20080737 All Versions_Reports_20080401

1

1
r

1

1

1
1
FAYETTEVILLE OUTER LOOP - NORTHERN SECTION
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS UPDATE
CUMBERLAND, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NO X-0002
PREPARED FOR
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
f to
wQ
O
APRIL 2008
le
P'
J

1

Prepared by-

StantK
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
April 2008
1

L

ri
L

1
7

IJ
1

Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
1 1 Project Background and Purpose 1
1 2 ICE Update Study Area Boundary and Time Horizon 2
1 3 No Build Alternative 2
1 4 Build Alternative 2
1 5 Project Purpose and Need 2
2 ICE Update Study Area Characteristics 4
21 Population Trends 4
22 Housing Units 4
3 ICE Update Study Area Notable Features 6
31 Water Resources 6
311 Streams 6
31 2 Stream Classification 6
31 3 Water Supply Watersheds 7
31 4 Impaired Waters 7
32 Protected Species 7
33 Natural Heritage Sites 8
34 Soils 8
4 ICE Update Study Area Planning Context 12
41 Local Regulations and Plans 12
41 1 Water Supply Watershed Management and Protection Regulations 12
41 2 Stormwater Management 12
41 3 Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan 13
41 4 North Fayetteville Area Land Use Plan 14
41 5 Wade Area Land Use Plan 14
41 6 Eastover Area Land Use Plan 14
41 7 2008 Fort Bragg/Pope Air Force Base Land Use Study Update 15
42 Sewer Service 16
43 Zoning 17
44 Other Transportation Improvement Projects 19
5 Activities Causing Effects 19
51 Proposed Development and Transportation Projects 19
52 Project Related Environmental Effects 19
53 Project Related Transportation Effects 19
54 Potential for Project Related Induced Development 21
6 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects 21
7 Analysis of Indirect and Cumulative Effects 21
71 Existing Land Use 22
72 Budd Scenario 23
73 No-Build Scenario 24
74 Scenario Comparisons 25
8 Evaluation of Analysis Results 31
81 Indirect Effects 31
82 Cumulative Effects 31
9 References 33
10 Appendix 35
101 Cumberland County TIP Projects 35
1
Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
Tables
Table 1 Population projections, 2005 - 2035
Table 2 Housing Units, 1990 - 2006
Table 3 Federally protected species in Cumberland County
Table 4 Travel Distance/Time Analysis
Table 5 Land Use Categories and Density
Table 6 Build and No Build Scenarios Land Use (acres)
Figures
Exhibit 1 Vicinity and Study Area
Exhibit 2 Project Map
Exhibit 3 Water Resources
Exhibit 4 State Parks, Natural Heritage Areas and Element Occurences
Exhibit 5 Soil Limitations for Septic Systems
Exhibit 6 Sewer Services
Figure 7 Alternate Travel Routes
Exhibit 8 Current Land Use
Exhibit 9 Future 'Build' Land Use
Exhibit 10 Future 'No Build' Land Use
4
5
8
21
22
26
1
3
9
10
11
18
20
27
28
29

11

Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a new 7 5-mile
four-lane divided freeway with full access control known as TIP X-0002B/C This project
is the next phase of the Fayetteville Outer Loop The previous phases (X-0002D/E)
connected 1-95 in the Town of Eastover to Ramsey Street (US 401) The proposed new
section will continue from Ramsey Street to Bragg Boulevard (NC24)
An Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report (ICE) was completed in March 2005
(Fayetteville Outer Loop Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis - Cumberland, Hoke,
and Robeson Counties, T I P Project Number U-25191X-2B&C) to provide an analysis of
the potential long-term, induced effects of the proposed project (NCDOT 2005)
One of the study's conclusions was that the X-0002 project in its entirety could
encourage development in northeast Fayetteville This conclusion, along with comments
from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) have led to a shift in study
area to encompass the entire 14 3 mile long X-0002 (B/C and D/E) portion of the Outer
Loop
This document serves as an update to the original ICE and focuses on the X-0002
portion of the Outer Loop In addition, an analysis of land use associated with Build and
No Build scenarios was completed and analyzed for the ICE Update study area These
scenarios were used to determine how the Outer Loop might affect the level of growth in
the area
A comparison between the Build and No Build scenarios indicates that growth and
development will continue within the ICE Update study area regardless of the
construction of the X-0002B/C section of the Outer Loop The study area to the west of
the Cape Fear River is already densely developed and plans have already been
approved for the expansion of many subdivisions in the remaining undeveloped areas
While the X-0002B/C section may spur the redevelopment of properties around Bragg
Boulevard and Murchison Road, it is not likely to cause an increase in impervious
surfaces since the existing development is high density This redevelopment could also
be spurred by the expansion of the Fort Bragg population or the widening of Murchison
Road
Although the completed outer loop will reduce travel time and distance, it is likely that it
has already opened the area east of the Cape Fear River to development by providing
easy access to Fayetteville and Fort Bragg It is anticipated that this growth will continue
at a low rate retaining some of the rural character of the area The widening of other
roads in the study area will improve access to Fort Bragg from the area east of the river
if the X-0002B/C portion of the Outer Loop is not constructed
The cumulative effects as noted in the original ICE study remain unchanged While the
original report stated that the entire Outer Loop may constitute a cumulative impact of
the study area, it also noted that current development laws and regulations "will support
appropriate land development and in turn minimize any development-related effects"
(NCDOT 2005)
It is important to note that the completed X-0002D/E section is one of the main drivers of
these cumulative effects as it opened up a new area to development by removing the
natural constraint of the Cape Fear River and creating a new artery into the City of

Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
Fayetteville The U-2519 portion of the Outer Loop is also a driver of cumulative effects
The original ICE reported that growth around that section is high regardless of
completion of the U-2519 portion The X-0002B/C portion of the Outer Loop acts as a
connector for these two growth stimulating pieces Further, the X-0002B/C portion of the
Outer Loop is located in one of the more developed areas of the entire proposed
corridor Finally Fort Bragg is the main employer in the county and growth related to the
base can be attributed to much of the population growth in the county For these reasons
the X-0002B/C segment should not be considered a primary driver of growth or land use
impacts in the region
1-1
L
it

11

U

IV

t

Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background and Purpose
The entire Fayetteville Outer Loop includes approximately 35 miles of multi-lane freeway
mostly on new location. The purpose of this analysis is to update and expand an existing
indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) analysis that was completed in 2005 for portions
equaling 27.8 miles in length of the Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP U-2519, X-0002B, and
X-0002C). The original ICE analysis identified a study area from 1-95 south of Hope Mills
to Ramsey Street (US401) (Exhibit 1).
One of the study's conclusions was that the X-0002 project in its entirety could
encourage development in northeast Fayetteville. This conclusion, along with comments
from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) have led to a shift in study
area to encompass the entire 14.3 mile long X-0002 portion of the Outer Loop. The TIP
X-0002 is divided into a number of sections. Sections D and E are approximately 7.5
miles in length and start at 1-95 in the Town of Eastover cross the Cape Fear River and
end at Ramsey Street (US401) in Fayetteville. Section D and E were completed 2005.
Sections B and C are less than 7 miles in length and start at Ramsey Street and end just
east of NC24.
' The analysis of indirect and cumulative effects associated with the X-0002 portion of the
Fayetteville Outer Loop was conducted utilizing guidelines established in the
NCDOT/NCDENR NEPA/SEPA/401 Eight-Step ICE Assessment Process (NCDOT
' 2004). In addition to a qualitative analysis of No-Build and Build scenarios, this study
contains an analysis of the land use associated with the two scenarios.

N
V
Bragg Military
Exhibit 1. Vicinity Map and Study Area
Fayetteville Outer Loop
ICE Update Report
TIP No. X0002;
Roads County boundaries
X-0002B/C Updated ICE study area
^^? U-2519 original ICE study area
v Rivers

Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
1.2 ICE Update Study Area Boundary and Time Horizon '
A variety of information was reviewed including the original ICE Study, area land use
plans, sewer service areas, census tracts, 14-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC)

boundaries, and Transportation Areas Zone (TAZ) boundaries in order to determine the ,
appropriate ICE Update study area boundaries. To the west, Bragg Boulevard (NC24)
serves as the study area boundary as this report does not examine effects regarding the
U-2519 portion of the roadway. From this point east to McArthur Road, the northern and ,
southern limits of the study area coincide with the original ICE study area boundaries. In
order to encompass the remainder of the X-0002 roadway, the study area was expanded
east beyond 1-95 and north to the Cape Fear River. The boundary coincides with the
TAZ boundaries up to the planning area limits for the Towns of Eastover and Wade.
A time horizon of 2005 to 2035 was set for this analysis as it coincides with the recently
released "Population and Economics Study for the Fayetteville Urbanized Area and
Cumberland County" (FAMPO 2006). Other plans are currently in progress for the ICE
Update study area that contained shorter time horizons.
1.3 No Build Alternative ,
The No-Build Alternative consists of not implementing the 7-mile stretch of the Bypass
between Ramsey Street and Bragg Boulevard. Since the original ICE was completed in

March 2005, the first section of the Fayetteville Outer Loop (X-0002D/E) has been '
completed and opened. This is the only change to the existing conditions. The appendix
contains the transportation projects listed in the Draft 2009-2015 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program for Cumberland County. Only those projects that '
will add capacity are included. As noted in the original ICE, Murchison Road will be
widened (TIP U-4444) and Bragg Boulevard will be closed to non-military traffic between
Gruber Road and Butner Road. Other projects in the study area are described in section
4.4.
1.4 Build Alternative '
The Preferred Alternative for the X-0002 portion of the Bypass starts at Bragg Boulevard
(NC 24) and continues east through an interchange at Murchison Road (NC 87/210). It
then extends south of Smith Lake to an interchange with McArthur Road and then turns
northeast and parallels Andrews Road (SR 1611). The planned portion ends just west of
Ramsey Street (US 401). The road has already been constructed from Ramsey Street
east over the Cape Fear River, through an interchange at River Road and ending at 1-95
(Exhibit 2).
1.5 Project Purpose and Need
The purpose and need of the project has not changed since the original ICE. Now that ,
more than half of the X-0002 portion is complete and the U-2519 portion is due to let
beginning in November 2008, a gap has been left in the Proposed Bypass in a heavily
developed part of the corridor.

?
2
N N
O ?
O -O
O O_
X :D
0- (n
O 'y
O T
J ?
O ?
7 Q
O LI
oU
m
T
W
LL
?-

%

??

• ?\

V • to
70
•i
O

l /
`
3 -0

Cl) 0 Q 7
O
CZ
CA -- ' ?f m Zb _ •V C
I
cz :3
O O
O O
LL a- C? C)

LLJ
O Q T
Q
o o F= -0
a
C

w
7

?6
1 mo70
Q
C\j cm
O O

. •
ti Ja??6
L 2 CD C) W
5 °X x ?? OC

??
:Yy 1S %fesu,P ? kl ?, e

?
.r 4P LL
N Q ?.
O
•

\
Pd Jive, ?. Q
O
_
m ?

c
41, .\so

r ,. C? o

00 N X

00 1? " - .. y .. a) O

Z
N Q

a -
a) - F-
W
+•••
, T•••
?? ? -+ gca9g" W -
LL
?
.

m

Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
2 ICE UPDATE STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Population Trends
The population of Cumberland County as a whole increased 10%, 274,566 to 302,963,
from 1990 to 2000 and a little over 1%, up to 306,545 from 2000 to 2006. The City of
Fayetteville saw a 60% (75,695 to 121,015) increase from 1990 to 2000 and a 44%
increase from 2000 to 2006 (121,015 to 173,898). However, most of this increase could
be attributed to annexation of developed areas that occurred during those periods. The
Towns of Eastover and Wade experienced an 11% (1,243 to 1,376) and 102% (238 to
480) growth in population respectively, from 1990 to 2000. The 2006 population
municipal and county estimates are published by the North Carolina State
Demographics Office.
As mentioned above, FAMPO released a draft population and economics study in 2008
for the Fayetteville Urbanized Area and Cumberland County. For this report, population
projections to the year 2035 were performed for each TAZ in the County. The base 2005
population is higher than that reported by the NC State Demographics Office as it was
produced from projections based on Census 2000 data. These projections predict a 28%
increase in the population of Cumberland County from 2005 to 2035. Within the ICE
update study area, the projected increase in population outpaces that of Cumberland
County, at 35% over the 30 year period (Table 1). The yearly population increase is less
than 1.2% for the study area.
Table 1. Population projections, 2005 - 2035
A Po ulation 30 Year Growth
rea 2005 2035 # people %
ICE Update Stud Area 39476 53401 13925 35%
Cumberland Count 319217 409267 90050 28%
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) has reported that military
restructuring will result in an increase of military personnel and family as well as civilian
contractors on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation by 2013. A preliminary impact
assessment examined the population and housing impacts on the counties surrounding
the base (BRAC 2008). Since the restructuring will be completed by 2013, the
assessment period was set as 2006-2013. In that time period, the Cumberland County
population is expected to increase by approximately 26,000 people with 8,000 of those
people attributed to military restructuring. The 2013 population projection calculated for
the impact assessment was similar to those calculated by FAMPO. This reaffirms that
although the FAMPO 2005 estimate is higher than the State estimate, it is reasonable.
2.2 Housing Units
The number of housing units in the region has increased substantially from 1990 to
2006. Cumberland County has seen a 33% increase in the number of households while
Fayetteville has seen a 154% increase (US Census 2006). However, most of the
Fayetteville increase can be attributed to annexation. 2006 census data is not currently
available for either the Town of Wade or the Town of Eastover, but 2000 Census data
shows that the Town of Eastover experienced a 17% increase in housing units between
4

n

i?
L

c

Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
1990 and 2000, and Wade saw a 100% increase As the number of housing units grew
(faster than the rate of population increase), the household size decreased from 2 77 to
2 36 persons per household in Cumberland County The same trend is true for the three
municipalities in the ICE Update study area, where the average household sizes also
1 decreased during that time period (Table 2) Residential construction activity has far
outpaced the population growth in Cumberland County (BRAC 2008)
The Fayetteville Metropolitan Planning Organization performed housing projections for
the years 2005 to 2035, and based on the expected population growth in the region,
predicted a 35% increase in housing units within the ICE Update study area (from
18,483 to 25,003 units) (FAMPO, 2008) The number of existing housing units and the
' additional units needed in each TAZ varies considerably among the TAZs in the study
area Some TAZs will see no increase in housing units while others will experience
significant increases

1
Table 2 Housing Units, 1990 - 2006
No. o f Housing U nitss Household Size
Area 1990 2000 2006 1990 2000 2006
Eastover 529 621 NA 2 43 2 32 NA
Wade 110 220 NA 2 36 2 45 NA
Fayetteville 31712 53565 80434 2 47 2 42 2 22
Cumberland Count 98360 118425 131553 2 77 2 65 2 36
NA = Not Available
In addition, the Draft Fort Bragg/Pope Air Force Base Joint Land Use Study Update
(RLUAC 2008) examined the housing and land use implications of the increased
' population within the five-mile buffer surrounding Fort Bragg A five-mile buffer was
selected for that study as it was assumed BRAC related growth would have a major
impact on a broad area of at least five miles It excludes from consideration the
personnel who will live on Fort Bragg in new and existing base housing The Joint Land
Use Study predicted that 5,665 additional housing units would be necessary in the
Cumberland County portion of the 5-mile buffer to accommodate the population by 2013
This ICE Update study area occupies approximately 27% of the Cumberland County part
' of the buffer As a straight ratio, this would mean 1,530 additional housing units would be
needed in the study area over the next five years However, this assumes even
distribution throughout the Cumberland County part of the buffer which is unlikely since
large areas are already built out in the west while others are undeveloped As such, it is
possible that more of the BRAC growth will occur in the eastern portion of the
Cumberland County buffer than in the western half Housing needs are directly related to
population increase and since the population estimate from FAMPO is in line with the
BRAC estimates, FAMPO's estimate of housing needs is in accord with the BRAC and
Joint Land Use studies The FAMPO housing projections were used to develop the No
Build and Build scenarios as described in section 7

5
1

Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
3 ICE UPDATE STUDY AREA NOTABLE FEATURES '
3.1 Water Resources
311 Streams '
There are two sub-basins of the Cape Fear River watershed in the ICE Update study
area sub-basin 03-06-15 which drains the majority of the study area, and sub-basin 03- '
06-18 drains a small portion in the southeastern corner The Cape Fear River flows from
north to south through the middle of the ICE Update study area Main tributaries such as
Bakers Swamp, Carvers, Greens, and McPherson Creeks contribute flow to the Cape ,
Fear River within the study area Other main tributaries such as Cross Creek, Little
Cross Creek, Flat Swamp Ditch, Gum Log Canal, and Reece Creek contribute flow to
the Cape Fear River south of the study area (Exhibit 3) Tributaries in the southeastern
corner include Big Creek and Little Creek ,
3 12 Stream Classification
NCDWQ classifies Bakers Swamp, Brachcoast Swamp, Flat Swamp Ditch, Gum Log '
Canal, Locks Creek, and Reece Creek as Class C waters Big Creek and Little Creek
are classified as CSw The Cape Fear River within the ICE Update study area is mostly
classified as WS-IV, with one segment classified as WS-V and another as WS-IV CA

Other WS-IV waters include Cross Creek, Little Cross Creek, McPherson Creek (College ,
Lake), and North Prong Carvers Creek Carvers Creek, Greens Creek, and McPherson
Creek (Wooded Lake) are all classified as WS-IV&B Stream classification definitions are
found below ,
Streams crossed by the new portion of the Outer Loop corridor (TIP X002 B & C) include
Little Cross Creek, Cross Creek, and McPherson Creek (and their unnamed tributaries)

Main tributaries crossed by the already constructed portion of the corridor (TIP X002 D & ,
E) include McPherson Creek, Carvers Creek, and the Cape Fear River
• WS-V - waters protected as water supplies, which are generally upstream, and
draining to Class WS-IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees
with drinking water or as waters formerly used as water supply
• WS-IV - water sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes and are generally located within moderately to highly-developed
watersheds and involve no categorical restrictions on discharges
• Class B - waters protected for all Class C uses in addition to primary recreation
Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water skiing, and ,
similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take
place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis
• Class C - waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing
wildlife
fish and aquatic
,
,
life propagation and survival, and agriculture There are no restrictions on watershed
development or types of discharges
• Sw - Swamp waters is a supplemental classification intended to recognize those
waters that generally have naturally occurring very low velocities, low pH, and low-
dissolved oxygen No specific restrictions on discharge types or development are
involved
• No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Trout Waters jr), or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within the study area

?
6
Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
3 13 Water Supply Watersheds
Three water supply watersheds (Cape Fear River, Big Cross Creek, and Little Cross
Creek) are located within the ICE Update study area (Exhibit 3) Each of the water
' supply watersheds are classified as WS-IV (see definition above) As such, these
watersheds carry certain development regulations as described in section 4 1 1 in order
to protect them as water supplies
' 3 14 Impaired Waters
The Draft 2008 303(d) Impaired Waters List enumerates those waterbodies in North
Carolina that do not meet state water quality standards In the study area, only one
stream segment was identified as not meeting water quality standards It is a segment of
Little Cross Creek from Kornbow Lake to a point 0 5 miles upstream of the backwaters of
Glenville Lake (Stream Index #18-27-4-(1)e) located entirely on Fort Bragg The
segment is classified as WS-IV, and is listed as impaired for ecological/biological
integrity and benthos (Exhibit 3) Outside of the study area, two other segments of Little
Cross Creek are also listed as impaired
' A stressor study completed in 2003 indicated that increased impervious causing bank
erosion and sedimentation are likely stressors to the benthic community in Little Cross
Creek A stressor survey in 2003 also noted tannin stained waters, trash and urban
' debris, elevated ammonia levels, and periphyton growths (NCDWQ, 2005a)
In 1998, Fayetteville received a $63,000 Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) grant to conduct a nutrient, sediment, and bacteria susceptibility study in the
' Little Cross Creek watershed The study identified 98 projects to reduce sediment
loading and prioritized 35 of the projects In 2002, Fayetteville received a $766,000
CWMTF grant to design five stormwater structures and to acquire 21 acres for one of the
' ponds (NCDWQ, 2005a)
3.2 Protected Species
There are six federally protected species listed for Cumberland County on the newest
(2008) protected species list (Table 3) Another 24 species are listed as federal species
of concern in the county
' Sixty-six element occurrences of rare and endangered species are located within the
ICE Update study area by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (2008) There
are also 33 exemplary or unique natural ecosystems in the study area These
occurrences are concentrated mostly in the western portion of the study area (with a
large number occurring on Ft Bragg) and in areas along the Cape Fear River, such as
Carvers Creek Sandhills and Cape Fear Bluff (Exhibit 4) Many of these areas are
protected from development through public ownership or conservation easements as
' described in the next section
In addition to the protected areas in the study area, NCDOT purchased the 2,500-acre
Calloway Forest Site in 2001 and donated it to the Nature Conservancy in 2002 This
' site serves as mitigation for red-cockaded woodpecker impacts in the Sand Hills region

7

Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002
ICE Analysis Update
Table 3 Federally protected species in Cumberland County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Alligator mississi iensis American Alligator Threatened S/A
Neon m ha mitchelli francisci St Francis' Satyr Butterfly Endangered
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Endangered
Lindera melissifolia Pondberr Endangered
L simachia as erulaefolia Rough-leaved Loosestrife Endangered
Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac Endangered
Schwalbea amencana American Chaffseed Endangered
(S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance
3.3 Natural Heritage Sites
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program documents the status and distribution of
the rarest plants and animals, as well as the best examples of natural communities
throughout the state These inventories have been used to identify natural heritage sites
of national, state, and regional significance Several of these natural heritage sites are
present within the ICE Update study area (Exhibit 4) The Bonnie Doone Natural Area,
comprised of approximately 548 acres, lies in the southwest corner of the study area
This area is owned and protected by the City of Fayetteville The Cape Fear River Bluff
is located along the banks of the Cape Fear River in the northeast corner of the study
area Other natural heritage areas include Carvers Falls, the Fort Bragg Nea Bog
Complex Natural Area, the River Road Hardwoods, the Methodist College Hardwood
Slopes, and Carvers Creek Sandhills A portion of the Methodist College Hardwood
Slopes and areas immediately north have been protected with conservation easements
To date, portions of the Carvers Creek Sandhills natural heritage area have been
authorized as a state park as part of the New Parks for a New Century Initiative
approved by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2005 (NCDPR, 2007) A portion of
this park lies within the current study area, but a master plan for the park has not yet
been developed However, there are currently several areas of interest for expansion of
the park to the west, which also lie partially within the current study area (Exhibit 4)
(personal communication, John Amaroso, North Carolina Department of Parks and
Recreation)
3.4 Soils
Soils in the study area were reviewed for septic suitability as this can have an affect on
potential development According to the soil survey, soils within the study area have
severe development limitations due to their low permeability and strength Furthermore,
the soil data shows that approximately 69 9% of the study area has severe limitations for
septic tank use, 13 8% with moderate, and 13 2% with slight limitations (3 1 % of the
soils classes have unclassified limitations) Limitations are considered slight if soil
properties and site features are generally favorable for the indicated use and limitations
are minor and easily overcome Moderate signifies soil properties or site features that
are not favorable for use as a septic tank drain field and special planning, design, or
maintenance is necessary to overcome or minimize limitations Severe indicates soil
properties or site features that are so unfavorable that special design, significant
increases in construction cost, and possibly increased maintenance are required (USDA,
1984) A map of soil septic tank suitability within the study area is presented in Exhibit 5
8
1

n

1
Li'

1
0 \?
.
r'
151-
/ cC
O
N
a O
Q co
O

U E T
V
N
w N m

O
O O Q ?
O 'i w C
_ O

-=ti: f

_ N
N C
ca 3 -a
N Ta O

N
co CD a w
5 y t0
>
Z
c04
m`
co

cn 5
-6
co 6
m
co °

w

1
/ 1
( 11

Q-
0
J O
Q
C'; 0 C,
?o2X
L ? ?Mp Z
wa_
D
?w ~
>, U
cz -
LL
rn
N N
O
O -O
O a-
x D
Q-N
O 'vJ
O
J ?
7 Q
o W
?U
N
c?
LL
- PO
.y

• tic. j-?

? 1

I
?0 4Q o
' r G U
? o
?? O
1
N e;
O_
O
x
O
Q O
a N
O O cu >
2
3
m o
0
U) m a cz
' a) N 0 m LL
?
ca U U Z U 'o
as

U
n y m `o c
N N O
m L N
CL

>
U U LL ID C,
oC

Y U
C
Cl.
00
m U
O
N
y C2

c
-0 .2 d O
C O
(4 m
<
n

? ,
N
m
cl, ? a) Z
C
? Q
Q) .
O
O O O O
cz 0)
) U =
a
s U N
a
a
z LL
= C Q
d U Z cz co co
O i?
Z
r a) co

a a ca
E
O a T
U
O
d
-
,• -0

?+ U W n a) S
0
t6
0
0
z
O N -O
O O w o m
C) C) X X (A U U li
D L
cn
O U
ca
Q
O
O

C
=3 0
Q
C
/ o
N C)
N a--. O
7

'x
-0 CZ
r Z E ( Mo
p
W Y W 0 Z) d_
E-
?CZ 5U
iu cz u..

N N
O
Q
O ?
X:D
Qr
o 'N
o >,
J f',
' C
7 Q
O w
oU
a>
a
cz
LL
i
i
1
i
o a
?cj a E
-o
'T c
U W
v cm o
m
1 ( 0 w cm
O O C m
?e l X X f1 fA ci U
two
co
o a o
(2) a 0) -0 o >
Z (n 2 ? CJ
rf
c o
.0 o
_j 0
N
Lr) C)
X
-CZ
?? \\ N X Q= Q Z
M.,.
t m (n w F=-
- ? Y
LL (Z
Fayetteville Outer Loop X-0002 ,
ICE Analysis Update
4 ICE UPDATE STUDY AREA PLANNING CONTEXT
4.1 Local Regulations and Plans
4.1.1 Water Supply Watershed Management and Protection Regulations
As stated in section 3.1.3, there are three water supply watersheds (WS-IV) located ,
within the ICE Update study area. Development in these watersheds must adhere State
of North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection rules for WS-IV watersheds. Low
density development requires a 30-foot stream buffer while high density development '
requires a 100-foot buffer. Development is considered low density if there is one dwelling
per half acre or 24% built upon area. If a curb and gutter street system is not installed,
built upon surfaces can equal 36% or 1/3 acre lots. High-density options using
engineered storm water control devices are permitted as long as it does not exceed 70
percent built-upon area. This rule applies to new development and redevelopment. As
redevelopment occurs in the western portion of the study area, stormwater control may
improve since many of the areas were developed prior to implementation of water supply '
protections.
4.1.2 Stormwater Management

In 1995, the City of Fayetteville and unincorporated areas of Cumberland County ,
implemented a stormwater utility to provide a mechanism to fund efforts to comply with
the requirements of NPDES permits issued under Phase I of the USEPA stormwater

program. Stormwater Services is a joint City of Fayetteville & Cumberland County '
agency that provides limited assistance relating to drainage problems and assures
compliance to the State issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit. The City and County are currently operating ,
under a Phase I NPDES permit serving a population of over 100,000. However, since
1995 the City of Fayetteville has annexed several of its surrounding urban areas in the
County. As such, the County has filed to be removed from the Phase I list to be placed '
on the Phase II list (for populations under 100,000). This decision is still pending. The
City of Fayetteville would remain on the Phase I list. Further details on Phase I and II
rules can be found in the original ICE report. '
Under Phase I stormwater rules, the local government agency is required to develop,
implement and enforce a stormwater management program that includes public
education, illicit discharge detection and elimination, storm sewer system and land use

mapping, and analytical monitoring. ,
Under a Phase II permit, all regulated small MS4 operators must develop, implement
and enforce a stormwater management program designed to reduce the discharge of ,
pollutants from their MS4 to the "maximum extent practicable," to protect water quality,
and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act. The
small MS4 stormwater management program must include the following six minimum
control measures: public education and outreach; public participation/involvement; illicit
discharge detection and elimination; construction site runoff control; post-construction
runoff control; and pollution prevention/good housekeeping. Finally, regulated small MS4
operators must identify its selection of BMPs (Best Management Practices) and '
measurable goals for each minimum measure in the permit application. The evaluation

12 1