the Town is Pro-Growth but emphasizes quality growth. • The Town seeks to concentrate development around the Town core and near physical infrastructure to avoid sprawl. • Development is prioritized in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan's Design District elements (form based) that deal more with intensity than just simple land use, and the Water Allocation Policy which asks developers to go beyond requirements. • There are UDO requirements dictating connections to public utilities. • Development patterns are also influenced by the Wake County Urban Service Area coordinated between the County and the Town. Potential Project Effects • If the proposed project IS built, development would increase along Hodge Road and Poole Road — the Town's water/sewer plan was based on the assumption that the project would be built. • The project will spur additional development near the new roadway. It is expected that this development will be more intense and the expected completion of project has influenced the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by now indicating a Primary Activity Center at the intersection of Poole Road and the Southeastern Extension. • If the proposed project is NOT built, development would still occur but not as rapidly. The development pressures will still exist because this is a rapidly urbanizing area. • More specifically, if the project is NOT built, development will be diminished in the Poole Rosf and Hodge Road Corridors and the aforementioned Primary Activity Center will likely never be realized without the planned interchange at Poole and I-540. • Widening of existing roads (I-40, I-440, 64 Bypass) would probably not induce the same intensity of development and would have a negative economic impact in comparison to the new toll road. • Important to remember that the Town had pushed hard to get 540 through Knightdale (as opposed to an alignment further east near Wendell) in order to generate development in that area. There would be a negative economic effect if the proposed project is NOT built. • The Town would like to see the eastern section of the project (Phase II) built the same time as the southern section (Phase I). Past Actions • Prior to 1980, the Town was primarily farmland. There was a spurt of development in the 1980's and then another in the 2000's. • Recent development patterns have been induced by I-540N, the 64 Bypass, proximity to the Research Triangle Park, and affordable land prices. • Past projects that have had major effects on the human and/or natural environment include: ➢ Shoppes at Midway Plantation/Midtown Commons Shopping Centers ➢ Mingo Creek Subdivision, Planters Walk Subdivision, Widewaters Subdivision, Churchill Subdivision ➢ Square D/Eastpoint • The primary environmental impact from past development has been to Mingo Creek primarily as a result of development along Hodge Road (and to a lesser extent from the new Hodge Road Siphon project). Action Items: ➢ No action items at this time. � NQRTi-1 CAR�LII�DA , Xurnpik� �uthority � � � - S+�►j��NEA,�T �-�.•—�o-�. ��,;-�, Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 Date: Time: Place: Purpose: Attendees: MEETING SUMMARY October 3, 2012 10:00 a.m. Johnston County Planning Department Indirect and Cumulative Effects Name Organization Email Address Berry Gray Johnston County Planning Director berrv.aravCa�iohnstonnc.com Jeff Schlotter H.W. Lochner, Inc. Ischlotter(a�hwlochner.com Kristin Maseman H.W. Lochner, Inc. kmaseman(c�hwlochner.com Summary: The October 3 meeting had two functions: 1) to discuss the County's responses to the list of "Questions Related to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis/Community Impact Analysis" and 2) to discuss topics and questions related to the Southeast Extension project's purpose and need. Discussion of the second topic is summarized in a separate document. Below is a summary of comments received from the Johnston County regarding indirect and cumulative effects. Notable Environmental Features • Swift Creek • Neuse River • Mountains to Sea Trail • Clemmons State Forest Land Use Plans and Socioeconomics • Johnston County adopted its Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 2009 and adopted its first Comprehensive Transportation Plan in 2011. • While growth rates have slowed somewhat compared to growth rates a decade or two ago, Johnston County anticipates continued growth and has seen a recent increase in residential building permits issued. Most of the permits are for single-family residences, although there has been some multi-family residential development near the I-40/NC 42 interchange. • Johnston County does not do involuntary annexation, so there is no annexation plan. • Existing/future socioeconomic data, by TAZ, was provided by Johnston County to CAMPO for their Metropolitan Transportation Plan and they do not see a need to revise their data at this time for any reasons unrelated to this project. The data provided assumed that the Tri-Ex Southeast Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 Extension project would be constructed. If the project is NOT built, Johnston County would not see a need to revise their socioeconomic data. Planned Future Development/Transportation Improvements • Areas in northwestern Johnston County near I-40 (Cleveland Township and Clayton Township) are growth areas for the County. The I-40/NC 42 is a particularly important growth area. • The County Land Use Plan identifies the I-40/NC 42 and I-40/Clayton Bypass interchanges as Interstate Highway Overlay Districts. The County provides sewer service to areas with this designation, which helps encourage more intensive development in these areas. • A 600-1ot development on Old Drugstore Road is slowly developing. • I-40 will be widened south to NC 42, and may eventually be widened south to NC 210. NC 42 is also in the CAMPO LRTP to be widened, but this improvement remains unfunded. Water/Sewer • Johnston County recently expanded its sewer plant and has no plans to expand it any further. • Water and sewer service can only be extended to PUDs or to commercial/industrial areas. Development Constraints/Regulations/Land Use Controls • The major constraints to development in Johnston County are infrastructure and soils. • Johnston County does not have any stormwater management regulations outside of those required by State regulations. • Stormwater regulations include required BMPs for any developments disturbing at least one acre of land. Regulations dictate the allowable limits of impervious surface for various types of developments. • Johnston County had to expand the environmentally sensitive district designation on its land use plan into the Swift Creek area for protecting the Dwarf Wedgemussel. This designation requires a 100-foot buffer (instead of the normal 50-foot buffer) and prohibits development in the floodplain. • Variances and/or exceptions to the above regulations are not granted. • Johnston County is pro-growth. Potential Projecf Effects • Johnston County's proximity to the Raleigh area and RTP and extension of sewer lines into specific areas have induced development. • The Southeast Extension project has the potential to ease congestion on roads such as NC 50 and on more local roads in northern Johnston County. It also has the potential to reduce travel times to employment centers. The project has a fair amount of potential to stimulate more development in Johnston County for those reasons. • If the proposed project is NOT built, Johnston County's development may be more moderated. Past Actions • Clayton Bypass • I-40 and its interchange at NC 42 Action Items: ➢ None � NQRTi-1 CAR�LII�DA , Xurnpik� �uthority . � � - S�►j��NEA,�T �-�•-ru-�.. �w�,;-�, Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Wake and Johnston Counties STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 Date: Time: Place: Purpose: Attendees: MEETING SUMMARY Draft January 9, 2013 1:00 p.m. Conference Call Indirect and Cumulative Effects Name Organization Email Address David DeYoung Clayton Planning Director ddeyoung@townofclaytonnc.org Kristin Maseman, AICP H.W. Lochner — Raleigh, NC kmaseman@hwlochner.com Summary: This topic was introduced, and the list of "Questions Related to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis/Community Impact Analysis" was provided, at an in-person meeting with the Town of Clayton on October 5, 2012. The October 5 meeting focused on other topics and questions related to the Southeast Extension project's purpose and need. The conference call documented here was arranged specifically for the discussion of the project's indirect and cumulative effects (ICE). Below is a summary of comments received from the Town of Clayton. Notable Environmental Features • Swift Creek Land Use Plans and Socioeconomics • The Town's Strategic Growth Plan was adopted in 2008. • Clayton anticipates continued growth at an annual rate of 2 to 3 percent for the foreseeable future. There is ample existing and planned infrastructure to serve this growth. Growth has been and is expected to continue to be primarily residential. There has been a recent increase in multi- family residential development. • The NC 42 corridor near the Clayton Bypass is a major growth area in the town. Development interest has picked up significantly in this area. Much of the anticipated development in this corridor is medical-related due to the presence of Johnston Medical Center (hospital) in this area. • Existing/future socioeconomic data, by TAZ, was provided by Raleigh to CAMPO for their Metropolitan Transportation Plan and they do not see a need to revise their data at this time for any reasons unrelated to this project. Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 Planned Future Development/Transportation Improvements • Various medical office projects along NC 42 corridor. Nursing home under consideration in this area. • Apartment complex on NC 42 west of I-40. • New 55+ community under consideration on Shotwell Road. • Developing small area concept for the NC 42/Clayton Bypass area to include more mixed-use development to include residential and commercial uses (including hotels). • The US 70/Clayton Bypass area south of town is under conceptual consideration as a commercial/industrial area. • Widening of NC 42 is in the CAMPO LRTP. Widening US 70 from I-40 to Amelia Church Road is also in the LRTP. Water/Sewer • Interchange areas along the Clayton Bypass are planned for water/sewer infrastructure extension. The Town is working on developing concepts and plans for infrastructure extension in these areas. • Clayton aims to take a proactive but responsible approach to infrastructure expansion. Development Constraints/Regulations/Land Use Controls • The major constraint to development in Clayton over time is the availability of water and sewer infrastructure. • The development priorities for Clayton are the NC 42 corridor and the NC 42/Clayton Bypass interchange area. • Clayton has a Scenic Highway Overlay designation that dictates how development can occur along certain corridors. • Clayton promotes quality growth. Potential Projecf Effects • The opening of the Clayton Bypass (2008) and of Johnston Medical Center (2010) have induced recent development patterns in the area. • All of the new-location build alternatives for the Southeast Extension have the potential to induce development in Clayton, particularly along the Clayton Bypass and NC 42. • The Southeast Extension project would likely influence the timing and intensity of development in the area while promoting increased densities. • If the Southeast Extension project is not built, development will still continue, but it may be somewhat slower. Past Actions • Clayton Bypass Action Items: ➢ Lochner will follow up with Jamie Guerrero (919-209-8333) regarding stormwater management regulations and related topics. APPENDIX 6 CITY OF RALEIGH PLANNED WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS zti O I � � • cQ � � � v z c� � c� c� °- v��N�� N�= �� v 7J � � � � O O � � m m 1 1 r � Z O m Z � � n � a c w Q' � �� = n � � � � �� p �. ..��::: . � : v � a- - � `� �'t s� � � b � A � N� � C �„�-A��-l7 rt � � � � � � �, � o D �i r rt• r J .m v� _ :-, L� € � f �� ' f � � � � � �� '' " �''� � � '''; N ! .. N .�. .-..._. . .. . . .. � �W � j �N � �� `� �' �"� „� �,, . ,,.� l .�� O` N1 ..��-_ . �� -�\:�� ' �,, � �W t - o ��.: w. .� N .:_. •,o` ''�°` O` -i � �I � N � � � ' - _ �_� � W i • � �� O` �, � �_ //��- W �+ � , W _• _ " ` ��^ � A n R� \ ^I ,}� � _ _''��N �4*G�� . �� W L=f U�� W v ? N • � Q� � �--. �,� � -�� 'E � O � ° � '� � �� • �,, „� ` �V� \N` A A . � �> ',v ' . y � r � �� O C � Appendix C Public Parks and Recreational Facilities Name Location Ownershi Clemmons Educational State Forest Old US 70, Clayton State of North Carolina Crowder District Park Ten Ten Road, A ex Wake CounYy Southeast Regional Park (propo,sed) Barber Brid e Road, Willow S rin Wake County Historic Yates Mill County Park Lake Wheeler Road, Raleigh Wake County Harris Lake County Park County Park Drive, New Hill Wake County Historic Oak View County Park Carya Drive, Raleigh Wake County Neuse River Greenwa Trail Eastern Raleigh City of Raleigh Barwell Road Park Barwell Road, Ralei h Cit of Ralei h Lake Wheeler Park Lake Wheeler Road, Raleigh City of Raleigh Anderson Point Park Anderson Point Drive, Raleigh City of Raleigh Raleigh Golf Association Tryon Road, Raleigh Private ownership — open to public Meadowbrook Golf Club South of White Oak Road, Garner Private ownershi — o en to ublic 401 Par Golf Fa etteville Road, Ralei h Private ownershi — o en to ublic Knights Play Golf Center Ten-Ten Road, Apex Private ownership — open to public Middle Creek School Park Optimist Farm Road, Cary Town of Cary Regency Park Regency Parkway, Cary Town of Cary Harold D. Ritter Park Lochmere Drive, Cary Town of Cary Stevens Nature Center Kildaire Farm Road, Ca Town of Ca Bartley Park (proposed) Penny Road, Cary Town of Cary Bass Lake Park and Retreat Center Bass Lake Road, Holly Springs Town of Holly Springs Sunset Oaks Park (�roposed) Sunset Oaks neighborhood, Holly Springs Town of Holly Springs Parrish Womble Park Stinson Avenue, Holly Springs Town of Holly Springs Sugg Farm Park Gri sb Avenue, Holl S rings Town of Holly S rings Jones Park Holly Springs Road, Holly Springs Town of Holly Springs Veterans Park Sunset Ridge neighborhood, Holly Springs Town of Holly Springs Falcon Park Central Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Action Park Wake Cha el Road, Fu uay-Varina Town of Fu uay-Varina Library Park Central Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Fuquay Mineral Spring Park Central Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Kinton Soccer Field Central Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Lawrence Street Park Central Fuquay-Varina Town of Fu uay-Varina West Jones Street Park Central Fuquay-Varina Town of Fu uay-Varina South Park South Main Street, Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Honeycutt Road Park NC 55, Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Ransdell Soccer Field Ideal Lane, Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Carroll Howard Johnson Environmental Education Park Wagstaff Road, Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Flemin Loo Recreationa] Park Flemin Loo Road, Fu ua -Varina Town of Fu ua -Varina Ballentine School Park Sunset Lake Road, Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Herbert Akins Park Herbert Akins Road, Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Banks Road Park US 401, Fuquay-Varina Town of Fuquay-Varina Alston Rid e Park Town of Fu ua -Varina Town of Fu uay-Varina Lake Benson Park Buffaloe Road, Garner Town of Garner White Deer Park Aversboro Road, Garner Town of Garner (existing and praposed expansion) Bryan Road Nature Park (proposed) Bryan Road, Garner Town of Garner Thom son Road Park Central Garner Town of Garner Centennial Park New Bethel Church Road, Garner Town of Garner South Garner Park Heather Hills neighborhood, Garner Town of Garner Garner Recreational Park Central Garner Town of Garner Legend Park Northern Clayton Town of Clayton Clayton Communit Park Amelia Church Road, Cla ton Town of Cla ton Municipal Park Northern Clayton Town of Clayton All-Star Park Central Clayton Town of Clayton Clayton River Walk on the Neuse Covered Bridge Road, Clayton Town of Clayton Jack Marley Park Central An ier Town of Angier APPENDIX D AREA LAND USE PLAN MAPS m , M E _ ' � � 1 _ � / `4` ` U i� � `M1 u � / "'! t`+� �. c�>E � � '—� ' , re '.:�' � � M =� rn � " r ';_J Ii! ( � v r _ � _L�� + ^ � � `�i\ . ' � � `- .....\.� , � � � . � 1 � � � � ��` � � � � �.� , i - � �°ri. ��n;-- �,. , � �a N i�i ,v � �?. J m� J .. � � d- � l � l' i� r'7,� � � � 1� / �� f i�� 1 f ( J �:- It! a-��' �' � ' II_�tl.._ J ,. �y _ r . 'N r �� \ �� . �' �.. � ;,,� �' _, �, � � Q 4, a ' � �� L , �I- � "-� ^ \ti /��' � 9 � S � • � '\ F � � �* t� . ��'. ��:� ° � � o � � � � � _ � � � � o� - _ �- ;f� '�� t , w s i�� _ � '`,� r'�,c, , t� r j� , o l �\ `� � � • '� , i� T �,1 � � ��' T� � `. �'� `{ t f�,�,? ��`` _ `4 _ � . . . � . . .f r't y ��. � ' . o �, � � � ,�.. � `..�� , ` ; � � � �., �`�.�r--;,�r+ � � r „ { •''+ ` �, ' � � � i .�'Z �'�-}� _ � _� ! - ' �� — .... C ,� f'��.., �_ ~-� - �. r � ,-,1�--,,; ; J - �,�� =�~"� �. : �� r.. ' 'n �1 ' I�l ti j �,i J c: � � �� r ' � ly \: j: `' — r.: _ � '� ,r Southwest Wake e ALUP Update �,= a ��s��a�d ,so��nwe=��PA o9�so�,nwe=w� _ - =em,a VseGrea�e0 by Wake Gounty Adopted July 9, 2007 ° '_ ZM;ies """e°°°^"P"^^'^9°e°""^e^` Mer23,2011 (Amended 4/5/10, LUPA 03-09) � r� 1 1 � �.,,� O 1 � G � O zm z z hm ~ o7(n � cs r Gmi c� m zp � m m o X �°c � o � � S°'. v � � � � �n � x x � � ° 'D t� [/� Z � N .Z7 .Z7 � ��_ Q � r �� G� W W D G� � m W � m v �D 3 � m�r° A z z7 n�7 r� � �" �' � C% W m n � �Z Z Z � v m D m m � Sauls Rd Stage Rd \� �,.. �av' Dr �...►��'.,.....�. �s �� c) �S �a��s �� ! � "�, � � � � � f `4�i � � ; � `OI ,y�R_��. -_��,:� � �� + : -y .I � � � � ,�7� _ � �� - �,,.�'' ,� '�...�..._ 2 % � �� ''�� .. � tio � � � � ''�s �� z � � � �• ! � � � � '�9s�, � �a�� aa�epl!yl � a p I � I � �' I� ,' I �� . �� n s . .� � � � � p2� �i�0 a�!4M � �� ''� �Ii 2 Q / ,�� y ✓a j O h�, - o i•� � �`�� ' d hk/'h Rd C� � � = 1 �� j �li �n 1 ��° � G�rman St C0 �Y Q �O '9 J L � �� T �0r ��'a � p4��'h Ra �� p�{ aauae� r m 3 a �� p� �a�� o� � n 3 � � � � � � � a� :�I� ,_1 ' � I '��! �;%; - m - � - . Z ` yi _ 3 = 3 - A C -' F Y. � ' ' � C = m 3 � - _ Ip - 3 - - 3 0 ,'�A"� fD ^IJ LI • _ . n _ - o � X O � � - � p w � � _ _ , 3 � _ _ ' o � _ ��. 3 3 - � 3 c A _ -� a y C 3 n � � C �I O - ~ - - � Ll _ - � - - - - 4ym1 (� V � ' n O _ _ o ra* V O � - fG � _ _ _ _ � _ - ° � � _ � ' n_ _ _ c �� . �7 i� - � .e � nD n �; ��a f �� "�� Vrl _ I � a w z � � �, � � � F � � k i. � , � = 9 .� m � _ Z , � R: I�.... - ' D � = �[ .� (1 , O < - y 3�� `� ��f; � .. - ' � % D .. „ y _ 2 �A.Y 'h I _ _ ��'r (1 - _ � _ Ci y� � �' ��Ln ��J - � c a - - � z n - o-� A � 1��/ p _ .��I O D � n - _ . • • ._.A _ - � D� D _ � = D W \Cl . � � - n �;'�'i"' 1 _ .� n _ O n '� p . � � _ �N O - y � �.1 � _ :. � i .. _ � � . _ , O . ��Tr � _ ,1, , .. � � � , , �.. - _ ". . . ... _ , S - ,.. e v q �� . _- e m - — �' - _ _ _ � / � b111T� � I � _ � .0 ro , �� J :�. /^� I�1 � - � � ..J- . � � `�L.. � `::a . ',\ /\� J � J�; . �•/. ` V _ d { �[ " � R///�\� i :{ 3u`nMq i ��i ��%.%�f � II �. \�/// . / ' D 1 � �. V �+ ..��. , �� q/ � ; �,� ��,� ' � � .��. ^ P. �dy - I � ym �_ � 1r�'� �.p.%r z�Q i 1' `� �� s�'"�,. , - �� j,u o �,. � �,r� - ar�� ,"� -_ •� � . . F- �I ,� _ J \ r, � � � y � I ��.,�a . . i��' . I.y; � t � -_ Er�� N �� ti.. � � i� � �� f� . . . - . , ,s ., ` ,> _� ', � � � c�<&F,, �. 4 �� . - - � ;�. - �. �,. . . . . y�� . �� ,: .. � . . : j , , . . r L �'� � aw8`" , ! � -� . 6z�� - '� t i . � �� .. � � � � . . '.�a' "� � ... • � � � � ,�' I ., -. _ % � �'fi �_ „ , � t �y �� . _ � ..a�� / . ��o.�,rt i� � .. 1 � 1 �- � V �= J-,^ c I ` / \r ��'F,. �� , .. : � �� . � a � i �:, Y 7 y � 1 3 �_. � �� _ c � llll . 4' ,.� � .�� c �i �°> " �i``�,�.` � � }.,, 1 'i I „ 4ti ` ` • e � � � . �;;�. :; x . ^; � �.�mo t� �' �� .d _ . - �J"� ��R1im (1��,'(►, ♦ �• ' �i'� .., `��. I 'Z .. k ��..e T3. . � � r _ � X , . � � �- -i .� �, ■ ; :. r . �� . ] .-. .�11 �s:d.� �i. ��t' .. . , � �� , A. Y� . ,`. . - �, � �Z'µ.� '� � � �� - � � � -,y,� .. _ � . ;I�� ..�e�' �e , �`��'^" ( 'j.,- � . ' � � ,.�lf . s !' v ;�, � ,t �� 9aJ!.. � ; .;a rf :,.+� �.�r"� � +i: i � S'^; A �� ,'�d 1'+t �h � a. _ � � ; �._^ � �`,' �,,., , . � � - �� + : � -� �'�I, -�6 ��..HO�J�',*�•�`•!�, _ . �i�� . � �, m, � � � ` `� �"' ,'�' .: _ ��i ., . f . ,. < -: jt .� �� /, . , � „ . �� e� �� ?� '1� ! � . � R , �� '� e �. -- _ . � `.s-,' � .� . , - �, , ��, i�� s � ��°s� . � : ��:'{ �._�... .��I� `� �' � � �� ; r�,. � �;, �, . �-- , , x � -_ - , � '= L ti 1. �� 1, \ ,� � „ � � - ' li:;. .� � � �r5 - a .�.o i: _� ��i�,. . � ` l _'y\` -5 �' 7 i� � �. � " fi" le�� ,i � � _ . � � ""- , - , -- <<' _—� � � ♦ ..� � � � ' ` q . ``. .. . ..� �� " ��., �%Y'� w I 1 � � �� _ . � ��J � � � � � >•- � �ro.. - ��'� � �, � �� .. :- � � H .. � � '. „� . .. ' �I/ - � \` ` s i� e l �Ii ' /1 �.,, � , IF � . .. �' , , , - . 1�* �'. , -� '� , ' �.. .... , � . - "` , . ��'� �rj �� ' IS "�`� -;,. - '�� ✓�j. . .,�„"�ii�� I ��._ /i�' `:..J �� ,� 1' � �� Fi 4 � ��'�,•�I r��,,� � ,� _ � � � � - �� _.�� fl�� s_ �K yi%,_,' �� .__._,� ''__� > t �, � `�� „ � . . , � �-�h, - ` �. � � g � � �: � F" I / 1 11 1 . '0as '~ • •�. . � A �. i� � - . �� +- ...V.�. ��i �. � � � _ -0 . „-� �rr< � ��.. g <�� ^ �. � . _ J Y' . �� Z` ��_^.. � �. V f._. S , s 1 j � . .. �'' , r5 '�1� �� -.w i r �- ... .rn� R � � r, . � ' � . .. � �. . '�. '�. _"l D i ! I __-_ � . . _�jy.• � . ._ �`} � 1 G. i J �. �1, `"',. �� I / �� °` L.✓)�:�,�f",�S ._� .. . , _ _ , ! 'i 4 � '�`, � � �� \ ..,.� � - _ _ , WR., �{ � �.. _t � I ' j `+..`'� ; � a,m..,n : � , . _ _ _ C � r rl � � � • .; . o �___,.. - - - . � � � '•� � - �:o.v„i�.� .._.� � _ � a m : 1 � ' :r'. . - - .� � . , � � ' N `•� % - _ z , � i' � _ , - r o ( i �'� �� _ > , (.� e ) � ;�a�, ,� ..� �, � _ ; - _ � 0� _ . ..l i �"' '_ - �_.� � r = � -� r..., �,.__ _ _ _ ` s � � ✓ i r ,.� -�� L/�'✓',t-,�.�;.:�' . _ _ 3 �. a '�� -'. -o q�� +', `� f' I �� q ., � ' �� i �� i� J �� 1 � {� T .. , I)�I�RIiA\f 1� r ` . � :;�' . �� .OUN7'i' ULI�I-[A � .L]L1NT�' '_. - . a�v . � u � �. �" � � �e ._" � ' . � - . _� � h — � J p�� ; �,. � C:U[;�YTi'� ' .:. � .. 1 f\ � v; — - n�, r ..�_., �� . � �� ';'. �' ;��- . •� , `� . :�, - f V : �N l I�Swad SAat4 Ga� : .,.t, r � ��r � .�,, � � r ��i �` __• �i � C L ,� �= � '� � � r , � . � , . � , .f _ . . - z �,� ._. �, . ; .��«��z.J ,.�: �. J � �, , r r�, �.. ;"1. Ur.-- _f, '}^ _ �. J�' �r d ` '� 1� • � � t .. � -`- �`` !�' �FI ° � - �.�-.�,. - �.. �'� ,r'!• _J�� _ �' t� � ,� ' � "' ti" j„„,...a Vy� -- '7 � .� �F � � . ,w�, y�, �. � ' �� i . � _ �. .-� }�[ '� ti � �,�' � �� N �• �`�,,,tA� � � :�l � ` r � _ � � , . i '. �� ' _ � �� _ \ Y:,'E: ' �� -� ., . 4' f��^�ra y n_ . ! ,r'� 4—= `R3�� Ja ��.. � � �'f';, �s.� r� y.^ 4 � i.t�,�r ! ` � � ~ ¢ ��` ��-� �� . `t �... f �.�� . ;,,'� ,� �' � t- ■� � f - �` ' `--' - ', � � : - - - r�� . ` ''� ' "� + . ti'. - i �'" �: • � -a � 1, . ;., _, , F ' � - .._... . � �. � . L ; �' r .` , �. - . � - � � . . . � ,,. r E «, � . , 3._ i `us ' . i r.m `.`w' M 5 C ' ��. p t , � .� ` � �+ � � . ; . �' � � �..-� . . .. � . _. - f ` � �> �,i '., ._ f � _,. � , � o E .. , .� . r �, � .. , � . � t`_" 3: 1 I . i . � i � � � 4 i �.1 1 . ..�P" �+ _�. , ... . � ,� �. � s „ . �� , � � . 1 - �-� •i�.. . y' i�� ; � �:, ■ w i � i e� � � � � , �$ � ° �� , ;, � ... � � �- ' • . L f �� - '' � , ., -. �l „. , ,, m '. ., � � �� .: � ! � ��,, '� ` r: - � { f �� - �'�i. , y .:� ,r., €` , `4 ,��,�� .., "'i- ��ti i �y _ i- .,.-� (� i 7� _ -,i , � L.. ��y� ' . ' � 'a � . � � . . , � I - L. . � r" S � - 1 ,. .,. .. + r � � l 6q s � ° � �.. .. . . .. � q . � ' . . �.,,.-- �_ W ''+� . , i . �� : r . . �+ ;� ,�, , , i �_� i . � � _- F� �.. ' �;'t", _ r . �I�t \ � ' _ q " . } �� e� � • � �- ; f, � � � � � �ti .. '''` � �� r- �„ :� t r _ '�` .� ' 1` �� ` � '� . �y ' } . � i ` ...... • ��-� ) � �`~ � � y I . 1" � �� ' f-r� a 7 _ �.�.� � ..1 � � .t �., _. �. `, � , � , � . yafthwast Msynard G!� !h m/Ca�Northwa �alan 9DinS PoAn � Rr9a Plan � , ' 1- . , . � ' �� T- � . � �'� � rJ� �� , � . . �) ., '� 'F� �1 Y �— {, t i � � f .. ♦ .. ,Tnwn�r :.r � F _ � � _��'.-:` �..� � Y � � � Aeea Plan,F � � � : � r .. � .. e - `" , .. .. _. .! �:� � �. I < A� i� � � �- f ,.. `_ � 1 ' . r-,�� y � Ca p nter � �':Waknu[ 5;res!- .. _�. , .� ��d r. r �� CommunlRy Plen Ga rltlae plan j �. �_ r �" � Activtty Centers � w �,J-ey� .Snut3iwaat� ." .,. . i. . . . i - . . . ,. - .�. . ..w. .. .. � �: i ��Araa Flan � - � .� �i. ', , •:,r�..,,. .. ' - ` s.. .�i 1 l r �... � � sa - —' — s4`� � � - - �._Mu..�,... �..,� ..� . � � r�oa,�,9 ` � g . . � r. � '`, ��" �, a t _ �.,.,�...� -w..,.,�. W �..�...m,.,... � , � Area�Plan.' �� k � n� ` f � �. / __ _ !{ill.l:�I'[ll ;�, i'� �,,_ � Fs.., . � � � � � ,r 1. 1 � �� .� _ . - ��...� ..... ........ �....._.�.. .. ��... ~ .� 5 r, , � � j . � �:. tW. , " :Y ., � j � .1 � � F�.Mpte DetBfled InfD'rmatfpn On � -� � "' �""'" `• " � � M� -A Particuiar Area RI�n,�Please Refer. � �j � . � - � � ' �� r TO The. 4fficial Fian Utocuenent --�'`-�,_1 ,..-.. „'.^ a,".""'��"..��'"..` �-�, • .. ,._�."� "�`own of Cary Gamprehensive Land �se P�an � .�.�.;; . .,....,.,...,. O• ,�I•°�. .. ��.....�••,.,. �°�.�°.-...��-^�-.•..�.• Advptcd. NavemT�c 14, 194Ei ,+--•, � ._-� � :. . r . I—� . ,,_, .. �_ � .�.MT........-w. �-, -;� � �r-• , �:.. e n m. r n u � e: .r �. n s s,. z o i�a I—� �.. �... � �. !" � � . . �� `'^ "''""' � ., . -�-��5�� ¢ i �_, .�.�.�....:�....a..� .,� � �� ..."., o:: �`�� , ,�t' � � x.'�. j r , K : . � . ., W"` T �� a ...,�., .. .. x:i r . ...�� ,._. � w � �. �.._,.,.,M.. ..� o ,. _..__..._ .�._...w_. � ' �� --- .._ _ . ._ �� ..—� � ...�.... ...._�. _ � . . ..._ ��a Nf7RTH - - � �,� � ; i�� , '. �'`:�a� � � � � � � � � .. }1v �i 1 `j� �, t �. �. �. �: � { iv \ 4' � -.. CHqTNqMCOUN'Y'"'V- � Future l.and Classifications - psote[1ed ppen $pare _ W{ural f}unsilq Resid�n9�al Enw Qensity Resrdert[ial P.AeAium Qensify ResiAenfiel hic�iwri Hgh Or�nsi1y Residenlaal , High Densi[y Aesidenlial arr�� emo�ym��i - Commerciai Serviees Intlustnal EmpluynaenC 2030 Land Use Map Town of Apex, North Carolina „-�-�:p-Fk�:; , P,,,e� s ,,zo,3 Q'«,� � ��II ' �'r��r �HCA�. ri,/� �. , �� ,�� ,. �.,, r, ,,,��. �. I � ��`- � �'. � ,� e,� � ;.t� .F � .� . �� . r ,- �� . _ �� .. .. .. �jF CARV A / ��I.,. r` , �, � ,�',� '�,�'%, � � � .� ,,,�,f, �. ; ��,,;.;� +�c,;� , r�i �d�!� , '/�'. .�',;r �' ,� , � � ..'� � � , � - �� .�� , , °' �,� ''�-±� �►"� � ° � r �' s"' �f .�/.. ' ''i�� ,� �� f ��,. `� - .. . ,� , . "�:. �ti� ,.c-... ,� -:, _ y � � �, , � -:,. � � re r� ,. � 1� /rJ/'�� . �i � . �� i[ ��, �.. f �� . � r� � frr�i.� � � -- � Potential Activity Centers p. .. � NeoghborhoodaMixed Use (NMU) �� J Golf Course EmploymentaMaed Use (EMU) SCFIWI �� so reui �ecnnes _ 4and511 �'+� Commumty Mixed Use (CMU) r.._�:a� . .a,Pa Rghl-o4YVay � Regional Mixed Use (RMU) PrnpBrtyLen2s � �om�ie�,.ae�� . � Quke Energy Lanrt -- — - Praposei Major CWlee[ors�Th�r:;u.,r,Lf�res r�}M�` �/� T�� L ,.�^� �% "��/%/�t�;i.� � i � �� "/ +', j�!l,:,� r f /� / . ,�'' �`� '�''i � =� �� r.+ `=_. ; . � h ;:�' ,;, ��P��/� ,:' .", f JJ� _ �-. �� . f � �f� ' � `�`�O f'A, �� ',�'' Land Use ��,0 � %�/�/ Inside '' � Apex Peakway �._ o�� « iI i - . 7 �y 1 � _ ^a d;..i � es c �F ruo. , L L � ��;ny a P;x-iF RD µ€C .. c u� �c ,', ',.�:,� :;: _ __�.�. --- = t, _ - - ----�;�,,�: , , '� - � ,�, ; � - � , -� -.-, , � ; - , � h -� � L � ,,�,, _ '� . �" ; , *_ _ F � � �,-�.,� � ' � . �_I -.I'.. i. � . '� yy ., t i..� i� .I �.. � . � , -� . - - " - ir . � . �� -" . _�.� � � � _ a^' ` - ' - ' ___ 5��.' ' _ . � -':} . . . /� �. il . "� 1�'1.—}' I ..� �ti:i] . a . � 1'7 � '", l� - � �:,. `-z 1 � ' .4 - \ �e - � � � : l {t= �`M�r �' � - . . � _ � �. - . � . _ . � » r'"., : f _ .r ' v � _ 1 � , _.. �� n . �1l _. .�- � � i .� �� I_� :. �b � . 'rr' - � m e ' :�-�- � . • i��,.��Y 1 f � -- . ,p°- :� � " j �., 4,��i' _ ,. � � ` ^ r � I .F I . i, �., . s � � r _ � ., � .. � � k . . � Y� l . � � � g n . . . \� I � � �`� _ ��a 7 � . �� . , � .. A � `,", � Dp . ' _ "` �v � .4 ^' ' . 1 . � ., ' ..� . yr� �! � ' � _i_ � � 4� !. `�y ' < � #� 1--y' '. ' i� - . ` i j � .� : ' � , - . ,, - � � r F-; ._ �� 't�� -�- - � �f .' R �� < jj'` � � �`._� � -1 { . �.. �' . - / �� .. � r .�`' �.. � + ~� . ... � . �`' - ;� ai � �� -- ►; ,�- * -�_ • -__ ��- ' - � -; � � r o � � �me =� � � : � f �� - � � a�� r� � :� � ;� ,�. � w 1� 1^ -, /1 n � c � k�" � � aa :i � p ' -. . 1��, , *� Q � � . r rn Q � � � 3 � �• ' � .�.� �_ S . � - m 3 n � � � � V � \ . 1"� • � ,! � 'k '� � � tn r� K � � .. . -�' 1 � . .. . , . � � �, � � � � i r ' " �} �y: y '�, , � m = � -� �_� i : � � n n � _ �p �9. a 4 � : ' <, ^� S 3 r� i � � � �� aa � Y _ � ��- j`, � vf, �r � F� -- — - �..�� .,y i��; �, �� ii , , �� - �,,; ' � `� � �i 1 ''�� —.�-" .� �. � � �� , ; � ,�y J �;� - _ � � ` ° �, ' = Cy _ 4 .. ''� � e_ n n v �� s � � n �, y . ` . - � 3 � n � �� - � \ - —� . � ro � �, �= { � � Psa�� . � - - $ Y Y - � � �-�" �' _ N � a � A' � Y � _l. � ,\� 1� I. 1 % ` � - .. _ C�S „ �J�f � � � � A � � �_>/ •-L._ -_ _ I - � - ,�"� "� ' � e. ,-•l !�r -•- 3 9 � � _��L � - � a .. �� - � � M' � i.-- �� o � _ � y'.l �� i� � � �r 1 a i x� �'�-�—r_��-- - �� cc� � � � ��. � o � � � � ;�. �. ��; �� , � � � y ro , - ,�.-k m d u _ `'�;t' _ �..� � � a ;' � ; — Q ' ��f � � '�., � --�+ cl'► , m .m - rv -- —" ! _ � � � • p S t . � � ,4� ,� !. ro � � s � � � '� f� � ' I � �' � � �ni�cE �.z �- � Y/ . m � � m � m v O �1,� ;; � /Ir � ��"'o��ac � G�� Q Y:- � � '� �. � a s ii7 . . � . . �+r� 2 Sa s � 3 � i � 4 � � � �, � Z � � 3 _ � � m N �� i rA � � � Q = q ; y � � a�� i �. � � 1 � � . � { '� ;�� `� �' � ,� � ,A � ., ^ --�`i'�. ti �` \ ��S �. L_ __ _ `, ' g} . ��. � � � J O v W A � 6 O j' n � s n W p � �'i T p �� W C] � o � �u� � �v m Q � J O v W A � 6 O j' n � s n W p � �'i T p �� W C] � o � �u� � �v m Q uu Q � CI. � � � W � r!r Z w � I-� 4 � a � +y � V�y � -{� Ey 7 .� U �a�, 'v. Q .�, � r l� v n, e� .. y � .li :: �n n �I � �'� , I.efS � f� ..,I � ,� 'iJ er, cn � � � � : � � �i ,::� 7 � �n °� -C '—� ur '� � N � r-� �'I H � � � � �� ✓'� � p9� L a 4 �� v r:7 '� YL-• a"'. G v aJ �, � � � � � . � '� [—�+ f� JS r Li. 0.�i '!� ✓ �i :� '*�� :� � '' {, � � , , , JOHNSTON COUNTY2030 COMPREHENSNE PLAN PAGE 23 '9 � � � N � Q v m 0 ., W a W v ru � v � Q Q � _ a � ro Ar c !'l �[ Q N 7 OC � � w � 7 � � 4 r� 47 � r� � N � ��C � ro � � � � Q � � � � `� � � � � �, � a, ry � ,� ❑ o ro Q � � � � � � Ess ta � � r �raft Land Use Plan Ma� L�=�IJLJ�IJQ 1�9 L�J�� 1��0�� ETd